1. FWIW, IME, most non-Christians would assume that the evidence is NOT compelling if you look at it closely, so I would expect many Christians to do the same (especially if they are not personally invested in believing the historicity) regardless of which is actually true.
2. I'm not sure. Most non-Christians would probably say that even if the historical evidence is compelling, they would still hold some judgement in reserve, because the conclusion is so unlikley to them. (I mean, seriously, if Josephus describes "a big battle happened", most people would probably believe it, because that's so much more plausible than the alternative. However, if he said "Thor rode around the sky on a thunder chariot", the idea that he might be wrong, or lying, or something is now MORE likely than the alternative.) However, most non-Christians would probably prefer it if the evidence weren't compelling even by historical standards, so I dont' know how many would admit "it is, but I still don't believe it".
3. Similar to the last point, even if all the miracles did happen as described, which is more plausible? Jesus was a super-advanced alien, or Jesus was an all-powerful creator of the universe? If you've personal experience of God answering prayers, etc, and believe other historical evidence, the second seems more plausible. If not, it may well not.
Most of those refer to non-believers, but I suspect (I don't know) many people internally believe in God, but don't _really_ believe Jesus happened as described, even if they think he did die for our sins and come back to life, so may have a similar attitude to the evidence.
no subject
1. FWIW, IME, most non-Christians would assume that the evidence is NOT compelling if you look at it closely, so I would expect many Christians to do the same (especially if they are not personally invested in believing the historicity) regardless of which is actually true.
2. I'm not sure. Most non-Christians would probably say that even if the historical evidence is compelling, they would still hold some judgement in reserve, because the conclusion is so unlikley to them. (I mean, seriously, if Josephus describes "a big battle happened", most people would probably believe it, because that's so much more plausible than the alternative. However, if he said "Thor rode around the sky on a thunder chariot", the idea that he might be wrong, or lying, or something is now MORE likely than the alternative.) However, most non-Christians would probably prefer it if the evidence weren't compelling even by historical standards, so I dont' know how many would admit "it is, but I still don't believe it".
3. Similar to the last point, even if all the miracles did happen as described, which is more plausible? Jesus was a super-advanced alien, or Jesus was an all-powerful creator of the universe? If you've personal experience of God answering prayers, etc, and believe other historical evidence, the second seems more plausible. If not, it may well not.
Most of those refer to non-believers, but I suspect (I don't know) many people internally believe in God, but don't _really_ believe Jesus happened as described, even if they think he did die for our sins and come back to life, so may have a similar attitude to the evidence.