Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

1. Here is a recap on the evidence we have:

[1]- Documentary--books, letters (both actual and inferred-by careful textual examination)
[2]- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
[3]- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
[4]- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
[5]- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
[6]- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
[7]- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.


[8]3. We know quite well who wrote most of the NT. The books that we are unsure of, at least we know what group they came from. That is NOT to say the people who first started copying these texts did not know where they came from. In addition, the books we do not know NOW exactly who wrote them, they agree with and compliment the others. 

[9]4 Except the eyewitnesses that wrote books/letters like John/Peter/James and the other eyewitnesses mentioned all throughout Luke and Acts (which was written specifically as a investigative account) that interacted with Paul and the churches.

[10]5. I am not trying to spin anything. I am discussing a premise that there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

1- Which books?  Which letters?  Who wrote them?  What makes them reliable?  There's too many questions.  And from which time period are these books and letters?  How can you possibly authenticate them?

2- Not evidence.  Churches exist.  So what?  So do temples, and mosques, and the Parthenon. 

3- The stated goals of their words are meaningless.  How can you discern their actual goals without knowing anything about the people who originally wrote the texts?  

4- Jesus' claims are just that.  Claims that are themselves unproven.  

5- A lot of books resonate with people.  Harry Potter resonated with me.  Does that mean Harry Potter is true!?  I've been a muggle all this time, and just never realized it I guess.

6- What makes Paul trustworthy?  Why should we trust him?  What do we even know about him, other than what he himself tells us?

7- Here's an alternate theory: People believed all sorts of stuff back then.  People believe all sorts of stuff today.  Some people believe Elvis is still alive.  Does this prove Elvis is actually still alive?

8- No, we don't know who wrote them.  We only know who the church claims wrote them--and who they themselves apparently claimed to be.  But that's all from their own words, nothing from anyone else.  Take Dianetics for example.  We know who wrote Dianetics.  I can tell you it was L. Ron Hubbard, and I can tell you he was a science fiction writer.  I can tell you this without reading Dianetics, and that's why I can trust the information.  It comes from multiple external sources.  Scientologists at the very least can know about L. Ron Hubbard, but nobody can really tell us anything about the supposed authors of the bible, without referring to the bible itself.

9- And what makes those eyewitnesses reliable?  You can't really tell me anything about any of those people without referring to the bible, or referring to something that uses the bible as a source.  Imagine me telling you some guy named Doug 3000 years ago wrote a book that said the earth was made by Turtles.  And two guys named Ted and Steve back him up.  Are you just going to accept their claims?  If not, then you can see why we don't accept your claims.  If so, then I ask you to look up gullible in the dictionary, because last I checked they removed it.

10- Now you're just spinning your spinning.  Extraordinary evidence would certainly be more than some eyewitnesses (which we can neither question, nor know anything about), a really old book that's inspired people, and the fact that we have buildings built in honor of said book.

Here's an example of what would be considered extraordinary evidence:

Jesus says that "Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven."

So... two Christians just need to pray, and cure cancer.  Or end world hunger.  Or do something  extraordinary like that.  It'd be a good start in any case.

Setting aside the fact that if you claim there is no evidence, I should not have to answer these because you would have thoroughly evaluated these things in support of your claim that there is no evidence, it has been requested that I answer this more fully.

1. 27 books plus Q, possibly L and M as well. The fact that we don't know who wrote 3-4 of them does not mean what you think it means. Of course the recipients would have known the exact provenance of each. In the case of the three gospels, the people who copied the manuscripts for distribution only felt the need to record whose information was contained in the document (Matthew, Mark, John) and not the guy with the pen. Luke was not a disciple and intended to "write an orderly account" in Luke and Acts. If you want actual eyewitnesses with their names on the books, John, Peter, and James.
2. The churches believed the main facts about Jesus prior to the gospels and Paul's letters. This is evidence for the events in Acts way before Luke/Acts was written--which is 27% of the NT.
3. Context, context, context. In 60 years of these people's life following the resurrection of Jesus, no one diverted from their intended goals, never changed their mind/message ( even when it was not in their best interest), never contradicted themselves or each other in any substantive way, nothing to raise a red flag. That is quite a feat and is evidence of their conviction as to the truth of what they witnessed. 
4. That is the question now isn't it.
5. You ignored the other points in that sentence. Did Harry Potter seem to describe the human condition? We find a unique message, dovetailing with the OT, and fulfilling prophecy in a totally unexpected way--but in hindsight in a better way. 
6. Why isn't Paul exactly who he said he was? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What information do you have that affects Paul negatively in any way? The churches and the next generation of Christians honored and preserved his writings.
7. No, theories have explanatory power to explain the evidence we have. That is not what you are proposing. You are throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks because other people have told you there is no evidence.
8. See 1. Applying appropriate standards for first century documents, what we have is paleographic gold. 
9. Eyewitnesses is all you get prior to electronic recording. It is a thoroughly unreasonable position to dismiss it--hyperskepticism. 
10. I can't find a point in there that needs a response.