Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

The Damascus Road bullshit story appears only in Acts and Acts is, well.....

THE EVIDENCE OF ACTS
1 . Acts as Historical Fiction
The book of Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical
fiction. 1


Pg 359  On The Historicity of Jesus, Richard Carrier

Before some jesus freak shitwit jumps up screeching about how Carrier "hates" god I left the footnote in and print below the text of the note.

1 . See Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008);
and Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009),
for the most thorough accounting of this fact (see especially the latter, pp. 17-18),
with substantial support in Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The
lntertextua/ Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix,
2004), esp. pp. 377-445 (on Acts specifically); Dennis MacDonald, Does the New
Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2003); and John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable:
How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 201 2),
pp. 196-217. See also Clare Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An
Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (TDbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004);
Loveday Alexander, 'Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts', New Testament Studies 44
(1998), pp. 380-99; and P.E. Satterthwaite, 'Acts against the Background of Classical
Rhetoric', in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce Winter and
Andrew Clarke; Grand Rapids, Ml: Will iam B. Eerdmans, 1 993), pp. 337-80. There are
conservatives who protest, but not with logicaJiy valid arguments.

So, sorry assholes.  It is not just one guy telling you that your book is a pile of shit.  There are many.

In some reviews of this particular argument, it is interesting, because the reviewer notes that some of the citations would not agree with the distinction that Carrier makes.
And while it is good to have some corroboration for your thoughts, it's not a popularity contest, but about the why and the reasons for the conclusion.

There are also a number of scholars, who say that Luke/Acts is a good historical document.  And they cite historical reasons for their claim.  That Luke is generally well validated in historical facts concerning the time and location.  Some things where questioned in the past, but have since been corroborated. Others compare Luke's method to other's considered in the historical genre of the time, and find it to be consistent with that period.  It's not the same as modern standards (citation and sources), but fit's the standards of the time.  Interestingly, it seems that most of the disputes appear mostly to be with other books withing the Bible.  I think that some of these are overly critical, but each should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

On the other hand, while I only looked at reviews of Carriers talks and arguments concerning this (both pro and con).   I question some of his attempts to making a mythicism connection.  Because there is a large voyage near the beginning of Acts, seems like a stretch to make the claim that it is historical fiction.  The story of the Titantic starts out with a large voyage, and by making grandiose claims.   It too, also has a fictional story, written prior, which has remarkable similarities (including the name of the ship and it's claims).  Yet I doubt that Carrier applies the same reasoning here (or he would be laughed at).

However, it's not about who is making the argument, how many agree with them, or their position.  It's about the reasons for the conclusion.  Now most of what I have seen in regards to Carrier for this, have not been very good reasoning in my opinion.  But I'll let you make the case, for what you think the best evidence is for this claim, and to present it.

[Harry Nevis]

I agree, I find it frustrating that Steve thinks he has this though.

If his bullshit was so obvious we would all believe. So he either thinks we are in wilful denial or that we are fibbers. Or, and he won't accept this, he may be wrong.

You repeatedly miss my point. I don't care if you don't find the evidence compelling. I argue against those who are confused about what a claim of "no evidence" means and I discuss things with those who want to discuss the evidence there is. As it pertains to this thread, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

No one is confused.  You're hung up on you definition of evidence. We're hung up on the fact that none of what you call evidence is nothing more than evidence that people believed.  There is no outside corroborating evidence and nothing that doesn't have a more likely explanation.  You decided that this evidence points only to god.  The evidence didn't lead you there.

[Mister Agenda]

The claims of Jesus aren't truly known, only what was eventually written down about what he was said to have said. There's no way of discerning his own words from words put in his mouth by followers who wanted the deified version of their teacher to be ascendant. I doubt it was added later, more likely the sayings of Jesus were mixed with those of previous or contemporary teachers very early in the oral tradition.

---

The very story you're trying to defend as accurate in every jot and tittle illustrates that the Jews had no authority to put anyone to death under Roman occupation.

