Well, for a start, if we go by the maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," then the evidence we require for the extraordinary claims of the Bible is going to necessarily be much greater than the evidence for Plato, or Aristotle, of Pliny the Elder.
Plato mostly wrote about philosophy, as was Aristotle. Pliny the Elder wrote about a lot of things, but he got some of it wrong. In short, I would say that if they wrote about some particular event, then whether we believe their account or not should be based on how extraordinary the claim is (if they wrote that some person enjoyed eating some particular fruit, that's easy to believe without any other evidence, but claiming that the person could transform into an animal would require a lot of supporting evidence) and how many other sources make the same claim.
I believe that this maxim is first of all very subjective, who determines how extraordinary a claim maybe and how evidence is determined extraordinary to explain it. An example being for instance, life coming from non-living materials. This is an extraordinary claim, which would need in line with the maxim, to be extraordinary due to the fact only life we see arising comes from living materials. Another example would be intelligence, we only know of intelligence arising from intelligence...it is an extraordinary claim which according to the maxim would need extraordinary evidence. In both examples there isn't any extraordinary evidence for those claims, yet you have no problem believing both without it.
Would it not be most likely that if a movement (the Church) were to be growing and was considered a problem for Rome that those writers that wrote about it, would have been happy to claim that they were worshipping someone that didn't even exist? Why would they claim someone who didn't exist was crucified by Pontius Pilate?
But that shouldn't surprise us. Why would anyone at the time specify that an individual who didn't exist didn't actually exist? It would be like expecting someone living today saying that Arthur the Giant poodle who was president of the world doesn't exist just in case people in the future think that Arthur the Giant Poodle existed in 2020 and was president of the world.
Why would those that felt Christians were a problem ignore such a prominent element to the whole movement? And again, why claim He was killed by Pontius Pilate if He didn't exist?
But inconsistencies and a lack of contermporary accounts when we would expect consistency and accounts written by people who were alive and eyewitnesses does cast doubt on the claims made later.
Actually the accounts of the Bible have very few inconsistencies, and the material is very cohesive.
Then why are followers of Jesus not called Jews today?
I am totally in awe of this. That is like saying why are Christians not following Jewish standards. We are not called Jews because we are not Jewish. Jews turned to Jesus as their Messiah, which was turning away from those who rejected Christ as their Messiah. We as the Christian Church are gentiles that are grafted into the line of Jews.
In what way?
Someone describes a punishment given to a person/people who have committed a crime. It is not until quite a bit later that the crime for which they were punished is explained.
Now, is that talking about Suetonius' work or me talking to my husband about what my daughter did?
A proper analogy would be this: Your daughter got punished on Tuesday for not picking up her room, she got punished Friday for not following directions, she got punished the following Friday for another offense. When discussing with your husband who was say out of town for several months, you relay the instances of offenses of why your daughter was punished. You don't wait to punish her, you don't give a day to day report of her punishment but when listing all the offenses you do it when you are compiling all the events that were around that point.
- We have no sources that can reliably connected to any person who was at this alleged event.
- We have no way to verify that any of the people who risked their lives to follow the teachings of Jesus were people who had met him in person.
- There would be plenty of reason. People today follow people who have done horrible things, and people today follow people who may not have even existed - see the Cargo Cults and John Frum.
- We have no reliable source to show this. Even in the Gospels, the accounts of what happened at the tomb are contradictory.
- We have no reliable source to show that.
- Since we do not have sources that can be reliably connected to any eyewitnesses, al we have are stories claiming that particular things happened.
- I will not address each one of these separately because I want to ask you first, what evidence or source would give you this information?
That is not evidence that they were eyewitnesses.
Have you heard of inductive reasoning?
Then what was your point?
I wanted you to tell me what "evidence" could or would be used to determine this.
Do you understand the need to provide support for your claims? I think not.
Do you understand that evidence to support my claims is wide range and as far as the historical components, they are confirmed.
And what is that supposed to mean?
It gives me insight into your worldview.