Often when considering the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the saying popularised by Carl Sagan is quoted:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is a pretty extraordinary claim if ever there was one.

Or is it?

The apostle Paul didn't think so:

Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? (Acts 26:8, ESV)

For Paul, the claim that God would raise someone from the dead was really quite an ordinary claim. Of course, that doesn't mean that every claim that someone has come back to life from the dead should be accepted without any investigation. But, if it is perfectly conceivable that God might raise someone from the dead, that does mean that no "extraordinary" evidence is required to establish whether or not a particular person has been raised from the dead. Perfectly ordinary evidence will suffice: evidence that the person was dead, and evidence that the person who is now alive is that same person who was dead.

Extraordinary evidence may be required, but only if the claim can first be established that the resurrection of Jesus is actually an extraordinary claim. And, for me at least, I'm not prepared to accept that claim without some fairly extraordinary evidence to back it up.