Rilwayne001:


A god would not have needed to move the stone but the storyteller certainly did! With the stone still in place who would have known something miraculous had happened?

A god that materializes in a closed room in Jerusalem, on the shore of Lake Tiberias, or on a mountain in Galilee, most certainly needed no stone moved to allow him to leave a tomb. But the narrator of a sacred play needed the "moved stone" as a theatrical flourish, in order that female visitors to the tomb (and the audience) could see "the body ... gone!" We are talking theatre, not history.



[b] Of course it would have made a lot of sense had the angel that appeared to them move the stone in their presence to show them that indeed their Lord has risen, but instead, the moved stone has left more problem in the account. The visitors receive an explanation from the conveniently waiting angel (a "man in white" – "It was a resurrection!" )

This man/angel verbalizes the sacred message; Jesus Christ is not here, but is risen, and will be seen again in Galilee. Thus the first "witness" to the resurrection is neither man nor woman but angel . The bewildered women flee the tomb,having received the angel's assurance that a resurrection has occurred – one absurdity vouching for another.

Presumably, the women remembered the angel's injunction to tell the disciples, but, "afraid", they tell no one (Mark 16:. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?

The author of Matthew on the other hand adds drama to the minimalistic yarn inherited from Mark , notably a "first appearance" of the resurrected Jesus.

Matthew begins by introducing tomb guards – unknown to Mark , or anyone else for that matter. The guards, in fact, will get more attention than the resurrection itself.
Matthew introduces an earthquake: Matthew 28.2.

Notice that Matthew solves one riddle left by Mark by having the angel move the stone.

Matthew wants something more compelling than the testimony of an angel, so he intrudes an appearance of Jesus himself into the path of the running women. But Matthew has no new dialogue; his Jesus merely repeats words already spoken by the angel in Mark. The women say nothing but "clasp the feet" of the risen saviour: "Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him."
Now that Jesus gives "evidence" of his own resurrection, and the same instruction to "go to Galilee", the role of the angel in mark has become redundant and the text reads oddly!

While these dramatic events are in progress the enigmatic guards, more seriously frightened than the women (!) " shake and become like dead men." Matthew turns his attention back to these traumatized wimps, using them as a ploy to start a so-called "rumour" that Christian's have found useful ever since – the "stolen body" straw man:

Matthew 28.11-15 " 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. When the chief priests had met with the elders and DEVISED A PLAN, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away [size=13pt] WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP [/size] .' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 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 ." –

This^ entire episode is directed at the objection that if the body wasn't in the tomb then an obvious explanation would be that somebody had removed it. The guards and the "sealing of the sepulchre" are intended to silence this objection.

Why did the guards have to be made "as dead men"? Surely extra witnesses to the momentous event would have been useful? Precisely because the story is a fabrication. If it had really happened the testimony of a squad of temple guards,not followers of Jesus, would have started a chain of events that just did not happen.

As a "real event" the passage is beset with problems. [u] How on earth did the comatose guards know "everything that had happened"? How could they admit to being asleep yet be certain that the disciples had stolen the body? Even more difficult to explain is how is the author of Matthew could himself possibly know of the dastardly plan hatched by the chief priests and elders? [/b]

truthman2013:

Biblical and Extra-Biblical Evidences

by Tim Chaffey on February 26, 2013
Tim Chaffey, AiG–US, addresses many more evidences that Jesus rose from the dead, which are either described in Scripture or derived from it.

Our previous article on the Resurrection of Jesus discussed the “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) of this event. Today, we will address many of the other evidences that Jesus rose from the dead, which are either described in Scripture or derived from it. We will also survey what have been called the minimal facts to show what would happen if we were to use the critics’ own criteria.

Evidences that Jesus Rose

The Bible describes several pieces of evidence that are consistent with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Some of these evidences are explicitly stated in the text, while others are based on strong inferences drawn from the text. As such, some of these points are more convincing than others, but taken together with the "infallible proofs," there is only one reasonable conclusion: Jesus rose physically from the dead.

Conversion of James

The man who wrote the Epistle of James was the half-brother of Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph, and an early leader of the church in Jerusalem.¹ For whatever reason, James did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah prior to the Resurrection. In fact, none of His brothers believed in Him early on (John 7:5), and even tried to prevent Him from speaking, thinking He was out of His mind (Mark 3:20–21, NET).² However, just several weeks after the Crucifixion they were counted among His followers (Acts 1:14). And by the time of the "Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15, James was one of the leading figures at the church in Jerusalem. Paul seems to imply this as well in Galatians 1:18–19 and 2:9. Several early sources reveal that James was eventually martyred for his faith.³

What could compel a man who had grown up with Jesus to suddenly change his mind about his older brother? James likely remained in his unbelief until after Christ's death. After all, while He was on the Cross, Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the Apostle John (John 19:26–27). If one of his brothers had been a believer at this point, it would have been their responsibility to care for Mary. Although Scripture does not describe the conversion of James for us, it does provide the most likely cause for his drastic change of heart. Upon telling his readers that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once, Paul wrote, "After that He was seen by James" (1 Corinthians 15:7).

While it is possible that James converted to the faith based on reports of his brother’s Resurrection, it is far more likely that he became a believer when Jesus appeared to him. Whatever it was that triggered his conversion, James believed in the Resurrection so strongly that he was willing to die for his faith.

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/resurrection/biblical-and-extra-biblical-evidences/

OLAADEGBU:
The 5 "E"s of the Evidence of Christ's Resurrection.

Executed;
Empty Tomb;
Eyewitnesses;
Early Records;
Emergence of the Church:

OLAADEGBU:


“Jesus’ Tomb Found” Claim As Empty as Jesus’ [real] Tomb
A review of Sunday evening’s television attack on the Resurrection

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/resurrection/jesus-tomb-found-claim-as-empty-as-jesus-real-tomb/

OLAADEGBU:
The fact that Abraham Lincoln was born, became president, or was assassinated cannot be proven using scientific methods.  To be scientific it must be repeatable (as in the testing of gravity).  The proofs that Lincoln did exist and was a historical figure are:


1. the written evidence,
2. eyewitness testimony,
3. physical evidence that remains to this day at the Ford Theatre, birth records and newspaper articles regarding his election.

All these facts are acceptable in a court of law as proof to a judge and jury.

Garry T. Ansdell (D.D.) made a case out of this when he stated that "The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is evidential: [list]

1. the empty tomb still exists,
2. His birth record is documented all the way back to Adam and Eve,
3. the four Gospels record His death;
4. the location, even the names of the political leaders who sentenced Him are historically recorded;
5. there were more than five hundred eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection, recorded by the New Testament writers;
6. the very existence of the Christian faith, based on His death and resurrection;
7. the cultural and political evidence at the time, including the Roman calender separating all of time into Before Christ (B.C.) and in the year of our Lord (A.D.)."