Dan Barker's Easter Challenge (for PinSeeker)

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Here is Dan Barker's famous Easter Challenge for Christians :
https://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/stone.php

'' I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. ''

Are you up for the challenge, PinSeeker ?
Or any other Christian here ?

Let's be clear -
your account cannot OMIT anything from those source accounts.

Kapyong

[PinSeeker]

Paul had a VISION of a supernatural being, like some others.

No, Paul just heard Jesus. He -- like all his companions -- saw a great light and then heard Jesus, but saw no on:

"suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?� And he said, “Who are You, Lord?� And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.� The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing..." (Acts 9)

So, nope.

Because the stories are totally contradictory in fact... Fact based on analysis of the text.

I get that you'd like to think so, and probably even do. But nope.

A fact demonstrated here over and over.

I agree; yours and DI's opinions are horribly flawed.

Don't you CARE how many times you are shown wrong?

Well, no, because the people who are telling me I'm wrong are... wrong. LOL!

Don't you realise your credibility is ZERO here now?

My credibility among unbelievers? LOL! We all knew that from the beginning. Why would I care about that? LOL!

Grace and peace to you, Kapyong.

[otseng]

AND refusing to enter into debate about his mistakes, even while no-one here believes a word he says (apart from fellow apologist JW of course.)

Frankly, PinSeeker's answers are insulting to the intelligence of a twelve-year-old.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making negative comments about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Kapyong]

Gday

Please avoid making negative comments about others.

OK, sorry
I thought I made a negative comment about his POST(s), not his person.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,
Here is something that both JW and PS left out (unless I missed it) :

G.Matthew Chapter 27 -
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,
52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

At the moment of the crucifixion (when Jesus gives up the ghost) the following happens :

• the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom;
• and the earth quaked,
• and the rocks were split,
• and the graves were opened;
• and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised

But then :

• coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Note well -
the graves were opened and the bodies of the saints were raised on Friday,
but they didn't go into the holy city (Jerusalem) until Sunday.

So these newly bodily resurrected saints must have stayed hanging around inside their graves (i.e. tombs) all weekend !

Imagine the surprise of anyone who went to visit their family tomb that weekend only to find their dead family were alive again, especially on Sunday morning when they started leaving the tombs.

So when the women went to visit Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning they would presumably have passed by various other tombs along the way - all of which were OPEN, and the resurrected persons would be streaming out of them on the way to town.

"Mazeltov Mary!", "Hello ladies", "I'm back" - they may have called out to the women as they passed. So an opened tomb with resurrected people hanging around would be no surprise when they got there.

Furthermore -
if the tombs were opened and many resurrected persons came forth to visit Jerusalem - why would Jesus be special ? Apparently there were MANY resurrected persons (saints.) Were only Jews resurrected ? What about pagans ? What about the few Hindus or Buddhists who had apparently reached Jerusalem by then ? And what happened to all those resurrected people ?

No wonder apologists leave that out - it's silly nonsense.

So what we have seen in both accounts (from JW and PS) are new & different versions of the Sunday morning events which different from the previous six versions, and from each other.

Both accounts :

• leave things out (e.g. Matthew's raised saints)
• add things (e.g. various people running all the place)
• change things (e.g. the Gospel says Mary & the women told no-one.)

This hasn't reconciled the different accounts - it's made things WORSE - now we have EIGHT different versions.

So now PinSeeker, can you please tell us your view on those verses from Matthew - were do they fit in to your account ? Do you believe that really happened ?


Kapyong

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 84 by Kapyong]

To be fair, you're talking about Matthew Chapter 27, which is not part of Dan Barker's Challenge. He wants submitters to read Chapter 28.

[Kapyong]

Gday rikuoamero

[Replying to post 84 by Kapyong]

To be fair, you're talking about Matthew Chapter 27, which is not part of Dan Barker's Challenge. He wants submitters to read Chapter 28.

Fair enough - you're right there.

But still - that's part of what happened on Sunday morning - the resurrected saints leaving the tombs and heading in to town to amaze everyone.

Kapyong

[PinSeeker]

So just to reiterate what I said, I am not debating about what I wrote, but I am happy to clarify. It's very telling to me that no one would say, "Well, hey, PinSeeker, what about this?" Or, "Hey, PinSeeker, you didn't seem to answer that, so please explain," or... You get the idea.

All I did was throw out a complete timeline from Easter morning to Pentecost. If there are clarifications that are needed -- which, apparently, there are -- it seems that the first thing someone would do in a conversation (again, very telling) is ask for those clarifications and see if they could be made before jumping straight to, "See? He's dodging the questions altogether" (which is not true at all). So let's see...

To reiterate the challenge from the OP…

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened

To condense that, the challenge is
1)To read the following verses
2) Write down a single narrative, in chronological order of what happened that day.
3) Most importantly, the submitter is to not leave out a single detail from any of the verses.

Obviously, Pinseeker’s submission has left out details. Let’s examine it shall we?

We shall.

