Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

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.

Thank you! Something to discuss!

Bold added. It seems you are going with myth. However, as I think I defend below, there was not sufficient time to be myth. It would have to be a lie on some people's part. 

1. The Message
1.1 The content of the message was not just be nice/aspire to serving one another. The claims of Jesus were specific (equal to God, can forgive sins, is the only path to God, able to give everlasting life, need for atonement, would be the sacrifice, judgment, etc.). Are you saying Jesus never said any of this and that this complex teaching was added later? This was 180 degrees from Judaism. 
1.2 If so, why? This was a long list of blasphemy that would get you killed by the Jews. When their world came crashing down on them at the crucifixion, what made the disciples say "I know, let's make life more difficult...". What gain/reason could they have anticipated (real or imagined)?
1.3 The disciples were simple people from simple walks of life without schooling. Were they capable of making up the complex theology framework that would be different than but dovetail with the OT? Would they be able to quote from and draw parallels to the OT, weave in a few prophesy fulfillments? 

2. Timing
2.1 There was insufficient time between the events and when people started writing stuff down for just plain myth. People would have had to start lying so the revised version of events were believed to be the facts (message, miracles, resurrection). 
2.2 Since there was one or more documents that preceded the gospels (Q, M, and/or L), they would have had to develop this new decidedly non-jewish religion from scratch fairly early on. Add to those Matthew/Mark/John and you have quite a body of body of claims all in the lifetime of rebuttal witnesses. How come there are no rebuttal witnesses (no miracles, no resurrection, etc.)?
2.3 The activities to get the churches started across the empire by at least 50-55 AD required that there be a critical mass of people to get things going fairly early on. There had to be an established narrative about Jesus' message, claims, miracles, death and resurrection.  In any case, there is again ample time for rebuttal eyewitness testimony in the 20 years leading up to Paul's letters.

3. Luke
3.1 A highly-educated Greek guy, who endeavored to write a chronicle of the events of the first decades or so, represents 27% of the NT. Was he part of the conspiracy when he related all the events of the life of Jesus and the early church history in Acts? 
3.2 If he was deceived, he was deceived by some pretty simple, uneducated people.
3.3 He wrote within the lifetime (and certainly within the collective memory) of possible rebuttal witnesses (he finished before Paul's death before 68AD). 
3.4 Luke mentions other written accounts he was aware of in Luke 1:1.

4. Is Paul part of this conspiracy? If so, he had some dedication!! Prison, shipwrecked, prison, death. To what end? If not, it is hard to classify 1 Corinthians 15 as mistaken--especially where he mentioned the eyewitnesses and then went on to discuss if Christ had not been raised from the dead. Was he also mistaken about Christ appearing to him on the road when he was a such a good Christian hunter.

5. Extra Biblical sources back up the gospels and the resurrection as being central to Christianity. 
5.1 Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermes, Theophilus, Hippolytus, Origen, Quadratus, Irenaeus, Melito, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatian, Caius, Athanasius, and Cyril.

---

Two things about that:

1. Most of the NT is not hearsay. John, Peter and James were eyewitnesses. Paul never related the events of Jesus' life. It is not necessarily true that 
2. Hearsay is evidence. So what you are saying is "I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay [evidence] as evidence..." 

So, you are making claims regarding the evidence that is not hearsay and you reject the hearsay evidence without reason (so you say)--in spite of accepting it in every other ancient historical account ever. 

1. You claim they were eyewitnesses.  Prove it.
2. It may be evidence, but it advances your claim not one bit.

1. See, I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is accept their testimony--testimony that is better than 99% of all historical documents. Don't accept it if you don't believe them. I have no reason to think they were lying. 
2. That's a stupid statement.