Focusing on the resurrection

I've seen a lot of apologists do this as well as skeptics. They target in on the resurrection and try to make a case for it or against it. It makes sense too. If the resurrection happened then this would be serious proof for the truth of Christianity and if it did not happen then this would be a show stopper for Christianity. But it can't be proven either way. This is an event that happened in the past and all we can do is come to a conclusion on the likelihood of whether it happened or not. So is it good to focus on just the resurrection? I think not. Since we are considering the likelihood of an event, we need to consider ALL of the claims being made.

I almost ended this post with the first paragraph because there's no way I could list all of the claims of Christianity,  but I'm going to list a bunch from the top of my head:  Christians claim that... 

• The four gospels contain eyewitness testimony
• Only the four gospels are inspired and the rest are not
• The gospels were written while the eyewitnesses were still alive
• Paul was an inspired writer
• Early Christians were not superstitious
• Oral tradition was not subject to embellishments 
• Early Christians did not borrow any ideas from other sources
• Writers in Jesus day had no reason to record any of the large-scale miracles

Well these are just a few of the claims surrounding the new testament. There are a lot more. There is a lot to consider. There is also the old testament claims, philosophical claims, theological claims, etc. To top it off, there has been more written about these subjects than any person could read in a lifetime. So it certainly is a daunting task and much more involved then just a small examination of the resurrection.