On the morning of day one (Easter Sunday)
* Very early in the morning a group of several women, including Mary Magdalene, approaches the tomb to complete burial customs on behalf of Jesus (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; John 20:1). They behold the tomb opened and are alarmed.

There are problems right here off the bat. Pinseeker says that the purpose of the women was to complete burial customs. However, this is not what Matthew 28 says. Matthew 28 says they go there to look at the tomb. John makes no mention of why the women go to the tomb.

Ah. <chuckles> Barker’s challenge says Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 are to be used to construct the timeline. Which I did. Rik, however, only wants me to use Matthew 28 and John 20, here. That’s a problem. Because, we need Luke and Mark to weigh in also. So right away, we see either the ignorance or dishonesty in this objection. Which is it? Or is it both? Oh, well, no matter. On with the clarification (though it’s not really needed)…

So, yeah, Matthew and John don't mention the spices, but Mark 16 does... and actually, Luke 24 (I left out Luke; shame on me) does, also. Which is why I cited Mark 16:1 (and should have cited Luke 24:1) in my answer (see above post). They came to look at the tomb (Matthew 28:1), and they brought with them spices (for the purpose of performing burial customs, as required by Jewish Law (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1). The Gospels -- as I have said several times -- are complementary. Together, they give us a fuller picture of each individual event. Such is clearly the case here.

NEXT ISSUE! (A Dana Carvey Saturday Night Live reference. Remember the McLaughlin Group sketches? Hilarious! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYBpWAiwW34)

Also, Pinseeker leaves out the detail that Matthew mentions two Marys; Mark says the two Marys and Salome; Luke doesn’t give names at all; and John says Mary Magdalene, giving no hint that he is even aware of any other women.

The issue is the same here. Again, we have to take all four Gospels into account. Used together, we see that both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were present, along with Salome – according to Matthew 28 and Mark 16 together. In Luke’s account, it takes a little more effort. Luke says “they� in 24:1, so we have to go back to Luke 23 to see who “they� actually are. There, we see that he is referring to the women who accompanied Jesus from Galilee (23:55). "Women" is plural, so right away we discern that there were at least two, and probably more than that, because, going back a little further in Luke 23, we see that all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Jesus from Galilee were witnesses to the crucifixion, and it’s these women that Luke 23:55 and Luke 24:1 – “they� – refer to. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were surely there – though they are not mentioned by name – in Luke’s account… yet. Luke does name them in 1:10… Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. John, only mentions Mary Magdalene, for sure (20:1), but he quotes her in the next verse (2) as saying to Peter and John, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him� (emphasis on "we" added). So he was aware of the presence of more people than just Mary Magdalene at the tomb, but just didn’t mention them. He only mentions Mary Magdalene not because she was the only person to see the tomb but because she is the one who was present at the tomb and then reported the news to Peter and John.

On we go….

Another problem in PS’s narrative is that he says the women see the tomb opened. Matthew mentions an earthquake, with an angel descending from heaven and rolling away the stone. Pinseeker makes no mention of this earthquake, so that’s another detail he has left out.

LOL! There was certainly an earthquake. The earthquake occurred before the women (and the others) got to the tomb. There, there, now, Rik. All better?

Mary Magdalene runs to Peter and John with distressing news of likely grave robbers (John 20:2).

Here, Pinseeker leaves out the detail from Mark 16 Verse 8, where it says the women fled the tomb and most importantly, said nothing to anyone.

No, they did say nothing to anyone… until Mary Magdalene reached Peter and John, and the other women reached the rest of the disciples. Mark just stopped his account when the Marys fled the tomb, but he did, however, relate what the angel told them to do (as did Matthew): to go and tell Jesus’s disciples. It can be assumed that the Marys did as they were told, but we don’t have to assume, because it’s verified in the other Gospels. So again, they told no one until they got to the disciples, just like the angel instructed. My goodness.

Also of note is the fact that PS says it is Mary Magdelene alone who runs to talk to Peter and John. PS does not mention that Mary Mag leaving on her own is not mentioned by any of the other sources.

Um, okay, it’s not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. But it is mentioned by John, which I did mention and cite, which means, by inference, that I Implicitly acknowledged that Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention this. Forgive me; I didn’t know any spoon-feeding was necessary. I’ll make a note of that.

ANNNNNNNNNNNNNYWAYYYYYY…. The fact that John mentions it is why we know it’s the case. Again, we see the complementary nature of the four Gospels. John’s status as a Gospel writer is equal to the other three. The fact that the other three don’t mention it means nothing, other than that John possibly views it as a more significant detail than do the others, but that's attributable to John's purpose in writing his Gospel as opposed to the other three.

The women who remain encounter an angel who declares to them that Jesus had risen and that they should tell this to the brethren (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; Matthew 28:5).

Here in PS’s narrative, there is one angel to talk to the women, and he does not clarity that it is a young man who talks to the women according to Mark; that Luke mentions two men in clothes gleaming like lightning (no clarification that Luke’s men are angels); that it is Matthew alone who mentions a single angel.

