Another day, another article from my friend Tanner.

First historians grant the gospels are the most well attested documents from ancient antiquity so why in the world is it wrong to take it as history when the historians say it is?

Isn't it strange that this resurrection rumour started in the very city where Jesus was publicly executed and within the lifetime of people who could have reufted the story?

Isn't it doubly strange that people like James and the apostle Paul who were not believers of Jesus before His death suddenly became convinced of the resurrection due to what they attribute to experiences with a risen Him?

What better explanation can you provide for this than the explanation that He did rise from dead? Until you have an explanation that accounts for the facts from the gospels which all historians will grant, then you can dismiss it.