I want to be clear, I ask this out of genuine interest in the method historians use and NOT as a shot at anyone's faith.
This is more specifically in regards to religious/ supernatural claims, such as the resurrection of Jesus that some scholars claim to be a valid conclusion to the alleged events.
I'm rather interested in how historians might come to a conclusion such as this despite the event of someone coming back from the dead being completely inconsistent with known reality.
In my mind any conclusion that we know to be possible would be a more likely one than one that we have no good reason to believe is anything but impossible.
Obviously more educated people than I disagree with this thought so I was wondering what I'm missing from the methodoly of assessing historical claims?
I'm sorry, can you give me an example of one of the historians you're thinking of? Someone who argues that Jesus' resurrection happened as such?
The typical method historians actually use to interpret religious/miraculous events is known as functionalism (this word has other meanings in historiography, though). We can't judge the cause of a miraculous phenomenon, or the existence of a supernatural event.
Instead, we look at its role as an idea in history. Why did people believe in it at a specific point in time? What did they believe? How did it affect their lives and society?
In other words--how does the event function in history?