The fact that Matthew only references one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present. After reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there is ample data by which a real historian can determine that the man described by Mark was indeed an angel and that “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting� were angelic, and that though Matthew only mentions an angel, he clearly does not preclude the possibility that another was present. So this is a difference without distinction: The “young man� in Mark is an angel – with Matthew verifies, and Luke gives us the additional insight that there are actually two angels (dressed in dazzling clothing) rather than just one. Another example of the complementary nature of the Gospels.

NEXT ISSUE!

Again, what goes unmentioned is Mark 16:8, where the women do not tell what they have been told to anyone. Is this because this is a contradiction to the narrative in Pinseeker’s mind, one that must go so as to not jeopardise what he has presupposed is the “true� story?

Not in the least. Addressed. Counting backwards in this post, see third response above.

NEXT ISSUE! Oh wait. I already said that.

They are filled with fear at first and depart from the tomb afraid to speak (Mark 16:8).

Not just afraid to speak, but they in fact do not speak. What is PS reading? I checked on biblehub.com
http://biblehub.com/mark/16-8.htm
and only one translation says that Mark’s women talked to anyone.

Sigh. See above. Gospels. Complementary.

Some time later, they recover their courage somewhat and decide to go to the disciples. (Luke 24:9; Matthew 28:8).

Here, PS is being disingenuous. Luke does not mention a period of time where the women are afraid, then regain their courage. Luke’s narrative has the women bowing down to the two men (not angels), and then leaving immediately to tell the disciples.
Matthew is much the same, except unlike Luke, it is one angel, not two men who talk to the women.

Sigh. Yes, “disingenuous.� LOL! No, they are angels, and not just mere men. There are two of them. See above.

At about the same time, Peter and John have gone out to the tomb to investigate Mary’s claim.

A reminder to readers. PS’s narrative is that Mary Mag left on her own to talk to Peter and John. This is not mentioned at all by Matthew, Luke or Mark.

Sigh. See above. Gospels. Complementary.

Mary Magdalene follows Peter and John back out to the tomb, and they arrive before the other women have left.

Also of note is that Gospel John does not identify who the second disciple is that follows along with Simon Peter and Mary Mag. This disciple is identified only as the disciple whom Jesus loved. .

Right, who is John, as is readily evidenced in other parts of the Bible. You’re right, that is of note. John would not think to elevate himself over the other disciples, or anyone for that matter. LOL!

At this time, Peter and John discover the tomb empty though they encounter no angel. John believes in the resurrection. Peter’s conclusion is not recorded.

Meanwhile, the other women (Mary Magdalene is not with them) report what the angels say to the other disciples. Peter and John have not yet returned, and these remaining disciples are dismissive of the women’s story at first

Here, PS does not mention that Mark says the women told no-one. Also, neither Matthew, Mark or Luke say that Mary Mag had left the other women.

Neither is necessary, as both are very evident. You know, by employing the complementary nature of the Gospels. How many verses of the same song is that now? Forgive me; I’ve lost count.

NEXT ISSUE!

My goodness, am I only half way through this swamp?

What also goes unmentioned by PS is that in Matthew, the disciples do go to Galilee. There is no mention of the attitude of the disciples in Mark, because they are not told in Mark.

No, Mark just breaks off his narrative after the encounter with the angels at the tomb, where they are told to go and tell His disciples that he is risen. Again, the apparent need to spoon-feed… Mark jumps immediately to Jesus’s first post-resurrection appearance, which is to Mary Magdalene -- while she is still by herself in the garden -- after she has told Peter and John.

I also have to point out – here PS made a mistake that I think he didn’t catch. Here, he mentions what the angels, plural, command the women to report to the disciples. So far in PS’s narrative, there has only been the one angel. I don’t think it was a typo on his part, because if he had meant to say angel singular, he would have said “report what the angel says�, instead of “report what the angels say�

LOL! Nope. Two angels. See above. Ruined another of Rik’s “gotcha� moments. Darn me!

During this time, Mary, who is lingering at the tomb, weeps and is fearful. Peering into the tomb she sees -- this time, as opposed to when she first approached the tomb -- two angels, who wonder why she is crying.

They are two men, not identified as angels.

Ah, but they are angels. See above.

Also, PS’s narrative almost implies (at least this is the gist that I get from him) is that this is the first appearance of the two angels, and again, another gist that I get, is that these two angels are seperate from the other(s).

Sigh. See above. One appearance, consisting of two angels. Wow.

At any rate, Jesus then calls her by name, and Mary, recognizing his voice, recognizes him. Filled with joy, she clings to him (APPEARANCE NUMBER 1, John 20:16).

Here, a contradiction with Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians. Indeed, Paul seems to be entirely unaware of what happened (if anything) at an empty tomb. Paul lists a number of appearances by Jesus, and nowhere in the list is Mary Mag. Peter Cephas is the first appearance listed by Paul.

