How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Drich]

Drich,

Perhaps it wasn't clear. Mark is chronologically the closest report we have to the events. Mark, without the later addition, would, therefore, be worth considering at the most accurate account - with less embellishments than the others.

Its simply the old "how big was the fish that my grandfather caught?" Tale.

Why do you say mark is the cloest account we have? Because that is what you been taught? What if what your teacher was wrong? would you be willing your line of thought to be wrong, because it is based on an incorrect assumption that Mark was written much later than it was?

Most Atheists believe Mark was written after the burning of the temple in 70AD (Because how could mark been able to fortell the destruction of the temple?) The most generous estimates I have found place authorship at 75 AD http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelo...dating.htm

If this assumption is correct then Mark is not the oldest gospel account. Luke (Former gentile historean/Doctor/Slave of Theophilus) wrote the book of Acts. The book of acts ends with the beginning of Paul's ministry in Rome (where He lived for 2 years and worked 'unapposed.') which puts authorship of acts between 58 and 64 (Because that was when he was killed.) Paul's death would have not gone unmentioned by Paul's right hand man.

So because we know the book of acts was written before 64 AD we know the book of Luke to be written well before even that. Why? Because in the intro of the book of Luke He starts out with a Greeting to his Former Owner Theophilus. (We know He Owned luke at the time because of the greeting Luke 1:1 starts out with and we know Luke was Free because of the greeting The Book of Acts says so, Luke was given over to Paul as a desciple.)
Luke1:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

Acts1:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201&version=ERV

This makes the book of Luke older than Mark if you insist on saying the book of mark was written after the destruction of the temple.

If nothing else this puts all of the books start date into question.

Why would the priests care whether the body was stolen or not?

Because Christ Claimed to be the Messiah, and as such was to be resurrected. They knew if that body did not stay in the grave they would loose their hold on their people.

Notice also, as the accounts get more distant chronologically that stone seems to get bigger. In Mark, Joseph of A. rolls the stone in place on his own.

does it say it was on flate ground or an incline when being rolled into place? If it were on an incline it would be easy to put into place but next to impossiable to move alone. Which would be ideal if you wanted to keep grave robbers out. (Remember this was his grave initially, and keeping grave robbers out would have been a key buying point for a man of means.)

Any chance of addressing the rest of the questions raised from Mark in the meantime, just for completeness?

It depends.