In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
The case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ has already been provided.
First, if Jesus never rose from the grave, why didn't the Jewish religious leaders provide a body to put a stop to the resurrection account?
Second, if the followers of Jesus stole the body to perpetrate a lie, I want to remind you of the kind of people we’re talking about – they were cowards who ran when Jesus was arrested. And yet, when persecuted, beaten, tortured, and even killed, they still refused to recant their claim that Jesus had risen.
Paul said that over 500 people saw Jesus alive after the resurrection, and he said that many of them were still alive at the time he wrote that. The time to cross-examine an eye witness to an event is while they are still alive. (Note: at that time, Paul was easily reached, having been thrown in a Roman dungeon for preaching Jesus, so anybody could have asked him for those names - they didn't - for obvious reasons - they couldn't afford to ask, lest they be discredited). If, however, you wait until after they are dead to challenge their claim, you either accept the written account, or it is up to you to disprove their claims. You have done neither.
Therefore, atheists have the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges atheism, not the other way around. Because the Bible contradicts atheism, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. Atheism is in error until it proves itself.
Atheists violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that atheists do not have the burden of proof and that atheists judge the Bible.