Well, yes, of course Paul was unaware at the time or the resurrection, because he was still a Pharisee and a persecutor of Christ and Christians at the time of the resurrection. He did not become a Christian until his encounter with Christ and subsequent conversion in Acts 9. All he does (in 1 Corinthians 15) is relate the fact of Christ’s resurrection (which he came to know more than a month after the fact) and some of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances. There is no “contradiction.� It really would have been quite unbelievable for Paul to relate details of what actually happened on the day of the resurrection, because he was nowhere near the scenes where these things were taking place and was totally disconnected from the events themselves as they were happening. In addition to that, his inclination at the time would have been to deny it all and denounce it as rubbish. He absolutely was unaware of what happened at the empty tomb. As far as we know, he never even knew Mary Magdalene. He may have, but there is no mention of any meeting of the two or any acknowledgement by one of the other.

Subsequently, Jesus sends her back to the disciples with the news to prepare them for His appearance later that day (John 20:17).

Of note is that according to PS’s narrative, the women (sans Mary Mag) are told by the angels to report to the disciples, and then (or shortly after or during) Mary Mag is told by Jesus alone to report to the disciples. There is no mention by PS of Luke 24:10, where the women as a single group, Mary Mag among them, report what Luke’s two men wearing robes like lightning had told them to say. As far as Luke is concerned, these two men told Mary Mag (and the other women) what to do, and not Jesus.

No, actually, Mary Magdalene was with the other women when the angels -- thank you for acknowledging that they were angels, by the way – told them to go and tell the disciples. I was very explicit on that point, as I was in what happened immediately after, where Mary Magdalene did not immediately go with the other women to tell the disciples but lingered at the tomb and subsequently encountered Jesus… by herself… which is post-resurrection APPEARANCE NUMBER 1 by Jesus. She was not with the other women when they told the disciples. As I said, “…the other women (Mary Magdalene is not with them) report what the angels say to the other disciples.�

After His encounter with Mary, Jesus then appears to these other women (Matthew 28:9). Just as He had with Mary, He also sends the other women back to the disciples with the news that He had risen and that He would see them (APPEARANCE NUMBER 2).

No explanation is given for how PS thinks is the second appearance…

Um, because Rik, it’s after APPEARANCE NUMBER 1 (where He appears to Mary Magdalene). One comes after two, if you recall from your first grade math class…

…nor is any thought given for Paul’s list in Corinthians.

Right, because Paul’s list is a synopsis of some (not all, only the ones he is aware of, after the fact) of Jesus’s appearances over the 40 days leading up to Pentecost.

Also of note is that PS does not mention what it says in Verse 10 of Matthew 28. The command by Jesus is for the disciples to go to Galilee, which is where he plans to meet them. Matthew’s Jesus is at odds with Luke’s Jesus, where the meeting takes place in Jerusalem.

Not at all. “At odds.� LOL! Jesus gives instructions to the women in Matthew 28, but there is no meeting described, except for the one between some of the guard with the chief priests and elders, and then Matthew skips to the Great Commission, which is 40 days later. Mark does the same thing. The meeting described by Luke is late in the day of Resurrection Sunday, and it is in Jerusalem… you’re correct in that, but his instructions to the women and indirectly to the disciples still stand, that they are to go to Galilee, where they will see them. The angels did NOT say, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him NEXT.� Rather, they said, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him.� (Matthew 28:7, Mark 16:7) And Jesus did not say to the women at the tomb, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will NEXT see Me.� Rather, He said to them, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.�

NEXT ISSUE!

Later that day, two men on their way to Emmaus are pondering what they have heard about rumors of his resurrection. Jesus comes up behind them and joins them in travel and conversation, but they are prevented from recognizing Him. First Jesus breaks open the Word for them (while they are walking). Some time later, continuing their conversation, they arrive at their destination and He sits down to dinner with them.

So according to PS, this is still Easter Sunday, the same day as what he’s been talking about so far with the women and disciples at the tomb (although maybe I should ask Jehovah’s Witness? According to him, these things are not explicitly dated)

Yes, that’s correct. John, in verses 19-23 of his Gospel, is the only one besides Luke who speaks of a meeting between Jesus and His disciples on Resurrection Sunday, and it’s the same one – in Jerusalem – that Luke relates, with the two men from Emmaus, in Luke 24 (36-48). This absolutely is explicitly dated, as Luke says, in continuing his narrative regarding the two men from Emmaus late in the day on Resurrection Sunday, “And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven� and John says, “So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week…�

Anyway, this is evening of Easter Sunday, perhaps getting close to night time, what with the mention of dinner. Note that in PS’s narrative, the meeting in Galilee has yet to be mentioned (either as taking place or as something that has yet to happen). It would be very unlikely, to the point of impossibility for the disciples to go from Jerusalem to Galilee after having an evening dinner with Jesus. The distance is too great (about 60 to 100 miles from what I have been told) and of course, travel would have been hard and dangerous.

Absolutely correct. I was very explicit about this. Basically, you’re repeating almost exactly what I said, which was, “Thus they spend some of the week journeying 60 miles to the north.� This would have taken some time. We can imagine them making the trek north during the intervening days.� The next time the disciples see Jesus, Thomas is with them, and the scene is at the Sea of Galilee. So, then went to Galilee just as they had been instructed, and they saw Jesus there, just as the angels and Jesus Himself had said they would.

