Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

Okay, which source do you believe should have recorded the resurrection outside of the Bible?

Any and every source that knew the claim to be true, but the Romans specifically since they recorded tax records, records of land ownership, public decrees and many other types of documents.

And you think that the Romans would think that it would be fortuitous to report that a resurrection did happen? According to the Bible, that is exactly what Pilate wanting to prevent. Claims of a resurrection. Now the Romans would threaten the Roman Empire by fortifying the Jewish claims? It was best to sweep it under the carpet.

Face it, the Romans were gullible enough to believe in their false gods, knowing that a true god (or son of a god) and 500 other dead bodies resurrected should convince especially the gullible that there actually is a true god out there.
How about Seneca the Younger too? He was a Roman Stoic philosopher that lived during the time of Jesus. We have much of his work. No mention of a resurrection or the 500 corpses walking around.

Why assume that that "false gods" weren't representation of actual beings in the past? It is not easy to convince someone, like a pagan Roman, to suddenly believe in another god especially if Rome was against it. What good can come from then believing a story that doesn't benefit them?

It started with the eyewitnesses, of course! If there was no claim of a resurrection after Jesus was crucified, how would Paul have known about the resurrection claim?

Perhaps some people moved his body secretly. This would mean that there would be followers that might honestly believe that the corpse came back to life.
There is also the possibility that he made the whole thing up and just embellished upon rumors that began after a few decades.

How does moving a body secretly suddenly make people believe a corpse came back to life? If you witnessed a public execution of someone, would you assume they could come back from the dead? Wouldn't you want proof?

How are on earth would the rumour start? If Paul had heard of rumours, then clearly he didn't make the whole thing up. He would have had a belief system based on a prior belief.

Can you show that Pilate was worried about the guard, whether is was a temple guard or a Roman guard being bribed? Perhaps he was worried that aliens were going to take the body too? We can speculate all we want, but acts that defy reality deserve more than just speculation IMO.
Why wouldn't Pilate become a follower of Christ if he actually resurrected? Why wouldn't he become a follower after witnessing 500 dead bodies coming out of their graves and walking the streets?

Why would Pilate be worried? Because the body was the property of Rome when the tomb was sealed.

Not if there was no body in the tomb when it was sealed.

So you say that the Romans just in the case of Jesus didn't follow protocol and not inspect the tomb before sealing it?

He deliberately didn't want claims of a resurrection so you believe he wouldn't be unhappy if one of the guards got bribed and showed him up?

The gospels, written many decades after the fact by unknown authors make these claims.

Why do you take oral tradition out of the equation? Here is an example of how we know something is written from oral tradition:

"That is how the earliest oral tradition arose. It was a collection of Aramaic, memorised texts in which Jesus’ teaching was remembered and passed on. The existence of this oldest, Aramaic, layer has already been demonstrated in the previous chapter when we discussed the `measure’ and `salt’ passages. What I did not point out at the time was the fact that the peculiar mix of differences and samenesses in many synoptic passages cannot be solely due to the pen of the evangelists but requires an underlying oral tradition.

Compare, for instance, this simple question in Matthew, Mark and Luke: ‘What need I do to obtain eternal life?’

Matthew 19,16

Mark 10,17

Luke 18,18

Master,

Good master,

Good master,

what good should I do to obtain eternal life?

what should I do to inherit eternal life?

having done what will I inherit eternal life?

Notice not only the small variations in wording (obtain / inherit; what should I do / having done what), but especially how the word ‘good’ has travelled (good master what / master what good). In Greek there can be no mistaking: ‘good’ in the address is kale (Matthew, Luke) but as object kalon (Mark); and also its location in the sentence is different.

But in the underlying Aramaic, confusion was well possible, for the word ‘good’ (tôb) has the same form and could have stood in the middle:

rabbi, tôb mâ - master, what good . . . ?
rabbi tôb, mâ - master good, what . . . ?
Like this, words often ‘slide’ to new locations, showing the hand of an oral tradition. Words are fixed in written texts, not when they have been learnt by heart. ‘What I say in the dark, say in plain daylight’ (Matthew 10,27) becomes `what you say in the dark, will be heard in plain daylight (Luke 12,3). This is the kind of thing that happens when people recall texts from memory.


http://www.womenpriests.org/gospels/trteach.asp

And:

...the ideal was to recall exactly, "as detailed as possible," though obviously the ideal would have limits. Among the Jews, rabbis were encouraged to memorize entire books of the OT, indeed the whole OT, and all of Jewish education consisted of rote memory. Students were expected to remember the major events of narratives - although incidentals could be varied, if the main point was not affected [Wilk.JUF, 32].