---

Even the doctor was without schooling? Since the disciples didn't actually write the gospels, there's no reason to drag them into it. They weren't around to make corrections.

---

You seem to have a very distorted idea of how long it takes for events to be mythologized. It can happen in a very short time, and it's easy to find documented examples of that sort of thing happening in the last hundred years, including people who walked around healing pretty much anyone who touched them (and who weren't remarkably religious, they were just novel to the locals). It only takes a minute to tell someone a version of events that is inaccurate and the version that spreads by word of mouth is the version that is most dramatic and entertaining.

---

Your arguments seem to be based on personal incredulity, for the most part.


I thought you said the disciples were too unschooled to do sophisticated theology?


You so often cite how many scholars agree with you that it didn't occur to me that you would actually think the Gospel of Luke was written by the apostle Luke. How many scholars agree with you on that?


You're the only one proposing a conspiracy. I guess that's easier to argue against than what I actually proposed. Paul joined in on an existing movement and seems to not have known about some of the events of the gospels.


That those beliefs are central to Christianity is not in question. Whether the resurrection and everything else in the gospels actually happened is what is in question.


1. You don't have to prove it to yourself, true. What are all your posts on the topic for, then?

1.1 You are explaining a theory that has no reason to believe it other than the supernatural content. This is where the OP comes in. Regular evidence points to Jesus pretty much said what they said he said. 

1.2 Unfortunately they didn't get the memo before they stoned Stephen. 

1.3 Luke was not a disciple. Why weren't the disciples around to review the documents before they were copied and sent out. The actual disciple probably did not sit down with a quill. 

2.3 No. Personal incredulity is not understanding something...therfore no. This is simply inferrence to the best explanation. You have to admit that if these events happened, then the simplest explanation is that it happened as it was claimed. 

3. Luke was not a disciple. Never met Jesus. See Luke 1. He "set out to write an orderly account."

4. No, I am pointing out that if you deny that the events unfolded they way they are laid out, that that's what you are stuck with. You have a timeframe and real characters that would have known the truth interacting and producing results that are nearly certainly true (the first century church and the documents we have are largely the way they were to begin with). Either it is true or it was a conspiracy.

I'm curious what you think Paul did not know that was material to all this.

5. That is the question. 

1...Combat bad reasoning among my atheist friends (for their own good).

Thanks for correcting me about Luke. The rest of your response is pretty amazing.

---

I didn't go with myth. I went with an historical Jesus.

Yes, but I assumed you did not go with the version that does miracles, forgives sins, claims to be God, and died for our atonement and rose again. How would you characterize all those things? Myth? Lies?

Since the 'mythicist' position is that Jesus didn't really exist, you're introducing a needless element of confusion between the 'mythicist' and 'historicist' positions. No, I wasn't going with the version that actually violated the laws of biology and physics. You specifically requested an account that didn't do that.

What does it take to justify rational belief in true miracles? More than stories about them.

And I would hesitate to characterize all of those things as one thing because they don't all fall into the same category. I expect Jesus forgave sins, possibly may have claimed to be God, though I personally suspect those words were put in his mouth in the re-telling; he most likely died because he got in trouble with the Romans and his followers added meaning to his death by making it an atoning sacrifice, he may have survived the crucifixion; people were declaring other people dead mistakenly pretty frequently back then; and it would actually explain why he 'died' so quickly when the process usually takes days, and why it was so important to get him off the cross and into a tomb when the Roman practice was to leave those crucified up until they rotted enough to fall off. If it was the case that there was a conspiracy to rescue Jesus by drugging him, it would be a lie. If he was in a deep coma without drugs being involved, all concerned could reasonably and honestly suppose he rose from the dead, given the medical knowledge of the time. Or it could have been like when Elvis died and people started seeing him everywhere, in which case it's legend (rather than myth). Only one of these resurrection scenarios requires an intent to deceive, and the object of the deceit would have been the Romans.

