Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

The amazing shriveling argument.  You want a courtroom analogy to christ?  Here, try this.  Some schmuck takes Clinton Cash into a courtroom and tries to prosecute Hillary on the basis of it.

"Well, your honor, I have this book....see"

I wonder if he's allowed to keep adding new details to the senerio to fit his conclusion . Can we do it too?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see why not, that's how we got the NT after all.

[Amarok]

I don't see why not, that's how we got the NT after all.

Pretty much but I think we could do better.

[The Grand Nudger]

So did the muslims and the mormons.  I think the mormoms nailed it..the muslims, not so much.

[Ravenshire]

That's a mighty IF you got there...

If mankind evolved from unthinking animals (and this is not a mighty if), then at some point in that evolution the concept of god was introduced. How?
Either god presented itself, or it was made up - either through senses or through imagination.
If a god presented itself then clearly such presentation was faulty, given that, by the time we develop writing, there was no hint whatsoever of the original presentation, but there were stories pertaining to other deities... and different stories in different regions! Such faulty presentation automatically tells me those early humans were not dealing with a real god, as we'd define it today.
From this alone, it is reasonable to assume that mankind made up the concept of god. How that may have happened, I'll leave to another speculative thread.

Jesus comes along in a particular city in Israel and quickly churches sprout up in different places... places where Jesus never went.... places that had only access to the tales. People with faith without evidence, only tales. Sure, the message is one that resonates with the poor and oppressed peoples of occupied Roman territories, so it makes sense that it would spread out quickly.

One of the things that keeps surprising me is that believers seem unable to see the big picture. There were people before belief. There were beliefs before gods, there were polytheist religions before monotheist ones came up. This historical sequence is also evidence. Why don't you people factor it in... like... NEVER?!!


No Essenes?
Paul's tale reeks of Essene. Look at a map, even on Google maps. Look where the road to Damascus is. Note how close it goes to the Essene community's main "base", Qumran.


No explanation? I've provided you with one: they were Essenes.
For some undocumented reason, that name must have become taboo or undesirable and the christian moniker became an acceptable replacement.
Feel free to say there is no evidence for this. There isn't... at best, it's circumstantial...



Define Jews, here.
There were several diverging sects worshiping Yahweh, the god of Abraham. It is known that at least one of those sects did have a philosophy that was more or less in line with what became the Christian teachings.... can you guess who those were?

---

The Essenes!!

---

Not exactly what was being addressed...
This is what I was addressing: "He claimed to be God and be the only way by which we can be saved from judgement--a unique formula never seen before on earth. "

A human claiming to be god - Ever heard of a Pharaoh?

The second bit... about judgment... can also be applied to the Pharaohs. People were to worship and obey the Pharaoh... and be judged by him.


Let me put it in another way. The historical Jesus could have been some bloke that preached the message that the Teacher of Righteousness had also preached... a message that this Jesus guy decided to expand a bit.
Some of the previously existing mythology surrounding the Teacher would then also get attached to this new figure... a resurrection of that old character, if you will.
How often does Jesus get addressed as Teacher in the NT?


And to get Paul on the side of Jesus, you needed a certain roadside conversion... That same road I mentioned above...

1. I'm not sure that some having a faulty idea of God is evidence of anything other than having a faulty idea of God. How far back is the oldest known religion (4000-5000 years) ? Not that far in the grand scheme of things. If you believe any parts of the OT, then there is a remnant/thread that did have specific knowledge that persisted until this day. 

2-4. I'm reading the words man...they are not Essenes communities. Even Bart Erhman thinks the NT is 99% what it was originally. Paul wrote mainly to gentiles. 

7. Sure, there are going to be similarities between Jewish teachers in that era. I am looking at the differences. The series of events that Jesus kicked off plus the content of his message (including who he claimed to be, miracles, being the atonement for our sins) set him off quite a bit. Remember, the Jews were looking for a political messiah so speculation was easy when a prominent political figure arose.