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.php

For all we know, no guard was even set. It's possible that the story was written down based off of claims only, like Joseph Smith and his golden plates, only worse because so many decades passed. Joseph Smith claims were at least contemporary.

The gospels are too detailed to be based on claims only.

Pilate put himself first. He didn't want to lose his position as governor of Judea. Imagine if he went against the Jewish authorities who were employed by the Romans. Sedition, outrage!

Now imagine if no resurrection happened. Pilate wouldn't even worry about such things. Your confirmation bias has your starting point being that a resurrection happened. I cannot begin as such a starting point because I'm skeptical and bodies have NEVER been dead for days and come back to life that I'm aware of. The internals are darn near liquefied at that point.

If no resurrection had taken place, then Pilate would easily refute the claims of the resurrection. For the sake of the debate, I'm trying to convince you that the resurrection is a possibility, not that it is so.

It is true that scientifically, dead bodies, especially for days, is not possible. However, in order to dismiss the resurrection, we have to be 100% sure that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

This is significant because this is the penalty of someone who is derelict on duty. Do you believe a guard would dare let the body be stolen?

No, I don't believe a guard would have let the body be stolen. So, if there was a guard, the body would have been taken on Friday evening before a guard was set.

And so you assume that the guards would just not follow protocols just in Jesus' case.

Do you believe a guard would dare be so lazy or incompetent as to not examine a tomb to authenticate that the body was there in the first place?

Yes, especially if the guard was a temple guard.

What??? And incur the wrath of the law?

Here is the the punishment for lazy Temple guards:



THE MISHNAH, the tractate MIDDOT, circa 100 C.E.
from The Mishnah, tr. Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press, 1933

Chapter 1 1
The priests kept watch at three places in the Temple: at the Chamber of
Abtinas, at the Chamber of the Flame, and at the Chamber of the Hearth; and the
levites at twenty-one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Mount, four at its
four corners inside, five at five of the gates of the Temple Court, four at its four
corners outside, and one at the Chamber of Offerings, and one at the Chamber of
the Curtain, and one behind the place of the Mercy Seat. 2
The officer of the Temple Mount used to go round to every watch with lighted torches before him, and if any watch did not stand up and say to him, 'O officer of the Temple Mount, peace be to thee!' and it was manifest that he was asleep, he would beat him with his staff, and he had the right to burn his raiment. And they would say, 'What is the noise in the Temple Court?' 'The noise of some levite that is being beaten and having his raiment burnt because he went to sleep during his watch.'

They would just get a slap on the wrist.

Come on. You know what I meant. Romans in general.

And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone (Matthew 27:66)
How do you know Romans placed this seal (assuming the gospels even have this claim correct)?

Koustwdian means custodian.

Sentry:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1. (n.) A soldier placed on guard; a sentinel.
2. (n.) Guard; watch, as by a sentinel.

... guard, sentry. Of Latin origin; "custody", ie A Roman sentry -- watch. (koustodian) --

So now that it has been established that it was Roman guards, Roman seals would have been used. And why did the Jews approach Pilate for guards if they could have their own?

Doesn't need to be said. It was a high holy day, entering a tomb would have been considered unclean.

And a Roman guard couldn't have done that?

I suppose a Roman guard could have, but if they didn't expect a resurrection and only worried about the body being taken, then all they would have cared about was that the tomb was in the same condition as it was when they arrived. It being empty on Sunday, they would have gone home content that they had guarded an empty tomb.[/quote]


Then the guards weren't aware why Pilate wanted them on duty in the first place.

Matthew 27:


The Guard at the Tomb
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,� they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.�

Now even if, for argument's sake, that they were guarding an empty tomb. That would not not be believed by Pilate. He'd assume a derelict of duty or a bribe.

Matthew 28:

…12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole His body while we were asleep. 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.�…


Nowhere does it suggested that the guards should say there was never a body there in the first place.

