Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Amarok]

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Not the same category of person . And no jesus is not even close . This tired line of reason of comparing Jesus to actual historic figures is just tiresome.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that  skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

It's matters . And nope we have not abandoned anything by not accepting the far less likely claims of the miraculous. That's not begging the question that relying on what we already know . And what deviates or contradicts it.

[Astonished]

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Not the same category of person . And no jesus is not even close . This tired line of reason of comparing Jesus to actual historic figures is just tiresome.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that  skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

It's matters . And nope we have not abandoned anything by not accepting the far less likely claims of the miraculous. That's not begging the question that relying on what we already know . And what deviates or contradicts it.

Not to mention it matters not one whit. Any lessons we can learn from the stories about those guys are not contingent on them having actually existed. Without all the magic shit, the whole Jesus myth is impotent.

[Amarok]

Jesus is not the category as Cato he's Hercules .And comparing him to Cato is pure sophistry.

[Harry Nevis]

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that  skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

It wouldn't be objective to claim the supernatural may exist, after centuries of being shown how every instance has been thoroughly debunked and/or having no evidence beyond hearsay. Show me something concrete, some event that has no other possible explanation than that the supernatural exists, and I'll change my mind.  But, looking at its' track record, if it DOES exist, it may as well not for all the effect it has.

[KevinM1]

It's why I drew the distinction between Honest Abe the man and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Or the Lincoln who met Captain Kirk. What is it about the latter characters, taken at face value, that allows us to dismiss their historical existence with such certainty?

I was actually considering using that comparison, but I wasn't sure if they'd get the reference.

[Jehanne]

We have photographs of Abraham Lincoln. We have documents written and signed by him. We have speeches written by him. We have contemporary accounts of his public appearances. We have not one jot or tittle of anything remotely similar for any godman character.

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that  skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person, but if you look at the earliest sources (Q, Mark and Paul's authentic letters), the following are also historical truths:

1)  Jesus did not regard himself as being "God".  That idea came latter; Jesus saw the end of the World (and, hence, the end of Rome) as happening during his lifetime, likely, through an Angelic Being ("the Son of Man") who would come from Heaven (Jesus, like all those around him, believed the Earth to be flat with Heaven above it) to liberate the Chosen People from the hands of the evil Romans.

2)  Jesus did not perform any miracles during his lifetime.  The two earliest sources, Q & Paul, simply make no mention of any of Jesus' miracles, and such is probably due to the fact that those stories about Jesus had not yet been written down.  Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, regarded Jesus as a human being who was bestowed with divinity only after his death, not before, and so, for Paul, Jesus was incapable of performing any miracles, as he was just a man who became divine, a son of God.

3)  After his death, Jesus' resurrection was believed to be phantasmal, not corporeal.  Paul shows no interest in Jesus' burial nor does he have any interest in the reanimation of Jesus' corpse.  For Paul, Jesus appears to him more or less as a ghost, a phantasmal being who had left his earthly body.  The stories of Jesus' corporeal resurrection from the dead are later additions to the story of Jesus.

[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.

[Minimalist]

but if you look at the earliest sources (Q, Mark and Paul's authentic letters),

Q?

How can you look at something which does not exist?

[JackRussell]

It's the contents of the claims.

You believe them, good for you.