Render to Caesar

Note: If you pick up the post from here, you may be left wondering what we are talking about. I suggest reading previous commentary prior to this (link provided below), otherwise, this post may not be for you.

I want to thank both Vinny and DaveE for excellent commentary and keeping this discussion alive. I agree with DaveE though, it has the potential to digress forever and I want to see what ol' DaveE Jones has to say next.
Our newest commentator, Vinny, has responded to something I said about Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon (see comments in How Do We Know? Part 3). I think it maybe worth the post to say that I was not arguing for historical evidence of Caesar's existence, rather his crossing of the Rubicon - though on that subject, I would like to make a few points and then defer to Dave.

I may have read too much into what Vinny said concerning coins that were minted, thereby providing evidence of Caesar's exploits, but I would propose a similarity between said coins and the Church.
First, noting that the coins were minted does not show that Caesar actually crossed the river. Yet it is good secondary evidence of the fact, though circumstantial. Subsequently, "The point of no return"* is not usually a thing questioned within historical narrative, even though we aren't sure where the Rubicon flowed at the time of the crossing! It should be noted, as well, that the written evidence in said case is not first hand but fourth!!

DaveE is right though in that we are blurring the lines between evidence and explanation. My point is this: that we take the written evidence of Caesar's crossing, combined with these coins (which in themselves provide no other evidence save that they were minted in Caesar's name) as a true account because there is substantial secondary physical evidence (coins) and the narrative itself doesn't conflict with our own metaphysical world view.

But how then is the evidence (not the explanation) for Christ's burial different? There is nothing in McCullagh's "known laws of nature" that disagrees with a man dying and being buried! And the secondary (which I may argue is primary) physical evidence that is produced is a full blown, Jesus Christ-is-the-Died-and-was-buried,-now-Risen-Lord-Christianity from 1 Corinthians 15 within, at the very least, two decades all over the Roman Empire. Even Mormons don't grow that fast! It is the explanation (sorry Dave!!) of the Church's birth that we must consider next.
I want to wait and see what DaveE has to say, because I know he will cover all of these topics in the upcoming posts.

As a last note, 1 Corinthians 15 1-7 is just as much a reliably historical account of the burial as anything else we have, whether Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned or not. The Roman practice of throwing people in mass graves was not a rule of Roman military practice, and they were certainly known to release bodies to those who asked - they didn't care one way or the other. Besides, the accounts available record this as the case. Again, direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence and explanatory theory can work in both directions - but at the present point of DaveE's argument, we are dealing with direct evidence. Once we have all the direct evidence established, we can continue with whatever fancy happens across our paths.

Lets get all the cards on the table first.