> In one breath you call into question the credibility of the author's depiction of events and in the next breath you claim the authors depiction of events is full and complete (as to the "next day" issue).
Hold up. The second is part of the first.
Secondly: I was using the plot hole to point out that modern people claiming swipign the body is "impossible" is in fact false. Here are your choices:
1) The account is accurate, and the tomb was unguarded for perhaps 24 hours
2) The account is not accurate, and thus the whole thing is in question.
> You seem to want to give the author credibility when it seemingly raises doubt and simultaneously call the author biased and deceitfull.
You seem to want to do neither... neither recognize the doubt nor recognize the bias.
So, which is it: the tomb was unguarded, or the Gospels are untrustworthy? You decide.
If the account is accurate and the tomb was emptied before the guards got there then the author lied by omission. If he lied by omission how can we trust he told the truth about a 24 hour delay?
If the account is not accurate, then how do you jump to the conclusion that the tomb was emptied before hand? Do you really think there is enough evidence to assume the guards stood before an empty tomb and were dumb enough not to check its contents before guarding it?
You seem to want to do neither... neither recognize the doubt nor recognize the bias.
I'm willing to do either but I am not willing to apply one standard to one statement and another standard to another statement as it may appeal to me as you seem to be doing.
So, which is it: the tomb was unguarded, or the Gospels are untrustworthy? You decide.,
Your bias blinds you from seeing that both can be true and the gospels are still trustworthy. Your problem is they are only trustworthy for you when they create what you perceive as a dilemma and untrustworthy when they proclaim what you disagree with.