Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

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?

---

If you are just answering as a possibility, then I think that is fair to the question that was asked.  As I had said I didn't like the question for precisely this reason.   However, I think to get from what is possible to a rational conclusion it needs to be supported by evidence and reason.

As to my reference to begging the question.   This was more of an if statement.   And even if you do beg the question, I don't have a problem, as long as you own up to it, and don't expect me to follow bad reasoning.  It wasn't meant as a prediction or guessing your motives, but rather as a qualifier (I think we would agree, that begging the question is poor logic). 

As to a post-facts approach, I do think I see a little of that in there; although you can correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.   But I would disagree, that you came to that "possibility" (you gave before) from the Gospels.  That is because I too have read the Gospels, and I believe that pretty much everything to make your case, is not in there.  Therefore it came from somewhere else.  I would even go as far as to claim, that what was added, is not based on any historical reasons at all (that I am aware of anyway).  It sounded somewhat familiar to soundbites, avoiding the facts to advance a particular narrative.  If I am understanding, then feel free to correct me.  And from what you said above, I lean a little less in this direction, that you just advanced a possibility, and are really unsure.

A couple of notes for you to consider:
First:  Your main reason mentioned above is inconsistencies and you referenced what I assume is a strict literalness upbringing.  The truth or historicity of the Biblical account does not rest on inerrancy.  In fact, of multiple accounts, it is to be expected that their may be some inconsistencies, but generally tell of the same events.  I haven't heard any great inconsistencies, where I think inerrancy needs to come into question, but that can be a conversation for  another time.  Some of the pointed to inconsistencies are just frivolous claims, which I believe actually detract from ones argument.  Others have some merit, but I think only when viewing it in a highly technical way, that it is not meant.  (As Neo mentioned, the writing style of Plutarch, but more generally, just everyday use of language, that we normally wouldn't question).

Second:  the "fanciful gospel texts" where not rejected at the Council of Nicea.  There where 20 canons of this council, and there is no indication that any of them discussed  which books should be in the bible.  A number of lists where made throughout the years, as to which writings belonged in the class of Scripture.  From well before, to well after, these haven't varied all that much.  There was accepted writings, that virtually no one challenged, disputed writings, and heretical writings.  The accepted writings are largely quoted by the early Church writings.  The disputed writings, consisted largely of the smaller epistles which really don't change much of anything.  Eusebius seemed to place Revelations somewhere between the disputed and accepted category.  And the book of Hebrews was disputed to some extent  as well (to my knowledge, because they where not sure of the Author).