The strongest argument against the resurrection of Jesus is that there is any debate about it at all.

Consider the purpose of the resurrection of Jesus in Christian theology. It was, in spite of Jesus's execution, the token of God's ultimate vindication of him. A proof that he was right after all, even though everyone who saw him executed thought that he "lost".

But notice the extremely "convenient" nature of the story:

• Jesus rose from the dead! Yet:
  • No one gets to see him. He's gone now
  • He allegedly appeared to his friends and followers for a little while, and then disappeared, and no one ever saw him again

This is the opposite of vindication. This is instead exactly what one would expect if Jesus did not rise from the dead at all, and instead, had a group of devoted followers who desperately wanted him to be vindicated after he was executed, and who refused to admit that they had been tricked into unfortunately following a false prophet.

One would expect fireworks - proof which no human being could ever duplicate or fabricate, which would leave any earnest seeker at any time utterly convinced. Instead, what is seen is a phenomenon which is very easy to fabricate by any sufficiently devoted group of followers, following the death of their leader.

The Resurrection Narratives

It should go without saying that none of the resurrection narratives in the Gospels are trustworthy. They are written far too late, and functionally anonymously. Their historical value is limited to serving as a reference for what Christians 40+ years after Jesus's death may have believed.

So, what is left? The Apostle Paul - who never saw Jesus - his anonymous, nameless "500 witnesses", who apparently could not be bothered to write anything themselves, and his testimony that the early Christians preached the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Suppose that is true, and suppose that it started out as a physical resurrection story and not a spiritual resurrection story. Both of those granted, unfortunately, it remains that people lied back in the first century, too. And yes, even when it cost them everything, as there are certain people who are stubborn to the extent that they would literally rather die than admit that they were wrong, or that they had been tricked (into believing in Jesus, in this case).

The Big Picture

Returning to the topic of vindication - consider whether it is sensible for God to enact the following plan:

• He will raise the most important man to ever live from the dead - undoubtedly the most important event to ever happen - but then absolutely refuse to publicly vindicate him for the world to see. Instead, he will only have him appear to his friends, and then the rest of the world for all time will need to rely on second-hand accounts from those friends, in extremely late and contested writings

If Jesus actually rose, why not have him appear publicly in Jerusalem? Why not have him stay and teach for a period of years or decades, so that all doubt could be banished forever? Because he did not actually rise from the dead. That is why the story is so convenient.

The Object of Faith

If God raised Jesus from the dead, then any who actually saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes would be able to say that they have faith in God, and God's vindication of him. After all, they have supernatural proof of God's favor on him. This would be a valid object of faith.

But, for all who have never seen the risen Jesus, their faith is not in God. It is instead in the unreliable testimonies of human beings. And, human beings lie - a lot - even over very important things, because they have agendas.

So why would God shift the object of faith from direct evidence (seeing Jesus) to something that has burned basically every single human being to ever live (second-hand [and in this case, extremely contested] human testimony)? This shift rewards gullibility, and opens the door to lots of confusion, and the constant consideration of the possibility of fraud in the mind of any thinking person. It also makes verification impossible. In this scheme, the only ones who are rewarded are those who believe a story for which they have no evidence beyond the fervent assertions of the person in question's own followers.

But how is the average person, two thousand years later, supposed to distinguish between the extraordinary claims of one devoted sect, which turn out to be true, and the extraordinary claims of another devoted sect, which turn out to be lies? Many groups throughout history have claimed many incredible miracles, which were supposed to vindicate them as being the "true religion". At this late stage of human history, so far removed from the events, if one chooses to make the leap of faith, it is a leap into faith in extremely shoddy, contested human testimony, not faith in God.

However, in the case of Jesus specifically, the task is made easy, as one can examine the book that these people touted as being divine in their day (the Tanakh), see that it contains errors and absurdities, and come to the obvious conclusion that they were an unfortunately very confused, very angry sect of a false religion. Therefore, if they claimed - even under duress - that their executed leader rose from the dead (but no one gets to see him - he's disappeared now, don't ask), then one can conclude that they were lying, if they ever claimed such a thing at all.

Conclusion

No, Jesus did not rise from the dead. If he did, there would be no question at all about it, because the vindication of God would be so clear, that the evidence would be unassailable, and all doubt would be banished forever.

