I'm not sure one even needs faith to know that Christ rose from the dead. Evidentiary proof is as great if not greater than that required to convict someone of a crime in court. The implications of His Resurrection require more faith than the Resurrection itself.
If you would like to pick up a book on the historical evidence for the Resurrection, look at N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God". It's a bit of work but well worth the effort. There was a discussion on it some ten years ago or so on FR.
what is the evidentiary proof?
Scriptures?
I have had this discussion more than once at FR, and it seems to end up like this:
1.) Declarative statement: “The Bible is True!”
2.) Interrogative retort: “How do you know the Bible is true?”
3.) Declarative retort: “Because there are scriptures that say the Bible is true.”
4.) Retort to #3: “How do you know those scriptures are true?”
5.) Retort to #4: “Because those scriptures are in the Bible!”
In the end it comes down to circular reasoning or faith.
Some then point to archaeological evidence to support their contention and point at an empty tomb. They then state that the empty tomb is proof that Jesus rose from the dead. Others respond that perhaps Jesus didn’t die and that the coolness of the tomb revived Him or that the women went back to the wrong tomb. This becomes then an arguing against Jesus rising from the dead when the onus of proof is and has always been upon those who believe Jesus rose from the dead to prove He rose from the dead.
There is no empirical proff, though. None. It comes down to faith.
Some then point to Jesus’ disciples willing to be persecuted for their faith as proof, but Buddha’s disciples said that the Buddha performed miracles and were willing to be persecuted for their faith. Mohammed’s disciples were willing to be persecuted for their faith and said that Mohammed ascended to heaven bodily. Does what either here say make it true? No. They have no empirical proof, either.
It all comes down to faith...