Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

Bold mine. This is what your whole post boils down to. 

The events during and following the life of Jesus are some of the most attested to series of events in ALL of ancient history. We know exactly what the first century Christians believed and much of what they did. Even Bart Ehrman thinks the NT is 99% of what it was originally. I don't care if you don't find it compelling. But this constant nonsense (not just you) of "no evidence" is just silly and show a lack of understanding the evidence, or bad reasoning skills, or misunderstanding definitions, or a bias you bring to the subject. 

In case anyone is hazy on the difference, here is an excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

What it was originally is a story. Ehrman thinks it's 99% the same story originally told. The argument isn't about what 1st Century Christians believed, it's about whether their beliefs were correct. In support of that, we have the story they told. It's hearsay with no provenance. Many of the ordinary events portrayed may well have happened, but there are too many reasonable alternative explanations for the extraordinary claims for it to be reasonable to take them at face value.