A Jewish temple guard however would not have entered the tomb, but the same scenario would apply to them as well.

Have you thought that maybe the Jews approached Roman guards to inspect the tomb because they weren't allowed to because of their tradition?

It's only the gospels, written decades later that claim there was a seal and a guard. You have to keep that in mind.
Tell me, do you believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel and given golden plates and magic glasses? If you are skeptical of this, perhaps some skeptisism is in order over when the gospels were written because they are not contemporary sources like Joseph Smiths claims.

So you can prove that the seal and guard story never existed in oral tradition?

As for Joseph Smith, there may be truth in it but an angel should be replaced by aliens. I believe he was an alien contactee.

http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.co.za/20 ... actee.html

It doesn't make any sense to think they would have taken Jesus' body overnight. The Bible says they only went to Galilee when Jesus rose from the dead.

100 lbs of spices and they went to a logical place to permanently bury the body. Did they leave on Friday night or Sunday morning? Who knows.

By saying on the Sunday morning, you are expressing doubts that the disciples really did remove Jesus' tomb on the Friday.

This is not a hypothesis. It is a fact according to the story that the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted.

It's a fact? So you know for a fact that the disciples took Jesus' body over night?

No, it is a fact that according to the Bible, the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted. It's also a fact that when these stories were written down that it's possible that they were not recorded even close to how things happened.

Having control over the body doesn't mean they intended to take Jesus' body on the Friday night. That's a logical fallacy. In order for the stories to not be close to the original story, it must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

Having control over the body does not automatically assume that it would be mean they would take the body overnight.

Agreed, but they did put 100 lbs of spices on it and then traveled to a logical place to bury the body.

It is not a fact that they traveled with the body to Galilee as you conceded.

We know that a crucified person has to be buried immediately.

No, a crucified person is supposed to be buried immediately, but if the persons homeland was a 3 day journey away, it would be impossible to bury the body immediately.

Do you think the crucified person would have that honour and right to be buried in their homeland? It was even against Jewish law to not bury the crucified immediately. That means wherever this is a suitable place to bury someone.

Another thing, why would Joseph of Arimethea given the tomb to Jesus? Once a tomb has had a body in it, it cannot be used again.

I do not believe even spices can prevent the decomposition of a body in the hot sun.

Correct, but they would help to mask the smell. I have no doubt that the body was in very poor condition after being dead for 3 days.

Who would you suggest transported Jesus' body? It wasn't the disciples. They were in hiding.

He is another thing to consider:

"Delaying a prompt burial for any reason other than ensuring a proper, kosher burial is considered a disgrace to the deceased. One should be aware that the soul is in turmoil and does not find rest until the body is properly buried."

"Bury me with my fathers," Jacob's request (Gen. 49:29), was the wish of every ancient Israelite. Now where would Jesus wish to be burried. Yup, Galilee.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... urial.html

I'm sure it is a wish, but did this apply to the crucified? Absolutely not.

"It is a Biblical commandment to bury one's deceased immediately after passing, and it is forbidden to leave the deceased unburied overnight unless it is for his honor (i.e. to perform a proper Tahara, obtain shrouds, arrange for a burial plot, gather family, etc.)."

And? Does this make it impossible for them to take a 100 lb spiced body to Galilee with them? If so, explain.

What makes you think there is no historicity in the Bible?

The Bible is not a history book. Spider Man takes place in New York, so it has history in it, but it is not a history book itself.

So when Tacitus, a Roman historian, said Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, he was just citing a fictitious story?

Well, this is the reason why I'm debating using the process of elimination method. I see no other explanation. There is another explanation how the saints resurrection story came about. It is another story when it comes to the resurrection. There was no refutation by the highest authorities which most certainly would have found it in the best interest to do so.

I don't understand. If 500 resurrections are impossible, why isn't 1 also?

Obviously 500 resurrections are possible if one believes in the resurrection of Jesus but is there another explanation. Yes, I do and that is the earthquake unearthing the bodies. I have to ask what the resurrected saints did in Jerusalem. What was the purpose? There families could be dead and then what are they to do? Preach about Jesus who they never even knew?

