Resurrection of Jesus Christ

First, let's tackle the least difficult question first. "However, I am not so sure he was dead when he was taken down from the cross." There was no question that Jesus died. He would have had to survive a scourging, a punishment that was so brutal, victims did not always survive, a crucifixion, a punishment nobody survived because it was intended to kill and was brutally efficient, and survive a spear through the rib and to the heart, a punishment that was intended to make sure that the victim died. Even if he survived all that, when he woke up from his grave, he would have had to relocate his shoulder and maybe his elbows back into place, stand up on feet that were now most likely useless. He would have had to move a tombstone that weighed several hundred pounds, and then overpower several guards that were watching over his tomb. Then he would have had to walk 7 miles to Emmaus, and convince his friends there that he was risen, then walk 7 miles to Jerusalem and pass through the city without being recognized or even attracting attention to himself, while wearing only his burial clothes with strips of skin hanging from his body from the scourging. Jesus then had to find his disciples, somehow sneak into the room without being detected, and make it seem to the disciples that he had rose from the dead and had defeated death. At the very least, they would have called a doctor, not spreading the good news of Jesus' resurrection and other such things. They also would not have been willing to die for this!The other objection that must be addressed is whether or not the Bible is correct as far as miracles or historical evidence.First, the objection of "None of the Gospel authors were at the Crucifixion." John the disciple was at Jesus' crucifixion. Also, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also at his crucifixion, and she is where the gospel writer Luke got most of his information. The New Testament had a very little chance of having information fabricated and exaggerated. According to Dr. Josh McDowell in his book,Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, he says, "Two factors are most important in determining the reliability of a historical document: the number of manuscript copies in existence, and the time between when it was first written, and the oldest existing copy." For Caesar's book, The Gallic Wars, the time span was 1,000 years, and the number of copies was 10. For Plato, the time span was 1,200 years, and the amount of existing manuscripts is 7. Now, however, for the New Testament, the time was 25 years and the number of copies is 24,000+. As far as fabrication and embellishment, there was a very little chance of that happening. Compared to other writings of this time, the New Testament is more reliable by far. As for making up the resurrection and other miracles that Jesus performed, it was completely illogical for the New Testament writers to do this. They knew that relating such impossible facts would get them killed. And it did! Every New Testament writer got martyred for their faith, with the exception of John, who was marooned on the island of Patmos by the Roman government. There was nothing to gain, but everything to lose. Yet, they were so passionate about what they had seen, that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed to be the truth. http://www.youtube.com...