All that is speculative, but they're natural alternatives to your version, which is what you demanded.

[LadyForCamus]

I would like to hear Steve take a crack at answering Cecelia's questions regarding the content of his holy book; questions that were posed specifically to him, that shine the light directly on why this book is NOT evidence that a god exists, and that he simply brushed off the table with a, "you just don't know what you're talking about." Go ahead, Steve. We're waiting.

[Mister Agenda]

I base this possible conclusion (it's just an example, as was requested, there are many other possible interpretations of the contents of the NT) from my frequent readings of the gospels. Even that conclusion is very tentative, as there's virtually nothing in terms of corroborative evidence of the events in the gospels outside of the gospels except more fanciful gospel texts that the Council of Nicea rejected for inclusion it the Bible, but textual analysis leads me to lean towards there having been a real person behind the legend of Jesus, whose baptism by John and whose crucifixion and circumstances of birth required explaining. For the record, I was a true believer when I first read the gospels, if I had any bias, it was towards it being true; but I noticed inconsistencies and I had been raised to be a literalist, so I did more research, which didn't make it seem any more likely to actually be a true and objective account of events in the first place.

Do you know how to make a post without referring to the motivations you imagine other people have for not posting what you think they should?

Please be specific: How is it begging the question? How is it a 'post-facts' approach?

---

If you are just answering as a possibility, then I think that is fair to the question that was asked.  As I had said I didn't like the question for precisely this reason.   However, I think to get from what is possible to a rational conclusion it needs to be supported by evidence and reason.

As to my reference to begging the question.   This was more of an if statement.   And even if you do beg the question, I don't have a problem, as long as you own up to it, and don't expect me to follow bad reasoning.  It wasn't meant as a prediction or guessing your motives, but rather as a qualifier (I think we would agree, that begging the question is poor logic). 

In future, when responding to my posts, please don't bring up fallacies that you don't think I'm making.

As to a post-facts approach, I do think I see a little of that in there; although you can correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.   But I would disagree, that you came to that "possibility" (you gave before) from the Gospels.  That is because I too have read the Gospels, and I believe that pretty much everything to make your case, is not in there.  Therefore it came from somewhere else.  I would even go as far as to claim, that what was added, is not based on any historical reasons at all (that I am aware of anyway).  It sounded somewhat familiar to soundbites, avoiding the facts to advance a particular narrative.  If I am understanding, then feel free to correct me.  And from what you said above, I lean a little less in this direction, that you just advanced a possibility, and are really unsure.

The only thing I have added is what I've learned about how errors and exaggerations creep into word-of-mouth narratives almost inevitably. That's not 'post-fact' it's a reasonable acknowledgment of human fallibility in communication and tendency to embellish in story telling. It's why, when determining what weight to give an historical claim, we look for independent corroboration of the events in question. It would have been mind-blowing if the Romans or Samaritans or Sanhedrin reported the dead rising in Jerusalem, clearly something extraordinary happened with that kind of corroboration that demand nearly obsessive research. But if only members of a particular religious sect report it and no one else corroborates it, then we should not accept it just on the basis of that one sect's claim.

It's extraordinary that people would believe that events must have occurred just as they were later written down with no reasonable fact-checking possible (or interest in doing so), but the evidence that they do is also extraordinary, so I am forced to accept it.

A couple of notes for you to consider:
First:  Your main reason mentioned above is inconsistencies and you referenced what I assume is a strict literalness upbringing.  The truth or historicity of the Biblical account does not rest on inerrancy.  In fact, of multiple accounts, it is to be expected that their may be some inconsistencies, but generally tell of the same events.  I haven't heard any great inconsistencies, where I think inerrancy needs to come into question, but that can be a conversation for  another time.  Some of the pointed to inconsistencies are just frivolous claims, which I believe actually detract from ones argument.  Others have some merit, but I think only when viewing it in a highly technical way, that it is not meant.  (As Neo mentioned, the writing style of Plutarch, but more generally, just everyday use of language, that we normally wouldn't question).

