I believe that - in this debate - it is encumbent on Fran to either state from the outset which of the Gospel descriptions he believes are valid and must be explained, or to agree that none of them can later be called in by him as rebuttal to a particular scenario.
I think Anfauglir is quite right here. The only thing I would change is to replace "he believes are" above with "the scholarly consensus accepts as" since the putative strength of the 4MF argument is the scholarly consensus behind the alleged "facts." And if (as you seem to state in your previous post) the scholarly consensus does not agree that any particular Gospel description represents historical fact, then Anfauglir's latter option is the only proper choice. So how 'bout it, Fran?
I still don't understand what your point is. You have at least 4 facts. Well, there really are 5 facts. The fifth fact being the conversion of James (Jesus' brother) and Paul of Tarsus. Their conversion enjoys a near unaminous agreement from scholars of it being a fact.
Okay.... you and I in our competing hypothesis must come up with an explanation for these facts that is more reasonable than the other. Let's take Fact #3 as an example. How are you going to explain it? You have a myriad of choices to pick from. Maybe they were all hallucinating. Maybe they all saw a vision. Maybe they were all hypnotized. Maybe the body was stolen. Maybe the eyewitnesses went to the wrong tomb. etc etc. Now, how would you demonstrate that any of these explanations are a fact? Well, you can't of course. Does that mean these explanations are not valid for consideration? Of course not.
The explanation does not have to be a historical fact itself. Indeed, if we had an explanation for the facts... and that explanation was factual... then we wouldn't be having a debate in the first place.
So you offer an explanation for Fact #3 and we see how it fits with the other facts. The explanation itself does not have to be a fact. Indeed, the Gospel description of the 40 days thing is actually the Resurrection I'm inferring from the facts. The 40 days thing does not have to be factual in the sense that the 5 facts enjoy agreement as being historical facts from a vast majority of Scholars.
The 40 days thing would be an explanation (of what the Resurrection looked like) just as an hallucination would be an explanation. The 40 days thing (Resurrection) is to me, the best explanation... the most reasonable hypothesis of all the facts.
So if you are going to offer an explanation for the facts... an explanation that is not a fact iself... then so can I. And the bottom line is... that is exactly what we are doing. Offering explanations that are not proven to be factual. Instead, we are looking for the MOST REASONABLE explanation. And my explanation would be the Resurrection (the 40 days thing).
Did I understand your question? At least this is how I understood what you had written.