This has been the most interesting thread in a long time. The arguments against the resurrection are always the same. The ones I find the most unbelievable are those like Mr. Bean who claim that if there was a God who had a plan for salvation he surely would have made it easier to understand and more clear so that no one could refute it. This line of thinkng is not only illogical, it ignores the evidence that exists. The message of Salvation is very easy to understand and to believe. God sent his son to take our place and to die for us in forgiveness of our sins. All we have to do is believe it. He has given us everything we need to believe, we simply need to make the choice to open up to the evidence. It is not a blind faith, but a faith based upon evidence that is looked at objectively can only lead to one conclusion.
Jesus came to the Earth at a time when there were no T.V.'s, radios, or means of mass communication. The story of his life past the way all other biographies were passed at that time, by word of mouth and ultimately in writing. At the time, no one would have questioned being told orally about Jesus for a time before it was written down. The fact that his biographies are so close in time to his actual life is in reality an exception rather than the rule for ancient biographies. Yet despite this, people today question the process and say that because it was done in such a manner it can't be reliable. In other words, we would do it differnetly today, so it can't be trusted. The true test would be to compare the Gospels and other early writings about Jesus to other biographies of the same time period and see how they stand up.
In addition, you can't discount the test that the audience would have placed upon those who were relating the events. The Jewish people were trained and in fact it was a large part of their culture to tell stories of past events orally. Their oral tradition to pass on historical events is remarkable. They would have questioned any account that could not stand up. And they would have questioned these accounts that were being preached in their oral form even before they were written down.
Also, the letter of Paul to the Corinthians, which was written before the Gospels, shows that the early church was already believing in a resurrected Christ. See 1 Corintians 15:8
To say that God should have done something different or spread his message at a different time or place is incrediably presumptious. If you don't believe the message he has already sent, what makes you think you would believe it a different way? What different words could he give you to make things different? Tell me how who would want to have heard the message and what it would take for you to believe and we will see if that message has not already been given.
The arguments aginst the resurrection are never really an attack on the evidence that exists to show that it is unreliable or that the events didn't happen that way, they are really simply a list of speculations and unfounded presumptions in an attempt to raise questions or justify not believing the evidence that exists. For example, the idea that Jesus may have simply revived from a state that they thought was death. I would suggest that if you think that is possible, go without food and water for a day and night, have someone who hates you strike you on the back with a leather strap with imbedded nails thirty nine times, be slapped and punched multiple times, have a crown of thorns jammed on your head, carry a heavy crosstimber througha town and up a hill, have a person spread your arms out a nail a spike through your hands or wrist, have a person cross your feet and nail a spike through them and hang you up for hours and then to make sure you are dead stab you with a spear. Then see if you merely assumed to be dead so that you can revive.
Theere is no account of historians of their day writing that the story was being spread about a crucified Jesus who was said to have risen, yet people checked the tomb and his body was still there, or yet the people who were spreading the story were proven to be crazy or unreliable. No other historian has said that the accounts of Paeter, Luke, Paul or the others were investigated at the time they were written and proven to be false. To use the same logic as the skeptics, don't you think if that had happened, there would be some evidence of it?.
From my studies the best book on the ressurection that I have read is Lee Strobel's A Case for Christ. I would highly reccommend it.
God's blessings to you all.
