Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Harry Nevis]

Liar.  You have 1 gospel, with two copycats and a re-write.  There is only one story.  What is now known as "mark."

WOW! I had no idea anyone still believed that theory from, what, 40 years ago. You should read more contemporary sources.

Have apologists gotten better at bullshitting? Nothing new has happened in 40 years that lends the tiniest amount of credence to your claim.

---

Why don't you guys just be honest and admit that you would never accept any miraculous event no matter how well sourced?

When you admit that you got nothing but an emotional need and popular support for your stories.

---

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.

There is no evidence that cannot be explained by more common and reasonable means.  No outside corroborating evidence for anything supernatural.  Call what is left evidence if you like, but you know damn well what we are saying.  You just like to latch on to some stupid piece of semantic to feel like your holding your own in this thread.  You're not.

---

So...you're using your book to answer questions about your book, lol.  Got it.

The question I was answering is how do we know about God. I don't really see how your non-discussion, peanut-gallery-level comment applies.

And that's the problem.  You really don't see.

---

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

You are wrong. The Claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. The gospels catalog the claim. Acts gives researched historical data about the early church. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim. A second point on this simplistic understanding: The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim

There is also plenty of secondary and tertiary evidence I began to touch on above.

"Palaeological gold"?!  I wonder how many paleontologists agree...