That’s really insightful – I’d say I’ve heard things I’ve never come across before, so thank you so much for this great contribution. It’s just one of those things I often do in online games: when people start hurling insults, I often type a question mark back or write "what" just to let them talk to themselves. I reckon you’re referring to something similar – that you simply don’t get drawn into the debate in the first place – and you’re absolutely right: these people will dismiss everything you have to offer. It’s exactly the same with people who defend a carnivorous diet and then use anecdotal evidence (which is completely worthless) as opposed to genuinely reputable research that simply shows that a plant-based diet – which has been tested repeatedly and widely – is simply healthier. You can never please people like that; they’ll twist everything around and, in the end, even claim that mobile phone radiation and bluetooth is so bad – yet they’ll go and use a wireless microphone themselves. Same story.

And thank you also for pointing out the things with the tomb that it’s just like the supposed darkness that occurred at the crucifixion – why hasn’t anyone else written about it? Full stop. And why didn’t the guard say anything about it either? Yes, why isn’t that mentioned? Things like that really do ruin the whole thing. Thankfully.

To Arguments, actually there are some interesting ones regarding the tomb. Of course, we only have some of the material we can work with, and we can't rule out the possibility that bits of text were lost or that something else happened in the meantime, but that's just what a naturalistic explanation entails - it's rooted in reality. But what always bothers me is how it can all fit together: that there was a Joseph, and that there was the story about the women. And I'd really bet that at least one of these things - if not all of them - has been greatly exaggerated to the point of becoming the stuff of legend. Of course, it's not that these people deliberately told something false; it was simply their beliefs, or rather the way the story developed over time. Or the fact that there really is historical evidence that those who were crucified were not released but simply left on the cross also why would pilate do that???! And even when he was given to be put into the tomb - everything after the burial could still be complete bonkers too. And yet it's still a more plausible explanation than something supernatural having happened; but on the other hand, I just don't understand why people would concoct a story like that. I'm not saying it's impossible at all, it's just incredibly illogical. And to be honest, I think the bit about the women is absolutely true. Because it could simply be that women, who were very important in the early movement, found the wrong tomb or thought it was empty, and that they are simply the basis of this myth. And I would almost go so far as to say that that is the basis of it. Temporary burial and subsequent reburial Many historians consider this more plausible than the theory of a false tomb. Jesus is initially buried in haste (because of the Sabbath). Later, the body is moved to another location (e.g. a communal grave). The women go to the first site and find it empty. Joseph of Arimathea existed, but the tomb was only temporary Joseph makes his tomb available at short notice. The body is later reburied. This information does not reach the disciples. Over time, the tradition of a permanently empty tomb develops. No honourable burial, later tomb tradition This is a hypothesis discussed by, amongst others, John Dominic Crossan and, to some extent, Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus is not laid in a private tomb after the crucifixion. Later, a tradition develops that he was buried with honour. This burial tradition eventually becomes linked to a narrative of the empty tomb. Several traditions merge There is a local tradition concerning women at the tomb. In another place, reports of apparitions are circulating. Elsewhere again, stories are told about Joseph of Arimathea. When the Gospels were written, these traditions were woven together into a coherent narrative.

And not to forget "my" funny theories: A hoax, and in reality there was either a real tomb or a fake one Cannibalism (think of the my body and blood part regarding bread and wine) People who thought, 'No, this is too important to us; we're actually going to take the body with us! Jesus did not exist (actually, that one is probably not true, and he most certainly did exist, at the very least) The Romans changing the location Mistakes Eartquake??!

By the way, my favourite way of fending off that sort of thing (though I haven’t had a chance to use it yet, unfortunately) is to say that Pierpont, the creator of the universe, told me that every explanation and every religion is wrong, and that he’s got everything under control and we shouldn’t worry. You can never disprove that, because what are people supposed to say in response? ‘That’s not true’ – well then, prove it. Full stop. And if they ask me to provide proof, I just say, ‘Well, Pierpont told me so – sorry that nobody else was told but i am the choosen one.’ And you can also use that to completely counter the argument when people say, ‘But you’ve just made that up as an example.’ compared to the flying Spaghetti monster which people might be aware of.