Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

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.

This is akin to arguing that taxation is a natural part of reality, and that Federal law only "catalogs" it. It's an idiotic argument. [1] Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine? [2] That's right, you cannot.

And that means that semantics aside, the Bible is the claim. And that means that pointing to it as evidence that the claims it "catalogs" is circular reasoning. [3]

I've already got every reason to think poorly of viewpoint -- you consider eyewitness testimony accurate when every first-year psychology student knows otherwise (and has been shown as much by a staged event arranged by the professor.) [4] The only thing this post does is convince me even more that you and your views merit little if any attention.

1. That isn't even close to being analogous. The tax code does not catalog events that happened--it establishes guidelines for classifying and taxing transactions. 

2. Since the 'Bible' is a collection of 66 books written by 40 some authors over 1500 years, your reasoning goes flying out the window. You see, there is no justification you can use to treat the Bible or the NT as one thing. It wasn't and never will be one thing. Let me re-write your sentence so that it reflects the reality of the situation:

"Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation which asserts that JC was divine?"

To which I would say that scholars believe there was also Q and possibly M and L. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement and more the 12 others that did not make the "canon cut" that were still written in the lifetime of witnesses (before 100AD). 

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.