Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Cecelia]

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.

1. You are trusting the recipients, of which you know nothing about.   As I said, we can at least say we know L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer.  We know Tom Cruise is an actor.  We know nothing about who wrote the bible, or who took these books in the first place, or even how they were compiled.  That alone is a good reason to doubt.

2. Who cares what the Churches believed?  Pagans believed in their gods too.

3. Confirmation Bias, Confirmation Bias, Confirmation Bias.

4. Not a question.  A fact.  Those claims are just claims.

5. Yes, Harry Potter described the human condition, and fulfilled prophecies.  more accurately, I might add, than the bible.

6. K.  Khemical iis Jesus.  Can you prove he's not?  Innocent until proven guilty!  We should just take his word for it.

7.  If people today--with all the technology we have--can claim that Elvis is still alive, then there's no reason to believe people back then wouldn't have said the same thing without having actually seen it.  It's an alternate explanation.  Of course there's another explanation: those witnesses never existed.  Can you prove that they did, without using the bible or sources that use the bible as a source?

8. See 1

9. I'm not asking for electronic recording.  But why should I believe eyewitnesses that I can neither question nor authenticate their actual existence?  I don't care how many witnesses someone claims to have.  They don't matter one lick, unless you can authenticate that they actually exist.  The eyewitness accounts themselves are nothing but a claim that themselves are unproven.