Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Foxaèr]

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.

Except according to Steve there are no reasonable alternatives.

For him it's "God exists and you just don't understand religion".