Why Must We "Believe In Our Hearts" God Raised Jesus?? (church, Messiah)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

This is a really odd thing to say since that's exactly what Mary Magdalene thought happened as related in John's gospel, "Sir, if you have stolen his body please tell me where you have laid him so that I can get him" John 20:15 . She NEVER would have made such a request if such a thing was totally out of the realm of possibility.


Mike conveniently leaves out these little details that point to the very really likelihood that is exactly what happened: you have the body handed over to the apostles; their world has been shattered; they remembered he promised he would raise after 3 days; the tomb is left unguarded for a whole day; plenty of opportunity for either the disciples or grave robbers to steal the body and then proclaim afterwards, "He is risen!!!" even though nobody saw him except the apostles, and then later an unsubstantiated report by Paul (who wasn't even there, mind you) that Jesus was seen of 500 witnesses. Well, I have big news for all of you: Elvis was spotted on Hollywood and Vine last night and I know for a fact that 500 people saw him there. Do you believe me? If not, why?


More food for thought:


"It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John become hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every Christian must answer is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus had arisen from the dead? According to Matthew, the angels did inform Mary of the resurrection, but in John’s account they did not. As we survey the divergent New Testament accounts of the resurrection, we see that we are not just looking at contradictory versions, we are reading two entirely different stories!"

But the fact is that Miriam and all the disciples were surprised that Christ was missing from the tomb. So the internal evidence suggests they had nothing to do with stealing the body. And since Christ spoke with Miriam after He arose, and spoke with the disciples, we know no one stole the body.

Furthermore, the head cloth was said to be neatly folded where He laid in the tomb. A grave robber would not go to the trouble of neatly folding the head cloth since they would be hard pressed to get the body out while the soldiers were right there guarding the tomb.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But the fact is that Miriam and all the disciples were surprised that Christ was missing from the tomb. So the internal evidence suggests they had nothing to do with stealing the body. And since Christ spoke with Miriam after He arose, and spoke with the disciples, we know no one stole the body.

Let's have a look at what Gospel Mark has to say about the women at the tomb.

Mark.16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

What we are led to believe is that the three Marys went out to the tomb at the crack of dawn on Sunday morning on a "vital mission" to slather more ointment on a body already slathered in 100 pounds of the stuff, knowing full well that the entrance to the tomb was covered by a large stone so that they had absolutely no chance of reaching the body of Jesus, based on the rather forlorn hope that there just might be some kind strange men who just happened to be hanging around a graveyard at night, who might happily be talked into rolling the great stone away from the entrance to the tomb for them. Or perhaps they thought that the soldiers who had been stationed at the tomb for the very purpose of NOT allowing anyone to have access to the body, would agree to violate their orders, break the seals, and allow them to continue with their ever so vital mission.

Of course Mark 16:1-4 absolutely REEKS of conspiracy. The woman had no chance of accomplishing their stated mission at all and knew it full well. Because of course that was never their actual mission. Their actual mission, one they accomplished completely, was to raise the cry and alert as many people as they could that the tomb was empty on the third day as promised. The only reason for the women to have gone to the tomb on Sunday morning was if they knew full well that the tomb was already open and empty. Their mission was to sound the alarm. This is a conspiracy in action.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Furthermore, the head cloth was said to be neatly folded where He laid in the tomb. A grave robber would not go to the trouble of neatly folding the head cloth since they would be hard pressed to get the body out while the soldiers were right there guarding the tomb.

No one robbed the tomb. The tomb was Joseph's personal property after all, and he not only had every right to be there, he also had every right to relocate the body of Jesus. The Roman governor had given the body of Jesus to him and he had ever legal right to take the body where ever he chose. Once you recognize that the tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for Jesus right from the beginning, but only a convenient place to wash and prepare the body, everything else falls right into place. The next day the chief priest took possession of what was after all a closed tomb. A closed tomb that proved to be empty. You are experiencing a certain amount of vertigo from what is after all nothing more than a 2,000 year old exercise in misdirection by Christian fanatics. Kind of like you.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Mike555

The second option, that Jesus was actually resurrected is entirely plausible and was in fact witnessed by over 500 people as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which as has been stated is a pre-Pauline tradition going all the way back to the beginning of the church.

A flying reanimated corpse is only entirely plausible in imginationland. In the physical world, not so much. You have to make it up. But then, that's what imaginationland is all about.

