Naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus

[Justtristo]

I do not want to have a debate on wither Jesus of Nazareth existed. My opinion along with biblical scholars (even sceptical ones such as Bart D Ehrman) that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

I realize you dont want to debate it, but I cant help to throw this out. For someone like Jesus to be SOOO opinionated, and the stories of him being trained by and even suprising the scholars, there has to be SOMETHING that Jesus himself wrote. The argument is usually for writings ABOUT Jesus during his time, but that is not the point. for someone who wanted the truth to be spread so badly, why did he not write anything? Only that OTHER people wrote ABOUT him and many of those books were burnt. To me this SCREAMS that he was invented, and not a historical figure.

Havent seen anything written by Hercules either.

Besides, I find it strange that you want to put forward a naturalistic explanation for Jesus, yet dont want to discuss wether he existed or not. Existence or not, to me, would fit the criteria of "natural explanation". Wouldnt you agree?

My apologies on not making this clearer from the outset.

However, I had intended this thread to be not a discussion about wither or not there was a historical Jesus. Rather if he had existed, how can we explain by naturalistic means the resurrection story. Anyway I clearly stated my opinion on the historicity of Jesus, which I am pretty confident of you given the extensive scholarship which has been done in this field in the last 200 years.

By contrast the studies into the historical Muhammad have barely started and I doubt studies into the historical Buddha will ever be done. If say Jesus of Nazareth never existed, could it be also true that the Buddha or Muhammad never existed and were totally invented characters.