It is possible that it is symbolic. Perhaps the story illustrates that the saints today, now true believers of Jesus, will be raised from the dead with Him. We are considered to be resurrected with Christ.

You didn't read by "kustodia" argument, did you?

I did, but I also am considering your web site source. Perhaps some confirmation bias is happening?

What's wrong with the web source?

My time got cut short, so if there is something I missed that you would like me to respond to, please let me know.

Have a good weekend!

I think we covered everything. Thanks. Enjoy the weekend.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1235 by Claire Evans]

And you think that the Romans would think that it would be fortuitous to report that a resurrection did happen? According to the Bible, that is exactly what Pilate wanting to prevent. Claims of a resurrection. Now the Romans would threaten the Roman Empire by fortifying the Jewish claims? It was best to sweep it under the carpet.

This answer supposes that the Romans were one monolithic entity that only ever wrote what Caesar demanded. Pilate may have wanted to brush it under the carpet...but what of the average citizen, Roman or otherwise? Why is it ONLY the Gospel Matthew that reports a band of dead saints rising from their graves and taking a stroll around Jerusalem?

It is not easy to convince someone, like a pagan Roman, to suddenly believe in another god especially if Rome was against it. What good can come from then believing a story that doesn't benefit them?

I hear tell of people in Islamic nations, using Sharia law, converting to Christianity...even if it's against the law, often with a penalty of death.

If you witnessed a public execution of someone, would you assume they could come back from the dead? Wouldn't you want proof?

We're basically hyper-skeptics, living in an age that values the scientific method. We have an education.
The Jews of 2,000 years ago, did not enjoy those benefits. They lived in an age of mysticism, where practically any and all mysteries where answered with "God".

How are on earth would the rumour start? If Paul had heard of rumours, then clearly he didn't make the whole thing up. He would have had a belief system based on a prior belief.

How do various other religions and cults start?

However, in order to dismiss the resurrection, we have to be 100% sure that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

False. In order to dismiss [that you are a murderer], we have to be 100% sure of it. We have to have followed you every minute of every day of your life and documented it, before we can dismiss the claim [that you are a murderer]. See how ridiculous that is?
What you've done there is shifting the burden of proof. Not only that, but you set the requirement so high (100%) that it can never actually be reached, thus insulating your claim of a resurrection from attack.
Please be intellectually honest.

And so you assume that the guards would just not follow protocols just in Jesus' case.

Why not? Guards being lax in their duty, even in Roman times, is infinitely more likely than a body getting up after multiple days of being dead and subsequently flying away.
Think about what you're doing there.
You're taking the well known discipline of Roman soldiers and assigning a low probability to them being lax. You then say this somehow helps prove an even more unlikely claim, a resurrection.
Were Roman soldiers ALWAYS disciplined? Did they NEVER become lax, or take bribes, or just plain not do what they were supposed to do? There would have be to at least a few occasions where that happened.
Basically, in my mind (and probably Clownboat's as well?), Roman guards being lax in their duties is a low probability, but not zero. It can and did happen a few times. What is even less likely, what is actually an impossibility in our minds, is a resurrection.
It does not follow logically to dismiss something with a low probability of happening so as to help substantiate something with an even lower probability of happening.
This would be like saying "Rikuo WAS on the other side of the country" (something that I've only ever done a small handful of times in my life) and 'proving' it by saying "he drove there" (even less likely than me going to the other side of the country, seeing as how I never actually have driven a vehicle in my life).
Me being on the other side of the country is unlikely...but it can happen. However, you cannot prove I got there by driving a car because those who know me know very well that that is practically impossible, since I plan to go through life never driving.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1235 by Claire Evans]

it must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

Prove this claim. Prove that somehow, legends cannot be established in less than a century.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1235 by Claire Evans]

it must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

Prove this claim. Prove that somehow, legends cannot be established in less than a century.

I don't think it is true. For example, the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific were established in far less than a century. The same goes for the veneration of Haile Selassie. I would perhaps include the legendary figure of Ned Ludd in the class of rapidly accumulating legends. I think the Faust legends may fall into this category, but I am not very informed on them.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

Claire Evens posted:

(I)t must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

RESPONSE: Certainly untrue! Legends commonly develop in 25 years or less.

