Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

Acts, of all things...Acts?  Even batshit christer scholarship recognizes that Acts is ahistorical.......

[Astonished]

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.

The gospels are still the goddamn buttfucking claim, asshole. How the fuck are you still not comprehending this? In what way does any of it support an actual supernatural anything happening? All you're spouting is utter nonsense. If a shitty propaganda book happens to coincidentally get a few things right (enough people had to have worked on it that there was bound to be some; a broken clock is still right twice a day) does that mean 100% of it is true? If so, why aren't Spider-Man and Superman real? Do you not understand how a child can see through this? Does that not strike you that something might be wrong with you or your position?

Learn what real evidence is. Get a grip about what's a claim and what's evidence in support of a claim, pretty big fucking difference. Stop assuming your conclusion (a fallacy, BTW) and try to reach it with this 'proof', I guarantee you won't get there.

[Jehanne]

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.

Steve, I want you to list the secondary sources that claim that Jesus was the Son of God, and no sources from believers. That's like polling Muslim scholars on the inspiration of the Quran.

[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.

[Amarok]

Q, M and L don't exist and the 27 gospels are copies of it other with made up details . As for acts it's not historical . And yes they did contradict each other on most primary idea's so your full of shit . And no most of the main idea's about Jesus were not known before the gospels that pig shit. And the things that were persevered from the contrary . The gospels are full of red flags that no other document would pass. Paul does not get a start of innocence no historian does that why we study there work .The bible is not unique and even if were it's would not make a difference. No the record is shoddy as hell and the witnesses account could not be more suspect .  I could go on but this shits been debunked by actual historians (like carrier) So I find it like correcting a creationist . It not hyper skepticism it's having actual standards unlike you who wants comforting stories.

[RoadRunner79]

So a hypothetical question. A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room (say 11 people in total) I'm trying to have a discussion with Tazzy, and he just keeps calling me names, refuses to engage in anything, and just repeats back any accusation I make without even paying attention to the context. (you know the child's game of I know you are but what am I). I lose it, and hit him over the head with a chair, seriously injuring him (blind sided him of course). No one lets me leave, until the cops get there. Everyone gives slightly different accounts. Some seen the whole thing, some where distracted until the ruckus broke out. But everyone reports the same story, that I maliciously injured Tazzy. And their is no other evidence, with which to identify me as the culprit.

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? If the nightly news didn't cover it, does that negate the others claims (after all what self respecting news reporter is going to air a story without evidence)? Do we need a scientist to duplicate the event in a lab in order to evidence the story? Do we need to find someone in the room that doesn't believe the claim, but corroborates it? Do their accounts need to include mundane details about who I am, like I fart on the bus and blame other people. Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence.

Now none of this is true, it's a hypothetical. Don't worry Tazzy, I don't wish you any ill will, and actually pray for your wellbeing. However the reasoning behind an answer doesn't rely on it being real (just like substituting a variable into an equation).

How would you honestly answer, not trying to divert or dodge the issue.

[Amarok]

So just keep repeating Road

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean, everyone says you did it, but somehow the fingerprints aren't on the chair?  Sounds like a lynching to me. -and yeah, if they wanted to make the case stick, they;d get a lab to confirm that your paws were on the chair. I do think it;s amusing, though, how often the courthouse thing comes up, which isn't even remotely the standard of evidence we're discussing....but particularly since eyewitness testimony is demonstrably unreliable and recognized as such even in the case of actual events, rather than retold myths and legends. Yes, it's your story against theirs...and if that's all it is, you'd have a pretty good chance of getting off scott free. Assuming you're the right shade of lipstick, ofc.

Happens all the time. "He hit me" "No I didn't" - Get the fuck out of here both of you and don;t make me come back.

[KevinM1]

Documents that purport to being factual accounts require some form of independent corroboration in order to verify their claims.

You mean like other documents? Then you're going to tell me those other documents are claims too that require more documents to support their claims and so on into infinity. That's why the meme is bullshit. We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events. We have several letters discussing those people, places and events. We have historian writing about the central figure mentioned in the 4 gospels and the several letters. We have archaeological evidence for some of those people, like Pilate, and places, like the pool of Bethesda. etc. etc.

You know what's nice? Reading the rest of my post. Maybe then you'll see that I make the distinction between a historical Jesus and a magical one, implicitly accepting the former.

I mean, that's weak sauce even for you.

I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation of how "a litany of mundane evidence ergo the supernatural" is logical.

[Amarok]

You mean, everyone says you did it, but somehow the fingerprints aren't on the chair?  Sounds like a lynching to me. -and yeah, if they wanted to make the case stick, they;d get a lab to conform that your paws were on the chair.  I do think it;s amusing, though, how often the courthouse things comes up...since eyewitness testimony is demonstrably unreliable and recognized as such.

No need like Steve and Wooter he has already hung himself