A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

I understand your explanation on special pleading.

Now I don't write these things out to rehash whether they were true or not. We have everyone's opinion on the quality of the evidence. I am trying to improve my argumentation. Thank you for your patience.

Okay, from the abstract to the specific. Just say there was better eyewitness evidence, and Jesus, who claimed to be God, was crucified and rose from the dead (predicting both beforehand). We could observe that:

1. Being dead after a crucifixion was a well know and predictable state
2. The extraordinary evidence required is not only Jesus healthy after a crucifixion, but for 40 days he appeared to many.
3. It is reasonable to assume the cause was the that which he claimed it to be: God.
4. There was a key theological component to the teachings of Jesus that only make sense in light of his death. For one example out of hundred, John the Baptist introduced him as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

So again, if there was better evidence for this event and it was otherwise as the gospel writers described, it would not be illogical to assume:

A. There is no hidden scientific reason to explain this event.
B. There exists extraordinary evidence of the event
C. God was the likely cause of the supernatural event
D. The event was not to make a general point, but rather had a complex purpose.

Are these reasonable conclusions drawn from this set of facts? Would it be correct to say that the rationality of Christianity increases the more reliable the gospels are proven to be.

Again, this is a thought experiment, not a gospel trashing exercise.