How do we distinguish the HISTORICAL from the NON-HISTORICAL? Why are "miracles" automatically ruled out?
Answer: Don't ask questions or be skeptical. Just submit to the dogma that miracle events cannot ever happen, despite any evidence. Who are we to doubt the authority of our 21st-century professional Jesus-debunker scholar pundits who have decreed in their papal bulls that the Jesus miracle acts could not have happened?
It isn't really a question of historicity as much as one of inspiration.
On what would you base that?
I base it on the undeniable fact that all and every author that has ever composed a literary thought has done so from personal experience.
It's not clear what "personal experience" means here. If it means to directly witness an event that the author writes about, then virtually all our ancient history is not based on that, because it's rare that our sources tell us anything the author witnessed himself. But if it means anything an author writes, including fantasy, then it's sort of a tautology, saying all writings are personal experiences, real or imagined, in the mind or imagination of the author, like brain waves, recorded on paper for transmission to later readers. And so "personal experience" is just another word for the content or subject matter written down, whatever it might be from the author's mind. It's better to reject this meaning, and take "personal experience" as meaning direct witness, empirically, not fantasy, where the writer is contemporary and present to the event and is reporting what he directly witnessed.
The first authors to write about dragons, however, did not experience actual dragons, just as the authors who wrote about magical miracles did not experience actual magic.
I.e., did not witness this directly.
Which authors? For this to make any sense it has to refer to writings which have survived to our time, and thus the writings we still have today from the ancient authors. Of course most of the ancient writings did not survive, and you could speculate what those lost writings contained in them, about something the author did or did not directly experience. And it matters if the author was a contemporary to the events and actually witnessed them directly.
And for 99% of the "historical" information we have (for
ancient history), we depend on writings about events the authors did NOT personally experience, regardless whether it's about dragons or about the normal events.
There are no historical dragons, only inspiration for such tales, just as there is no historical Jesus, merely an author's inspiration.
You could say that about 99% of all historical facts we know, from the ancient sources. All we have are "tales" from authors saying something happened, or only "inspiration" for them, and not actual testimony from a direct witness to the reported events.
To make any sense out of this, let's assume that "personal experience" means direct witness to the events, not just anything in the writer's mind or imagination. And we cannot pretend to know whether an event really did or did not happen, just because we have theories about what's possible. Rather, we can look at what the writings say, and whether the author in question claims to have really witnessed it himself directly, or is only reporting something from earlier which he claims to know about INdirectly.
Jesus is an inspired literary character like a dragon or Pegasus.
The meaning, if it's not incoherent babble, might be this: For the "miracle" events, or unlikely superhuman events, we never have an author who actually saw it himself, but rather, all we have are writings telling of something this author did not witness himself. Whereas for the NORMAL events, or non-miracle non-superhuman events, we have IN A FEW CASES some reports from a contemporary historian who actually did witness the reported events.
In other words, there are a few authors, like Thucydides and Xenophon, who wrote of something they actually did witness themselves, directly, and so those kinds of events are more believable than the "miracle" or superhuman events which the authors telling them never did witness directly.
There is a small bit of plausibility to this. However, the official historical record includes ALL the reported events, not just what the writer experienced himself, because otherwise we'd eliminate 99% of ancient history. And documents which contain miracle claims are not omitted as evidence.
contemporary vs. direct witness testimony
Also, the apostle Paul did relate events, e.g., the Resurrection, to which he was contemporary, though not a direct witness. So "personal experience" or direct witness has to mean more than just being contemporary to the events, but also to have actually seen it happen -- in this case, to have directly seen the death of Jesus and then a few days later to have seen him alive, or to have seen the empty tomb. For these we have no direct testimony in our accounts, but only indirect reports of it in Paul and the Gospel accounts.
By this strict distinction between contemporary and direct witness we have to put historians like Thucydides partly in the NON-direct-witness category, because he did not witness many of those scenes himself, but only reported what was happening at the time, as he heard about it.
So the (historical vs non-historical) theory proposed here is that "miracle" events are reported never by the actual witnesses to them, but only by someone who didn't witness it directly, whereas real historical events are, IN A FEW CASES only, reported by direct witnesses (because 99% of these events also are reported only indirectly by someone who did not witness it himself).
