Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

 One of the things I keep encountering is atheists demanding absolute proof of Biblical events or people, and the bar they set is so high, you couldn't even prove you yourself exist. Another thing I encounter is a "scholar" stating with absolute certainty something like "Jesus wouldn't have been buried in a rich man's tomb, he would have been thrown into a ditch with the other criminals," yet without offering any tangible proof that Jesus in fact was not entombed. In fact, most of the criticisms I see either on YouTube or social media or even in articles written by "scholars" about the veracity of what the Biblical texts say offer absolutely no proof whatsoever, only the vague speculations and opinions of those scholars.
     So I say this, prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. Prove to me that He didn't rise from the dead. Prove to me that the bones entombed on Vatican Hill in Rome aren't those of Peter and Paul. Prove to me that the N.T. writings weren't eyewitnesses beyond any doubt. 
     I'm getting so very sick of speculative skepticism being treated like Gospel without any real evidence to back it up, yet demanding irrefutable evidence for things like Biblical accounts when circumstantial and anecdotal evidence has existed since they were first written down. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the only evidence which exists is generally on the side of these things actually happening in some way, even if only anecdotal or circumstantial. Beyond all doubt? Maybe not, but it's more evidence in favor than against.
     I've spent a lot of time tracking down whether certain things in the Biblical text are even possible. Not necessarily probable mind you, but possible. Can I say that it happened exactly that way with ironclad proof? No, I can't. But no one else can really offer proof that it didn't. At least I have plausible explanations with some evidence of the possibility. I've spent years pouring over the N.T. texts in the original languages and learning to "hear" the voices behind them. It's been enough to convince me of the authenticity of them as mid first century. Just deciding that they weren't written when tradition says they were because it's inconvenient to your narrative isn't scholarship.
     Saying that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist is an extraordinary claim. Saying that Paul the Apostle didn't exist and didn't write the N.T. letters is an extraordinary claim. Saying that Jesus of Nazareth didn't die on a Roman cross or didn't rise from the dead is an extraordinary claim which contradicts the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence (and in the case of a very rigorously re-examined in the 21st century Shroud of Turin, about as hard an evidence as you're going to get for anyone's resurrection from that period of time). All of these extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof that they didn't happen. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, in any court of law, at least in the U.S. And the prosecution of these people and events simply have no evidence to make their cases with.