Why trust one religio-historical context? Why favor the Judeo-Christian revelation? Even in light of a plausible resurrection hypothesis these questions remain open ended. Dare I say, without justification?
Why is this the case?
Irregular divine intervention creates gaps within history as well as within human knowledge. Since human beings have limited awareness and ability to establish unseen and inactive sources it then becomes justified over time to look elsewhere for answers. Dead lines breath no life into our present knowledge.
Being that the resurrection account is a fantastic oddity within the world at best there still exists no way of knowing whether such an event has the capacity to establish an appropriate knowledge of God within the past or the present.
It would appear to be a jaw dropping story that is stuck in the obscurity of the past. This is where it really ought to hit home to not play favorites with such fantastic claims!
So please be mindful of what even a seemingly plausible resurrection hypothesis is able to do for your present knowledge. Atheism speaks from what it lacks. A lack of knowledge personally and by consensus is what justifies a path into Agnosticism. A lack of knowledge and/or information on multiple fronts is what solidifies a noncommittal stance. Logical fallacies and absurdities within Theism is what then leads to a lack of belief.