That's the best we can make out of this dichotomy between "historical" and "inspiration" types of reported events, where one category is for the unreal or non-historical claims, and the other for the real historical events, or what really happened, not based on some kind of pure imagination or inspiration without any "personal experience" from real witnesses.
Based on this, you could claim that Julius Caesar (and some others) must have been real because there is some direct witness testimony to a few of them, though very little, like less than 1% of what we have. Virtually all our knowledge of him and others is from much later writers not even close to their time. So if the counter-argument is: But then neither is there an historical Julius Caesar, only inspiration for such tales, because Caesar is an inspired literary character like a dragon or Pegasus; there is no tangible historical Caesar today any more than there is a tangible historical Jesus; there's only literature, or the written record relating an author's inspiration. --- that counterargument could be rejected based on the fact that there is a tiny tiny bit of actual writing from his time, from someone who saw him directly, to put him in the real or historical category, based on writers who witnessed him directly, vs. the unreal category.
Is direct-witness testimony really more reliable than indirect (later report)?
But this dichotomy does not reliably distinguish real from unreal, because it's possible for direct testimony accounts to be mistaken, so that the later INdirect reports of what happened might be more accurate, in some cases. The DIRECT witness reports add extra value (e.g., Cicero commenting on Caesar assassination), but this is no guarantee that the reported events must be accurate (accurately reported by the contemporary writer). ALL the evidence has value, direct and later indirect testimony, and what really matters is how much total evidence there is. And the "later" category gets weaker as the time gap increases between the actual events and the later report of it in the writings.
Also, it cannot be said that there are NO "miracle" reports from writers claiming to have witnessed it directly. Actually there are some cases of a writer claiming to have witnessed a miracle, in our surviving sources, so that there's little or no difference between the "historical" and the "non-historical" ("real" vs. "unreal" stories) based on the writer's claim to have directly witnessed it.
Before 100 AD only: Also, we have to eliminate anything after 100 AD, where we see an explosion of new miracle stories, because these appear to be copycat stories based on the earlier miracle acts of Jesus which became famous in later centuries after the Gospels had widely circulated. E.g.,
St. Augustine reports dozens of miracles of his own time, and claims to have directly witnessed them himself. But there's nothing like this in anything prior to 100 AD.
There's at least one "miracle" event reported by an author who claims to have seen it himself, and no doubt there are some other cases also, though not many, and there's always ambiguity in such cases, and difficulty identifying what the author really experienced:
Did Josephus directly witness a "miracle"?
Sort of. We know for sure that he claimed to have seen an exorcist cast out demons (
Antiquities bk 8 ch 2.5). He didn't claim to see the victim recover, but he saw the "magic" of a container of water being knocked over by the demon when it exited the victim's body. This has to go into the category of "magic" or "superhuman" or "supernatural" or "miracle" (psychic power?) because the physical object was knocked over somehow, by an invisible force of some kind, which the exorcist claimed was the demon leaving the victim. Josephus claims to have seen it himself and that it proves the special "power" and wisdom of Solomon who was "beloved of God" and was the teacher who inspired this exorcist.
But no doubt there are also a few other claims of some "miracle" being witnessed directly by some author who is our source for the event. So it's not true that ALL "miracle" claims are of something never seen directly by the writer reporting it to us. Probably 99.8% of miracle claims are of something not witnessed by the writer. But the direct-witness claim is not how we know whether those events were real. Rather, we know such reported events are so rare that we have to be skeptical of them, and usually there is little or no evidence, unlike the case of Jesus in the Gospels, for which we have 4 (5) sources from the time saying that it happened. For this exorcism reported by Josephus there is only this one source, which makes it suspicious, but also there could be an explanation, such as magic trickery, but also we can't rule out the possibility of some kind of psychic power the exorcist had to cause the object to tip over. There's no proof that it's impossible.
That "miracles" are "non-historical" or can't really happen might be based on the simple premise that no miracle event can ever happen, regardless of any evidence or record that such an event did happen. But there is nothing in science or logic or reasoning which requires that no miracle event could ever happen. Rather, reason requires that there has to be extra evidence for anything irregular or contrary to normal experience. What's required for "miracle" claims is extra skepticism, higher degree of doubt, and more critical treatment of those claims, and disbelief if there's not the needed evidence, such as we do have in the case of the historical Jesus, for whose miracle acts we have 4 (5) sources near to the time of the events, unlike for miracle legends generally in the ancient world.
