In the Bible he actually claims to be the son of man and the son of god. Both ordinary and extraordinary. There already isn't any proof for him ever living so we can already discount the ordinary evidence. So yes, it would take extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary godly existence.

Your argument only applies if you start with the extraordinary assumption that Jesus was the son of God. Good luck finding an atheist that will concede that point and accept that as an initial assumption.

So he wasn't an ordinary man?

Then provide some evidence that isn't ordinary to support that claim.

You claim a person used magic to make water change into wine.

That seems to me to be an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary evidence.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Why do you assume it's hard to understand for us? It's also very easy to understand for us why Superman can fly. Really not a hard concept, at all.

But, for it to be true, it requires evidence. Without evidence it's most likely all simply made up. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because resurrection is an extraordinary claim.

OK, we'd settle for even quite ordinary evidence. Got any?

No?

Didn't think so.

I don't think extraordinary evidence includes unsupported assertions.

Jesus was not the first demigod who mankind created in the concept to gods raping moral women. His is not new but borrowed many times over.

I expect the same level of evidence that YOU would require for believing in Leprechauns hiding pots of gold at the end of a rainbow, and not one iota more would I require.