Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Dicky Underpants]

Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.

You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.

Bart D. Ehrman concurs, highlighting the insurmountable challenge in demonstrating miracles historically: "Even if miracles are possible, there is no way for the historian who sticks strictly to the canons of historical evidence to show that they have ever happened."

(from Ehrman's website https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-resurrection/  )

Not quite sure how you'd support your comment that the question "Was there a resurrection?" has been Ehrman's bread and butter. As far as I can see, his thought has developed fairly logically from his follow-up on Schweitzer's thesis "Jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" (Jesus as a mistaken prophet), through sifting out the possibilities of textual corruption in "Misquoting Jesus" and on to "How Jesus became God" - in other words, how people interpreted what they thought about the figure of Jesus and magnified this image into an ever more grandiose Christology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(from Ehrman's website https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-resurrection/  )

Not quite sure how you'd support your comment that the question "Was there a resurrection?" has been Ehrman's bread and butter. As far as I can see, his thought has developed fairly logically from his follow-up on Schweitzer's thesis "Jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" (Jesus as a mistaken prophet), through sifting out the possibilities of textual corruption in "Misquoting Jesus" and on to "How Jesus became God" - in other words, how people interpreted what they thought about the figure of Jesus and magnified this image into an ever more grandiose Christology.

While it may be correct that History (The study of) doesn't do God and miracles are acts of God, there is the problem raised by the claim that these constitute physical changes and events also a category considered to be the province of History.

I think Bart tends toward the resurrection not happening and this and the fact he is an historian in this field constitute his "bread and butter".

[Gordon]

While it may be correct that History (The study of) doesn't do God and miracles are acts of God, there is the problem raised by the claim that these constitute physical changes and events also a category considered to be the province of History.

Not really: you can say that there are historical records of people believing that Jesus was resurrected, but your notion that any 'physical changes' that are claimed (and are presumed to be due to supernatural actions) are also within the province of academic historians doesn't work because, and you know this already, there is the problem of what methods can be used to specifically identify 'physical changes' that arose from supernatural intervention. 

When you say "miracles are acts of God" you are begging the question. If I were you I'd just stick to 'faith', since your attempts to portray faith beliefs as historical facts just doesn't fly.