At some point, they celebrate Communion, and their eyes are "opened" and they recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. (APPEARANCE NUMBER 3, Luke 24:13-30) This is actually their conversion experience.

Okay, so at least two disciples now know Jesus is back.

Um, Rik. Rik, Rik, Rik. These two men are not disciples. You’re jumping around in the sequence of things. This is before the disciples are present; before they have “returned to Jerusalem an found gathered together� the disciples.

The two men return later that evening to Jerusalem and go to the disciples. At first, the disciples don't believe them, just as they had not believed the women (Mark 16:13). Nevertheless, the two men continue to relate what they had experienced.

What PS does not mention is a curious thing the two said to the others. ““There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.��
At no point while the two were walking with Jesus were they told he had appeared to Simon. About the only place where this could possibly have fit in is when Jesus “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.�
But I don’t think so, since the scriptures (Old Testament) don’t mention Simon.
At no point prior to this meeting of the two with the other nine disciples has Jesus appeared to Simon. The only times it is mentioned that Simon sees Jesus is when he is amongst all the other disciples, in Matthew, verse 38 of Luke 24 and verse 19 of John 20.
I do have to mention that Paul does list Simon Peter as having had a singular encounter with the risen Jesus, but that is part of a list, and as I mentioned before, that would make it the first appearance by Jesus. Either way, Paul does not give any information as to when that happened.

Ahhhh. You’re all discombobulated. Is that purposeful? Or are you just confused? Oh, well, no matter. Okay, so you’re skipping around again. I do think it’s purposeful, to give the appearance of incoherence on my part. But maybe you can’t follow a simple narrative. Whichever. No, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, then the other women, and then the two men on the road to Emmaus before appearing to Peter, and then to the rest of the disciples.

Okay, so let me clarify:

Easter Sunday morning:
1. Resurrection
2. Women come to tomb, see angels
3. Mary Magdalene tells Peter and John, and they all return to the tomb, but the other women who were with Mary Magdalene are not there, as they have gone to tell the other deciples.
4. Peter and John leave the tomb, but Mary Magdalene lingers and sees Jesus.

Easter Sunday afternoon:
5. Two men on the road to Emmaus meet Jesus, and He opens the Scriptures to them.
6. Jesus has dinner with the two men and they recognize Him.
Easter Sunday evening:
7. Jesus leaves, and the two men return to Jerusalem and relate their experience to the disciples, who don’t believe them. During that conversation, Peter goes out and meets Jesus and subsequently goes back to the disciples and the two men and verifies their story. The two men then begin speaking in more detail about their experience with Jesus, who then comes in and greets them all.

At some point in this conversation, Peter draws apart from the others for some unknown reason. I think this was orchestrated by the Lord, but that's just speculation on my part. While Peter is by himself, Jesus appears to him (APPEARANCE NUMBER 4, Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).

This is a non-sequitur. Luke does not mention Peter drawing apart from the others to have his singular encounter with Jesus.

No, it’s not a “non-sequitur.� In 1 Corinthians 15:5, Paul does in fact say – having probably gathered this information during subsequent conversations with Peter and the other apostles – “He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.� “Cephas� means ‘rock,’ and is the name Jesus gives Peter in John 1:42, when He first called Peter to be one of His disciples. So, he appeared to Peter first – late in the evening of Resurrection Sunday – and then to the rest of the disciples. Peter HAD to have been apart from them for that to happen. Or, it’s possible that He appeared to Peter and was invisible to everyone else and then shortly after that became visible to the rest of the disciples and the two men from Emmaus. There’s no way to be sure, but I don’t think so.

Neither does Paul, as I just explained up above, who lists Peter’s singular encounter as the first vision of the risen Jesus, and not the crowd of disciples in Jerusalem. Indeed, according to Paul in Corinthians, he says “that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
First Simon Peter, THEN the twelve. Also of note is something that PS doesn’t catch and likely Paul is unaware of: namely that Paul says Jesus appeared to the Twelve. How can this be? Surely Paul should have said eleven? Or just eleven on its own, with no mention of Simon Peter (Cephas) on his own?

LOL! Matthias was obviously with the disciples all along, as was Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and several others, and together they were all witnesses with the other eleven of the resurrection, as we see in Acts 1:21-22. Yes, Matthias was not officially added as the twelfth apostle until after Jesus’s ascension. But this is no matter at all to Paul, who was not even a Christian at the time all this occurred; he was converted sometime after Jesus’s ascension and Pentecost in Acts 9. So Paul rightly includes Matthias as an apostle, even though he wasn’t an apostle at the time of Jesus’s first appearance to the disciples.

Good Lord. Is this almost over? Please tell me it is. Okay… NEXT ISSUE!!!

Subsequently, Peter goes back and informs the other disciples, who then believe.

Since PS for all intents and purposes made up that Peter drew away from the rest of the disciples, this too is made up. There is no citation given for Peter returning to tell the disciples anything.

