Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

You're right. They don't NORMALLY resurrect. Here's what we know:

Jesus died by crucifixion.
The women who went to the tomb found it empty.
The disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion and were willing to suffer rather than recant.
Paul, an sworn enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted.
James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddently converted.

What theory do you have that account for these facts BETTER than the resurrection of Jesus?

When you actually demonstrate that the above are facts, it will be a live question.  Right now it's just a hypothetical. But, just supposing the above were true, just about anything is a more likely explaination of them than a resurrection:

It would be more likely that one hundred men got together and conspired to make up the resurrection and Paul was one of the conspirators than that there was a resurrection.  But there are much better explanations than that beginning with the fact that people do hullucinate and they are more likely to do so under stress.   And there are precedents for mass hallucinations. And many people really do believe that they were abducted by aliens, saw their dead mother, etc.,  etc.  So Paul and the disciples are easily explained.  They are either liars or mistaken.

People suddenly adopt all sorts of beliefs including atheism.  James suddenly did.  So?

The empty tomb is laughably easy to explain.  Someone took the body away.  And that is the conclusion that any rational person looking at an empty tomb would reach.