The theory is total speculation with no basis in scientifc possibilties. Whereas, we have written accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and His ressurection, done by either eyewitnesses themselves or written from interviews with eyewitnesses (I'm more inclined to the former), which you claim to not be extraordinary enough evidence.... In a court of law, which theory would be more acceptable as per the full and total evidence, if looked at with no bias?