One of the skeptical pages opens with this quote:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I personally agree with this principle...and so does God, apparently...why else would there be such an emphasis on it in the Bible?
The only issue I would have with the skeptic would be how 'extraordinary' does it have to be before it counts as 'extraordinary'?
For example: How far does one have to go down this list before post-death appearances of Jesus count as extraordinary?
his body is simply gone from the tomb
he appears in a dream to his closest friend
he appears alive to one friend
he appears to more than one person, but only once in history
he appears to more than one person, multiple times, but they are all close friends with similar personalities
he appears to more than one person, sometimes large groups, multiple times, of different orientations and backgrounds, in numerous locations, across a span of a couple of years
he appears to the entire city of Jerusalem, enemies alike, daily for a year
he appears to the entire Near East, in the sky, continually for a decade
he appears every day to every person throughout all time
I maintain that the claims that Jesus of Nazareth made of his Godhood and mission (extraordinary claims!) were backed up by the resurrection (extraordinary evidence). What the skeptic often wants to do is turn my 'extraordinary evidence' into an 'extraordinary claim', requiring its OWN extraordinary evidence (an perhaps on and on, in infinite regress?)...
And I think God actually goes this next step as well: the extraordinary claim ("I rose from the dead") is supported by extraordinary evidence (post-resurrection appearances). And maybe even one more time: claim ("he appeared") with evidence ("recorded eyewitness accounts of extraordinary range, scope, variety, detail").
I tend to agree with the skeptic in so many, many areas--the list in the Lippard's HomePage looks almost like one I WOULD create.
I just really believe that God has given us abundantly 'extraordinary' evidence in the resurrection, in fulfilled prophecy, in the archeological record, in the witness of our hearts...
The books (written by many different authors) of the Old Testament continually point toward the very messiah that arrived, at the exact moment in time that caused the gosple to be spread. The books of the N.T. look back to that messiah, His enemies (back then) didn't question His miracles and none of His apostles recanted even on their own lives, nor did the hundreds who saw Him. IF there had been disproof of the messianic miracle we all would have heard about it LOUDLY or Jesus would be just another footnote in history like the many false messiahs who led the jews to their destruction by Rome.....
Then go figure, Jerusalem fell in seven years, with a break in the seige at the 3 1/2 year point (the Christians left!) and thousands of years later they are gathered together again right where they belong....
One for Jan:
Why is everyone who disagrees with your usual take, 'pseudo-scholars', 'not reputable' or 'blinded'? You agree with your world-view and naturally seek those who will reafirm your beliefs. Your 'scholars' are no better than anyone elses, in fact, they are usually much more biased than Christian Scholars, who often bend over backward to embrace skeptical standards yet still believe!
Catholics are often some of the most secular of scholars in skepticism, yet still find miracles and still believe. What's that tell you?
Rex