Here’s an archive of our articles on issues related to the resurrection. Steve Hays has written an e-book on the resurrection, titled This Joyful Eastertide. It has hundreds of pages of searchable text and covers a large variety of topics. Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Glenn Miller, J.P. Holding, David Wood, Christian CADRE, and Apologetics 315 have a lot of helpful material.
See, for example, Christian CADRE’s resource page on the resurrection. Chris Price and John Sabatino have a page featuring reviews of Christian and non-Christian books on the resurrection. J.P. Holding has an article on the early Christians’ belief in a physical resurrection. A contributor to his web site has an article on the subjective visions hypothesis. See, also, Gary Habermas’ article on the subject. On harmonization of the resurrection narratives, see here and here. These are just several examples of what you’ll find at these sites.
Triablogue’s Reviews Of Some Resurrection Debates
Steve Hays’ Review Of The 2006 Debate Between Bart Ehrman And William Lane Craig
My Review Of The 2006 Debate Between Bart Ehrman And William Lane Craig
The 2008 Debate Between Bart Ehrman And Michael Licona
The 2008 Debate Between Arif Ahmed And Gary Habermas
The 2009 Debate Between Richard Carrier And William Lane Craig
Triablogue’s Responses To Some Easter Objections
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The principle of dwindling probabilities renders the resurrection historically unlikely.
The early Christians were biased, and they may have distorted the historical record, so we can’t trust the evidence we have for Jesus’ resurrection.
Ancient people were too gullible for the resurrection accounts to be credible.
Since miracles don't occur today, it's difficult to believe that one occurred two thousand years ago. We've moved beyond the superstitious, pre-scientific worldview of the ancients.
Sometimes eyewitnesses are wrong.
The gospels initially circulated as anonymous documents.
The early enemies of Christianity may have been too apathetic about the religion to refute it, even when they were in a position to do so.
The empty tomb account is late and only comes from Christian sources.
The resurrection witnesses may not have had any physical evidence for their belief in the resurrection. Accounts of physical evidence may not have arisen until around the time when the gospels were written, much later.
The apostle Paul didn’t believe in a physical resurrection.
The resurrection accounts developed over time, as we’d expect with an unhistorical legend.
The resurrection accounts contradict each other.
Harmonization is an invalid practice that’s rejected by mainstream scholarship.
What about miracle claims in other religions?
The gospels were written in a non-historical genre.
Matthew 27:52-53 demonstrates that the gospel writers either weren’t writing in a historical genre or were willing to believe unlikely resurrection accounts or make them up.
The resurrection witnesses experienced naturalistic visions rather than hallucinations.
The risen Christ didn’t appear to enough people.
We don’t have good evidence that witnesses of the resurrection died for their belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
Christian claims about scholarly support for the evidence relevant to the resurrection are insignificant, since so many of those scholars are conservative Christians.
Arguments for the resurrection don’t serve much of a purpose. They don’t change anybody’s mind. They’re only appealing to people who are already Christians, because the arguments make them more confident in their faith.
Easter is a pagan and commercialized holiday, so Christians shouldn’t celebrate it.