Standard of proof is identical, the weight and reliability assigned to each type of evidence differ significantly:
Physical Evidence: Generally considered objective and tangible, providing concrete proof that can be measured or analyzed (e.g., DNA, fingerprints, weapons). It is less susceptible to subjective bias or memory lapses.
Personal Testimony: Is subjective and human-dependent, relying on the witness's credibility, perception, and memory. It is more vulnerable to challenges such as bias, inconsistency, or the hearsay rule, which excludes statements made outside of court unless an exception applies.
Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence that are beyond reasonable doubt.
For example if someone is accused of murder and facing life in prison that evidence must be rock solid vs if someone is accused of stealing bubble gum.
If you claim jesus was an ordinary guy who spiritually resurrected my requirement for proof will be proportional to the claim.
If you claim jesus was "god" performed magic/miracles and physicaly resurrected he said/she said are no longer good enough by themselves. Testimony (non extraordinary evidence) will be considered as valid evidence but its value/weight isn't the same as physical/tangible proof.
I actually agree with much of what you've written.
Physical evidence generally carries more weight than testimony, and stronger claims require stronger evidence.
Where we differ is how that principle applies to history.
A unique historical event cannot leave behind the same kind of evidence as a repeatable scientific experiment. We don't have DNA, CCTV footage, or forensic reports from the first century. That isn't unique to Christianity—it's true of virtually all ancient history.
So historians work with the evidence that survives: documents, testimony, archaeology, manuscript transmission, and historical context.
The question isn't whether testimony is as strong as physical evidence—it isn't.
The question is whether the cumulative historical evidence is sufficient to justify belief in a particular event.
You keep treating "testimony" as though it's one piece of evidence. It isn't. Historians don't ask, "Is there a testimony?" They ask:
* How early is it?
* Is it independent?
* Is it internally consistent?
* Is it corroborated by other sources?
* Does it fit what we know historically?
That's how ancient history is evaluated.
So I don't accept the resurrection because of one anonymous story or because "the Bible told me so." I accept it because the cumulative historical case is stronger than competing explanations.