Noted NT Scholar Gary Habermas gives a summary here:
This gives a more detailed overview, emphasising reasons to accept that we are dealing with record of credible, eyewitness testimony:
Going yet wider, we should note from founding father of the modern anglophone theory of evidence, Simon Greenleaf, in his preliminary observations on Evidence, Vol I Ch 1 on the nature of moral evidence and related warrant for forensic/historical knowledge.
Let's put in modern paragraphing to make it easier for us to follow:
which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration.
In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.
By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man ; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest . . . [Evidence, vol 1, Ch 1, Preliminary observations, emphases and modern style paragraphing added.]
This is of course the problem of selective hyperskepticism, which may be followed up in more details here on. Unfortunately, it is all too commonly seen on this subject, and typically reflects the eagerness or even desperation that all too many have to find or persuade themselves that these things are not so. (Cf here.)
But, the unfortunate irresponsibility involved in such tactics should be patent.
So, what will we do, today, with this same Jesus the Messiah, God's holy anointed Deliverer and Saviour, called Christ in Greek translation? END