Not “made up� at all. This must the case, because 1.) Paul verifies that Jesus appeared to Peter before appearing to the rest of the disciples, 2.) the two men themselves relate their story of their encounter with Jesus, and then 3.) the other disciples then verify (in Luke 24:34) that “(t)he Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon,� who is Peter. They would not be able to say this had Peter not informed them of his meeting with Jesus. At some point, Peter had to have been apart from the rest of the disciples. The exact timing we do not know.

At some point in the men's recounting of the afternoon's events, Jesus appears to the small gathering of disciples and the two men from Emmaus (APPEARANCE NUMBER 5). Thomas was absent.

Where does it say Thomas was absent? Luke does not say. He calls this the eleven.

Luke does not, but John absolutely does (John 20:24) in his account of the same event.

There is no biblical data that Jesus appeared to them during the week that followed. The next account of the resurrection says, “Eight days later� namely the following Sunday.

Eight days later would mean the second Monday after Easter Sunday…

Well, you may, but that would be wrong, because the first Sunday (according to Jewish tradition at the time) would have been counted as one of the eight days.

I must also remind readers that Luke and John have the disciples meeting with Jesus in Jerusalem. They are not at Galilee, where Matthew has them.

Again, you may remind them of that, and yes, the disciples are in Jerusalem, as I acknowledged several times now, but Matthew doesn’t “have them� anywhere, as he only records instructions given by the angels earlier that day that the disciples are to go to Galilee, where they will see Jesus. I explained this above. Cutting and pasting from above:

Jesus gives instructions to the women in Matthew 28, but there is no meeting described, except for the one between some of the guard with the chief priests and elders, and then Matthew skips to the Great Commission, which is 40 days later. Mark does the same thing. The meeting described by Luke is late in the day of Resurrection Sunday, and it is in Jerusalem… you’re correct in that, but his instructions to the women and indirectly to the disciples still stand, that they are to go to Galilee, where they will see them. The angels did NOT say, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him NEXT.� Rather, they said, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him.� (Matthew 28:7, Mark 16:7)

And Jesus did not say to the women at the tomb, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will NEXT see Me.� Rather, He said to them, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.�

Basically, you’re repeating almost exactly what I said, which was, “Thus they spend some of the week journeying 60 miles to the north.� This would have taken some time. We can imagine them making the trek north during the intervening days.� The next time the disciples see Jesus, Thomas is with them, and the scene is at the Sea of Galilee. So, they went to Galilee just as they had been instructed (by the angels through the Marys), and they saw Jesus there, just as the angels and Jesus Himself had said they would.

Interlude 2
* The disciples receive some instructions to return to Galilee (Matthew 28:10; Mark 16:7), where they would see Jesus. Thus they spend some of the week journeying 60 miles to the north. This would have taken some time. We can imagine them making the trek north during the intervening days.

Here, PS is implying that it is only AFTER the meeting(s) in Jerusalem that the disciples are then told to go to Galilee. He has not yet mentioned this instruction until now. Also, he makes a mistake citing Mark 16:7. The very next verse, Verse 8, says that the women who are meant to relay the instructions...do not do so.

No, that’s not what I’m implying at all. No “mistake,� just misunderstanding on your part. I can see how you got that idea; I apologize. The timing of “Interlude 2,� as I called it, is not known. At some point, the disciples received the instructions of the angels -- by way of the women to whom they were directly given -- to return to Galilee. That should really be a “NOTE� and should be inserted just above “Interlude 1�... that would make it clear. I’m quite sure the disciples immediately received those instructions given by the angels from the women when they returned from the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, a whole week earlier than you allege, but there’s no way to verify this.

The text of Mark 16 as well as Matthew 28 do not explicitly verify that the women followed instructions to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, or that they did not. But it can be assumed that the women – good Jewish women that they were, and believers in the Lord that they were – did indeed follow those instructions. And that assumption is validated by the fact that the disciples did indeed go to Galilee almost immediately (probably the next day), as they were there the next Sunday, which would have taken several days.

Some time later
* The time frame of the next appearance is somewhat vague; John merely says “After this...� Likely, it is a matter of days, or a week at best. The scene is at the Sea of Galilee.

No mention given that this could possibly be Matthew’s meeting of the disciples with Jesus.

Right, but there’s no mention given that it couldn’t possibly be, either. Either way, that’s not what I’m proposing. The only meeting between the disciples that Matthew records is the giving of the Great Commission.

In my opinion (because there’s no way to know for sure), the Great Commission, which took place on a mountaintop --

NOTE: obviously they are different events, because one was on a mountaintop and the other was at the Sea of Galilee

-- occurred AFTER The events of John 21:1-11, and maybe several days or even weeks after. The event John describes here is very closely related to Jesus’s charge to Peter when He first called him as a disciple, to make him (and the others) “fishers of men.� It’s possible -- and would make great sense, actually -- that the Great Commission occurred immediately after the scene at the Sea of Galilee… that Jesus would have taken them from a low place (the sea) to a high place (the mountaintop) to even more clearly illustrate the fishers-of-men point.

