[BroJoeK]

Kevmo: "And those who demand scientific proof for a historical fact have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, denying wide swaths history so they can deny Christ."

FRiend, we're actually dealing with three separate disciplines here:

1. The word "science", meaning forensics, as conducted in archaeological excavations, including modern molecular & DNA analyses, i.e., as seen on typical C.S.I. or NCIS TV shows.
   In terms of the word "science", many basic facts are well known -- i.e., ancient Israel, Nazareth & Jerusalem were real places, some of the characters mentioned in biblical narratives did live then, etc.
   But virtually none of the events reported in the New Testament can be confirmed scientifically.

2. The word "history", meaning narrative based on the best document sources available.
   Such modern narratives always involve critical textual analyses, such as one you mentioned -- how can we establish that "fact a" is more likely true than "fact b"?
   In terms of the entire span of ancient history, very little is better documented than the Bible's New Testament.
   So much of it can be said to be "historical fact".

3. The term "religious faith", meaning what we confess to believe about the super-natural, through creeds, doctrines and other teachings of our Church.
   Virtually all religious faith goes well beyond what scientific examinations or historical text analyses can confirm.

   Never-the-less, it does matter to many people of faith that the science and history underlying their beliefs at least do not contradict those beliefs.
   So, for example, if a new ossuary is found and said to belong to James the brother of Jesus, then the whole believing world wants to know: is it for real, or just some modern forgery?
   At that point the words "science", "history" and "religious faith" come together in search of truth...

[Kevmo]

But virtually none of the events reported in the New Testament can be confirmed scientifically.
***” those who demand scientific proof for a historical fact have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, denying wide swaths history so they can deny Christ.”

how can we establish that “fact a” is more likely true than “fact b”?
***Simple. Examine the evidence. Especially when two opposing sides agree to certain facts, those facts are historically very accurate. Both sides admit that Jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin for blasphemy.

In terms of the entire span of ancient history, very little is better documented than the Bible’s New Testament.
***That’s right. So on the mundane things (such as the crucifixion), it can be relied upon. If you don’t want to rely upon it for the reporting of miraculous events, that’s your own issue. But for non-miraculous events, it is historically among the most reliable documents ever produced from those time frames.

So much of it can be said to be “historical fact”.
***Yes. Like the fact that Jesus was condemned to die for heresy.

The term “religious faith”, meaning what we confess to believe about the super-natural, through creeds, doctrines and other teachings of our Church.
***Notice that I am staying away from these discussions. They’re so rarely productive.

Virtually all religious faith goes well beyond what scientific examinations or historical text analyses can confirm.
***In this case we have someone denying very very simple historical facts. There is no doubt that this is driven by what you call a “religious faith” and it “goes well beyond what scientific examinations or historical text analyses can confirm.”

Never-the-less, it does matter to many people of faith that the science and history underlying their beliefs at least do not contradict those beliefs.
***And when the simple facts of history DO contradict such beliefs, you see the level of irrationality demonstrated by followers of scientism (or secular humanism or whatever it’s called) going irrational.

So, for example, if a new ossuary is found and said to belong to James the brother of Jesus, then the whole believing world wants to know: is it for real, or just some modern forgery? At that point the words “science”, “history” and “religious faith” come together in search of truth...
***At least until the new testament documents and similar historical items are found to be reliable. Then you see an irrational departure from truth, no longer a search for it, and in fact it is better described by YHAOS as the 4D’s.