“Legends, some believe, are stories that have to be at least 20 years old or more (recent past) and are based on a real individual that can be proven to have once lived. Although the legend may not be truly accurate, the fact that the person existed is true.

A good example of a famous legend is Davy Crockett. Although he has a reputation for being "King of the Wild Frontier" due to television, movies and cartoons, well... historical documents state differently.�

https://www.brownielocks.com/folklore.html


The legend of Colonel Travis drawing the line in the sand at the Alamo.

Mythologizing The Alamo by Richard G. Santos

In 1873, a full 37 years after the battle, Zuber published his account of Travis drawing the line and the escape of Moses Rose. The reaction was so swift to his ludicrous account that Zuber admitted he had made up part of the story. Although, he never clarified which part he made up, there is no evidence pointing to the existence of any man named Moses Rose.

Note: This was hardly 100 years after the event.

There was, however, a man named Stephen, alias Louis Rose, living in Nacogdoches in the 1840s who was known as a drunkard, liar and person of ill-repute. He apparently was engaged in fraudulent land claims and kept using different first names.
He claimed to have been at the Alamo before the final assault. Unfortunately for him, some of his Nacogdoches neighbors also attested that he had never left the town and was well-known for his wild claims and exaggerations.

https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewit ... antos.html


The Resurrection story. (1 Cor 15)

Jesus was crucified between 30 and 33 AD. The first record we have is Paul’s 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, a story written about 55 AD.

Note: This was hardly 100 years after the event.

[polonius]

In an overly long post, Claire Evans claimed:

The gospels are too detailed to be based on claims only.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that in describing the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the four Gospels are vastly conflicted proving that they all can't be historically accurate claims.

(1) Did Jesus ride one or two animals (of different size) when entering Jerusalem?

(2) Was Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, or the Passover itself?

(3) Did many others rise from the dead (and were seen by many in Jerusalem) just before Jesus was resurrected?

(4) Was Jesus raised from the dead (passive) or did he rise from the dead by his own power?

(5) Did Jesus and the Apostles go to Galilee (a three day journey from Jerusalem), or remain in Jerusalem until the Ascension?

(6) Did the Ascension occur on the same day as the Resurrection or 40 days later?

etc., etc....

[polonius]

Okay, which source do you believe should have recorded the resurrection outside of the Bible?

Roman military forces occupied Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. In fact, they crucified him.

Yet no Roman records describe Jesus' Resurrection or the resurrection of the many dead who appeared to the residents of Jerusalem (according to Matthew's version of the story).

Apparently, even Pilate didn't know the story which Paul (25 years later) claimed to have occurred (with 500 witnesses none of which left any written records nor did any of the many people they would have told [including Romans] ).

[polonius]

Why do you take oral tradition out of the equation?

RESPONSE: Because the story ( or "oral tradition") wasn't developed until much later.

[Claire Evans]

So you don't believe oral tradition existed back then? Why did Paul and the apostles convince people Jesus rose from the dead if it didn't happen? What would make people believe? Especially in places like Greece and beyond! What you are suggesting is that Paul made up the resurrection. What would he have achieved by doing that?

RESPONSE: "oral tradition" existed as long as storytelling. And many such "traditions" were just stories.

What would he have achieved? Personal power and control. One likes to feel important. On the other hand, many of the "oral traditions" seem to indicate Paul was unbalanced and frequently saw visions.

However, you don't know oral traditions worked with the Jews then? It's not broken telephone. It's not considered myths.



Paul was constantly persecuted according to the Bible. He was imprisoned and ultimately put to death. How did he manage to convince people who didn't even know about Jesus that He really did rise from the dead?

Visions doesn't automatically make one imbalanced. Shamans have visions.

Your reply here implies that the 'telephone' effect didn't happen with Jews, but you give us no reason to accept this.

"That is how the earliest oral tradition arose. It was a collection of Aramaic, memorised texts in which Jesus’ teaching was remembered and passed on. The existence of this oldest, Aramaic, layer has already been demonstrated in the previous chapter when we discussed the `measure’ and `salt’ passages. What I did not point out at the time was the fact that the peculiar mix of differences and samenesses in many synoptic passages cannot be solely due to the pen of the evangelists but requires an underlying oral tradition.

Compare, for instance, this simple question in Matthew, Mark and Luke: ‘What need I do to obtain eternal life?’