I'm not particularly attached to a literal interpretation, I certainly don't think that way anymore. In my opinion, literalists are taking on a foolish burden, such as having to explain away frivolous inconsistencies.

Second:  the "fanciful gospel texts" where not rejected at the Council of Nicea.  There where 20 canons of this council, and there is no indication that any of them discussed  which books should be in the bible.  A number of lists where made throughout the years, as to which writings belonged in the class of Scripture.  From well before, to well after, these haven't varied all that much.  There was accepted writings, that virtually no one challenged, disputed writings, and heretical writings.  The accepted writings are largely quoted by the early Church writings.  The disputed writings, consisted largely of the smaller epistles which really don't change much of anything.  Eusebius seemed to place Revelations somewhere between the disputed and accepted category.  And the book of Hebrews was disputed to some extent  as well (to my knowledge, because they where not sure of the Author).

If I've misunderstood the role of the Council of Nicea in formalizing the biblical cannon, I appreciate the correction.

[Pat Mustard]

1.1 You are explaining a theory that has no reason to believe it other than the supernatural content. This is where the OP comes in. Regular evidence points to Jesus pretty much said what they said he said. 

1.2 Unfortunately they didn't get the memo before they stoned Stephen. 

1.3 Luke was not a disciple. Why weren't the disciples around to review the documents before they were copied and sent out. The actual disciple probably did not sit down with a quill. 

2.3 No. Personal incredulity is not understanding something...therfore no. This is simply inferrence to the best explanation. You have to admit that if these events happened, then the simplest explanation is that it happened as it was claimed. 

3. Luke was not a disciple. Never met Jesus. See Luke 1. He "set out to write an orderly account."

4. No, I am pointing out that if you deny that the events unfolded they way they are laid out, that that's what you are stuck with. You have a timeframe and real characters that would have known the truth interacting and producing results that are nearly certainly true (the first century church and the documents we have are largely the way they were to begin with). Either it is true or it was a conspiracy.

I'm curious what you think Paul did not know that was material to all this.

5. That is the question. 

1...Combat bad reasoning among my atheist friends (for their own good).

Thanks for correcting me about Luke. The rest of your response is pretty amazing.

---

Yes, but I assumed you did not go with the version that does miracles, forgives sins, claims to be God, and died for our atonement and rose again. How would you characterize all those things? Myth? Lies?

Since the 'mythicist' position is that Jesus didn't really exist, you're introducing a needless element of confusion between the 'mythicist' and 'historicist' positions. No, I wasn't going with the version that actually violated the laws of biology and physics. What does it take to justify rational belief in true miracles? More than stories about them.

And I would hesitate to characterize all of those things as one thing because they don't all fall into the same category. I expect Jesus forgave sins, possibly may have claimed to be God, though I personally suspect those words were put in his mouth in the re-telling; he most likely died because he got in trouble with the Romans and his followers added meaning to his death by making it an atoning sacrifice, he may have survived the crucifixion; people were declaring other people dead mistakenly pretty frequently back then; and it would actually explain why he 'died' so quickly when the process usually takes days, and why it was so important to get him off the cross and into a tomb when the Roman practice was to leave those crucified up until they rotted enough to fall off. If it was the case that there was a conspiracy to rescue Jesus by drugging him, it would be a lie. If he was in a deep coma without drugs being involved, all concerned could reasonably and honestly suppose he rose from the dead, given the medical knowledge of the time. Or it could have been like when Elvis died and people started seeing him everywhere, in which case it's legend (rather than myth).  Only one of these resurrection scenarios requires an intent to deceive, and the object of the deceit would have been the Romans.

All that is speculative, but they're natural alternatives to your version, which is what you demanded.

