To deny the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Christ, you must provide a more plausible explanation for each of the following:
Why the tomb was empty.
Why the followers of Jesus were despondent and depressed right after his death and then within days had regained their faith and during the years that followed were willing to suffer poverty, persecution, torture and death for their faith.
Why the enemy of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus, converted.
Why the skeptic James converted.
Why the reports state Jesus first appeared to women, who in those days weren’t considered credible enough to testify in court. Myth or invention do not explain this.
Remember—the resurrection explains all of these. To deny it with any credibility, you must provide more plausible explanations. It has never been done—neither by scientist, philosopher, skeptic nor charlatan.
Jesus appeared to women because of the resurrection?
Can you spell non sequitur?
Why the tomb was empty-
First, Buddhists cremate, so their tombs are empty.
Second, Jewish practice was to reuse tombs. After some period of time bones were removed, cleaned, placed in an ossuary, and reburied to conserve space. Of course a high value tomb, only borrowed, would be empty.
Third, the evidence of an empty tomb is easy to fake- you take the body out and dispose of it. There is an interesting burial scene in “paint your wagon” a musical with Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin.
And that is without getting all conspiracy theory and asserting that the sponge with wine was drugged so Jesus would simulate being dead withing hours, rather than taking days to die as was common with crucifixion.
To deny the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Christ
***He denies the historicity of the DEATH of Christ, let alone the resurrection. Jesus was crucified because He claimed equality with God. Even his enemies acknowledge this claim, but not this guy. His standards for historicity for Christ is sky high, and lower for others in history. It is dishonest and irrational.