Yowzer! I just stumbled across this article in which the author uses a Kuzari-proof for attesting to the reliability of the resurrection of Jesus:
The primary point you will want to make here is that the New Testament provides both valid contemporary accounts of those who personally profess to have seen Jesus Christ alive and embodied subsequent to his death and burial in the stone tomb (Peter, Paul, John etc...) and contemporary second hand but specific accounts of others who profess to be eyewitnesses of the same (James, the 12, Luke, Mark, the "over 500" 1st Corinthians 15). There are many ways of establishing this that I do not have the time and space to explore in this short essay.(Complete article here.)
If someone objects that in the discussion of bodily resurrection you have stepped beyond the realm of history and into the realm of "myth" or "faith", simply ask them whether they consider a public event to which hundreds testify as witness to be within the realm of historical inquiry.
If they say "no" then they have delegitimized and discounted whole swathes of human history.
If they say "yes" then you simply suggest that given the multiple attestation and primary source documents available then it is certainly legitimate to recognize the resurrection as an event within the realm of public history.