Unlike other miracle claims in antiquity, our knowledge of the miracle-worker Jesus in 30 AD is like our knowledge of other historical figures, based on written accounts near the time those persons lived and did something, witnessed by people and recorded by those who learned of it from the oral and written reports about it. And, since there are miracle claims contained in the accounts for this case, which is irregular or unusual, it's necessary to have extra evidence, such as extra sources reporting it. The 4 (5) sources we have for the Jesus miracle acts are extra evidence, much beyond what is required for regular historical events. Usually only one source is required for a reported historical event to be credible, as long as it's not contradicted in other sources. Whereas for miracle claims we need more than the usual amount of evidence.
Do you think horses have wings and fly? If not, why not?
Because there is no written account of it from any source near to the time it allegedly happened. We don't have any information of such a thing, from written accounts when such horses flew or had wings. If we had 4 or 5 written accounts from some period all saying there was a flying horse 50 or 100 years earlier, not contradicted by other sources, saying this was seen by many witnesses, generally agreeing where this happened and some other details, then it would be credible, or a possible unusual event. It's for lack of any such evidence that such claims as this are not acceptable.
It's not just that the story contains the miracle or supernatural element that it's not credible. That makes the story more doubtful, but does not rule it out as impossible. Rather, it means we're required to be more skeptical, but a true skeptic still keeps an "open mind" while seeking extra sources and considering all the evidence, rather than just condemning it all on impulse.
Should we search for the historical Pegasus?
Yes, if the claim is made seriously it should be considered. None should be ruled out dogmatically. Some highly unusual events may have happened. Since the Age of Reason we have developed a discipline to QUESTION EVERYTHING, which also means to RULE OUT NOTHING, but rather, keep searching for more answers, consider all the evidence, and keep doubting and be ready to revise our former doctrines to accommodate new evidence, regarding ALL serious claims, and even be ready to go back and reconsider the earlier beliefs, either to reconfirm them or correct them.
Everything should be subject to re-examination, no matter how sacred.
But is Pegasus being claimed seriously by someone? If so, tell us when and where this horse existed (if it existed), so we know where to look. You need to cite the written accounts reporting the event, so we know what is being claimed about it. If all you have is an ancient legend circulating and not reported in any source from when the event happened, and it's contrary to known experience, then we have to assume it's only a myth which evolved over many centuries or thousands of years rather than being a real event in history.
There is no historical Pegasus same as there is no historical Jesus, namely . . .
No, we have written accounts to document the historical Jesus just as we have written accounts to document Julius Caesar. But we have no written accounts documenting the historical Pegasus. Just because there's a poem about something thousands of years earlier doesn't mean we have any record of it, or evidence attesting to it.
. . . namely because horses do not have wings and fly and . . .
But how do you know that? You can't just pronounce that it isn't so. Just pronouncing something as not so doesn't make it not so. That's not a "because" -- to just say it's not so. I.e., you can't say "it's not so because it's not so." When you say "because" it has to be followed by a REASON, not just a repeat of what you claim isn't so, or just a repeat of your dogma.
. . . horses do not have wings and because magic isn't real either.
The only reason we know horses don't have wings is that there are no reported cases of it in the written record. If there was a known case, documented in written accounts from the time it was witnessed, then it could not be said that no horse ever had wings. It becomes credible at some point when the evidence increases enough and makes it more likely, or probable. And also "magic" might be real in some cases, if there is evidence, and depending on what "magic" means.
What we do have without question, however, is human credulity when it comes to comforting, . . .
But fanatic DISbelief is also credulity. It's "credulity" to believe someone else's belief is false if their belief is not really false, or if there's evidence for their belief. Your own belief that someone else's belief is false is your own false belief if that one's belief is true, i.e., it's your own credulity or belief in something unreal, if that person's belief is actually a true belief.
In the 1st century AD there was LESS belief in miracle claims than ever before, and also less than anytime since then. Thus there was not any special "credulity" or believing something not real, in that time period. At some point you have to look at the evidence, or the facts of history, instead of just making abstract pronouncements about what has to be the truth.
