Eric,
If welcome and helpful, I had some thoughts to share - I have wrestled very deeply with many of these questions and examined and studied many of these topics in depth, as I wanted to be sure that my own belief was founded on something solid. So some thoughts, for what they are worth, and apologize in advance for the length:
First, just one quick observation:
I would humbly, but firmly, caution against “wanting” to believe anything except for the sole reason being that you are convinced it is true. The hope, comfort, and joy that is part of the Christian “package” may well be a good reason to give the religion due consideration, but the only reason to believe it is because you find it true. I think given your desire to see “evidence” that you most likely already agree with me there, but I wanted to mention that at least.
Conversely- I would also humbly, but firmly, caution against excluding a belief on the grounds that you might not want it to be true. I mention that since you mentioned in passing certain aspects of Christianity (at least some Christians) that appear to you as “cult-like.” It is good to be cautious, but I would likewise caution that the only reason to disbelieve Christianity, or even any particular Christian doctrine or teaching or practice, is because you find it to be objectively false - not because you don’t like various aspects of its belief, teaching, practice, etc.
To borrow from my hero C. S. Lewis: “If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.”
I genuinely appreciate and resonate with the reasoned caution on this point, and I wrestled with this very question some time ago. But as I thought through and discussed further, a few things came to my attention, and I don’t think the reasoning is a circular as it may at first appear:
Firstly, whatever “The Bible” may or may not be (especially the New Testament), it is at core a collection of ancient/historic writings. If there had been yet another historical account of the resurrection (say, written by Bartholomew), who had actually seen the resurrection, would you classify that as “extra-biblical” and thus allowable as evidence? Only if Bartholomew’s account had not made it into the canon of Scripture?
For instance, if, back in ~300 AD, Matthew, Mark, and John had been accepted as part of the biblical canon but, for whatever reason, Luke had been left out - would Luke then somehow count as an “Extra-biblical” source of knowledge about the resurrection and thus therefore be free from the argument for circular reasoning?
Point is, whatever later happened that incorporated these disparate historical accounts into one book we now know as “The Bible”, at core they remain ancient historic testimonies to the resurrection event. If you took their claim that Jesus resurrected, and that was the sole basis for your belief in the resurrection, then yes, indeed, that would be fallacious and circular reasoning. But as it is, what you have is historical accounts of the resurrection, which are unquestionably “evidence”. May or may not be convincing or adequate evidence, but they are evidence.
–Consider, by comparison: if we were discussing whether Thucydides actually witnessed some event or battle that he recorded himself witnessing in his “History of the Pelopenesian War”, then it would be fallacious and circular reasoning indeed to conclude that Thucydides did in fact witness said battle on the sole basis that he wrote that he witnessed said battle. If the question is as to whether or not Thucydides can be trusted about said claim, then yes, it is fallacious and circular to argue solely on the basis that “Thucydides said he saw it.”
But on the other hand, I’m sure you can recognize that it would be equally absurd and fallacious to exlcude the entire work “History of the Pelopenesian War” as legitimate evidence about that question, on the basis that using it would be “circular”, no? Thucydides made many claims in his history - many of which remain the sole source of our knowledge of such historical facts, and historians do not discount most of these events on that basis. His claims and accounts are historical evidence. We may or may not weigh certain his claims as being insufficient, erroneous, or the like, based on other criteria, but we don’t exclude his accounts entirely on the basis that using them would be “circular.”
So the historical evidence about the resurrection, as documented and contained in numerous written historical accounts, does in fact exist (regardless of when or how these documents were collected and canonized into what we now know as “the Bible.”) So, we can weigh these claims about a resurrection, examine them, cross-examine them, consider alternate explanations, and the like; but we can’t exclude these accounts on the basis that using them would be circular. they are claims of eyewitness testimony, etc. From which we examine, reason, and come to a conclusion.
So, a few final thoughts on the topic:
Firstly, it should be noted that the claims of the resurrection fulfill the main test for historicity - there are multiple, independent attestation that all affirm the same event. Whatever use or borrowing some gospels made on others as is hypothesized, it is generally agreed that the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection in each of the four extant historical accounts of Jesus’ life are indeed independent - there are enough divergences that it is near hopeless to harmonize the accounts. Moreover, the differences in the accounts of the resurrection are favorite material for those that wish to do so make many claims of contradictions between these accounts.
But that said, what that in fact means is that each historian recorded an independent account of the resurrection - in other words, if all four gospels were near unanimous on specifics and details (as is the case about some other events in the gospels), one might think that there was just one account and the others copied. But the extremely different divergent accounts between the accounts, while all agreeing on the basic fact of the empty tomb and resurrection, mean that there are at least four independent witnesses to the basic core details of said event. Five, if you want to include Paul’s account of the numerous eyewitnesses in Galatians, and even more if you would include the passing references in Hebrews, I Peter, etc.
So you have (at least) five multiple, independent attestations, some of which explicitly cite eyewitness testimony, one of which explicitly specified that (at the time of writing) some of said eyewitnesses were alive if the claim wanted to be fact-checked by anyone. Whatever this is, it is historical evidence - the fact exists that it is well recorded and independently attested that many people in fact claimed to have seen said resurrection.
So - secondly, the question becomes, what to do with this evidence? The evidence should still be weighed - are these claims accurate and legitimate, or are they erroneous? Either these multiple claims and accounts were recorded because the event actually happened, or there must be an alternate explanation that better fits the facts. If you’re wrestling with the truth of Christianity, but you doubt the resurrection actually happened, i would humbly suggest that for the sake of intellectual consistency, you should pursue a better or more reasonable explanation: There are many that have been suggested over the years: Mass hallucination, conspiracy, legend, etc. As I have examined it myself, the other explanations are so ad-hoc, so far-fetched, so deeply fallacious, that actual resurrection really appears to be the only reasonable conclusion. To borrow again from Lewis:
“Collective hallucination, hypnotism of unconsenting spectators, widespread instantaneous conspiracy in lying by persons not otherwise known to be liars and not likely to gain by the lie–all these are known to be very improbable events: so improbable that, except for the special purpose of excluding a miracle, they are never suggested.”
Finally, a last thought - The multiple independent claims regarding the resurrection is there and it certainly gets one’s attention, and I certainly think is sufficient evidence for who Jesus is. But that said, it is not “proof” in the sense of being unassailable, not the same way that it might be if someone saw it themselves. But such a historic claim is so substantial, so monumental, that what it does is to force people to take that claim seriously - in combination with everything else we know about Jesus from said historical accounts… And we have to decide whether or not the entire thing is the world’s greatest hoax or that Jesus really was who he claimed to be. While the resurrection, by itself, doesn’t “prove” it, it should certainly get our attention and make us realize that we have to do something with such a monumental claim.
One last favorite thought of mine from Kierkegaard: “The miracle can demonstrate nothing, for if you do not believe him [Christ] to be who he says he is, then you deny the miracle. The miracle can make aware–now you are in the tension, and it depends upon what you choose, offense or faith.”