The Puzzle of the Empty Tomb

[Ryantology]

@ Smotts welcome to the forum, you are easily confused aren't you, the four stories are in themselves defeating to your analysis.

The four stories, despite their manifold conflicts, unreliable sourcing and ludicrous premises, overwhelmed the analysis by sheer force of numbers.

[Aractus]

Firstly welcome to the forums. I am at work ATM so I'll have to respond more fully later.

---

This is simply more proof that the bible is a book of fiction - because the people writing the stories that ended up in it failed to even check their stories with others - and those who put together the fairy tales failed to properly edit to assure continuity.

You could not be more wrong. What you're saying is that it'd be more historically reliable if we only had one of the four Gospels.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see anything even approaching your appraisal of his statements -in- his statements. In any case, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the narrative would be more difficult to establish as "historically reliable" if only one of the four gospels existed? Sure, on the one hand, we wouldn't have conflicting accounts - which would be a plus for one side - but we also couldn't point to corroborating accounts, which would be a negative for the same side. I mean, all of this ignores the elephant in the room, as the main barrier to concluding that the events described (in any permutation - with any omissions or editing for continuity) are historically reliable is that the dead don't raise from their graves. Specifically, after 72 hours or some-such. One could easily point to the discrepencies in the accounts as evidence that there was no conspiracy in their creation (and subsequent dispersal), though, in my opinion. So there's a silver lining to every cloud after all.

meh.

To put it another way, if we were sourcing our history from a single issue of the national inquirer, we'd be in some trouble. Unfortunately, no matter how many issues of the national inquirer we have to source our history from - that trouble never goes away. It does give us a better picture of the national inquirer, and it;s staff though. If multiple issues of the national inquirer were centered around a similar story but had varying accounts of that story - I'd like to think that we might realize that something was amiss.......but judging by the esteem that some hold for the gospels as "historically reliable" that's probably just me being hopeful.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

This is simply more proof that the bible is a book of fiction - because the people writing the stories that ended up in it failed to even check their stories with others - and those who put together the fairy tales failed to properly edit to assure continuity.

Yes, Jesus is a fictional character, but the authors were real. The authors either knew they were writing fiction, or they thought they were recording real events.

If they thought they were recording history, then the gospels are just a load of crap.

If they knew they were writing fiction, they authored a work that successfully convinced billions of people to willfully follow their directions. Think about that.

The spread of Christianity was by civil law and force of arms and nothing else. It ceased to be voluntary during the 5th c. or so.

Those are hardly the only two possibilities. Consider first there are some 46 gospels without a record reason for the acceptance of the current four and only a reason for rejecting on of the others. Given the ignorance there is no way to give special merit or consideration to just these four.

Another possibility is these were compilations of short street corner skit to attract attention, illustrations of preachings, no two scenes were ever intended to be seen at the same time.

Or they were created as individual moral lessons unrelated to real history or fiction, i.e. were never intended to be taken as literal fact.

Or, or, or with ORs as far as the eye can see while still being able to suppress a giggle including competing to create a better version than the previous.

They created a God that tells his followers to "give Caesar what is Caesar's" (pay your taxes) and "whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two" when a soldier conscripts you to carry his pack for one mile you should carry it for two (be a good citizen of the empire).

While he is asleep carry it the second mile and sell it for what it is worth.

Is it unreasonable to assume they would have left a few clues, a way to inform posterity of the genius of their creation? They did. The puzzle of the empty tomb is just one of those clues. Combined the clues reveal who the authors are, why, and how they created Christianity. They also reveal their hatred of the Jews who were the first victims of Christianity. Most of the clues include a comedic element, a way of poking fun at those not intelligent enough, or too blinded by religious ignorance to see the truth.

The joke in the puzzle of the empty tomb is apparent. Religious ignorance triggers a comedy of errors that convinces all of Jesus' followers that he's been resurrected.

The authors of the Gospels were geniuses, if they left a message for people not blinded by religious ignorance you'd do well to learn it.

If you have so much free time why are you wasting it on this?

As to hatred of Jews, read Acts and learn the Jews drew first blood and attempted to exterminate the Christians. As many say, Don't start a fight you can't finish.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I presented my take on the resurrection story here.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12009.html

[A_Nony_Mouse]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-18156.html

My view on the tomb issue from twenty years ago.

[Minimalist]

The authors either knew they were writing fiction, or they thought they were recording real events.

That is not strictly true. We have one basic story - gMark - which came out first and then two adaptations of the same story gMatty and gLuke. (GJohn is just far out crap which has long been recognized as totally different from the other 3). Moreover, gLuke has a question about the first 2 chapters being later additions...

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/l...arcionism/

in much the same way as some unknown scribe wrote a new and improved ending for gMark because the first one was not good enough.

I find it impossible to accept that whoever sat down to write this amended bullshit out did not know exactly what they were doing and why. At best, they were incorporating traditional beliefs into the yarn and at worst they were deliberately propagandizing them.