. . . credulity when it comes to comforting, imaginary tales.
That the tale is comforting does not make it less credible, or unreal. It's possible for something to really happen and also to be comforting. If it's "comforting," that provides a possible motive, or psychological explanation for the belief. But the believer's motive alone is not enough to debunk the belief if there's evidence that the belief is true. There is also a false comfort one gains by condemning someone else's belief as false or imaginary. The disbeliever gaining comfort at judging incorrectly someone else's true belief is just as credulous as a believer whose belief is untrue.
You are using circular logic to claim a belief is false by only psychologizing that the believer is credulous. Calling it "credulity" is just a tautology -- assuming the belief is false to prove that the believer is credulous, and that the believer is credulous to prove that the belief is false, but having no evidence that either is the case, and just falling back on your abstract conclusion to be used as your premise to prove your conclusion (that the belief is false).
You have to demonstrate that the belief is incorrect, inaccurate, contrary to evidence or logic, not just that it's comforting or that the believer is credulous or wants it to be true. If you cannot debunk the belief with evidence, or show that it lacks the required evidence, you've not refuted the belief, regardless what you claim abstractly about the psychology of the believer.
copycat stories as evidence
There's probably wishful thinking in many cases of supernatural claims, or "credulity," but there are not normally multiple written accounts confirming or agreeing that a particular person did miracles which were witnessed by many observers but which did not really happen. There are miracle claims that are fiction, which we can determine by investigating them, especially fitting a pattern of miracle stories which have increased since the 1st century, as part of a pattern of copycat stories which has evolved using the Jesus miracles as a model, so that (copycat) dubious miracle claims have increased since that time.
This pattern of copycat miracle claims is obvious in the evolving culture over the last 2000 years. But there was no such pattern of copycat miracle claims prior to 100 AD -- claims of miracles which did not really happen but were borrowed from earlier legends -- which could explain what caused the Jesus miracle stories. So there was not the pattern of credulity, i.e., a believing something not real, in the period when the Jesus miracle-worker story emerged. It's popular to claim there was such credulity, but you can't find it in the culture or the literature before 100 AD. Only after, when there was an explosion of new miracle stories.
(Once again it's appropriate to name the one possible exception copycat story, the fish-and-loaves story, resembling the earlier Elisha story (II Kings 4:42-44), which stands alone as the only example of a Jesus miracle act resembling an earlier miracle legend. -- "the exception which makes the rule")
Actually there is good evidence that the trend of "copycat story" miracle claims began at some point in the late 1st century, after the Jesus miracle-worker story was established and was circulating. The Jesus miracle episode of 30 AD was not caused by the copycat story trend, but rather seems to be the cause of this trend, which began late in the 1st century. So that's where the psychologizing argument has a place, not to refute earlier miracle claims when there was no such trend, but to explain why the later stories popped up all over and became popular, unlike earlier when such stories were not popularly believed and you can't find any evidence of them (in the 1st century and earlier).
Life isn't easy, people love their woo.
Yes, both believers and DISbelievers and debunkers love their "woo" -- so does this refute whatever they claim? Does this mean anything people loved must not have really happened? The question is whether it happened. You can't say something must not have happened if people loved it, because the only real events have to be ones they hate. Really? The only real events in history have to be ones which no one loved?
Why didn't they "love their woo" only from 100 AD and later? You don't see this kind of "woo" earlier.
The "woo" doesn't negate the evidence, or the written accounts documenting the events. The written record is there, as a fact of history, in documents which have been discovered scientifically. There is nothing in the facts to contradict the Jesus miracles, but only evidence that these are real historical events. That someone gets a charge from it or wants it to be true is not an argument that it isn't true, or false. You cannot disprove something simply by claiming it has an appeal or that someone wants it to be true. You must also produce some evidence that it's not true. The evidence is that the "woo" was not happening earlier, but was triggered by something which happened in the 1st century. If it's only "woo" and nothing more, why did it happen only in the 1st century and not before?
If a scientific discovery or other event takes place which would be beneficial and make people happy (a "woo" event), that is not an argument that the discovery is fiction. To refute it requires more than simply saying it makes someone feel good and so has to be fake.
The phrase "historical Jesus" is as much woo as is "Historical Pegasus."
