1. No one recognizes him
2. Christ's resurrected body is nothing like what anyone would have expected
One of the things that points to the truth of the resurrection is the nature and substance of Jesus' resurrected body. Whether you're talking about the people of the ancient Near East, or skeptics and believers today, few seem to comprehend the precise nature of this transformation. In Scripture we can see how this confusion played out. On one occasion, for example, we see Jesus tell the disciples rather directly that he is "not a ghost", for apparently some may have suspected that he was. On the other hand, he is also quick to point out that he has not merely returning as he was before, for, as the Gospels inform us, he "appears in their midst" even when the doors are locked. Thus, in the simplest of terms, his resurrected body is still a physical body, but one which is apparently not bound by space and time. Even today people quite often conflate the resurrection of the body with what may more accurately be described as "resuscitation" (as was the case with Lazarus). Others imagine that the resurrection had to have been more of a kind of "spiritual" appearance rather than one that was bodily (by "spiritual" I mean the spirit of his ministry remained with them). However, what was far from their minds at the time, and still is very little understood, is the fact that Jesus is a marriage (in his own body) of heaven and earth- of spirit and matter. He has not simply "come back from the dead", rather he has, in some mysterious way, passed through death, mastered it, and is now capable of transforming it. This may in the end explain why his wounds are still visible, even while they no longer "wound" him (another odd detail which will be dealt with later).
3. He still eats
I am not sure why this is so comic to me, but it is worth noting that just about every time Jesus appears in his resurrected body, there's some eatin' goin' on. On one particular occasion, he arrives in the upper room unannounced, and after inviting "doubting" Thomas to stick his hand in his wounds, Jesus inquires as to whether anyone's "got something to eat". Now it might just be my imagination, but I always imagine him saying it in a very down to earth sort of way, like a friend coming over to your house who feels extremely comfortable to the point of checking out what kind of food you have in your refrigerator. But whatever your view of the incident, who would feel the need to insert this in the story were it not the case? Presumably if you were making this story up whole cloth, you would want him to be as ethereal and beyond human grasp as possible, but these appearances often combine both human and divine elements (which is consistent with the fact that he is both). Apparently this "superman", in spite of his heavenly origins/destination, still enjoys a nice meal, which frequently includes bread and fish, not to mention more frequently than not, some good wine.
4. What's up with the burial cloths?
"So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. The two were running together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead."
What is interesting about the language employed in this passage is the fact that the Greek word for "saw" implies more of a sense of deep contemplation in relation to the burial cloths (and their arrangement in the tomb), rather than some ocular observation about the vacancy of the tomb. And thus whatever they saw on/with the cloth, it was apparently sufficient enough to bring them both to faith… even though, as the passage suggests, they did not know that he must "rise again from the dead".
5. No one suspected that Jesus would rise from the dead in spite of the fact that he told everyone that he would... repeatedly
Speaking of not knowing that Jesus was to rise from the dead… File this under the category of things impossible to fathom if you know anything about the Christian story. Ask any Christian to tell you the central theme of the Christian story, and you will likely hear something about the resurrection (I hope). Therefore, it is difficult to overlook the strange fact that in the Gospels, though Jesus told them over and over again, few understood that he was soon to die, and even fewer understood that he would rise again on the third day. Indeed, not one person in the story, in spite of this being the whole point of his ministry, seems to believe and/or expect that he would come back. To call this a kind of strange comedy routine would not precisely capture it, but how do you explain the fact that the writers of the Gospel seem aware that this was a part of his plan all along, while simultaneously admitting that no one had a clue about it... even after encountering the resurrected Christ? Who would tell the story this way? It's one thing to describe yourself (meaning the disciples) as grateful and in awe for all that has happened, and quite another to depict yourself as someone about as clueless as Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber. Yet when you consider just how utterly unique and solitary such an event would be in the history of the world, it is perhaps not so difficult to understand their incredulity.
6. Even when they were looking straight at him they "doubted"
At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, the apostle recounts the fact that the disciples worshiped the risen Christ on a mountain in Galilee, but "some doubted". In this particular passage Jesus is sending his disciples into the whole world in order to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. So much for "seeing means believing," right? At this point one has to wonder how it is even possible to stand (or kneel) looking straight at this man named Jesus, and still wonder if what you are looking at is in fact what you are looking at. This certainly lends credence to Jesus' parable about the rich man that wants to return from the dead in order to warn his family about the potential for future calamity in the next life. Jesus responds to him by saying that "if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then neither will they believe it should someone rise from the dead." Whatever you want to say about this mysterious passage, it certainly demonstrates the limits of the five senses, and ultimately begs for a "sixth one," namely the kind that requires faith to "believe one's own eyes."