On the whole "claiming to be god" thing, the gospels go from Yeshua giving out over his disciples making that claim on his behalf in Mark (suggesting the earliest sects were most definitely jewish) to John literally having Jesus proclaim himself god (I'll note here that most of christian anti-semitism ultimately originates in the gospel of John).

Edit: also why crucifiction? Yeshua according to the bible wasn't convicted under Roman law (essentially crucifiction happened under serious crimes against the state or important personages only) but Sanhedric religious law. As he wasn't convicted by Rome they wouldn't have executed him and jewish law perscribes stoning or lynching in capital cases.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree, I find it frustrating that Steve thinks he has this though.

If his bullshit was so obvious we would all believe. So he either thinks we are in wilful denial or that we are fibbers. Or, and he won't accept this, he may be wrong.

You repeatedly miss my point. I don't care if you don't find the evidence compelling. I argue against those who are confused about what a claim of "no evidence" means and I discuss things with those who want to discuss the evidence there is. As it pertains to this thread, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

"Extraordinarily robust evidence" is the verbose term. A bald assertion can be claimed to be "evidence", but it's bad evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

30 pages in, and still all we have to discuss is magic book?  That's not extraordinary evidence, it;s not even ordinary evidence..it's remains as it always has been, no evidence.

[SteveII]

And what's the believer's claim? First, there is a god, an entity that sits outside of the Universe and that is capable of creating Universes. My first knee jerk reaction is, of course, How would you know about that?! How did that information reach you? From where did that information come? How was it conveyed?
What sort of evidence do you expect to provide to answer these questions?
For all these knee jerk questions, the believer, at best, can tell me something along the lines of "divine inspiration". That's covering up a plot-hole with another hole. How do you know it's divine inspiration and not imagination? How can you distinguish the two?
Some will go further and point to the absence of knowledge concerning the origin of the Universe and then present their solution, as if it doesn't have to answer those first questions. Many, many, many alternatives can be presented for the origin of the Universe... How to discern the correct one?

Even without these questions answered - questions that pertain only to the information conveyed to you concerning this god - I can go to questions about the god itself. What is it? How does it generate Universes? Does it control the Universes it creates? Does it have companion gods? How can I interact with it?
None of these is satisfactorily answered by any religion.
The last question is asking about evidence... how can I gather my own evidence about this entity, without having to resort to you as a gateway? I don't even want you to give me evidence for that entity, I want to do it myself. Actually, I just want to know how to do it myself. Once that mechanism is understood and considered trustworthy, then I can accept your interactions with said deity.

Is this taken care of?
Of course not!!
Still, you then go on to claim stuff about a person who lived 2000 years ago. Centuries after my knee jerk reaction failed to be answered. Even without it being answered, tons of people became believers in some form or other of deity.
Having a population of believers, it's not a stretch to make them believe in something further about the same deity they already believe in... and thus evolve the religion.

First, I think if there is a God you can reasonably assume that at some point he would reveal himself. Not just say "hey, I'm here" but to give some sort of reason or purpose for the existence we are experiencing. I think this is done in a several ways in this specific order:

1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT. 

The four points build on the previous and become more focused. That is why the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

Second, I don't think that the doctrine of divine inspiration (God guiding the mind of the writer) is necessary here. All of the above could be accomplished without it. Using inspiration in an argument is just question begging. Rather it is a useful doctrine to discuss after the basics are already believed/established.

[The Grand Nudger]

Question begging, lol..you know...so is assuming that there's a god who reveals himself in order to claim that there's a book in which god reveals himself in order to establish that there's a god...who reveals himself.  Not that you'd let that stop you, ofc.

Magic book requires magical thinking in order to conclude magic. Surprise surprise.

So, lacking in extraordinary evidence, or even ordinary evidence, you seek to "establish" god by......what? Fundamentally flawed "argument"? Why not just stop where it all began and ends anyway. You believe.