I can say the same for Elvis Presley. Your lack of evidence makes your claim lose credibility.

The mere fact that we have found nothing of Jesus after His death lends credence to the notion of Him having ascended.

Writings? Are you going to actually claim that writings is all that is necessary to convince you that he rose from the dead? How foolish. Many people can write something dating back to thousands of years ago. Can we prove what they saw and experienced was true? Of course, but hard evidence must be present in order to do so. New Testament historians you say? Might the majority of those historians be Christian?

I am a historian and philosopher. I don't look at scientific and the present. I look at the historical and the past. There are many other evidences that show that Jesus did rise from the dead. Most New Testament historians are Christian... because they have looked at the evidence and been displayed the facts that Jesus did rise from the dead. However, there are still some who do not believe it, such as Bart Ehrman, who rejects Christianity not because of history, but because of a naturalistic philosophy.

I wouldn't care if Ronald McDonald wrote it. That man is still an individual and he did not prove anything. Sounds as if he simply read the bible and rephrased it. He has not logically done anything to favor your claim.

Alright, lets just throw out history.

Quite ignorant to assume so. Many Atheists reject the belief of a God because of the lack of evidence. Show him logically evidence and he will be converting unless he simply follows to boundaries of nonsense. If your evidence is not legitimate or backed by many studies that constantly prove that it is true then you are doing nothing to benefit your cause. That is on the fault of the persuader.

And I have. People don't want to believe in Jesus; it is not that they would if there were evidence.