7. St. Paul goes from killing Christians to converting the entire Mediterranean
8. The angel at the tomb tells the women to inform the disciples that Jesus Christ is risen and in response the women "tell no one"
9. Why does Jesus still have wounds after the resurrection?
"Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them; "Peace be with you." And when he had said this he showed them both his hands and his side." John 20:19-20
10. Post-resurrection encounter at the lake of Tiberias is spectacular for being unspectacular
11. The change after Pentecost
What is thoroughly striking to me about the Gospel writers is just how willing they are to depict themselves as clueless buffoons and cowards during Christ's ministry, even up until the time of Pentecost. They say that the victors get to write history, and that may well be true, but who has ever heard of the "victors" depicting themselves as a bunch of treasonous clods? I do not say this by way of insult, but rather as a way of pointing out the believability of their claim. For it is not I who depicted them this way, but rather they themselves. My larger point is this- if we were trying to make a convincing case about something most extraordinary, depicting the story tellers themselves as Laurel and Hardy, might not be the best route to take. It certainly wouldn't get you hired for any good job. Throw in there the dismal way in which the story appears to conclude, and it really does not bode well for their larger cause. But hold on, you say, Jesus rose from the dead, so no worries about all that previous confusion. Regardless, to somebody who has never heard the story before, the confusion on the part of the apostles makes the narrative feel more than a little uneven and odd. If the "victors" were really going to ingratiate themselves (and their Lord) to their audience, why would they include with so many negative details? Yet what if this was the only story they had to work with? I do not disagree that this is the story they had to work with, what perplexes me is that they worked with it at all... and it worked! Even more inexplicable, is the fact that these figures/disciples, who clearly understood nothing before the day of Pentecost, and who subsequently spent a good deal of time hiding in the Upper Room for fear of persecution, emerged from that same Upper Room on the day of Pentecost completely transformed with an understanding and courage that was plainly absent before. I suppose you could argue that this was their only alternative. They were backed into a corner, and they decided to fight and die instead of continuing to cower. However, such a characterization would be facile and incomplete. What the disciples experienced that day (and everyone that encountered them) was far more transformational than some Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid moment. Such an immediate transformation would be about as inexplicable as someone who is borderline illiterate composing the entire works of Shakespeare out of the blue, or someone who was formerly tone deaf and who inexplicably starting singing like Andrea Bocelli. It is one thing to find the courage and bravery to say what needs to be said to a hostile audience, and quite another to travel to the four winds, with knowledge, confidence, courage, and the capacity to convert the known world- as well as the grace to die a gruesome death in the name of said message. I'm sorry- there are just some things which require too much faith for me to believe in, and in this case it simply requires less faith to believe that there were special little tongues of fire/grace that did appear over their heads which ultimately did fill them and propel them on that day and beyond. This, in my opinion, is far easier to accept than the idea that a whole community of formerly ignorant disciples, rallied around a failure who didn't really rise from the dead, and then subsequently managed to convince all future generations of this story uptimes until this day… even though it is a dumb vacuous lie. Incidentally, there have been many "editors" in history who have tried to clean up this story and make it "more neat and tidy" (and therefore less down to earth), but these sanitized accounts were always rejected by the so-called "victors".
12. All other explanations for the empty tomb just strike me as silly by comparison
Few people, including the religious leaders of Jesus' day, ever doubted the fact that the tomb was empty. This seems to be the historically accepted view, for no one in the subsequent generations really questioned this aspect of the story. Over the centuries, what skeptics have proposed are a variety of alternatives to the notion that Jesus rose from the dead. Some have argued that Jesus wasn't really dead when he was taken down from the cross, others have suggested (as did the Jewish authorities), that Jesus' disciples stole the body (though this latter explanation offers nothing to account for how they got past the guards and/or stealthily moved the tremendous weighty stone that would have presumably sealed the tomb). Another hypothesis suggests that the mourners visited the wrong tomb, and thus concocted an entire narrative from that misunderstanding. A similar explanation has it that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body from his family's tomb after a short period of time, ultimately placing it in a criminals graveyard. Other religions, like Islam, suggest that another man died in Jesus' place, while God took Jesus up to heaven. Buddhists and Gnostics believe that whatever seemed to have happened to Jesus was an illusion, for Jesus never really appeared in the flesh, and so was never really crucified. What these alternatives reveal (at least to me) is that people in general have such a huge problem with the heart of the Christian story, that they are willing to invent an even more outrageous and incongruent story, if only to obfuscate the unbelievable possibility that the resurrection actually occurred. And while I certainly understand doubts that people have regarding these miraculous events, I do not think it wise to invent multiple miraculous events and impossibilities in order to overturn the central one. Taken in isolation, these alternatives may work on some level, but considering all the events that follow, such explanations seem flimsy. To put it another way, in order for me to really entertain the possibility that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I would first need a better alternative than the idea of mass hysteria and delusion in Jerusalem and/or the idea that "zombie Jesus" inspired the spread of the Gospel to all people and generations up to our time.
13. I'm sorry- the claim that the resurrection is a plagiarism of other mythological tales just doesn't hold water for me