In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the belief in a risen Jesus is better explained by potential naturalistic explanations than by a potential supernatural one, and you don't even need to argue the Gospels are complete myths to come up with a naturalistic explanation that's more compelling than a miracle case. One example: Joseph of Arimathea ended up moving Jesus' body to a private place during the night, in the hope that it would make things easier for the Messiah to come back to life and fulfill the expectations that he was supposed to meet. When that didn't happen, Jesus' body nevertheless stayed there and was never moved back to the original tomb. Joseph also decided not to let anyone know about this, so when rumors spread that Jesus had risen, he chose not to say anything about it.

what book chapter and verse is any of this in?
Are you guys seriously adding straw men material to the story of christ just to have more to say when you try and knock it down? Seriouly look at what you are doing you are literally creating a straw man by telling us what you think was going on in the minds of people you have no way of knowing. THEN you have the juevos to tell me how this is all wrong... what you created is wrong...

Or it may be he decided to lie to the other disciples and have them believe Jesus rose from the dead (he or one of his men could have been the "angel" in the empty tomb when the women came to visit Jesus' body). Perhaps to spark some strong faith-based rebellion against the Romans.

Too many necessary information withheld from us so that one cannot really make any confident case for what triggered the Christ faith, but the point is the case for the Resurrection is just damn weak.

Or everything is there yet there and you can't refute how it was written without a big empty sweeping dismissal.

I don't think it needs to be in chapter and verse.  It's simply an alternative, prosaic explanation for one of the myths in the Gospel narrative.

Boru