Eyewitness accounts, written down, preserved for a long time.
These aren't proof of the resurrection. These are proof of the belief in the resurrection. Two different things. Further, many don't even purport to be first-hand accounts.
Horrible deaths, which SHOULD have caused much recanting, if the facts were not true, were the end of many 'believers', who were THERE when it all started.
The degree to which someone believes something is not necessarily indicative of the truth of that belief. Even to the point of suffering horrible death. A schitzophrentic may assert, upon horrific torture, that the voices he hears are real. The fact that he is willing to endure torture, rather than deny them, does not mean they are real. (And no, I am not saying that the people who are believed to have witnessed the resurrection were schitzophrentics.)
Again, I have no doubt that there is proof of the belief in the resurrection, but not the event itself.
I guess my faith is not strong enough to believe that it all did NOT happen.
The reverse. You faith is strong enough to let you believe it did happen.
(Kinda like a holocaust denier, 2000 years from now....)
(I'll ignore your vile insult.) Not really. There is plentiful physical evidence and more than a mere handful of firsthand accounts for the existence of the holocaust. I doubt that will change in two thousand years. Further, the holocaust does not require belief in the supernatural, which belief in the resurrection does. That makes the required proofs for the holocaust significantly less.
Actually they are. For example, Mark, probably the oldest of the texts according to biblical scholars, is the Apostle Peter's eyewitness acount
I did not mean it as an insult, but as a comparison of what WE consider evidence now, not being sufficient 2K from now.
Of course there are more accounts now of the H; it was a much larger event, sizewise.
If there had been reports of seeing someone rise up from a pile of stinking corpses, after they'd been exhumed, would you believe it?