Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

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...

1. I'm not sure that some having a faulty idea of God is evidence of anything other than having a faulty idea of God. How far back is the oldest known religion (4000-5000 years) ? Not that far in the grand scheme of things. If you believe any parts of the OT, then there is a remnant/thread that did have specific knowledge that persisted until this day. 

2-4. I'm reading the words man...they are not Essenes communities. Even Bart Erhman thinks the NT is 99% what it was originally. Paul wrote mainly to gentiles. 

7. Sure, there are going to be similarities between Jewish teachers in that era. I am looking at the differences. The series of events that Jesus kicked off plus the content of his message (including who he claimed to be, miracles, being the atonement for our sins) set him off quite a bit. Remember, the Jews were looking for a political messiah so speculation was easy when a prominent political figure arose.

---

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?

---

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.

Yes, but I assumed you did not go with the version that does miracles, forgives sins, claims to be God, and died for our atonement and rose again. How would you characterize all those things? Myth? Lies?

---

As I said to Harry, if you say my list is not evidence, you are making a claim that you have knowledge of an alternate explanation to everything I listed

I'd like to expand on my response to this.  You are attempting to shift burden of proof here.  I do NOT need a verified alternative explanation for any of the supernatural claims made within the pages of the Bible in order to reject them.  No one is obligated to offer defeaters.  A jury deliberating over a man accused of murder does not need to know who the actual murderer is in order to reach a verdict of "not guilty."   All they need is reasonable doubt.  

"The claims in my book are true because the characters in my book claim that they're true," is, at best, a circular argument no matter how you slice it.  You're right, Steve.  The Bible IS evidence of something.  It's evidence of the claims.  But, that doesn't tell us very much now, does it?

I did not shift the burden of proof. You did when you said there was no evidence in the face of some evidence. In your analogy, that would be you stating that the accused murderer did not do it (rather than you do not know). 

The fact that you call it 'a book' shows you don't know what you are talking about.