The resurrection is evidence of the deity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."
Your post didn't attempt to prove a resurrection. It attempted to prove that, at a minimum, the apostles thought they saw something extraordinary. It didn't accomplish even that (the worse analysis that can be made is that the gospels were fabrications), but I silently conceded the point because it's irrelevant.
1) Those, who wrote the second and third gospels, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek.
2) Mark's Gospel (allegedly written by a disciple of Peter in Rome) is in 'poor Greek' when compared to that of Matthew and Luke.
3) So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark.
4) This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e., Markan priority).
5) Matthew the Apostle (an alleged eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account.
6) This indicates that (an alleged) Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Mark's Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources.
7) As the Gospel ascribed to Luke also improved on Mark's Greek, he must also have written late. This means the author could not have been a companion of Paul.
8) These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by (an alleged) John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus..
9) As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings cannot be seen as accurate accounts of what (an alleged) Jesus said and did.
10) The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories.
That's the "worse" analysis.