Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Astonished]

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

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. Acts gives researched historical data about the early church. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim. A second point on this simplistic understanding: The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim

There is also plenty of secondary and tertiary evidence I began to touch on above.

The gospels are still the goddamn buttfucking claim, asshole. How the fuck are you still not comprehending this? In what way does any of it support an actual supernatural anything happening? All you're spouting is utter nonsense. If a shitty propaganda book happens to coincidentally get a few things right (enough people had to have worked on it that there was bound to be some; a broken clock is still right twice a day) does that mean 100% of it is true? If so, why aren't Spider-Man and Superman real? Do you not understand how a child can see through this? Does that not strike you that something might be wrong with you or your position?

Learn what real evidence is. Get a grip about what's a claim and what's evidence in support of a claim, pretty big fucking difference. Stop assuming your conclusion (a fallacy, BTW) and try to reach it with this 'proof', I guarantee you won't get there.