If your claim is the existence of a supernatural, then yes, I do want evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has to be established *before* we can take the story of Jesus at face value. If the evidence for Jesus isn't at *least* beyond a reasonable doubt, then it simply isn't sufficient to demonstrate its claim: that Jesus was a deity incarnate.That brings me to the next point. What is and isn't evidence?
That is undoubtedly a major point of contention. What is the standard of evidence? Is it the preponderance of the evidence which is 51% or higher, or is it beyond reasonable doubt? With all due respect to the uninitiated in legal and historical matters, the higher standard is only applied in criminal cases. Not civil cases or historical research. Certainty isn't the goal in presenting evidence for the spiritual seeker. Certainty would have us all in Vegas or never leaving the bathroom.
This is not simply a historical question. The historical question is whether some preacher in the early first century taught the things attributed to Jesus and was then killed by hanging on a cross.*That* requires a much lower standard of evidence than the much more relevant issue of the supernatural claims about Jesus' identity. Whether there were people who *believed* that Jesus rose from the dead is another historical question. But even the existence of people with this belief is insufficient for the proof that they were correct in their beliefs.
So, even if we could prove the historical existence of a preacher that taught as Jesus did in the gospels, and that there were people who honestly believed they saw him alive afterwards, is that sufficient to show that Jesus was, indeed, a divinity made human? No. Far from it. The standards of evidence for the two cases is far different. One, as you say, is a historical question with lower standards of proof (partly by necessity), but also more doubt about the conclusions made. The other is a deep question about the nature of reality and needs to be addressed separately and with a much higher standard of proof.