Biff the unclean

I'd show that the "eye-witness recordings" were a match for Hellenistic "eye-witness recordings" of earlier Gods. Not just the resurrection, but the entire story.

fishbulb

Christianity in most of its variants is based on subjective interpretation of two things: a sacred text and personal experience.

You cannot disprove either of these. They are untestable and unfalisfiable. But these same features mean they can't be proved either.

You can point out that different people point to different texts as being sacred. Also, many people interpret both the same and different texts and personal experiences as having markedly different meanings.

No one has ever made a generally convincing case that a particular interpretation of a particular text or experience is correct and true, while all others are incorrect. Everyone can say why they think theirs is right, but no one can explain why they have a stronger case than everyone else for their text. Not only can no one conclusively prove that their text, experiences, and interpretations thereof are positively correct, but no one can convincingly demonstrate that they are even more likely to be correct than any of the others. Most people don't even have enough knowledge of text and interpretations apart from their own and perhaps a few others to make an intelligent comparison among them.

Christians can't even agree among themselves as to who is a Christian. Whatever version of Christianity you try to disprove, you will find a whole gaggle of Christians who will tell you that isn't really Christiantiy anyway, so your evidence is irrelevant.

There is niether a way nor a need to disprove unfounded and untestable assertions.