Originally Posted by Mike555

The first option is not plausible for the reason which you continue to ignore. People are not willing to suffer and die for what they know to be a lie.

And yet you can not establish in scripture that there was any general suffering and dying at all, can you? It must be made up and declared to be true. Which is how tradition works. Is it reasonable to question tradition? Well, is it reasonable to declare that a corpse came back to life and flew away, or that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the street of Jerusalem? Clearly not.

Originally Posted by Mike555

But here is another question. A grave is discovered to be empty, the body missing. You are the policeman called in to investigate. Is your first suspicion likely to be that some living agent was responsible for the missing corpse? Or is your first suspicion likely to be that the body came back to life and wandered off on it's own? I would ask for a little honesty here, but I know you will refuse to answer, so why bother.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Yes it does. Christians were persecuted by the Jewish Sanhedrin. Steven was stoned to death (Acts 7:57-60). Paul himself was stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19). James the brother of John was put to death by the sword at Herod's command (Acts 12:2). Paul himself, before his conversion was responsible for a great persecution of the church as stated in Acts 8:1-3. Peter and other unnamed apostles were arrested and imprisoned, and the high priest intended to kill them, but was talked out of it by Gamaliel, but were nevertheless flogged before being released (Acts 5:17-41). Yes, the apostles were willing to enduring suffering and persecution, and even martyrdom, and this was testified by Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans .

Steven was killed at the hands of a mob, and not as the result of any official persecution. The Sanhedrin did not subscribe to a belief in bodily resurrection from the dead. Nor did they subscribe to a belief in heaven and hell, an immortal soul, or eternal life. Such things are not contained in the Torah. The Pharisee subscribed to all of these things, and more however. Gamaliel was a prominent Pharisee, and he defended the apostles by pointing out that the apostles were proclaiming a resurrection, a belief explicit in the Pharisaic system of belief. To prevent an armed conflict between the two sides, the apostles were let off. Paul used the same strategy himself later in Acts.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Luke stated that he investigated everything carefully. That included interviewing eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. It also means that Luke could very well have interviewed Ananias to whom the Lord had spoken and told him to go and meet Paul whom the Lord said He had chosen.

You're making stuff up again. This is nowhere contained in scripture. If Luke did what you say, why did he not bother to mention it? A single line would have settled the issue.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Furthermore, Luke records in Acts 13:2 the fact that the Holy Spirit commanded that Paul (Saul), as well as Barnabas, were to be set apart for the work which He had called them. And so no, we do not have only Paul's word for it that he had encountered the risen Jesus. Luke reports that the Holy Spirit addressed men in the church at Antioch and stated that He had called Paul for a purpose.

They got this idea from Paul. The guy who talked to dead people.

Originally Posted by Mike555

It's an anti-supernaturalistic bias. You don't believe in the possibility of supernatural events because you personally have never experienced such events.

I have an anti-supernatural bias as a result of never experiencing a single supernatural thing in my entire life. I don't believe in leprechauns either, a result of never having seen a leprechaun. A lifetime of experience, or non experience in this case, is worth something, surely? But it's true that I have no regard for supernatural claims and I admit it. First, supernatural claims allow people to simply make things up and then declare them to be true. If we have learned anything from science in the past few centuries it's that everything happens for natural reasons, and supernatural cause has never yet, no not once, been unambiguously shown to be true. One gosh-darn, unambiguous, fully investigation and established to be gen-u-ine, no doubt about it supernatural event would cause me to rethink my conclusions. But you have no such example to offer. The supernatural can not be shown to exist and so there is no reason to suppose it exists. Outside of imaginationland.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Historians report what is of interest to them. Historians at the time of the beginning of the church would not have been interested in what at the time was a small, though rapidly growing faith movement later referred to as Christianity. But that the disciples had an experience which caused them to believe that they saw the risen Jesus is a certainty. The disciples were real people. They spend their lives after the resurrection of Jesus proclaiming the event despite persecution, including for at least some of them, martyrdom. And that the disciples were willing to do so is attested to by men such as Ignatius.

Historical reports, extra-biblical reports, began appearing in the second century because Christians began to catch the attention of those doing the reporting. Christians were considered interesting enough to mention, at least.