---

I base this possible conclusion (it's just an example, as was requested, there are many other possible interpretations of the contents of the NT) from my frequent readings of the gospels. Even that conclusion is very tentative, as there's virtually nothing in terms of corroborative evidence of the events in the gospels outside of the gospels except more fanciful gospel texts that the Council of Nicea rejected for inclusion it the Bible, but textual analysis leads me to lean towards there having been a real person behind the legend of Jesus, whose baptism by John and whose crucifixion and circumstances of birth required explaining. For the record, I was a true believer when I first read the gospels, if I had any bias, it was towards it being true; but I noticed inconsistencies and I had been raised to be a literalist, so I did more research, which didn't make it seem any more likely to actually be a true and objective account of events in the first place.

Do you know how to make a post without referring to the motivations you imagine other people have for not posting what you think they should?

Please be specific: How is it begging the question? How is it a 'post-facts' approach?

---

I didn't go with myth. I went with an historical Jesus.

Yes, but I assumed you did not go with the version that does miracles, forgives sins, claims to be God, and died for our atonement and rose again. How would you characterize all those things? Myth? Lies?

---

I'd like to expand on my response to this.  You are attempting to shift burden of proof here.  I do NOT need a verified alternative explanation for any of the supernatural claims made within the pages of the Bible in order to reject them.  No one is obligated to offer defeaters.  A jury deliberating over a man accused of murder does not need to know who the actual murderer is in order to reach a verdict of "not guilty."   All they need is reasonable doubt.  

"The claims in my book are true because the characters in my book claim that they're true," is, at best, a circular argument no matter how you slice it.  You're right, Steve.  The Bible IS evidence of something.  It's evidence of the claims.  But, that doesn't tell us very much now, does it?

I did not shift the burden of proof. You did when you said there was no evidence in the face of some evidence. In your analogy, that would be you stating that the accused murderer did not do it (rather than you do not know). 

The fact that you call it 'a book' shows you don't know what you are talking about.

It is a book you mental fucking midget. You may wish to argue that it's an anthology, but you cannot argue that the buy-bull isn't a book

---

I agree, I find it frustrating that Steve thinks he has this though.

If his bullshit was so obvious we would all believe. So he either thinks we are in wilful denial or that we are fibbers. Or, and he won't accept this, he may be wrong.

You repeatedly miss my point. I don't care if you don't find the evidence compelling. I argue against those who are confused about what a claim of "no evidence" means and I discuss things with those who want to discuss the evidence there is. As it pertains to this thread, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

Just because you accept second- third- and fourth-hand accounts (at best) as evidence doesn't mean anyone here has to. For fuck's sake, you'd get laughed out of a court room with your idea of evidence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

You are wrong. The Claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. The gospels catalog the claim.

This is akin to arguing that taxation is a natural part of reality, and that Federal law only "catalogs" it. It's an idiotic argument. Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine? That's right, you cannot.

And that means that semantics aside, the Bible is the claim. And that means that pointing to it as evidence that the claims it "catalogs" is circular reasoning.

I've already got every reason to think poorly of viewpoint -- you consider eyewitness testimony accurate when every first-year psychology student knows otherwise (and has been shown as much by a staged event arranged by the professor.) The only thing this post does is convince me even more that you and your views merit little if any attention.

---

And their is no other evidence, with which to identify me as the culprit.

Fingerprints.

This is evidence that believers don't always get the idea of evidence.

[Harry Nevis]

1. This is not knowledge of god, as nothing that is observed is only attributable to a god.
2. Nothing is revealed except that people believed.
3. Unsubstantiated stories.
4. Unfalsifiable hearsay.

1. Only God satisfies the 5W.
2. Provides historical context.
3. Gives reliable accounts.
4. Properly basic sensus divinitatis.

1.  Bullshit
2.  Because it was written in a point in history.  That is revelation?!
3.  Bullshit.  You can't judge reliability from them with no outside corroboration.
4.  Bullshit by another name.

