Bart Erhman says that you can show historically that people claimed they saw Jesus alive after He was dead, and you can draw the conclusion that they likely believed it.
Ehrman is very clear that Historians dont verify supernatural claims, period.
Citing anonymous writings from antiquity about mere claims is not verification
of a miracle. Such claims are not even first hand , but decades old word of
mouth gossip from a culture deeply immersed in superstition.
Such claims from antiquity don't even meet the lowest bar on the judicial
evidentiary scale.
Perhaps read Bart Ehrmans blog:
"The Case Against Miracles" - December 22, 2019.
Lol, I doubt that folks in Jesus’ day knew what the term “evidentiary scale” even meant. It is absurd to apply 21st century standards of evidence in criminal matters to 1st century events that weren’t even criminal in nature. The before and after lives of the early Christians make it clear that a supernatural event occurred. To them, the evidence was clear and overwhelming that a dead man had been raised from his tomb and walked among them. The fact that these events occurred long ago, before the age of video and audio recording, DNA analysis, and other 21st century forms of evidence does not negate their validity.
A non-believer looks at such a supernatural event beginning with the premise that there is no supernatural God; therefore, there can be no supernatural event. So, they make up ways to explain the behaviors of those who were there. A truly intellectually honest person looks at such an event, evaluates it as being clearly supernatural, and concludes there must be a supernatural being behind it.
Certainly, improbable events occur regularly; some, all, or none of which may be orchestrated by God. We don’t know. As a believer, I think they could be; but I don’t know for sure. It doesn’t matter to me if the ’69 Mets World Series championship was a miracle or not, to use a frivolous example. All that matter to me is that the resurrection was.
