u/Financial_Beach_2538

The Preamble:

Lately, I have been presenting arguments that undermine the certainty of the historical existence of Jesus Christ. This one is about the inclusion of magic ( supernatural intervention, miracles and so on.. ) in the Jesus narratives.

I define magic to mean " the intentional suspension of natural laws to achieve outcomes through supernatural intervention ".

The inclusion of miracles or any kind of supernatural intervention in a narrative, especially one presented as historical, creates a fundamental conflict with my sense of reality. When a story relies on the impossible to resolve its tensions it sacrifices its internal logic and credibility. This diminishes the capacity of the story to persuade me rather than increase it. Sticking to natural laws is simpler to accept... having me believe in magic.. is an extra step. In my case, it's an impossible step to surmount until someone can demonstrate that magic really happens or that it can happen. I have no such faith in magic.

In any credible narrative, these tensions are often defined by the limitations of the characters. If a figure is bound by natural laws, their struggle against those laws is meaningful. However, once magic is introduced, the boundaries of what is possible becomes meaningless.

If a character can be resurrected or perform miracles to escape a conflict, the tension disappears and I realize that the rules can be rewritten at any moment to suit the author’s desires. A story is way more credible when it includes meaningful limitations.

_____________________________

The Argument:

P1. Meaningful limitations in a narrative require that characters are bound by fixed, unalterable laws of reality.

P2. Magic allows a character to totally bypass these fixed laws to resolve conflicts or escape dilemmas.

C. Therefore, magic removes the meaningful limitations necessary for a narrative to be credible.

The Preamble:

Lately, I have been presenting arguments that undermine the certainty of the historical existence of Jesus Christ. This one is about the inclusion of magic ( supernatural intervention, miracles and so on.. ) in the Jesus narratives.

I define magic to mean " the intentional suspension of natural laws to achieve outcomes through supernatural intervention ".

The inclusion of miracles or any kind of supernatural intervention in a narrative, especially one presented as historical, creates a fundamental conflict with my sense of reality. When a story relies on the impossible to resolve its tensions it sacrifices its internal logic and credibility.

This diminishes the capacity of the story to persuade me rather than increase it. Sticking to natural laws is simpler to accept... having me believe in magic.. is an extra step.

In my case, an impossible step to surmount until someone can demonstrate that magic really happens or that it can happen. I have no such faith in magic.

In any credible narrative, these tensions are often defined by the limitations of the characters. If a figure is bound by natural laws, their struggle against those laws is meaningful. However, once magic is introduced, the boundaries of what is possible becomes meaningless.

If a character can be resurrected or perform miracles to escape a conflict, the tension disappears and I realize that the rules can be rewritten at any moment to suit the author’s desires. A story is way more credible when it includes meaningful limitations.

_________________________________

The Argument:

P1. Meaningful limitations in a narrative require that characters are bound by fixed, unalterable laws of reality.

P2. Magic allows a character to totally bypass these fixed laws to resolve conflicts or escape dilemmas.

C. Therefore, magic removes the meaningful limitations necessary for a narrative to be credible.

The Preamble :

It would be foolish to use an inferior method for establishing the truth of any matter, including historical events and persons.

Science is a way more reliable method than the methods of history.
_________________________

The Argument:

P1. A method of inquiry is only as reliable as its ability to eliminate human bias through direct observation and the independent replication of results.

P2. The scientific method utilizes direct observation and replication to verify its findings whereas the historical method relies on the interpretation of unrepeatable human-mediated traces and testimony.

C. Therefore, the historical method is inherently less reliable than the scientific method for establishing the factual reality of past events.

The Preamble:

I've been debating on reddit lately about if Jesus really existed. Most Christians will say that the scholarly consensus is that he did with a high probability.

What does that mean, exactly?

The scholars cannot say with mathematical certainty that Jesus was a real person, because the evidence is indirect, partisan, and written decades after his life. The surviving sources are mostly texts from followers or later authors, not neutral eyewitness records.

The main reason for this uncertainty is that historical method works by probability, not mathematical proof. For an ordinary ancient figure, historians ask whether the sources are early, multiple, independent, and plausible within context and for Jesus, the earliest Christian writings already assume his existence, while non-Christian references are brief and after his death. That is enough for many scholars to judge existence as likely, but not enough to remove every doubt.

Scientists have to use different criteria.
Their consensus might be quite different.

What remains uncertain is not just whether Jesus existed, but which parts of the Gospel stories are historically accurate. Scholars often separate the basic existence claim from details like miracles, exact sayings, and many narrative scenes, because those are much harder to verify historically.

So the careful answer is: we cannot prove Jesus existed in the strict sense, but most historians still think he probably did. They cannot, of course, give us a precise number for that probability. History isn't like science that can use mathematics which is way more precise than language. The scholars are actually saying "maybe, perhaps, could be, and I believe it". That's not what science does.

Science is way more precise than that. It can actually tell us if a hypothesis is true or false with remarkable precision in most cases. And when the scientific community doesn't have that precision, they will admit their ignorance.

You will notice that most bible scholars don't admit to ignorance when they say that Jesus did, in fact, exist. They are making a rather radical truth claim that in my view, isn't justified by the facts.

__________________________________

The Argument:

P1. Science is defined by the requirement of observable facts, repeatable experiments and the observation of universal physical laws.

P2. The historical claim for the existence of Jesus is based on the interpretation of unrepeatable past events and fragmented written testimony based on abduction rather than induction.

C. Therefore, when historians say that the existence of Jesus is highly probable, they aren't using science sand their claims are less accurate.