What is the best hypothesis to explain the resurrection?

[Willum]

Alternatives to explain the resurrection seem to be a theme of late. So even if wrong, is there a best way forward on what actually happened?

I think if we put our heads together we can form the best explanation of the resurrection, that does not involve anything impossible, like aliens, or magic, etc., we can come up with one or more reasonable explanations.

AlexxJRO, ToN and many others have specialized approaches - let's see what happens if we go for the most elegant, Occam's Razor solution to the subject, perhaps incorporating the best elements of each - seeing if they fit like a puzzle.

Let's not assume any particular fact is valid until the group weighs in on reasonability.

I'll start with my own hypothesis: Rome, had a long history of using religion to pacify it's conquests - beginning long before the Caesars:

It would invade countries, draw analogies between and hybridize Roman and other deities, claiming, ultimately, that Zeus was the supreme deity, Zeus empowered Rome, and therefore everyone should obey Rome.

The corollary for the resurrection, is; Jesus and the Apostles advocate obeying Roman Law (something no Jew would), paying Roman tax with idolatrous coins (as no Jew would), claiming Jesus was a demi-god (as no Jew would), and so on.

This neatly explains the Diaspora, Rome unable to assuage Jerusalem, dispersed it.

So, Liam - could an invisible undetectable creature with the power to resurrect someone, have used such an ineffective means to make converts to principles mankind adopts anyway?
AlexxJRO, could Joseph of Arimathea been a Roman stooge? The crucifixion staged and false?
ToN - the Bible presents good explanation itself...
Riku...
Others...?

[Willum]

Pretty cool:

The best hypotesis, if the dullest and least interesting is, since there is no evidence other than a Book proved inconsistent, at best, is that none of what was recorded in the Bible occurred - it is just a story or bit of propaganda?

Is this really the best hypothesis?
It does explain everything neatly.

Is there anything unexplained?

[Zzyzx]

.

The best hypotesis, if the dullest and least interesting is, since there is no evidence other than a Book proved inconsistent, at best, is that none of what was recorded in the Bible occurred - it is just a story or bit of propaganda?

Yes

Is this really the best hypothesis?

Yes

It does explain everything neatly.

Yes

Is there anything unexplained?

Yes

What is unexplained is why anyone would argue that tales of a long-dead body magically coming back to life, leaving its tomb, and subsequently flying away into the sky are more credible than concluding that the tale is folklore, myth, fable, legend, yarn, religious storytelling, etc.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 92 by Zzyzx]

So you are saying, that, against scholarship, that Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc., maybe even other characters - Pilate, Joe of Arimathea, etc., that not only the Resurrection did not occur, but that the characters in the Bible, did not exist?

How do you explain that the prevailing academic opinion is that though, for example, Jesus wasn't miraculous, he was a wandering preacher, executed?

Similar for disciples - ?