Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[pocaracas]

You're right. They don't NORMALLY resurrect. Here's what we know:

Jesus died by crucifixion.

I can grant that some guy was killed by crucifixion. Some guy that went against the grain of the established powers that be... not necessarily a guy called Jesus, but ok.. let's call him Jesus... Also, not necessarily at the year 1.

The women who went to the tomb found it empty.

You mean that story where it would be highly irregular for women's accounts to be heeded and yet, they were?
After watching the "I, Claudius" BBC tv series recently, women at the time don't seem so feeble as to be dismissed like that, in Rome... perhaps Jerusalem was a bit different... perhaps not...

The disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion and were willing to suffer rather than recant.

There is a tale of such disciples... There is a tale of people believing that such believing disciples existed. Do note the two-tier nature of the account.

Paul, an sworn enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted.

Well, many people have had such experiences... even this forum's popsthebuilder has gone through something like that.
Doesn't mean it's not in the person's head.

James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddently converted.

Who? Brother of whom?! Don't know his tale.

What theory do you have that account for these facts BETTER than the resurrection of Jesus?

Partly made-up, partly true, partly from old tales, partly drawing from people's previous beliefs...
The usual stuff when discussing any myth... they don't crop up in a vacuum, you know?