Oddly, I attempted this edit before, but it didn't stick.
This post was built off a quick read and a preconception of mine, both of which were erroneous.
The paper I was referring to is NOT a defense of the position that a non-religious person like me should take historical evidence about Jesus as sufficient to believe in God. Rather, the paper argues that for the already religious, some miracles (the resurrection in particular) are more likely than alternate explanations. I have devoted almost no thought to that topic, and hence my whole critique was attacking a position that the paper did not hold. Consider this retracted.
Chez Foseti, in the comments, a kind soul asked me to review this paper purporting to prove the Christ-ness of Jesus of Nazareth.