First, it wasn't documented in history. It may have been documented in your religious book, but your religious book is not a history book, nor were it's writers historians. They were pushing a specific belief system, and so cannot be considered in any way unbiased. To be a history book, you need to know who the actual authors were and be able to vet their credentials and biases. Since a lot of the bible is anonymous, that negates the historical aspect. And you cannot prove that it was written by eye witnesses, as claimed in the article.
Point two, is also entirely reliant on biblical "history", which isn't really history. So no.
Point three. Straw man. I haven't said they knowingly lied. See, the argument began as "It cannot be proven because it isn't historically recorded". Not, "they were promoting a knowing lie." Thus your article has swapped out arguments to one that they can defeat.
Why would they make up the ressurection story if jesus turned out to be a fraud? I don't know why they would. I don't know their motives. Why does the guy I work with continually make up stories that are easily disproven? Who can say? Motive is irrelevant to the truth.
Lies and deception are typically done for some gain. Maybe. But...being honestly mistaken? You consider these testimonies to be written at the actual time of Jesus. The problem is there is no proof that they were written at the time of Jesus. Maybe they were written later, by people who honestly believed this to be the truth. Maybe the stories were adopted from other cultures and the names were changed to protect the innocent. I don't know their motive, but neither do you.
Pulling off such a hoax, as if it were difficult. At the time, many were illiterate. Word of mouth was the primary means of transmitting stories. They changed by word of mouth. So by the time they were written down, maybe they changed. On top of that, the writers didn't have a vast amount of opposition to their writings. And then lets not forget the vast amounts of information that was lost throughout the centuries, some deliberately burned by the church. But yeah, they obviously had no say in changing the bible, taking things out and deciding what went in, right?
How do we know thousands of people immediately converted? Show me the evidence. And remember, your book is not really history, so it doesn't count. Evidence not in your bible, that thousands immediately converted.
Sorry, got tired of rebutting the same argument rephrased...so I quit reading. Not really evidence. It's an opinion piece, at best. Maybe there was an actual Jesus, but even that cannot be proven. The arguments provided seem stale to me. Probably to many others as well.
As Johnathan said, it boils down to belief. If you believe, you will find this all compelling evidence. If you don't, you will probably be able to point out the flaws as easily as I did. The fact that the article says it isn't logical doesn't actually make it illogical, any more than the bible existing must make it true.