You can say that as long as your premise is that facts and evidence don't matter, as long as you mean all ancient history can be thrown out, all the written record, all the ancient writings, because all history is "woo" and fiction from authors.
Where is the record, the written accounts, from the time of Pegasus, reporting the events and the witnesses who saw it? It's not the woo, but the evidence which makes the "historical Jesus" true, just as for our mainline historical facts, which are known from the written evidence of the time. If you reject that evidence, the historical record, then you must also reject all historical events or historical characters.
For a proper analogy to the historical Jesus, you need to find an analogy taken from real historical accounts rather than from ancient legend. There was no ancient Jesus legend in the 1st century, but rather, only reports of events happening in about 30 AD. If the only analogy you can find -- the only other "woo" -- is ancient legend without any historical record from the time of the reported event, then you are adding further confirmation for the historical Jesus as historical fact, because you are demonstrating that this one miracle episode is the only one for which there is serious evidence, therefore making it unique and distinguishing it from the others which are derived from ancient legend only. If not, then choose for your analogy a miracle example for which there is historical evidence, or written record from the time it reportedly happened, attesting to the miracle claim. The Pegasus example doesn't meet this requirement, because there's no written record reporting it near to when it happened.
People like it because it sounds good to them, confirms a bias, so they latch on.
Like debunkers making up falsehoods to refute the miracles of Jesus.
By that reasoning, every claim that "sounds good" to someone must be false, because it sounds good. So every report of anything good has to be fake news, or woo, and all news has to be bad in order to be true, or has to sound bad to everyone.
You can't just fall back on this psychologizing without any evidence. A belief is not refuted simply because it might be something optimistic, or a fulfillment of a wish. That doesn't refute it. You need more than just your psychoanalysis of the believer in order to debunk the belief. You have to deal with the content of the belief, the evidence, the claims made and the testimony or reports saying it's true. You don't refute the belief by deprogramming and badgering the believers into feeling guilty about having a bad motive for believing. The motive or psychological preference of the believer is not any kind of evidence against the belief. In a court of law you don't prove the accused one's innocence by showing that someone would feel good if this defendant is convicted. You have to address the facts of the case, not the feelings of someone who wants the facts to be one way or the other.
It's an actual religious belief for them, as real as transubstantiation.
Just as the belief that the miracle events are fiction is an actual religious belief, or DISbelief, regardless of the evidence. The disbeliever-fanatic is committed religiously to nullifying the Jesus miracles, whatever it takes, to erasing this from the historical record, to blotting out these events from history, because blotting them out "sounds good" and gives the disbeliever peace, confirming the disbeliever's bias. It gives the debunker-crusader consolation and comfort and exuberation to equate the Jesus miracles to Pegasus and other legends known to be fiction, providing to the debunker a kind of feel-good self-authentication and wish-fulfillment, independent of any evidence or facts about the historical Jesus.
This wish-fulfillment and feel-goodism doesn't prove or disprove your disbelief anymore than the believer's wish-fulfillment proves or refutes belief in the Jesus miracles. It's only the facts or the evidence which can tell us what the truth is, not anyone's feelings or wishful thinking about what the truth ought to be, or what would "sound good" or "confirm" one's bias or truth-crusader-fantasy or need for recognition or self-fulfillment.
The facts are that we have 4 (5) sources reporting the Jesus miracle acts -- written accounts from the time of the reported events -- which is far more evidence than necessary for normal historical events, and far more than for any miracle claims about Pegasus and other legends of the gods or heroes.
It's understandable that a person lacking sufficient knowledge and experience will believe such tales, . . .
No it's not understandable, because no one did believe such tales or was seeking such tales to believe -- in any other examples you can show from this historical period. Who is the "person lacking sufficient knowledge" here, and believing something?
Who believed such tales? It's not true that such persons in the 1st century believed such tales. There are no examples of it. How can it be "understandable" that uneducated persons believed "such tales" when it's not true that they did believe any, from all the evidence? They did? WHO? Who are we saying believed "such tales"?