Originally Posted by Mike555

I have already provided in post #2 of this thread a wealth of information for the evidence of Jesus' resurrection in the resurrection studies that were provided, and which you have deemed a waste of time to even look at. I have already explained why your pet idea that the disciples stole or otherwise moved the body and then lied about Jesus having been risen is not valid, and that most scholars who study in the area simply do not take that view, or any of the other naturalistic arguments as valid explanations for why the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus seriously.

I concede without controversy that there were Christians by the second century and admittedly Christians do genuinely believe their own claims. None of these people had any more direct knowledge of a corpse coming back to life and flying away than you do however. They chose to believe for reasons that made sense to them or appealed to them emotionally. I do freely admit that people genuinely do believe in otherwise totally unbelievable things, for reasons of their own. Most of the people in this world subscribe to totally unbelievable things, and the majority of them aren't even Christians.

Originally Posted by Mike555

You on the other hand have provided nothing but your own personal opinion that the disciples moved Jesus' body and then falsely proclaimed that Jesus arose while knowing that He didn't. In other words, your argument is that the disciples lied and were willing to go to their deaths perpetuating what they knew to be a lie.

What is it you have provided, exactly, if not your personal opinion? Which is to say, your personal gut feelings on reality, sustained by no practical physical evidence at all. Christian doctrine is nothing but an exercise in the declaration of personal opinion. Opinion which has the disadvantage of contradicting all observation, experience and common sense.

Originally Posted by Mike555

I provided the information and you refuse to look at it. And that just about says it all.

Does it really seem to you that I am not at least reasonably well versed in this material and on this subject? Well then let me just suggest to you that I have at least read the material. And that is something relatively few Christians have done.

[MysticPhD]

Because God has "written in our hearts" the truth and that is where we must find it. Christ abides with us as the Comforter sent in His name to guide us to it. YMMV.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

A flying reanimated corpse is only entirely plausible in imginationland. In the physical world, not so much. You have to make it up. But then, that's what imaginationland is all about.

Jesus' resurrection is only regarded as implausible by those, such as yourself, who have a bias against the supernatural. The disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus and the experience changed their lives.

And yet you can not establish in scripture that there was any general suffering and dying at all, can you? It must be made up and declared to be true. Which is how tradition works. Is it reasonable to question tradition? Well, is it reasonable to declare that a corpse came back to life and flew away, or that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the street of Jerusalem? Clearly not.

I already demonstrated from the Book of Acts that there was great persecution of the church which is plainly stated in Acts 8:1, and that people were being put to death. And here is further testimony to that effect from Paul.

Acts 26:10 And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them.

And so, yes, scripture states that Christians were being put to death for their faith by order of the Sanhedrin.

And that is your bias against the supernatural which asserts that declarations of the resurrection of Jesus are unreasonable. I have no problem with accepting the historical evidence in favor of the claims that the disciples saw the risen Jesus.

Steven was killed at the hands of a mob, and not as the result of any official persecution. The Sanhedrin did not subscribe to a belief in bodily resurrection from the dead. Nor did they subscribe to a belief in heaven and hell, an immortal soul, or eternal life. Such things are not contained in the Torah. The Pharisee subscribed to all of these things, and more however. Gamaliel was a prominent Pharisee, and he defended the apostles by pointing out that the apostles were proclaiming a resurrection, a belief explicit in the Pharisaic system of belief. To prevent an armed conflict between the two sides, the apostles were let off. Paul used the same strategy himself later in Acts.

Stephen was stoned to death as a result of his testimony before the Council (Acts 6:12). He was dragged outside of the city and stoned to death (Acts 7:58-60). And Paul (Saul) was there watching in approval as he watched out for the coats of those who were stoning Stephen (Acts 8:1; 22:20).

The Sanhedrin was a 'supreme court' and legislative body, ideally composed of seventy-one members led by the high priest and included both Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees were usually in the majority on the Sanhedrin.

You're making stuff up again. This is nowhere contained in scripture. If Luke did what you say, why did he not bother to mention it? A single line would have settled the issue.

What I said in post #60, and which you accuse me of 'making up' was that ''Luke stated that he investigated everything carefully. That included interviewing eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus' ministry.''

Luke stated it right at the beginning of His Gospel account.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3] it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4] so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke certainly in the course of his careful investigation interviewed the eyewitnesses which were available to be interviewed.

