May I suggest C.S. Lewis' book called miracles? It really does address the issue of the 'miraculous' well.
I have read a lot of Lewis, and he is a very skilful writer, very easy to read. I have enjoyed a few of his books, in fact I only finished reading 'Surprised by Joy' on Friday. I think he was certain to return to Christianity and he basically talked himself into it. But that doesn't take away from his quality as a writer.
But to answer your question... I think it is very likely, but not necessarily in the context of historical research (whatever that means).
It means how can we verify the likelihood that the event happened. How do we go about checking if it was possible? Have we anything to compare it with, do any other writers mention it, is it something that was likely to happen unnoticed?
Who writes the history, makes all the difference in the world.
of course it does, all of history is constructed by the human mind.
It's funny you know? Even if you witnessed a 'miracle', I wonder if you would attribute it to God?
We would first have to define what a miracle is and if what happened fits into that defintion, or if there was a natural explanation for it. Even if it was a 'miracle' it doesn't follow that there is a God.
Jesus said that even if someone was raised from the dead, that 'they' (the unbelieing) would still not believe.
Of course He would have to say that, covering the bases.
Maybe if Jesus came to earth and performed this task under scientific conditions then He would be taken seriously. But, as it stands, Jesus isn't really any more credible than any other magician.
Some people think that there must be a natural explanation to everything.
Well, to be fair, there always is.
If that is true, then the natural world would be absolute!
It may well be.
But, isn't the natural world the only world we can examine and verify?
And yet somehow, it is the naturalists who dismiss the absolute.
Christians have their absolutes as well you know.
However, when we examine the Gospels and add up the errors in them, including the historical inaccuracies, it is really only fair to reject them as reliable. There may well be some truth in them, but I think it would be difficult to weed these things out.
Brian.