This is becoming too repetitive.
I'm making a closing statement. I imagine you will reply to give yourself the satisfaction of having the last word.
It may appear repetitive because you keep presenting the same points.
My response isn't for satisfaction of having the last word, but simply to show you your inconsistencies.
"if one rigorously follows the appropriate historical methodology, one still wouldn't be justified in believing that someone rose from the dead"
I've already given examples of where professional historians do this and reach different conclusions. Do you agree or do you think that for any historical event one can determine what actually happened without any room for reasonable disagreement?
And I responded by pointing out that historians don't conclude by saying "here, a miracle happened."
"given certain concepts about the universe"
This seems to be code for believing that God does not exist. An assumption since it has not been proved.
No, it is a code about certain basic assumptions that we all make. The difference being that believers add on some unjustified claims. Those claims are the things being disputed or expected to be demonstrated.
"ancient aliens or labourers?"
An example of repetition. I've already responded about aliens. Remember we're aliens in the sense of travelling to distant planets. Aliens would have to travel to earth.
Please note the context of this particular example. The point is that historians using their methodology, wouldn't conclude that the structures were built by aliens.
an exception for Christianity
By denying this possibility you are trying to dictate to God how he should or should not act. Why shouldn't God choose to communicate to humankind through Jesus? Why should God act in a way that you think is more appropriate. Other human beings have views that differ from yours so why should you think that you can determine how God should act. The message is for all mankind.
If you wish to introduce your God as a possibility, then I think you would need to do some work showing us what is expected of him otherwise he will simply be an arbitrary entity introduced by religious faith.
"the dead roaming the city?"
"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Mt 27:52,53 NIV
Now these verses are difficult, not because God is incapable of doing such a miracle, but because of a lack of information. However, one shouldn't think in terms of some kind of zombie movie. Rather one should think more like the raising of Lazarus in Jn ch 11. You have mentioned this example many many times but it is not the key event at the end of the gospels. Jesus' resurrection is the key event. That doesn't mean that I don't believe this could or did happen: but it's much more important to think about Jesus' resurrection. I've tried to make this point before and you have never taken this obvious point on board preferring to divert down side issues.
In what sense are the verses difficult? Do you also find them difficult to believe? How can the signs surrounding Jesus' death not be significant? If such stories could be made up about his death, why not his resurrection?
Basically, all I've shown is that there are unjustified leaps from the mystical beliefs of people to accepting Christian dogma. Also, that how much one believes the Christian dogma for some reason depends on how they accept science.