They got this idea from Paul. The guy who talked to dead people.

This kind of casual dismissal based on nothing doesn't give you any credibility.

I have an anti-supernatural bias as a result of never experiencing a single supernatural thing in my entire life. I don't believe in leprechauns either, a result of never having seen a leprechaun. A lifetime of experience, or non experience in this case, is worth something, surely? But it's true that I have no regard for supernatural claims and I admit it. First, supernatural claims allow people to simply make things up and then declare them to be true. If we have learned anything from science in the past few centuries it's that everything happens for natural reasons, and supernatural cause has never yet, no not once, been unambiguously shown to be true. One gosh-darn, unambiguous, fully investigation and established to be gen-u-ine, no doubt about it supernatural event would cause me to rethink my conclusions. But you have no such example to offer. The supernatural can not be shown to exist and so there is no reason to suppose it exists. Outside of imaginationland.

And there it is. Your rejection of the resurrection evidence is based on your anti-supernatural bias which you can't, or are not willing to set aside in order to look objectively at the evidence which you even deny exists.

Historical reports, extra-biblical reports, began appearing in the second century because Christians began to catch the attention of those doing the reporting. Christians were considered interesting enough to mention, at least.



I concede without controversy that there were Christians by the second century and admittedly Christians do genuinely believe their own claims. None of these people had any more direct knowledge of a corpse coming back to life and flying away than you do however. They chose to believe for reasons that made sense to them or appealed to them emotionally. I do freely admit that people genuinely do believe in otherwise totally unbelievable things, for reasons of their own. Most of the people in this world subscribe to totally unbelievable things, and the majority of them aren't even Christians.

There were Christians, though they were not at first referred to by that word, from the day of Pentecost in A.D. 33 assuming Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33 as opposed to A.D. 30.

The disciples had direct knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus as they proclaimed and because of which they were transformed from fearful men into courageous men proclaiming the gospel message in the face of persecution and possible martyrdom. And for at least some of the disciples that martyrdom became a reality.

What is it you have provided, exactly, if not your personal opinion? Which is to say, your personal gut feelings on reality, sustained by no practical physical evidence at all. Christian doctrine is nothing but an exercise in the declaration of personal opinion. Opinion which has the disadvantage of contradicting all observation, experience and common sense.

Again, what I provided exactly, in post #2, are the resurrection studies done by learned scholars. Studies which you refuse to even look at because you simply dismiss them as a waste of time to bother with.

Does it really seem to you that I am not at least reasonably well versed in this material and on this subject? Well then let me just suggest to you that I have at least read the material. And that is something relatively few Christians have done.

Actually, you don't show yourself to be very well versed on the issue at all. And you cling to the discredited naturalistic conspiracy hypothesis which posits that the disciples stole or otherwise moved Jesus' body and then lied about seeing Him risen from the grave. Nor do you seem very familiar with at least the Book of Acts.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But the fact is that Miriam and all the disciples were surprised that Christ was missing from the tomb. So the internal evidence suggests they had nothing to do with stealing the body. And since Christ spoke with Miriam after He arose, and spoke with the disciples, we know no one stole the body.

Furthermore, the head cloth was said to be neatly folded where He laid in the tomb. A grave robber would not go to the trouble of neatly folding the head cloth since they would be hard pressed to get the body out while the soldiers were right there guarding the tomb.

I cannot find a Miriam among the women who went to the tomb. Who is this Miriam? I don't say conclusively that the apostles stole the body. Frankly, this conversation has deviated badly from where I started by it has gotten more interesting than if we had stayed on topic. The reason I agree with TOTN is because in absence of solid historical facts (and I'm sorry, Eusebius, despite our newfound "friendship" I remain skeptical of the gospels as historically factual) ---in absence of solid historical facts I must go with Occam's Razor--the simplest explanation has to be the truthful one, and the simplest answer to this Gordian Knot of a dilemma of resurrection vs theft (or supernatural vs natural, if you prefer) is theft/ natural. I can believe God is capable of resurrecting Jesus, I just don't think God saw any need to. Far as I can discern, Jesus was a wise man who taught a particular insurrectionist-kind of doctrine, one the Romans found threatening and so they crucified him. End of story for a dead Jesus. But the apostles or maybe some followers of his were determined not to let the story end there. At this point whether he rose or whether they had hallucinations of him or whether they contrived the whole story or whether most of them just forgot about it and went back to their occupations becomes unimportant. What's important is that the story gradually took on a life of its own. I can't explain how. Neither can I explain how Buddhism or Krishnaism or Mormonism took off despite the lack of supernatural evidence. All I know is that mankind is constantly looking for someone to believe in, whether it's Jesus or Buddha or Superman. And once they find a hero--someone they can latch onto who represents the best values they ascribe to they will worship this person. It has always been thus in history.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I cannot find a Miriam among the women who went to the tomb. Who is this Miriam?

