Over the past few years, I've been putting together collections of links to our material on issues related to Easter:
The 2009 post is foundational to the others, so you should start there if you're looking for information on an Easter-related issue.
Since the 2011 post, Rhology proposed a harmonization of the resurrection narratives. I then wrote about how non-Christians often harmonize sources in other contexts. Steve Hays wrote a post about the principles involved in harmonization of the accounts. Steve also addressed the issue of how many angels were at the tomb.
I wrote a post about whether the risen Jesus should have appeared to more people. Steve wrote on the same subject.
I posted a link to a debate on the resurrection between Michael Licona and Stephen Patterson. Steve linked to Tim McGrew's reply to some critics of an article he wrote on the resurrection. He also linked an article by Paul Barnett on Pauline evidence for the resurrection and another on resurrection evidence in general. Early this year, he linked an article by David Marshall that responds to Robert Price on the resurrection. He also linked a post by Lydia McGrew on the probability of the resurrection. Yesterday, I linked an article about the Shroud of Turin and its status as evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
Patrick Chan wrote about the unlikeliness of the disciples' behavior if Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
Steve posted about how skeptical speculations concerning a multiverse interfere with their arguments against the resurrection.
Here's a post by Steve regarding John 20:19 and Jesus' entrance into a locked room in that passage.
We posted a lot about the dispute between Norman Geisler and Michael Licona concerning Matthew 27:52-53. Here's Steve's assessment of the controversy. Steve later replied to Jamin Hubner on the subject. Here's another response to Geisler. And here's a post he wrote about an inconsistency on Geisler's part. Steve wrote about some problems with the arguments made by Geisler and Albert Mohler. And he linked a post by Nick Norelli on the controversy. He also posted some comments from Licona written in response to Mohler. Then Steve discussed the relevance of the Peter Enns case to the dispute between Geisler and Licona. He also responded to Peter Lumpkins. And here's a further response to Geisler from Steve. He commented on some neglected larger issues surrounding the passage in question. He later wrote more along the same lines. Here's a post about the relationship between inerrancy and hermeneutics. And here's a summary of some of the issue involved in the controversy. Here he posted a link to another article by Licona. I posted about some patristic evidence relevant to the controversy.
Earlier this year, Steve and I published an e-book that addresses resurrection-related issues, especially in chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 8 interacts with a parallel Matt McCormick has drawn between the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the evidence for witchcraft at Salem. Chapter 9 responds to Robert Price's argument that Jesus' resurrection isn't implied even if we accept a high view of the historicity of the gospels.