Not all the Twelve are present. They have gone fishing and Jesus summons them from the lakeside. They come to shore and see him (APPEARANCE NUMBER 7).

Here PS makes a mistake and does not take heed of what is written in John 21. Verse 14 says “This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.� By my reckoning, PS’s narrative has Jesus appearing to the disciples four times so far (the two men on the road to Emmaus, PS’s insistence that Peter saw Jesus alone after drawing away, Jesus appearing to the full body of disciples where PS says Thomas was absent, and then on Sunday number two where Jesus appears to all the disciples, Thomas included).
If we are to take Verse 14 at its word, this would mean that the only encounters with Jesus by the disciples that count are when all of them are present.

<chuckles> Again, the two men on the road to Emmaus are not disciples.

The Appearance to the 500...(1 Corinthians 15:6; APPEARANCE NUMBER 8).

How does PS figure that this is the eighth appearance? He does not say. It is third on Paul’s list.

But Paul’s list only encompasses the appearances he is aware of. It is not an exhaustive list of the appearances of Jesus. My goodness.

The Bible is not a history book in the conventional sense, but a selective telling of what took place, and not a complete account; the resurrection and following time period is similar to the creation account in this respect. The Bible makes no pretenses to be something it is not. It is quite clear that it is a selective book, as John tells us in verse 30 of his Gospel account

That is something Gospel John tells us about Gospel John. Does that apply to the entire Bible?

Well, the Bible as a whole… sure, you could say that. It’s not a history book in the sense of a history textbook. But it does contain accounts of events that are firmly set within historically verifiable events. In addition to that, there are certain books of the Bible which are historical, sequential accounts, at least in part. Part of the Bible, or some of the books, are referred to as the books of History (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther fall into this category). Other books do not fall into this category, but we can glean sequences of certain events from them, and such is the case with the Gospels.

The Appearance to James
* Here again we do not have a description of this appearance, but rather only a remark by Paul that it did in fact happen: "Then he appeared to James" (1 Corinthians 15:7; APPEARANCE NUMBER 9). The time frame is not clear; all we can say for sure is that it happened after the appearance to the five hundred and before the final appearance to the disciples.

So Pinseeker is indeed reading Paul’s list in Corinthians chronologically. It then raises the question of why Paul lists Peter as the first appearance, and not the women in Matthew, or Mary Mag in John.

Absolutely not. Paul only lists the appearance to Peter before Jesus appeared to the rest of the disciples. He does not say anything about what happened before His appearance to Peter, because he really can’t. It’s only the first appearance that Paul is aware of, probably because of first hand discussions with Peter and the other disciples. My goodness.

During this time period, we can also attribute another appearance as recorded by Matthew (28:16-20) and Mark (16:14-18). It takes place an “a mountaintop in Galilee.� Mark adds that they were reclining at table. The time frame is uncertain, but this is APPEARANCE NUMBER 10. It is here that Jesus gives the Great Commission.

Here is another major blunder by Pinseeker. Matthew has Jesus, via the women, telling the disciples to go to Galilee. Matthew gives no indication of any kind of meeting in Jerusalem.

LOL! See above. “Blunder.� LOL!!!

The verses in Mark that PS cites are additions to the text.
Indeed, the page I have open on Biblegateway says “[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]�
Why is PS using additions to the text? Especially additions that cannot be true, given that the additions also say that believers who are baptized can handle snakes without harm, drink poison without dying and heal people by laying on of hands.

We can call them “additions� if you like, but again, that doesn’t make them invalid; that’s only your opinion. Too, as I have said, the events Mark describes in those verses are corroborated in the other Gospels and Acts. I don’t have any problem with anyone disregarding the last verses of Mark, because 1.) they are corroborated elsewhere, and 2.) they don’t contradict anything found anywhere else in the Bible.

As far as Matthew is concerned, Galilee is the second appearance by Jesus, not the tenth. The additional verses in Mark do not mention Galilee as where Jesus meets with the disciples.

Matthew doesn’t relate anything between Easter Sunday and the Great Commission. There is a lot that occurs between those two events – as verified in the other Gospels. With the other Gospels taken into account, yes, Matthew does relate only two of the eleven appearances, but they are the second and the tenth appearances overall by Jesus. Again. Gospels. Complementary. Should be a very familiar refrain by now.

The events described in verses 19-20 did not immediately follow those events described in verses 14-18.

The events in Mark’s narrative do follow on as described. It is Gospel Luke and Acts that talk about the forty days, a period of time every other Gospel author is completely unaware of.

Yeah, all the others forgot they were even alive during that time. LOL!

NEXT ISSUE!!! Oh wait; that's the end. Thank goodness.

SIIIIIIIIIIGH. All you can do is shake your head, you know? Wow.

[PinSeeker]

Gday rikuoamero

[Replying to post 84 by Kapyong]

To be fair, you're talking about Matthew Chapter 27, which is not part of Dan Barker's Challenge. He wants submitters to read Chapter 28.

Fair enough - you're right there.

