This following disclaimer come directly from part two of the review, and it is as relevant here as before.
First I feel we need to insert a disclaimer here that refers to part one of the movie. Basically for an analysis of part two of this movie we have to accept the "evidence" for factual gospels as presented in part one. However, as I have demonstrated this so called evidence is not legitimate. This needs to be kept in mind, and would erase the need for part two and three of the review. However, I feel that I should at least complete the review lest I get called out by some theist that would say I did not give it a fair chance.
The Resurrection.
Lee Stroebel again brings us a group of experts so we can know that we are assessing the resurrection in an unbiased and factual way. The experts are the non biased William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona.
Now there is one thing that me an the experts do agree on. Simply put Jesus must have died, after all if he did not die then he could not be resurrected. It is also important here that we should notice that, according to the experts, all the gospels should give the same account as to where Jesus was buried, i.e. the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This is rather interesting, as in part one of the review it was essential that the gospels are different as they make the gospels more human. Now in contrast the gospels have to be precisely the same. Additionally, the fact that Jesus was buried in this tomb is important as Joseph of Arimathea was big shot in the time than Jesus lived. This leads credibility (some how) to the fact that Jesus was important, as why else would he be offered a tomb of an influential person.
So before we carry on, what have we learned so far? We have learned that depending what question you want answered you need to interpret the Bible differently. Additionally, we have learned that Jesus was dead. Naturally these two important facts bring us to the all important question.
Was the Resurrection real?
The first piece of evidence toted by apologist is the argument that women found the tomb empty, and it is reported as such in the Bible that women found an empty tomb, This is meant to imply that we should trust this account as women at that time were not to be trusted and so by the Bible putting this information down it illustrates that Jesus certainly was resurrected. Or, it could mean the Bible itself is saying that the resurrection never happened and the women who were not to be trusted really were not to be trusted. Which one is more plausible based on the information we have?
The second piece of information that is meant to make us believe the gospel story is that the guards at the tomb who didn't find Jesus body were approached by their superiors who wanted to pay them off for not going public.
"When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'"
Well, I mean did the Romans really care, especially when very soon (Emperor Nero is a coming) we are going to start hearing complaints that Christian persecution is savage and brutal. So this tale of the guards is for me something that could be true for many reasons, like appeasement, it could be true, or they honestly did not care about an upstart religion. Lets not forget the reason Jesus was crucified was due to the Jewish elders going to Pilate and basically creating a stink about this upstart cult.
So far we have two pieces of evidence for a resurrection from a source that needs a resurrection to hold any weight. So, are we going to get any external verification? The simple answer is no, we are not.
So what other evidence is there to support the resurrection. Well, hundred of people saw Jesus alive, naturally Jesus only appeared to believers mainly who could misinterpret events, or who may never have seen Jesus before and were in fact just looking at some other random dude who had not shaved in 3 days. I said mainly, as the case of Saul (who became Paul) is one of a conversion experience when he saw Jesus. Granted its again all told in that big book of truth so it must be true. However, on a lark to be skeptical I found that this account of the blindness of Saul and what followed has alternative explanations such is sun stroke.
Lastly, we get told that persecution of early Christians and throughout the Roman Empire proves the resurrection. This is convoluted rationalization, as it says people are more willing to get persecuted for their beliefs if they believe it is true, and this staying true is simple as we all know the resurrection was true. Convoluted? Yes, very, however, I think I got the main points.
So did the persecution of the Christians happen. Well, yes under Nero for about 2 years there was persecution of the Christians in Rome due to Nero pinning the blame of a massive fire on the Christians. This was a horrific thing to do, as it is likely the Christians were not guilty of starting the fire. However, either way, the Christians were not persecuted for their beliefs, they were just persecuted due to an arrogant emperor who took the easy way out of a crisis. Reminds me of the Republican and Democrat nominees in many ways.
Then the next persecution occurred in the year 300 and further, at which point Christianity is now beast of a religion and the resurrection is well established as doctrine. The reason people are now getting prosecuted and not giving up their faith no longer has anything to do with specific tenants it has to do with a life choice and sticking to it. This is totally commendable, however to equate this as proof of the resurrection is pure lunacy.
So was the resurrection real? I am not convinced.
Perhaps this movie may help you understand what I mean, by the reality and reliability of eyewitness evidence.