Matthew 19,16

Master,

Mark 10,17

Good master,

Luke 18,18

Good master,



Matthew 19,16


what good should I do to obtain eternal life?

Mark 10,17

what should I do to inherit eternal life?

Luke 18,18

having done what will I inherit eternal life?



Notice not only the small variations in wording (obtain / inherit; what should I do / having done what), but especially how the word ‘good’ has travelled (good master what / master what good). In Greek there can be no mistaking: ‘good’ in the address is kale (Matthew, Luke) but as object kalon (Mark); and also its location in the sentence is different.

But in the underlying Aramaic, confusion was well possible, for the word ‘good’ (tôb) has the same form and could have stood in the middle:

rabbi, tôb mâ - master, what good . . . ?
rabbi tôb, mâ - master good, what . . . ?
Like this, words often ‘slide’ to new locations, showing the hand of an oral tradition. Words are fixed in written texts, not when they have been learnt by heart. ‘What I say in the dark, say in plain daylight’ (Matthew 10,27) becomes `what you say in the dark, will be heard in plain daylight (Luke 12,3). This is the kind of thing that happens when people recall texts from memory.


http://www.womenpriests.org/gospels/trteach.asp

Also, in trying to convince us of what the Bible says with regards to the resurrection, you refer to Paul being persecuted according to...you guessed it, the Bible! Sorry, but the Bible is the thing you are trying to convince us of. You can't use it as evidence to support itself.

We are obviously arguing from the premise of the Bible. If not, this thread could not exist.

You ask the question of how he managed to convince people, implying that he could only do so if the thing he's claiming were in fact true. I can dismiss this quite easily because throughout history, people have been convinced of lots of things. Hitler convinced the Germans the Jews were sub-human. Lenin convinced the Russians that collectivist communism was the way forward, so on and so forth.
In my eyes, Paul convincing people 2,000 years ago that Jesus rose from the dead is not remarkable.

I think trying to convince someone that Jesus rose from the dead when they didn't even know He existed is far removed from your examples. Everyone then knew Lenin, Germans and Jews existed.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1235 by Claire Evans]

And you think that the Romans would think that it would be fortuitous to report that a resurrection did happen? According to the Bible, that is exactly what Pilate wanting to prevent. Claims of a resurrection. Now the Romans would threaten the Roman Empire by fortifying the Jewish claims? It was best to sweep it under the carpet.

This answer supposes that the Romans were one monolithic entity that only ever wrote what Caesar demanded. Pilate may have wanted to brush it under the carpet...but what of the average citizen, Roman or otherwise?

And the average citizen, were their writings archived?

Why is it ONLY the Gospel Matthew that reports a band of dead saints rising from their graves and taking a stroll around Jerusalem?

In regards to why some scriptures appear in some gospels, but not in others demands a lot on the audience. Matthew wrote about the fulfillment of OT prophecies. In the dead saints rising argument, I believe it could be a symbolic fulfillment of the resurrection of the dead.

"Psalm 16:8-11
Simon Peter starts out on the day of Pentecost explaining that Jesus the Messiah had risen from the dead, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it," (Acts 2:24). Peter then pulled from the Psalms to prove the truth of his testimony.

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." -Act 2:24-32"

http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1765/

It is not easy to convince someone, like a pagan Roman, to suddenly believe in another god especially if Rome was against it. What good can come from then believing a story that doesn't benefit them?

I hear tell of people in Islamic nations, using Sharia law, converting to Christianity...even if it's against the law, often with a penalty of death.

Yes, because their faith is vindicated from an already existing belief system. The Roman pagans had never even heard of Jesus before. Christianity had not already been established.

If you witnessed a public execution of someone, would you assume they could come back from the dead? Wouldn't you want proof?

We're basically hyper-skeptics, living in an age that values the scientific method. We have an education.
The Jews of 2,000 years ago, did not enjoy those benefits. They lived in an age of mysticism, where practically any and all mysteries where answered with "God".

The Jews had their beliefs and the belief is that no body is resurrected on earth. It is only after death that it happens. So what would make them change that belief?

How are on earth would the rumour start? If Paul had heard of rumours, then clearly he didn't make the whole thing up. He would have had a belief system based on a prior belief.