The Jesus believers were uneducated, mostly, but there's nothing about such uneducated people to indicate that they tended to believe in any "such tales" of miracles which didn't happen. There were no other miracle beliefs, about miracle-workers, or "tales" of miracles being done by someone, in the 1st century, or 100-200 years earlier. All the evidence is that any such beliefs, such miracle claims, reported miracle acts, etc. were NOT believed, though being claimed by someone. Any such cases were widely rejected as hoaxes, with no one believing the charlatans had any power. There were probably some "messiah" charlatans, but no evidence that anyone believed their miracle claims (except maybe a half-dozen crackpots), or reported such things done by them, even if they gained some followers. Because even if there's evidence they had followers (such as an anti-Roman militant leader), there's no report that the followers believed any of the miracle claims.
. . . will believe such tales, like the child writing letters to Santa.
How about Herodotus or Josephus telling "tales" about events which happened? What's the difference?
You have to get beyond the abstract disconnect from the historical facts about the Jesus miracle-worker and the earliest believers. There was NO ONE, even ignorant or uneducated, in the 1st century, who reportedly believed miracle stories resembling (even slightly) what we see in the Gospel accounts. There were no claims about any miracle-workers believed by the poor ignorant peasants. You can't find them. If you go farther back to 300 BC and earlier, there's possibly an increased miracle element to be detected, and yet there was no belief in any miracle-worker historical figure, but only in the ancient deities, like Zeus, and the healing god Asclepius, etc. Not historical persons of the time, but only ancient legends of someone centuries (even thousands of years) earlier. There were no "such tales" of a historical figure miracle-worker people believed in.
You can't speak of "such tales" as though they existed and people believed them when there's no evidence of any "such tales" or of anyone believing them.
So it's NOT "understandable that a person [uneducated] will believe such tales."
They did not believe such tales. You can't find any case of the ignorant masses of that time believing "such tales" of miracles being done by someone. The only belief was in the ancient deities, not in any reported miracle-working historical persons of the time, such as Jesus is a reported historical figure of about 30 AD.
But millions of children writing millions of letters to Santa does not make their man at the North Pole historical.
And therefore Julius Caesar is not historical because Santa is not historical, and so no reported historical figure ever was historical, because the only evidence for any historical figure is no better than that of children writing letters to Santa at the North Pole.
Why is nothing said here of why those children should not believe in Santa, or should outgrow such belief? By this reasoning they would continue believing in Santa into adulthood and old age, because there's no criterion here about what to believe and what to disbelieve. Rather, there's only the doctrine imposed onto those children that they must not believe in Santa, because the catechism dictates it, without giving them any reason or evidence how we know Santa doesn't exist.
You can't condemn a belief as false, or non-historical, if you're not willing to explain the difference between what is historical and what is not. You have to provide a criterion to separate the factual from the fictional, allowing that some reported events were real, instead of giving a criterion which equates all reported events in the written record to that of kids writing letters to Santa.
There is no "historical Santa," a fact every child with a normal functioning brain eventually learns.
Learns how? How are children to know from this what is "historical" and what is not? The only guideline for credibility here is to insult them as abnormal and dysfunctional for holding the banned belief, and that's the criterion for what's true and what's fiction. But that's not the criterion for what is fact and what is fiction. The child needs more than a threat of being branded abnormal for believing the banned belief, or not accepting the list of taboo vs. true beliefs handed down by the authorities dictating which ones are true and which ones fiction.
That's just a dogma to impose onto all children, without giving them any reason, but just insisting that they must accept this dogma, the nonexistence of Santa, simply because your doctrine dictates this and other doctrines to them, in the imposed list, without giving them any reason or facts or evidence. And accusing them of being dysfunctional and abnormal unless they accept this doctrine, like a religion imposes its doctrine and labels anyone as evil or as a misfit who does not submit to the doctrine.
But that's not the real truth to be learned by the child -- simply that Santa is fiction. No, the truth is the process of critical thinking, seeking evidence, and examining and questioning the evidence, the written record, such as the 1st-century written accounts about Jesus the miracle-worker. The truth is not simply dictating to the learning child the list of the true doctrines vs. the list of fictions, such as dictating that Santa or other character is fiction. What is learned is the process of reasoning and considering evidence for disbelieving in Santa, not just a convention which bans it, or dictates certain doctrines to be banned and others sanctioned as wholesome, and imposing this list of approved and banned beliefs, to be memorized as the criterion for truth vs. fiction.