There is Miriam, the mother of Jesus and Miriam Magdalene.

I don't say conclusively that the apostles stole the body. Frankly, this conversation has deviated badly from where I started by it has gotten more interesting than if we had stayed on topic. The reason I agree with TOTN is because in absence of solid historical facts (and I'm sorry, Eusebius, despite our newfound "friendship" I remain skeptical of the gospels as historically factual) ---in absence of solid historical facts I must go with Occam's Razor--the simplest explanation has to be the truthful one, and the simplest answer to this Gordian Knot of a dilemma of resurrection vs theft (or supernatural vs natural, if you prefer) is theft/ natural. I can believe God is capable of resurrecting Jesus, I just don't think God saw any need to. Far as I can discern, Jesus was a wise man who taught a particular insurrectionist-kind of doctrine, one the Romans found threatening and so they crucified him. End of story for a dead Jesus. But the apostles or maybe some followers of his were determined not to let the story end there. At this point whether he rose or whether they had hallucinations of him or whether they contrived the whole story or whether most of them just forgot about it and went back to their occupations becomes unimportant. What's important is that the story gradually took on a life of its own. I can't explain how. Neither can I explain how Buddhism or Krishnaism or Mormonism took off despite the lack of supernatural evidence. All I know is that mankind is constantly looking for someone to believe in, whether it's Jesus or Buddha or Superman. And once they find a hero--someone they can latch onto who represents the best values they ascribe to they will worship this person. It has always been thus in history.

You might find this interesting on why the New Testament is historically accurate:
Archaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testament - bethinking.org

God had to raise His Son from the dead because now Jesus has the keys to death and will one day annul all death in all mankind. There will be a new creation in Christ. If Christ had not be raised, vain would be our faith and we would still be in our sins (the apostle Paul).

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Let's have a look at what Gospel Mark has to say about the women at the tomb.

Mark.16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

What we are led to believe is that the three Marys went out to the tomb at the crack of dawn on Sunday morning on a "vital mission" to slather more ointment on a body already slathered in 100 pounds of the stuff, knowing full well that the entrance to the tomb was covered by a large stone so that they had absolutely no chance of reaching the body of Jesus, based on the rather forlorn hope that there just might be some kind strange men who just happened to be hanging around a graveyard at night, who might happily be talked into rolling the great stone away from the entrance to the tomb for them. Or perhaps they thought that the soldiers who had been stationed at the tomb for the very purpose of NOT allowing anyone to have access to the body, would agree to violate their orders, break the seals, and allow them to continue with their ever so vital mission.

Of course Mark 16:1-4 absolutely REEKS of conspiracy. The woman had no chance of accomplishing their stated mission at all and knew it full well. Because of course that was never their actual mission. Their actual mission, one they accomplished completely, was to raise the cry and alert as many people as they could that the tomb was empty on the third day as promised. The only reason for the women to have gone to the tomb on Sunday morning was if they knew full well that the tomb was already open and empty. Their mission was to sound the alarm. This is a conspiracy in action.



No one robbed the tomb. The tomb was Joseph's personal property after all, and he not only had every right to be there, he also had every right to relocate the body of Jesus. The Roman governor had given the body of Jesus to him and he had ever legal right to take the body where ever he chose. Once you recognize that the tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for Jesus right from the beginning, but only a convenient place to wash and prepare the body, everything else falls right into place. The next day the chief priest took possession of what was after all a closed tomb. A closed tomb that proved to be empty. You are experiencing a certain amount of vertigo from what is after all nothing more than a 2,000 year old exercise in misdirection by Christian fanatics. Kind of like you.

You have swallowed too many conspiracy theories.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Because God has "written in our hearts" the truth and that is where we must find it. Christ abides with us as the Comforter sent in His name to guide us to it. YMMV.

