Also, putting guards in front of a tomb was highly unusual, as this was a highly unusual circumstance. The guards were guarding the tomb and the body with their very lives. If they were attacked, they would have been expected to fight to the death. Because if they didn't, if someone stole the body, or got into the tomb, the guards would have been killed anyway.
Next, the tomb was sealed. Meaning there was a seal of Caesar administered by Pilate put upon the stone. Anyone violating that seal would have been put to death. Its highly unlikely that the distraught Apostles would have dared to face that for something they believed in, was to them, over. The Apostles were not looking for Jesus after the crucifixion, until the women told them Jesus had risen, and then they thought the women were delusional.
Next, the stone itself was a massive boulder, rolled down an embankment, into position. The only way to roll the stone away was uphill. Imagine how much a boulder 4'-6' round must weigh. A couple thousand pounds?
For the professor to postulate that the resurrection is a metaphor, proves he has an ulterior motive, as he blatantly disregards facts from his theory.
Next, he disregards every piece of eye witness accounting reported from the time. How do you disregard hundreds of eyewitness accounting? Were there any official documentations to refute the eye witness accounts? And if so, what were they based upon.
Lastly the Apostles, almost all, were martyred for not just their beliefs, but what they were teaching. Peter himself did not feel worthy of dieing the same way as Christ. So they crucified him upside down. Pretty extreme death for a metaphor.
For what the Gospel teaches, for someone to call the resurrection a metaphor, is someone who doesn't have the chutzpah to come right out and say the Bible is an outright lie. Or else the person doesn't have the mental intellect to understand what they are actually saying.
Either the Bible is absolute truth, or it is a complete lie. There is no middle ground.
Great post, Mountn Man.
One thing I would like to add:
If one were trying to dispute the Gospels it would be extremely difficult to overcome the fact that the eyewitness accounts of women were allowed to remain given that women’s testimonies were deemed unreliable and unbelievable at that time. If they were attempting to gain believers by giving fraudulent accounts, that would have been the last thing they’d have done.