---

Documents that purport to being factual accounts require some form of independent corroboration in order to verify their claims.

You mean like other documents? Then you're going to tell me those other documents are claims too that require more documents to support their claims and so on into infinity. That's why the meme is bullshit. We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events. We have several letters discussing those people, places and events. We have historian writing about the central figure mentioned in the 4 gospels and the several letters. We have archaeological evidence for some of those people, like Pilate, and places, like the pool of Bethesda. etc. etc.

No outside evidence for anything out of the ordinary.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have thousands of people contemporaneously discussing Washington, painting him, voting for him.

Those are all part of the claim not evidence.

I almost missed this tidbit.

No, those discussions are not part of the claim -- they are evidence -- and here's why: those discussions related to his status as the nation's first President. Let me know when you find evidence that the reality of your deity is so incontrovertible that people voted him into office. Maybe you should write in "Jesus Christ" on your next ballot?

What's that? You don't think he'd be around to govern?

[Harry Nevis]

Liar.  You have 1 gospel, with two copycats and a re-write.  There is only one story.  What is now known as "mark."

WOW! I had no idea anyone still believed that theory from, what, 40 years ago. You should read more contemporary sources.

Have apologists gotten better at bullshitting? Nothing new has happened in 40 years that lends the tiniest amount of credence to your claim.

---

Why don't you guys just be honest and admit that you would never accept any miraculous event no matter how well sourced?

When you admit that you got nothing but an emotional need and popular support for your stories.

---

Setting aside the fact that if you claim there is no evidence, I should not have to answer these because you would have thoroughly evaluated these things in support of your claim that there is no evidence, it has been requested that I answer this more fully.

There is no evidence that cannot be explained by more common and reasonable means.  No outside corroborating evidence for anything supernatural.  Call what is left evidence if you like, but you know damn well what we are saying.  You just like to latch on to some stupid piece of semantic to feel like your holding your own in this thread.  You're not.

---

So...you're using your book to answer questions about your book, lol.  Got it.

The question I was answering is how do we know about God. I don't really see how your non-discussion, peanut-gallery-level comment applies.

And that's the problem.  You really don't see.

---

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

You are wrong. The Claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. The gospels catalog the claim. Acts gives researched historical data about the early church. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim. A second point on this simplistic understanding: The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim

There is also plenty of secondary and tertiary evidence I began to touch on above.

"Palaeological gold"?!  I wonder how many paleontologists agree...

[Amarok]

1. Only God satisfies the 5W.
2. Provides historical context.
3. Gives reliable accounts.
4. Properly basic sensus divinitatis

1.Busllshit
2.Bullshit
3.Bullshit
4. Nonsense with bullshit

WOW! I had no idea anyone still believed that theory from, what, 40 years ago. You should read more contemporary sources.

Wow I can't believe anyone thinks that it's a 40 years old theory and isn't backed by tons of evidence .

Those are all part of the claim not evidence.

Nope it's the evidence

You mean like other documents? Then you're going to tell me those other documents are claims too that require more documents to support their claims and so on into infinity. That's why the meme is bullshit. We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events. We have several letters discussing those people, places and events. We have historian writing about the central figure mentioned in the 4 gospels and the several letters. We have archaeological evidence for some of those people, like Pilate, and places, like the pool of Bethesda. etc. etc.

we have 4 unrealiable books that are copies are each other no matter how you scoff the idea  and contradict each other on primary issues . We have several unrealiable  letters that do the same. We have no contemporary historian writing about it that is not a suspected forgery. And some finds does not a full narrative make. Because fictional being can have all they above.

You repeatedly miss my point. I don't care if you don't find the evidence compelling. I argue against those who are confused about what a claim of "no evidence" means and I discuss things with those who want to discuss the evidence there is. As it pertains to this thread, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

Of which there is none And yes there is extraordinary evidence sorry if the dashes your emotional investment .

---

The bible is a claim sorry if theists don't like that fact .