The written records as evidence

[Simon Moon]

JPM does a turgidly thorough job of analysing the various 'miracle' stories using the appropriate historical tools. Some are ruthlessly rejected as improbable, others as non liquet, but there is a solid core which is historically likely to have original roots to some sorts of incidents in Jesus ministry. This statement he believes can be made from the history independently of any religious POV. The earliest followers really did believe he did things.

Well, I'm convinced... that there might have possibly been some mundane events in the life of Jesus, that might have been believed by some early Christians to be miracles. Then were written in texts decades later, by mostly unknown authors, later edited and loaded with copy errors.

is to say whether these events were miracles or something else.

What is more likely? That mundane events were misinterpreted as magic? Or they were actually magic?

If you say the latter, then that means you will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, having to believe in all sorts of mutually exclusive miracle claims from different religions.

Either that, or you are forced into the fallacy of special pleading for the miracle claims of the religion you decided to believe in.

He repeatedly reminds us that our worldview model will determine how we read the events- an atheist will interpret the reasons behind them differently to a believer. The beliefs of the earliest followers might be findable historically, but they may not be right.

Yes, if you have a gullible worldview that allows you to believe unsupported, unlikely, implausible miracle claims, then yes, you will believe the miracle claims.

You can interview 1000's of people that are still alive that honestly and sincerely believe they were abducted by aliens.

Do you give their claims any credibility? Why or why not?

Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones?[quote]

Of course there are.

[quote]There is a reason the earliest church thought Jesus did things that pointed to a particular religious model, and in brief, I would suggest that the hypothesis that is the most economical with the data is that the explanation given by the witnesses was the right one.

It doesn't matter what the early church believed. Even if their belief was sincere, there is no rational reason to justify accepting their claims just because they believed.

What witnesses?