Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

This.

I'd honestly like to hear Steve (or anyone liking Steve's posts) to address this.

Well, I cannot speak for Steve, but in my own case I think people need to look at the type of literature containing miracle accounts. Works of mythological or allegorical literature describe vague seemingly timeless settings and begin with phrases like "a long time ago in a gallexy far, far away...once upon a time" or even "in the beginning" like in Genesis. The Vedic texts, Sutras, and so-called Gnostic gospels are pretty much all like this. The canonical gospels are very different. They mention specific times and places using the narrative conventions of the period similar to Plutarch. The Pauline epistles are letters on par with other similar types of functional documents produced at around the same time. As such, the miracles found in the NT are presented to us as historical events, with the Resurrection in particular being prominently mentioned from in multiple places.

As for me I have no bias against the supernatural as such, so I see no reason to automatically rule them out simply because they are miraculous.

I think that this is at times neglected by some, in making comparisons. There is the context of the writer, and those who received the writing and how they viewed the document (as well as when). This is why I don't put much into the comparisons to stories that are regarded as fiction. It's making a statement, not an argument. For someone who wished to argue against the modern mythology of evolution , it's not sufficient to just make a comparison to science fiction. I agree, that most examples cannot be equated with the New Testament in this regard. The context and history are just not the same. And when it comes down to it, I think that with most who are willing to discuss, it will come down to an a priori rejection because of the content (miracles), rather than a historical reason for the rejection of parts or all of the text.

Somewhat connected; I did hear an interesting claim the other day. It was either in regard to Gary Habernas or Daniel Wallace, and was reference by another (Cannot remember which although this person does have access to both people). It was also unclear, if this was just an opinion or was actually stated by other scholars. But it was given, that the reason why many scholars try to late date the Gospels, is because of their high Christology and the prior belief that they must be the result of legend. Even with the late dates, it is difficult to attribute legend already (according to studies of how long it takes for legend to replace the facts). While this remark, I don't think was enough to base a firm conclusion on this alone (as I said, it was difficult to tell, if it may just be an opinion) and would require more investigation. I have always asked the question of why the maximum date (usually either a manuscript copy, or a quote by another author who's date of writing is affirmed) is assumed in arguments? Where this only tells us, that the original had to be written at some point prior to the reference or copy. Where as the minimum dates appear to be based more on historical information.

---

You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

An offshoot of Judaism formed around the beginning of the first century AD/last century BC that spoke to the common Jewish person under Roman domination and caught on. The movement was at least partially based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi known as Yeshua, who was once a follower of John the Baptist. He was a reputed miracle worker, believed to be accompanied by healings wherever he went. There were reports that this holy teacher was conceived out of wedlock, but such a holy man could not possibly have come from the loins of a fallen woman. Some went so far as to call him the Son of God, immaculately conceived. He ran afoul of the Roman authorities, possibly due to the machinations of the Sanhedrin, and was executed. His most devoted followers, the ones who considered him God's direct offspring, couldn't believe he was really dead, that God would allow his son to be killed like that. Soon, there were reports that he was still alive, that hundreds of people had seen him. A movement based on venerating the risen messiah grew over centuries and survives to the present day, though it now faces stiff competition from another religion originating in the Middle East.

I'll let Steve answer; as to his response. I wouldn't have worded the question as he did. My question, is what do you base this conclusion on (without begging the question)? I would think that this type of post-facts approach could be used to re-frame any number of things, and while it may be useful in a culture that want's things tailored to what they already believe, I don't think it is objective.