"Thus the Resurrection cannot be a historical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is. For that matter, there is no account that depicts it as such, nor is it circumscribed in time otherwise than by the eschatological expression 'the third day'" (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987)

Or how about Gerhard Ludwig Muhler, another Novus Ordo who said:

"Whether the women's visit to the tomb in the early Easter morning and the discovery that the Body of Jesus is [sic] no longer there, was a historical occurrence in the manner portrayed, does not need to be decided here. It's possible that this [narrative] reflected a veneration of the tomb by the community of Jerusalem" (Katholische Dogmatik, 8th ed. pg. 300)

The reasoning which rejects the Resurrection is flawed.

You don't know why I reject it. If I give you my reasoning, will you tell me exactly what the flaw is?

it isn't reasoning at all but a principled refusal, irrespective of the evidence, to accept the Resurrection at all.

Try me.

Pretty much everything else can be argued as reasonable to believe given the evidence especially when held up with other accepted historical facts with less documentation.

I don't normally judge whether something happened just based on the number of documents claiming it happened, and I don't think anyone else does, either. This is a good example of the sort of special pleading to which apologists so often resort.

Jesus was not just a dead man coming back to life like, say, Lazarus.

I get it that orthodox Christians would not be satisfied if I believed only that.

It became the official religion of the Roman empire. The empire did not extend to the entire world that was known even at that time.

So, what are the necessary assumptions. A distinction between matter and mind perhaps. This is interesting with respect to his 'hierarchy' of monads. It's of course difficult for me to 'imagine' quarks, electrons, and protons being 'monads'. And there can't be 'overlaps' because it's all windowless. They allow - what is it - a mathematical 'metaphysic?' of 'points'. OK there's a 'parallel' there. But what you get to 'angels' and 'G/gods' is this another plateau of metaphysic? Real or Ideal? I 'accept' that I cannot 'know', but it 'would be nice' if I could even find some order or coherent organization within what? various systems, or epistemic speculations concerning ontologies???? No need to answer. I'm just 'indulging' myself, a word with many meanings......Thanks Doug.

Yes, that's the one I had in mind.

You are referring, I believe, to the :Law of Identity of Indescernibles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

In 300 years it grew to become the official religion of the known world so that's pretty fast growth.

Jesus was not just a dead man coming back to life like, say, Lazarus. Jesus was resurrected with godlike qualities such as altering his appearance, teleporting and levitating, while at the same time retaining his physical functions such as eating.

The issue therefore isn't just convincing someone that a dead man had been restored to life but that a dead man had been raised to godhood. The Resurrection is not the raising of the dead back to humanity but to divinity.