I believe there is insufficient proof to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require strong and reliable evidence. The main evidence presented is the testimony found in the New Testament, but these accounts were written decades after the events, are not independent eyewitness records in the modern historical sense, and contain differences in how the resurrection is described. The fact that people sincerely believed Jesus was resurrected proves that they believed it, but belief itself does not prove that the event actually happened. Without reliable evidence that rules out alternative explanations, I don't think we have enough reason to conclude that a supernatural resurrection occurred.

Matthew 27:52–53It says that after Jesus died, the tombs were opened and many bodies of holy people were raised, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into Jerusalem and appeared to many people. We're talking about dead people returning to life and showing themselves to many people, this such event is extra ordinary but it isn't mentioned else where . If we're treating the Bible as historical evidence, this is a significant claim because it describes a public supernatural event involving multiple people, yet the other three Gospels do not mention it. So my question is, if this was a real public event witnessed by many people, why do we have only one Gospel recording it? Now this doesn't imply that the event is impossible but it does raise the question whether the evidence is sufficient to conclude the resurrection as a historical fact

So you're saying that the Bible is inaccurate. Then that just further supports my claim that there is insufficient proof of the resurrection of Jesus. And saying that at the time people would believe anything just adds that the bible could also be inaccurate