Someone stole the body!

[Aractus]

This is not a thread for Jesus mythists, so let's suppose that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  Professor Bart Ehrman, in his 2008 debate with William Craig, gave a completely naturalistic explanation of Jesus' supposed "resurrection" from the dead, which I am going to embellish on my own:

Some of your embellishments are not within the likely course of events:

1)  Around age 30 Jesus went down to Jerusalem for the first time from Galilee after being born in Nazareth, got busted by the Romans for causing trouble in the Temple, went before a Roman proctor (probably, never even met Pilate -- few, if any, criminals ever did), was labeled a loon and insurrector, and with some likely influence from the Jewish authorities, was executed by crucifixion.

Scholars and Historians of Ancient Rome view it as extremely unlikely that a religious group (the Palestinian Jews or otherwise) could have had any influence over rule and order. They further point out that Jesus causing trouble in the temple would have been all the justification necessary to crucify him under Roman rule.

2)  Jesus had some sympathizers, and with some influence, his body was handed over to them and buried in a tomb.  The Jewish authorities likely agreed to this as some sort of "peace offering" to Jesus' followers.

The Jewish authorities would have had no authority over the body - nor would the disciples. Only his family would have had the authority to take possession of the body. The Gospels do say a secret disciple (Joseph of Arimathea) took the body and laid it in a stone-cut tomb, however that exact line of events is unlikely. It is likely that either his family or someone on their behalf (possibly Joseph of Arimathea) took possession of the deceased.

3)  However, some of Jesus' family members, followers and friends were unhappy with his burial arrangements, and so, in the middle of the night, they went and stole Jesus' body.  But while they were traveling with Jesus' corpse, they were discovered by a Roman watch, confronted, and after a brief scuffle, they were all killed by the Romans.  Their bodies, along with Jesus', were buried in an unmarked grave.

That's a implausible situation. Roman authorities did not kill people on sight - even grave-robbers. And even if such an event took place, as I mentioned above SOMEONE took possession of the body, therefore that person is not going to be unhappy about burial arrangements. Therefore you can't have everyone - family, friends, and followers, all unhappy at the same time. I think it's much more likely that the family removed the body from the tomb in the evening of "Sunday" (Nissan 16 c.30 AD) and that consequently in the morning his disciples found it empty.

4)  Later on some women followers of Jesus went to the tomb of his supposed burial and discovered that his body was missing.

5)  In the months and years following Jesus' death, his followers began having visions of the "risen" savior.

6)  Later on the letters of Paul were written (the earliest by Paul), and then the Gospels, Mark being the first.  After Mark, came Matthew and Luke, and finally, John, with its highly embellished accounts of Jesus' life, and finally, the Gospel of Peter, with even more embellishments than John.  It is likely that Mark contains some authentic history of Jesus, the fact that some women went to Jesus' tomb, discovering that it was empty and fleeing because "they were afraid" with Mark clearly ending at 16:8.  Later on the ending of Mark was embellished further.

You left out the fact that the gospel of Mark does not include the resurrection, clearly implying that the later accounts are growth of the original story that move beyond the historical-factual & superstitious events laid out in Mark.