Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

Steve, you're my new favorite theist, on here.... well.... after CL, of course!

1. Documents. Such as the 27 in the NT. Some relating events, others expounding on the beliefs that these events precipitated. Most scholars think there were even earlier documents that Paul and the gospel writers had available to them. 

Well... there were even earlier beliefs... much much earlier... even before the god of Abraham showed up. And some even have supporting documents! Shouldn't these earlier tales be much more trustworthy? much closer to the original presentation of god to mankind?

And of course, it is relatively easy to expand pre-existing belief into something larger, or broader. That ignorant people believed the tales is not very amazing... look around - how many people in this world are believing tales from a different religion? Both can't be true.

2. Not what I meant by churches. I mean the Christian groups found in various cities throughout the Roman empire prior to Paul's writings (starting in 50AD). He wrote to many of them and referred to others.

Were they really christian groups? Or Essene groups? Do the Essenes feature in the Bible?
Care to speculate on why the religious group that exists on or near Jerusalem and that is the most similar in philosophy to Christianity does not feature in the Christian holy book?

3. How much of what we have is fiction? Are there actual reasons to think this is so? 

All religions make similar claims... they can't all be right.
At best, only one can be right... all are fiction, except maybe (and this is a big maybe) one.
Is there any reason to think the NT is not fiction? It has some historical figures and locations right?... well, may I counter with Harry Potter who lives in London, UK?... or maybe Sherlock Holmes? Poirot? no?... How about Siper-man in New York? Socrates in Athens?

4. All claims are written down. The gospel editors certainly had access to eyewitnesses, other documents in existence at the time, and well within the period that any number of rebuttal witnesses could have come forward. Further, the editors were not coldly relating some facts they heard to let the reader make up their own mind. They were attesting to the truthfulness of the content of their books. 

In those days, the land was big. Populations didn't intermingle like they do now. You were very unlikely to ever go more than 20 or 30km away from the place where you were born. But some people did travel and spread wonderful tales from yonder. Some would believe the tales and retell them.... some (I hazard to guess, most) would remain believing whatever they had been taught to believe before that.

I do often wonder why were there still jews, after the whole of Jerusalem witnessing the rise of Jesus and other dead and buried people... one would expect the whole population of that city to not only believe, but totally devote to the thing.... however... that didn't happen, did it?
It's like the gospel stories are all disconnected from one another and from the lives of people. That certainly puts a dent in their believability as accounts of actual events... and strengthens the likelihood of it being fiction.

5. Are the words attributed to Jesus part of the fiction/myth theory or the conspiracy theory? How about his claims? He didn't just talk about being nice. 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. 

I wouldn't be so sure it had never been seen on Earth... do you have evidence of that?

As for what is claimed to have been said... meh... It is very likely that someone did say some of those things, and that some others are fiction. If they were all said by the same person is unknown. The Jesus of the gospels does seem to be a tapestry of different people, doesn't he?

6. No. 

Well, you would learn something about actual history if you read it.
Reality is seldom as simple as it is presented.

7. Name one credible scholar that does not believe in a literal Jesus. In the meantime:

You are aware of the difference between the "historical Jesus" (the one that scholars accept existed) and the Jesus of the gospels, yes?
This historical Jesus may not even have lived in the 1st century, but well before. It seems most of the message already existed some 2 centuries prior.... by none other than the Teacher of Righteousness.

8. I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Paul invented Christianity?

Paul was certainly the greatest influence in shaping present-day Christianity. Read that book.

1. No, earlier is not better. If God revealed himself in the person of Jesus, then that is the best source of information. Other religions are less evidenced than Christianity. You are describing people having faith without evidence. I am describing faith with evidence. 

2. No Essenses. Read Paul's letters. Just about every letter starts with agreeing with/referring to their beliefs. 

3. No, they cannot all be right. Only one or none. The NT is clearly not meant to be fiction and there is no explanation for the large number of believers that appeared before any of the books we have were written.

4. This is more theories that are not supported by the evidence or does not explain the evidence. The teachings of Jesus and his being the messaih were 180 degrees the opposite direction of what the Jews beleived. 

5. There is no evidence anywhere that the message of redemption and restoration of a relationship with God was not unique. 

7. Sure, it has to do with standards of evidence. You cannot deny that Jesus existed. You might find that the other evidence is not compelling. The Teacher of Righteousness=Jesus is not a thing with reputable scholars.

8. Well, to have a Paul, you needed Jesus. So...I would have to go with Jesus being the greater influence overall (especially since there were churches throughout the empire prior to Paul.

---

There is one last thing I wish to say in this thread. Why does Steve not put other religions to the same three "tests" he subjects christianity to. Why does he not apply his pseudo-Bayesian equation to Nordic paganism, why does he not use the same "the claims are so out there that those who made them couldn't possibly have lied" to the claims made about Vishnu (whic are equally as fantastic as those made about Jesus), and why does he not accept the weight of numbers argument to accept the truth of the claim for Mohammed's  night journey?

Because when it comes to religiouns he doesn't believe he uses the same tools we do to dispassionately evaluate them and logically conclude's they don't represent reality. What when applied to the new testament is hyper-pseudo-sceptical becomes only right and proper when applied to the qu'ran or the bhagavad ghita.

Because there is not evidence for these other religions in which to examine!!!!!!

Go ahead, give me some specific evidence for any of your examples and I will walk you through it.