Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

The problem you just so kindly illustrated is that the evidence available to us is the same kind for your psychic and magician/healer illustration. However, through some process that remains unclear, we can set that aside and declare the need for extraordinary evidence. Please explain.

You mean, your stories?  Obviously, it's not the same.  You have ordinary stories, and you wish for that to be evidence of an extraordinary events.  You don't accept that ordinary evidence in the case of anyone else's extraordinary claims..so I don't see why you yammer on about it - it can only expose the weakness of your position.  You believe.  You do not need evidence to believe.  The stories are not evidence of their contents accuracy.  You have faith that they are accurate, but faith is all it is and all it needs to be.  

Why is that so difficult for you?

What do you mean I don't accept ordinary evidence for anyone else's extraordinary claims? How would you know that? To what do you refer? 

And it the body of evidence only included the 'stories', you would have a point. But that's no where near all that it includes (pasted from earlier):
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

I do have some measure of faith they are accurate--but my point is and will continue to be, there is much more evidence that supports reasonable belief than the standard internet-bred atheist thinks. I have never demanded that anyone find it compelling, but claim there is "no evidence" (made left and right on this site) is just stupid talk and someone has to point that out--because atheist here hardly ever call out each other on stupidity.