What is seen instead in Christianity is exactly what one would expect from the devoted followers of a failed apocalyptic prophet, who refused to admit that they had unfortunately been duped.

Appendix I - Responding to Christian Arguments for the Resurrection

1. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the conversion of his enemy, the Apostle Paul?
   • Response - Paul was a deeply disturbed person who thought that wayward Jews should be arrested and potentially executed when he himself was a Jew (Acts 7:57-59, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 22:4-5, 22:19-20, 26:9-11, Galatians 1:13, 1:21-23, Philippians 3:6: 1 Timothy 1:13). I believe that he probably had a guilt-induced vision/manic episode which he later interpreted to be about Jesus. He then saw his opportunity, and inserted himself into the Jesus movement, which he then essentially attempted to dominate.
     For some people, power, influence, and authority are strong motivators. These were potentially motivators for Paul, even though I think he probably believed what he was preaching. But, he was deluded. And, he was an extremely unclear communicator, as the meaning of his letters, even on major doctrines, is still intensely debated, even 2,000 years later.
2. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, why did his brother James, who rejected him, come to be a major figure in the Church?
   • Response - There is actually no way to prove that James hadn't joined the Jesus movement by the time of Jesus's execution. The verses referred to by Christians to support this are from various points in Jesus's ministry, where his brethren in general are said to not believe in him (Mark 3:21, 3:31, 6:3-4, John 7:52). However, the Gospels are not a reliable source of history. And, none of them say that James specifically had not come to faith by the end of Jesus's ministry.
     Finally, if he had converted after Jesus's execution, he himself could have simply been one swept up in the Jesus movement afterwards once some of them started reporting visions, or potentially being related to Jesus, he could have seen an opportunity for authority (he later became a Christian celebrity), and seen Jesus as compatible with traditional Judaism.
3. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, why didn't his enemies simply produce the body, and refute the whole Jesus movement?
   • Response - The preaching of the resurrection of Jesus probably began many months or a few years after he was executed, and I personally believe that at first, they preached a spiritual resurrection (i.e., God has raised his spirit to Heaven). I don't believe that anyone knew where he was buried, which may have been a common grave. All of the Gospel accounts, and Acts, contain completely made up events and conversations as to what happened shortly after Jesus's execution. Those narratives reflect Christian mythmaking from decades later.
4. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the Apostles going to their tortured deaths, and never once recanting?
   • There is no reliable historical evidence that even a single one of them claimed to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus in physical form, or that a single one of them were tortured or died for their defense of the physical resurrection of Jesus specifically.
     Stories about their deaths are from hagiographies written centuries later, when all sorts of works were being produced which purported to tell some story from the first century, usually casting a Biblical character in an extremely favorable light - performing miracles prolifically, etc. Read the Acts of Paul and Thecla, for instance, to see the kind of nonsense that was already circulating by the 2nd century. And there are many other such works.
5. God chose to spread His religion in this way, because He doesn't want to force anyone to believe. If the proof were irrefutable, then people would be forced to believe, which is not what He wants.
   • Then it's a particular kind of determinism - if someone tends to believe (fantastic) second-hand accounts, they are well-pleasing to God, if they require first-hand knowledge or absolute proof, then they will be damned. But actually, in this case, we don't even have second-hand accounts of the resurrection. We have mostly anonymous accounts, from authors combining existing accounts.
     It is not "virtue" or "humility" that leads someone to believe in the current Bible (especially with today's scientific and historical information), it is gullibility. The more informed one is, the less appealing Christianity seems - not because it doesn't have a lovely message (at times) - but because it is founded on a book filled with errors.
6. It is naive to think that most of Israel or a large part of the Roman Empire would have converted just from miracles. The Bible records many people seeing miracles, and not converting.
   • No, it is not naive, and someone stating that it is simply does not understand human nature. If a real human being sees a miracle, it is a life-changing event. If thousands of real human beings saw miracles, as the Bible describes, the entire history of the world from the first century onward would look dramatically different, because real human beings would respond in an incredible way. If those miracles had happened, no one would need to make any apologetic arguments. History would make it extremely obvious.
     Additionally, the Bible records people seeing miracles and not converting because they are characters in a fictional story that never happened - often the caricatured "super evil" person or group, serving as a foil to the "good guys", purposely written to be unrealistically stupid, or wicked. So, people didn't convert from the other "miracles" in the Bible, because none of those happened either.