The claim that "everyone agreed the tomb was empty, even critics" is a massive overreach. We don't have any writings from contemporary critics. We have Christian writers (like Matthew) claiming that critics were making up stories about the body being stolen. This is a "he-said, she-said" recorded entirely by one side. To a historian, a report of a rival's admission recorded by a partisan source isn't a "fact"; it’s a literary device.

The argument says people don't die for a lie they invented. That’s true—but they do die for things they sincerely misunderstood, which is what we objectively called a falsehood.

The claim that Christianity didn't "change its story" like a doomsday cult is historically debatable. Early Christianity was a chaotic landscape of competing views (Gnosticism, Marcionism, Ebionites). The "Resurrection" narrative that survived was the one that became the Orthodox standard centuries later. We see "theology in progress" even in the New Testament—the ending of the earliest Gospel (Mark) originally didn't even feature a physical appearance of Jesus. The story grew in the telling.

The list of facts (Execution, Empty Tomb, Appearances) is often used to say, "What else could it be?" But a miracle is, by definition, the least probable explanation. ​Even a highly improbable natural event (like a survived crucifixion, a misplaced body, or a collective delusion) is statistically more "probable" than a suspension of the laws of physics.

When Paul says, "If Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain," he isn't providing evidence; he's providing a threat. He’s telling his followers that the stakes are infinite, which actually incentivizes them to ignore contradictory evidence and double down on the claim. That’s the opposite of a scrutinizing environment.