So, I've presented the case considering three historical facts: Jesus's death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, and the beliefs of friends, an enemy and a skeptic that Jesus had been raised from the dead and appeared to them.
These are based on logical arguments and nonbiblical sources. I've also shown that even today's skeptical historians hold these facts as accepted as truth. Rarely can something in history be concluded as 100% accurate, so the historian looks for high probability and selects the best explanation of the known facts.
Can any natural explanation account for all these facts as well? Can these facts be explained using other theories in science, history, psychology or philosophy? I say the answer is no. One has to either prove that the facts are wrong or that the logic in the arguments is flawed. Any other theory must be able to withstand the same scrutiny.
Short of that, Jesus's resurrection is the best explanation of the historical facts presented in the previous posts, and therefore, one can conclude with confidence that it was an event that occurred in history. And if it did occur, Christianity is true and all other religions are false.
I understand that my last statement is a very bold statement and some will consider as offensive. While I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm also not going to apologize for that, but challenge those who feel that way to take a serious look at what has been presented. If you can refute these facts with solid proof then please present then and let's have a discussion about that. If you can't, then maybe you should give serious consideration to the thought that this is true. If anyone wants to discuss this in a less public setting, please feel free to email me. My email is shanecomeaux at msn dot com.
As previously stated, the huge majority of the info I've used for these posts have come from the book entitled, Paul Meets Muhammad in the chapter, "Paul's Opening Statement." It goes into a lot more details than I've done here and "Muhammed" is giving the opportunity to refute each point in his rebuttal. Then they go back and forth with questions from a moderator. I can't recommend this book highly enough.