1. I do not have time to get into a long discussion on the resurrection. I leave that to others here who are as well versed in this as I am to do so if they choose.
2. FYI, I am VERY well versed in this. I'm not going to toot my own horn other than to say that I am formally trained in this material. And given that training, not for ideological reasons, but because of the peer reviewed literature I've read, I don't take seriously anything that gets into buzzwords like "Christian revisionism." You don't strike me as the type of guy who is reading full length book treatments on this subject, so I suspect you are reading popular "news" articles, or worse, conspiracy sites like jesusneverexisted.com or rationalwiki. Please don't get your information from that. Not from Yahoo. Not from CNN. Not from the Telegraph. Not from Salon. I've read all that, too. Ignore the Jesus Seminar. Please don't take fools like Barton seriously. The best way to embarrass yourself when talking to people who are formally trained is to use that sort of language.
3. I'm not going to link you to a website. The subject is too big. I have literally read tens of thousands of pages on this material of scholarly work (I was reading 8,000 pages a semester for just one of my degrees). There are some websites that are good, but they're only worth linking to in the context of a broader conversation.
Given that, I will refer you to three works.
First, take an hour or so and read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte (available online here). It's a good primer on how idiotic skeptics have destroyed historiography as a science. Thankfully, their methods have been abandoned by historians in general in pretty much every field except poplar biblical studies (the garbage you read on CNN and the Telegraph). It was a book written in 1819, and it is still extremely relevant today. Actually, the real book to read here would be The First Historians by Baruch Halpern, but it's too long and dense, and I wouldn't put you through that at this stage. So Whately's work is where I think you should start.
Second, go to your school's library and either check out or put in an ILL request for Pinchas Lapide's The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. The important thing here is that Lapide was a top notch Jewish scholar who was not a Christian, but after surveying the evidence, he became convinced that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. The evidence is just that insurmountable. Again, I emphasize, this is a NON-CHRISTIAN who after looking at the evidence is forced to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. I disagree with some of his conclusions because he is highly, highly skeptical on too many things. But even his skepticism isn't enough to deny this necessary conclusions.
Lastly, I would point you to Michael J. Wilkins' and J. P. Moreland's Jesus Under Fire. That book will show why the stuff you are reading is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry to be so blunt in my language, but really . . . to talk about Christian revisionism or compare Jesus' resurrection with Muhammad's ascension (what's next, a comparison of Jesus with Mithras, Osiris, and Horus?!?!) is the academic equivalent of asking if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys.
Weblinks . . . yeah, those can be provided in support of specific points. I know you have a lot of work to do, and reading books isn't on your list. But I hope you recognize that the resurrection of Jesus is THE central claim of Christianity. If it is true, Christianity is true, and something that important is going to take more than an hour of reading weblinks to figure out if you want a real understanding of the subject matter.
Again, the good news is that most people here are well versed in this material, and I can drop by in your study and answer questions from time to time, too.
As an aside, the three I mentioned are in no way "heavy hitters." That's really entry level stuff. You want heavy stuff, I'd be referring you to William Lane Craig's doctoral dissertation, one of Gary Habermas' many works, N. T. Wright's seminal series on the Resurrection, Mike Licona's new offering, or one of many, many others. But I know you don't have the time for all that, and I'm just trying to get you started, my friend!
"I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” 
) . First day of school I was sitting all by my lonesome when this very attractive blonde upperclassman invited me to sit at her table with her friends; obviously, being 14, I did. They went through everything you'd expect "where're you from" "where do you live" "what sports" et cetera et cetera..... After all the aforementioned questions she then asked a question I'd never been asked to that point in my life "do you know jesus christ" --loaded question I should've known-- I answered "of course I know who he is" -but again it's loaded! ahh- she then responded "but do you know him?" You can probably assume how the conversation went from there. Later in that conversation she asked for my number and if I wanted to come to church with here, again, you can probably assume how that went as well. So within 2 weeks I was a regular church goer, I'd accepted Christ as my savior, I was in the confirmation classes to become Catholic. I'd taken it all very deeply; she'd drive me to go to adoration, to pray, daily masses, everything a "good" catholic should do. I loved it, I absolutely loved it. I got myself a bible, read through the gospels:loved it, read romans:loved it, read judges-2 kings: interesting stories, loved it. I eventually went on to read a good portion of the new testament, and Genesis through 2 kings --skipping leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy. ( what's with the new craze of everybody saying they read the entire bible/koran?) 
), I felt anew. From the moment of my first communion I wanted nothing of than to focus my life on Christ, It was such a tremendous feeling, It really was. I had purpose, I had assurance after death, I had such a strong sense of overall meaning in life. 
. 
). I thought Ham would know, and didn't really care either way, so I went YEC for a bit.
