Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I base this possible conclusion (it's just an example, as was requested, there are many other possible interpretations of the contents of the NT) from my frequent readings of the gospels. Even that conclusion is very tentative, as there's virtually nothing in terms of corroborative evidence of the events in the gospels outside of the gospels except more fanciful gospel texts that the Council of Nicea rejected for inclusion it the Bible, but textual analysis leads me to lean towards there having been a real person behind the legend of Jesus, whose baptism by John and whose crucifixion and circumstances of birth required explaining. For the record, I was a true believer when I first read the gospels, if I had any bias, it was towards it being true; but I noticed inconsistencies and I had been raised to be a literalist, so I did more research, which didn't make it seem any more likely to actually be a true and objective account of events in the first place.

Do you know how to make a post without referring to the motivations you imagine other people have for not posting what you think they should?

Please be specific: How is it begging the question? How is it a 'post-facts' approach?

---

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.

I didn't go with myth. I went with an historical Jesus.