Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

"Well, I;ve got this book...see...."

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.

Which churches, the one that survived or the many that were violently snuffed out?  How convenient for them, that they just so happened to believe in the right version of the story before they decided what version that was.

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. 

Well, except for all the ones they had to kill for being heretics...obviously

4. That is the question now isn't it.

Not really, it;s not like anyone knows what jesus claims were, if there was a jesus..as opposed to silly shit crammed into "god's" mouth.

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. 

OFC it describes the human condition, that;s why it's so damned successful........this is something that the two have in common, for reasons you will refuse to consider.

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.

"Paul" is innocent of the crime of having ever existed, just like jesus, does that count?

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.

It would be alot more difficult to maintain that statement if any of you, in all of recorded history and christendom, had ever managed to come up with any.

8. See 1. Applying appropriate standards for first century documents, what we have is paleographic gold. 

Conveniences abound..I;m sure the "appropriate" standards are whatever you might find amenable to fairy tales.

9. Eyewitnesses is all you get prior to electronic recording. It is a thoroughly unreasonable position to dismiss it--hyperskepticism. 

That's ridiculous.  It's as if archaeology doesn't exist in your world. It's as if anthropology doesn't exist in your world. You see, it;s not just your embarrassing inability to present any sort of evidence for your case...ordinary or extraordinary...it's the fact that all evidence converges -against- the claim, from absolutely every field of inquiry. It;s one of those things that...were it not for your deeply held beliefs and the continued survival of the tradition...two things that feature heavily even in your own rationalizations...no one would even be arguing it. When's the last time an apologist showed up to tell us we were all wrong about zeus...ala- "Well, I've got this book....see"? You certainly wouldn't be interested in being-that- guy, and somehow, I don't think you'd find him very convincing, -if- you could manage to take him seriously..........

Thing is, you're that guy.