Concerning the resurrection, here are some things to consider: Part A: Historical methods Here are some standard

rules used by all scholars who analyze ancient biographies. Basically, there is a list of criteria that scholars across the spectrum use for deciding which parts of ancient literary sources are more likely to be true. Its amazing when you see debates on this because both sides basically agree on the methodology. And, if you apply the methodology carefully, then both sides actually agree on what facts in the biographies are authentic. These are agreed by atheists and Christians alike. Here are some of the rules used for analyzing ancient biographies: 1) Multiple attestation if the fact about X is asserted by two or more sources, then the fact is likely authentic. 2) Dissimilarity if a teaching of X is different from popular teachings and concepts of that time and place, it is likely authentic. 3) Embarrassment if a fact is embarrassing to X or Xs community or the writers of the biography of X, then it is likely authentic. 4) Enemy attestation if a fact about X is corroborated by enemies of X, or Xs community, then that fact is likely to be authentic. 5) Early attestation if a fact about X is in an early source, then that fact is likely to be authentic. Part B: Minimal facts Based on above, here are some minimal facts as explained by different scholars: William Lane Craigs list of facts: 1) the empty tomb 2) the appearances experienced by various people, including Paul 3) early belief in the resurrection emerged in Jerusalem Gary Habermas list of facts: 1) death by crucifixion 2) early belief in resurrection 3) appearances experienced by disciples 4) Pauls appearance and change of heart 5) Jamess (Jesus brother) change of heart 6) the empty tomb Probably the most celebrated defender of the resurrection writing today is N. T. Wright. He makes a bit of a different case where he asks what sort of historical occurrence would be adequate to explain the changes in theology and practice that occurred when 1st century Jews in Jerusalem became Christians. His argument is that the changes (mutations) require a historical resurrection. Here is Wrights list: 1) the empty tomb 2) the appearances to various people

and 7 mutations (changes) in the way that early Christians changed their views of the meaning and centrality of the Jewish doctrines of the Messiah, resurrection, eschatology, etc. Youll may be surprised to know that few of these facts are disputed by atheistic historians like Gerd Ludemann, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Part C: Inference to the best explanation The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation for the facts. This hypothesis is consistent with all of the available data. Here are some alternative explanation of the facts that atheists often use and counter responses below each one: 1) Jesus wasnt really dead - crucifixion is lethal and you cant fake being dead - this doesnt explain the early belief in the resurrection, since a half-dead Jesus would not inspire a belief in the resurrection 2) Jesus disciples moved the body and lied about it - it doesnt explain the appearance to Paul, etc. - it doesnt explain why the early church was willing to be persecuted 3) The Jews moved the body and lied about it - they had no interest in helping a rival sect - it doesnt explain the appearance to Paul, etc. 4) The Romans moved the body and lied about it - they had no interest in helping a trouble-making sect - it doesnt explain the appearance to Paul, etc. 5) Somebody else moved the body - it doesnt explain the appearance to Paul, etc. - there is no evidence to support the claim 6) The early church hallucinated the appearances - group hallucinations are impossible - it doesnt explain the empty tomb - it doesnt explain the theological mutations about resurrection, since seeing a ghost does not imply a bodily resurrection

Adapted from: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com