I posted the following comment on Christian apologist Dr. Daniel B. Wallace’s blog:
Dear Dr. Wallace and Readers of Dr. Wallace’s blog:
After weeks of very interesting discussion, the Christians on Theology Web along with myself and other skeptics have come to these conclusions:
1. We have agreed that there ARE alternative explanations to the early Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. We disagree as to which explanation best explains the evidence, but both sides acknowledge that skeptics cannot state as fact that the bodily Resurrection of Jesus did not happen, and Christians cannot state that the evidence proves the Resurrection is historical fact. The Resurrection remains an alleged historical event.
2. Some Christians on Theology Web have used Christian author Craig Keneer’s book on miracles as evidence that miracles do occur. However, Keneer himself states in the forward to his book that ALL the miracle cases in his book have alternative explanations. Therefore Keneer is not asserting that he can prove miracles have happened, nor is he asserting that miracles today prove the historicity of the miracle claims in the Bible. He is simply stating that scholars and the public should give more weight to the PROBABILITY of miracles than they currently do.
So where does that leave us: It leaves us each with the task of calculating the probability of every odd, rare event that we personally encounter or that we read about in any book, ancient or modern, as to whether its cause was an “extra-natural” explanation, as Keneer prefers to describe it, or, a naturalistic explanation. There is no right or wrong answer, folks. Determining probability is a personal choice.
It has been an enjoyable experience discussing this fascinating and controversial issue with all of you.