A bona fide bishop bringing gifts at the Winter Solstice does not make a child's North Pole Santa historical because "historical" means real.
But what does "real" mean if you throw the written record out the window?
Tossing out the written record makes Julius Caesar not "real" because this makes all evidence for anything historical to be no better than the evidence for Santa. This eliminates ANY examples of the "real" -- leaving no criterion for what is "real" or "historical" vs. what is in the Santa category. This doesn't tell us, or those children writing the letters, what the difference is between the "real" and the unreal. If you won't acknowledge any "real" examples, which can be verified, then you are effectively saying ALL examples are unreal and are non-historical, and you exclude the critical thinking and skepticism we really need in order to identify what is real in contrast to what is unreal.
But as soon as you finally recognize that there are also "real" examples, of real historical events, you'll have to acknowledge that the historical Jesus, including the miracle acts, is in the "real" category (or possibly real, depending on the extent of the evidence), or in the credible category, supported by evidence in the historical record, which Santa is not.
Our imaginations are certainly real, and therefore historical, which is why I say Jesus is an inspired character based on an author's experience, just like a child's Santa.
And just like a historian's Caesar, also an inspired character based on an author's "experience" (imagination?). Until you say what the difference is between Caesar and Santa, you're saying they're both non-historical, for the same reason. We have no proof of Caesar being real without those written accounts, from a historian's experience, relying on the tales of the time which say this character existed and did certain things.
You can argue that there's more evidence for certain major historical characters than for others, but there are MILLIONS of less known historical characters for whom there is some evidence but much less than for the historical Jesus, and yet who are recognized as historical based on that much less evidence.
You can't just impose onto the child your dogma about who is historical and who is not. You have to point out how there is EVIDENCE in some cases, attesting to the existence of this or that character, and yet a LACK of evidence in other cases, showing the nonexistence because there are no credible sources, or insufficient sources, attesting to that character's life or deeds.
evidence, facts, historical (written) record = Jesus did miracles.
social convention decreed by debunker-pundits = miracle-workers excluded.
When you finally get serious and explain the need for evidence, or for sources, or a written record from the time, and compare the sources to verify or refute the claims, and assess the credibility of each, separating fact from fiction -- then you find in the end that we have strong evidence for the historical Jesus, including the miracle acts, while such evidence is lacking for other miracle claims, or miracle claims generally. Assessment of the evidence requires more than just your spontaneous impulse about what is "real" vs. what is only "woo" or "inspiration" or "literary" or other metaphysical category.
To be legitimate/scientific, your dichotomy of "real" vs "magic" has to take account of the evidence, or the historical documentation, requiring critical questioning of the claims made and the details, and comparison to all the other documents, to verify the credible part, or determine discrepancies and expose the non-credible part.
The Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels come out as more credible if we follow such a critical process as this. Whereas the opposite conclusion -- they are imaginary tales -- is arrived at by ignoring the critical process and disregarding the evidence to distinguish the historical from the non-historical (real vs. unreal), like the analogy to Santa disregards the need for evidence and puts Santa and Caesar in the same category, and leaving it to social convention alone to put one in the "historical" or "real" category and the other in the "unreal" category, which "every child with a normal functioning brain eventually learns" by having the convention pounded into their brain.
And so that's how Jesus becomes learned as non-historical, as an inspired character based on an author's imagination -- and so relegated to the non-historical or unreal category -- this is learned by being pounded into our brain as a social convention, which "every child with a normal functioning brain eventually learns" by being programmed properly if we just keep hammering away at it long enough. It could be argued that some of our "history" and other "truth" really is acquired this way, as the accepted standard, so that in place of evidence we prescribe a catechism dictating points of doctrine, for separating real from unreal. So it's in that sense that Jesus the miracle-worker gets assigned to the non-historical category, through artificial programming of children to disbelieve the evidence, since miracle claims are unwholesome for them to believe even in a case when they're true.
But the evidence -- the objective neutral facts based on what is discovered empirically -- puts him in the historical or real category, as part of the historical record. And the part about the miracle acts explains why he drew attention, if they happened, while if they did not happen we have no explanation what made him so important that someone would put him into the historical record by leaving written accounts about him or copying such written accounts from others.