The gospel accounts are that 'extraordinary evidence.'
The claims aren't also the evidence. The evidence are things like the shroud of Turin, and corroborating references from third parties such as Josephus. There is remarkably little evidence, unfortunately.
It is precisely the fact that these claims are 'extraordinary' that they are questioned. Kind of a catch 22... we want extraordinary proof, but we doubt it precisely because it is extraordinary.
There is a reason that phrase is used.
We've played with the universe a bit, and have come to weasel out some of the rules by which it operates. Much of the knowledge we know is based on induction. For example, how many people do you know that have come back to life after an extended period of death? Medically, it is next to impossible. Perhaps after frozen in ice for a period of time. We know that brain cells start dying very soon after death, and the brain is needed for us to live. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that this happens to any and every human.
Every person who has remained dead and every test with experimental evidence sets an inductive precedent. In order for the extraordinary claim of the resurrection to have justification, you'd need not only ontologically positive evidence that the event happened, you'd also need sufficient evidence to outweigh the contrary precedent. That is why extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence - due to all the contrary evidence that already exists.
Note that nowhere in here I say resurrection is definitely impossible. It's possible there is a black swan. But there is far too much evidence showing that such things do not happen. What would you have us do, simply ignore all that evidence? You have to realize that's a bit absurd.
Should a special case be made exempting Christianity from the precedent? If God were ever to influence events on Earth, of course he would do so when his son is alive, and especially
to him. It's no wonder we haven't seen anything similar since. Right?
What of all the other religions that make equally extraordinary claims backed up by their own brand of convincing rationalization? What of all non-religious extraordinary claims? How many millions are there, passed off as the Truth? From succubi to bigfoot to eavesdropping Thetans? Well, Scientologists likely think their belief qualifies as a religion, I'm not sure...
Sometimes I feel like an oppressed customer where everyone is trying to sell me one belief or another. Each make the claim with genuine certainty, and all are intelligent enough to be convincing. But there is no way to determine which are true and which aren't true. Every salesman just wants you to
believe, either based on their word, or based on words in a book. They expect me to throw out all the knowledge I have of how things work, and make an exception for their belief. They each could go on for hours about how all the other competing beliefs are false. It's like the current state of our Politics, but with a thousand politicians in the running.
Even a TRUE extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. How else can we sort the wheat from the chaff? If you have any ideas, please share them.