Jesus did not raise from the dead. He is/was an imaginary character. Did Harry Potter raise from the dead?
Why don't Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Josephus, Tacitus, the Babylonian Talmud, James' ossuary, and the L, Q, M, and the pre-Markan narratives count as evidence for Jesus?
Mark, Matthew, Luke are incremental copies of the same text. The additions in Matthew and Luke tend to indicate increasing fiction. The gospel style does not seem historical, but rather, a compilation of counter-attacks on rival sects.
The gospel of John seems like an obvious fake. He doesn't even know anything Jesus said, because he is trying too hard to be different. Makes too many claims to be taken seriously.
Testimonium Flavianum refers to events in 22AD ("Now, about this time") Josephus fails to mention Christianity as one of the extant sects, in a previous chapter. TF, even if not a fake, is hearsay.
Tacitus contains inaccurate information about Nero persecuting "Chrestians" in 64AD, when there should have been no Christians in Rome at the time. Tacitus does not reference where he is getting his hearsay from. Tacitus contradicts Suetonius, who says that Nero set the fire himself, and didn't blame anyone. The Annals of Tacitus were found from nowhere in 1400's and are not referenced by anyone. Even if not a fake, it's much later hearsay, around 150AD.
The Babylonian Talmud was committed to paper, around 500AD, and only contains one suspicious entry, designed to discredit Christianity. Even if true, it discredits Christianity. Even if you conclude the opposite, it could have been invented, around 300AD, simply because Christians go around killing Jews.http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
"The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel. In The Passion in Mark, Donahue, Robbins, Kelber, Perrin, Dewey, Weeden, and Crossan interpret the passion narrative with the use of "hermeneutical clues" provided in the first thirteen chapters. (p. 153) Kelber states the conclusion to be drawn: "The understanding of Mk 14-16 as a theologically integral part of the Mkan Gospel calls into question the classic form critical thesis concerning an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to Mk. Thematically, it is difficult to identify a major non-Mkan thrust or theme in Mk 14-16, let alone extrapolate a coherent pre-Mkan source." (op. cit., p. 157)"
It's speculative whether a document is pre-anything. Forgers or heretics will fake up anything. If there is a pre-Markan narrative, it proves that Mark has inserted stuff. If it's written after Mark, then it's just another edit.
PLEASE SUPPLY PROVENANCE DETAILS OF ANY GOSPEL AT ANY TIME. I'M NOT STOPPING YOU. I would like to see who wrote each book, when, and how they were stored. I would like to rule out tampering.
L, Q, M, all speculative, and contradicted by many other hypotheses. Q theory is out of fashion, now. I know about Q fever, though.
James' ossuary: bollocks.
You will find plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus, because in this context, it's a meaningless word. Evidence can be just about anything, post hoc.