Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[pocaracas]

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


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.


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?


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?


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.


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?


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


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.


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. 

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?!!

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

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.

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.

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...

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. 

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!!

---

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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