Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

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. 

The tax code is great evidence for the fact that taxes exist.

You're getting closer--I can see where you are going with this: The tax code NT is great evidence for the fact that taxes the supernatural exists. 

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). 

But Christians treat it as one story. I'm certainly entitled to hold those that do to their own standard.

And if you don't think that all those books tell one story, then aren't you justifying cherry-picking?

You asked "Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine?" I pointed out that your question was malformed. 

Now you pivot to "one story". Wouldn't it be cause for concern if all these books told us more than "one story"? I think it's more convincing that it is "one story". 

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.

No, my problem is that eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. The fact that the content of the claim is so absurd only raises the bar for evidence, meaning that eyewitness claims which have suffered many translation, edits, insertions, and forgeries are only that much more unreliable.

If you have eyewitness testimony stating that on Tuesday morning Joe, the baker at the local breadshop, baked seventeen loaves of bread, hey, I'm good with it. Bakers bake bread. We can probably find an inventory sheet showing that, too.

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

You cannot do that, and you know it.

Not accepting the eyewitness claims in the NT is fine--I don't find that an unreasonable position. However, your misconceptions and fringe theories that I marked above is just that--misconceptions and fringe theories with no real evidence.