That's just another way of saying that evolution has given humans reasoning and curiosity, so it is important to us - in practical ways -to find out what is true and what is not.

That doesn't really answer rhe question of why it is important to believe the resurrection. That only says why it is one of those things we should try to find out the truth about.

I am watching the discussion with Eusebius with interest, because, while I consider that
(a) it is demonstrably the case that the physical resurrection did not happen (otherwise there would be no need to invent three contradictory versions of the supposed event),
(b)while I consider that it is demonstrably the case that the gospel story (taking it as written) indicates the opening of the tomb (certainly during the night of the Sabbath or what we could call Friday night) to let out Jesus recovered from the drug administered on the cross or still unconscious. The fatal spear thrust can be discounted - only John records it and Luke refutes it (24.39)
(c) it is possible using the ingenious invented explanations so beloved of Bible -apologists - the angelic message (not found in John) could be claimed as an adapted knowledge that the recovered Jesus had gone back to Galilee and they could go back there and see him.

While all that makes perfect sense and scuppers the claim that a 'plot' or the 'swoon theory' is untenable (taking the gospels as true, they are virtually inevitable), I do not take the gospels as written as true. I do concede that the empty tomb is at least a common feature of the story in all gospels. And while that in itself does not prove a resurrection from death, I also have to accept that Paul heard from the disciples that Jesus has risen to heaven (in the spirit -which is how he appeared to Paul, Peter, 500 all at once - that is, in their heads, not in front of their eyes) that means that Jesus had to be dead.

So reconciling that fact with the apparent plot to get Jesus off the cross alive is a problem, I conceded. I could invent any number of 'explanations' as the Bible apologists do. But I need to have better than what suits me preferences as an explanation.

But that isn't what the thread is about. Why is it important to believe the resurrection? Not to decide what the facts are but to have it as something to have faith in. Well, we know why. Paul made belief in the resurrection (in the spirit, that is) the single fact that would save. Not the rule - following or bible knowledge or avoiding sin, but this one simple fact: have faith that Jesus the messiah resurrected from death and you will be saved.

True, one could become unsaved by sins (as he later began to argue as reason why his converts should stop acting worse than the Gentiles) but any sins short of losing grace could be burned out in a sort of divine crucible -fire to make the soul fit to be with God.

These are concepts that are stll there in modern Christianity, though the doctrines and theology have been added to and modified - with the result that we have a dichotomy between the resurrection with the trump, clods and angels opening tombs etc as taught by Paul and the idea of a resurrection at death with the queue at the pearly gates and the harps on clouds. They can't both be true, but Christians never bother about such things. Why should they? Just have Faith and it will all be ok.

Have faith in what, exactly? Now we know - not just Jesus as a historical teacher, but that he resurrected. The doctrine is: you need to believe that and you will be saved, so long as you don't sin too much that you can't be forgiven.

Happy New year everyone. I love it here.

[Eusebius]

How did the writers of the gospels know the Roman guards statements at the tomb Jesus was entombed in is accurate?

One or more of the Roman guards became Christian after witnessing Christ's resurrection from the dead.

This is most likely what they reported to Matthew:
We were given a detail to guard the tomb so His disciples would not steal the body. We were stationed right at the tomb so no one could get by us.
Then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere a great quake occurred! This quake was caused by a brilliant messenger of the Lord descending out of heaven! This messenger went right through our detail and rolled the stone away from the mouth of the tomb. Then that messenger sat on that stone, brilliant as could be! We were really scared to death! We have never seen anything like this! His appearance was brilliant like lightening and what he was wearing was white as snow! Then we witnessed who you call the Christ, walk out of that tomb ALIVE! And He told us to not fear. We were quaking in our sandals as if we had died for fear of what we were witnessing! Many of us now believe! The Jewish priests tried to pay us off and told us to tell anyone who asked that we fell asleep and the disciples came and took the body. But we couldn't take the money or lie about it. And if we did tell people that, we could be crucified for dereliction of duty. So we feared Pilate more than the priests.

Matthew 28:2-4 And lo! a great quake occurred, for a messenger of the Lord, descending out of heaven and approaching, rolls away the stone from the door and sat upon it." (3) Now he was, to the perception, as lightning, and his apparel white as if snow." (4) Now from fear of him the keepers quaked and became as the dead.