This is false on many levels...each of those four are individually, highly debatable. Most of my waking hours used to be spent on finding a way to prove what you presented... went the opposite way once I opened my mind and looked at it objectively.
It has no known falsities on any level. More accurately what your saying it is not a proven certainty and it does not fit your narrative. For some reason you turning that true and rational state of affairs into falsehoods which you would not know even if they were. The people who know far more about it than either of us and are in many cases hostile to faith claim the evidence for those 4 historical claims is so strong a to make them as certain as history can. Many of Christianity's greatest and most influential scholars set out to do the opposite of what you did and were far more qualified to have done it (people like C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, Livingston, archeologists, historians, legal experts) gave it up as impossible and became what they set out to destroy. Historical claims are not resolved to certainties. They are resolved to probabilities. Those four historical claims among many others are as well evidenced as ancient historical claims can be.
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Sir Edward Clarke,
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
They are not highly debatable. They are about as certain as ancient history can make them. They are doubtable, however there are fringe groups that will doubt the earth is round, Egyptians built the pyramids, or the Muslims attacked the twin towers. You will find a few nuts that will debate anything, no matter how certain. It means nothing beyond the fact that some of us have biases so great we will reject reality if necessary.
Edit: I should add that it is extremely odd to continue saying even scholars who are hostile to the faith believe that the fundamental christian story is true. This would be like someone believing in the Qur'an's fundamental storyline and being hostile to Islam.
That is probably why I did not say it. The parts of the Bible they believe are true are simple historical narratives. Believing a guy lived and died is not exactly an agreement that he did so to free us from our sin. I believe many of the stories in the Quran, the Vedas, and bushido texts are historically accurate, but that is not convincing enough (especially combined with so many that are not accurate) for me to adopt the faith.
In summary:
1. The evidence for Christ's life, death, and appearances is as good or better than can be expected for any event of it's day. It is in fact much better than most and this is the conclusion of scholars even hostile to the fait it's self.
2. Historical claims are not resolved to certainties. They are resolved to likely hoods probabilities, and best fits.
3. You can believe in the historicity (wholly or partially) without it necessitating adoption of it's supernatural claims.
So for the third time you must provide a better explanation for those 4 historical claims that are pretty much the consensus among those who best should know.