How do various other religions and cults start?

Various religions, I believe, are based on some truth. Something observed. As for cults, those members are just plain brainwashed.

However, in order to dismiss the resurrection, we have to be 100% sure that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

False. In order to dismiss [that you are a murderer], we have to be 100% sure of it. We have to have followed you every minute of every day of your life and documented it, before we can dismiss the claim [that you are a murderer]. See how ridiculous that is?
What you've done there is shifting the burden of proof. Not only that, but you set the requirement so high (100%) that it can never actually be reached, thus insulating your claim of a resurrection from attack.
Please be intellectually honest.

No, we can be 100% sure that murder takes place. That we do. However, it is not claimed that the supernatural is 100% truth. In the process of elimination, we whittle down the other possibilities to reach the conclusion that is most likely. For someone to say that anything else makes sense than the supernatural, they must prove that the supernatural is absolutely impossible.

And so you assume that the guards would just not follow protocols just in Jesus' case.

Why not? Guards being lax in their duty, even in Roman times, is infinitely more likely than a body getting up after multiple days of being dead and subsequently flying away.

This is exactly what I am describing above. We can't say anything else must be possible but a resurrection because we can't fathom it to be true. Would all the guards we lax on duty considering the terrible punishment of being lax? If you were deployed to guard something and you knew the punishment for being derelict on duty was beheading, for example, would you consider being lax? In fact, if even only one guard fell asleep, all would be put to death.

http://web.ccbce.com/multimedia/BLB/faq/nbi/247.html

What are the chances that none of the guards inspected the tomb?

Think about what you're doing there.
You're taking the well known discipline of Roman soldiers and assigning a low probability to them being lax. You then say this somehow helps prove an even more unlikely claim, a resurrection.
Were Roman soldiers ALWAYS disciplined? Did they NEVER become lax, or take bribes, or just plain not do what they were supposed to do? There would have be to at least a few occasions where that happened.

Even if one guard was lax, what about the other three? Are we so say none of them feared death and were just too lazy to inspect the tomb?

Anyway, these possibilities are only possible if one believes that the body was taken on the Friday night by the disciples. There are several problems with other than the problem of having anything to do with a corpse over the Sabbath. Jesus would have had to have been transported in the dark. It is completely unnecessary. They could have waited until after the Sabbath to transport the body.

Problem 1:

The disciples were in hiding according to the gospels. Peter even denied Jesus. To be seen with a condemned man risked death. Why would Peter just suddenly lose his fear? So to be seen with a corpse of a condemned man, would make them very vulnerable to attacks and slaying. There were very angry people who condemned Jesus to death.

Problem 2:

We are to assume that when the guards were rolling the stone over the tomb, none of them noticed that the tomb was already empty. It wasn't a massive tomb.

Problem 3:

We'd have to assume that the disciples would find it necessary to not tell Joseph of
Arimathea and others who were present at the burial that they were going to move the body that evening. It means that none of them witnessed Jesus being loaded onto a cart, for example and somehow not notice that there must have been a donkey there for transport. Why wouldn't they have informed everyone that they had plans to remove the body that evening? We must ask ourselves: Why on earth would the disciples have thought it would be better to take Jesus' body and transport in the dark rather than wait to after the Sabbath?

Basically, in my mind (and probably Clownboat's as well?), Roman guards being lax in their duties is a low probability, but not zero. It can and did happen a few times. What is even less likely, what is actually an impossibility in our minds, is a resurrection.

Matthew 28:

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Therefore the chief priests knew that the Romans guards weren't being lax but bribed them to say they were.

It does not follow logically to dismiss something with a low probability of happening so as to help substantiate something with an even lower probability of happening.
This would be like saying "Rikuo WAS on the other side of the country" (something that I've only ever done a small handful of times in my life) and 'proving' it by saying "he drove there" (even less likely than me going to the other side of the country, seeing as how I never actually have driven a vehicle in my life).
Me being on the other side of the country is unlikely...but it can happen. However, you cannot prove I got there by driving a car because those who know me know very well that that is practically impossible, since I plan to go through life never driving.

My aim is to not substantiate but open the door to the possibility that Jesus did rise from the dead. We cannot dismiss something as impossible therefore rule it out.