Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[pocaracas]

I just saw this list on some other reply... and had to say something!

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)

Like I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.... I have no idea what Documentary you mean...
May I suggest a few?
BBC's Bible Buried Secrets
Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed

- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.

Before churches got that name, they were temples... temples have existed for far longer than christianity, or even judaism.

- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances

As if fiction was something brand new in the world... huh?

- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).

You mean, the claims that someone else wrote down?

- 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.

Seems to fit...
Confucious' message also seems to fit.
Buddah's, too.

Both came before Jesus. Can't be impressed that it showed up at that particular location of the... wait for it... silk road!

- 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.

Have you ever read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities?
Minimalist can get you a copy...

- 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.

First off.... facts is hardly a word I'd use there.
But what do you know of the Essenes? And the likely claim that, had he existed, both John the Baptist and Jesus were Essenes?
And note the similarities between Jesus and the Essene figure of the Teacher of Righteousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness.

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.

We say that there is no evidence of a particular thing - the god and it's extraordinary feats.
The existence of believers is never questioned. All the things you mention were done by believers. People who, even way back then, described themselves as believers. It's like they didn't have first hand knowledge.
People who, apparently, already followed some sort of belief system... how difficult would it be to follow a new charismatic leader, such as Paul?