Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

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). 

In future, when responding to my posts, please don't bring up fallacies that you don't think I'm making.

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.

The only thing I have added is what I've learned about how errors and exaggerations creep into word-of-mouth narratives almost inevitably. That's not 'post-fact' it's a reasonable acknowledgment of human fallibility in communication and tendency to embellish in story telling. It's why, when determining what weight to give an historical claim, we look for independent corroboration of the events in question. It would have been mind-blowing if the Romans or Samaritans or Sanhedrin reported the dead rising in Jerusalem, clearly something extraordinary happened with that kind of corroboration that demand nearly obsessive research. But if only members of a particular religious sect report it and no one else corroborates it, then we should not accept it just on the basis of that one sect's claim.

It's extraordinary that people would believe that events must have occurred just as they were later written down with no reasonable fact-checking possible (or interest in doing so), but the evidence that they do is also extraordinary, so I am forced to accept it.

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).

I'm not particularly attached to a literal interpretation, I certainly don't think that way anymore. In my opinion, literalists are taking on a foolish burden, such as having to explain away frivolous inconsistencies.

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).

If I've misunderstood the role of the Council of Nicea in formalizing the biblical cannon, I appreciate the correction.