But still - that's part of what happened on Sunday morning - the resurrected saints leaving the tombs and heading in to town to amaze everyone.

Kapyong

No, no, that's a fair question, and really interesting to think about. Like Rik says, it's really unrelated to the challenge, but then again, I think it is related. Whatever the case, I'll be glad to give you my own view on those verses from Matthew:

Yes, I believe it really happened, because I believe all Scripture, as you well know. My view is that these people that were raised were raised in their glorified bodies -- not their old mortal ones -- just as Jesus was, and they were immediately taken up to heaven, as Jesus was 40 days later. More on that last little bit in a moment.

It is a little confusing on first glance, because the superficial reading is to conclude that they "hung around" their tombs until Sunday and then, theoretically, went home and told their families, "Hey, look! Here I am!"

But I think Matthew (as he is prone to do elsewhere in his Gospel) treats the whole event topically and jumps ahead and begins to speak of events that would occur after Jesus's resurrection. The wording suggests that these saints were not merely brought back to life (like Lazarus), but were "raised" with new, resurrection, glorified bodies, which is actually a glimpse of what will happen to all believers at Christ's ultimate return, which is still to come. As 1 Corinthians 15 says, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming."

So, in short, they were "raised" in their glorified bodies (not their natural ones) AFTER Jesus, who is the first fruits. Then, they were taken up to heaven just as Jesus was, but there is a question as to when they were taken up. This is what I was alluding to when I said "more on that in a moment" earlier. Some would say "immediately"; I would be in this camp. Others might say "with Jesus at His ascension"; I would not be in this camp, because I just don't think I can believe they hung around for forty days. But we really don't know which is correct.

So there you go.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 87 by PinSeeker]

but I am happy to clarify. It's very telling to me that no one would say, "Well, hey, PinSeeker, what about this?" Or, "Hey, PinSeeker, you didn't seem to answer that, so please explain," or... You get the idea.

Well given that you said you weren't going to debate, it seemed to me that such an endeavour would have been pointless.

Rik, however, only wants me to use Matthew 28 and John 20, here.

Not so. However, I will say that I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
The Barker challenge is to not leave out a single detail in the construction of one's narrative. Some of your sources do indeed say the women go there to complete burial customs, but you did not mention Matthew's saying that they went to look at the tomb (which does not necessarily include completing burial rites).

The Gospels -- as I have said several times -- are complementary.

No, they are not, not necessarily. As I showed in my rebuttal, you had to leave out several details, such as not mentioning that Mark says the women do not tell anyone what they are commanded to tell. You left that part out, because it was inconvenient to the narrative you wanted to write.
You very well couldn't write that the women both told the disciples and told no-one, because such a thing cannot happen in reality. It's called a contradiction.

Again, we have to take all four Gospels into account.

And this right here is your presumption, that all four gospels are talking about the same event, that has the same number of women. All four gospels talk about a woman (or women) going to a tomb they find empty. Which of the four sources is correct? Why do you default to there being many women, instead of just John for example?
Four people can talk about other people entering a forbidden building for example, and it may just turn out that it is Dan who says a single woman entered, who is the correct one, and not his friends Alan, Bill and Charlie, who say it was a crowd of women.
Neither you nor I know how many women were at the tomb (if any), so the narrative you wrote does not necessarily have any relation to reality/history.

so we have to go back to Luke 23 to see who “they� actually are.

I thought the challenge was explicit in what verses/chapters one was allowed to read?
This is why I did not in my rebuttal mention the differences in the Last Supper scenes.

. So he was aware of the presence of more people than just Mary Magdalene at the tomb, but just didn’t mention them. He only mentions Mary Magdalene not because she was the only person to see the tomb but because she is the one who was present at the tomb and then reported the news to Peter and John.

A supposition on your part, one where you read what you want into the text. I am not saying you are necessarily and fundamentally incorrect...just that what you reason has very little support. Yes, there is that "we"...but that's really it. Doesn't it strike you as strange at all that John only mentions Mary Mag? Surely he would have written Mary Mag and some other women, if he was honestly aware of them.

LOL! There was certainly an earthquake. The earthquake occurred before the women (and the others) got to the tomb. There, there, now, Rik. All better?

And yet it was a detail you left out. It's in the chapter of Matthew that you were told to read, and the challenge is to not leave out a single detail. You also didn't muse or mention on why it is none of the other sources mentioned this earthquake - seems quite a strange thing for anyone to leave out of their narratives.

No, they did say nothing to anyone… until Mary Magdalene reached Peter and John, and the other women reached the rest of the disciples. Mark just stopped his account when the Marys fled the tomb,

So was Mark aware that Mag talked to Peter and John? Again, seems a strange thing for a Gospel writer to leave out if they were aware of it.

but he did, however, relate what the angel told them to do (as did Matthew): to go and tell Jesus’s disciples.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we have men, angel(s) and even Jesus himself all giving orders to do the same thing? Seems a bit redundant, don't you think?

It can be assumed that the Marys did as they were told, but we don’t have to assume, because it’s verified in the other Gospels.

No it cannot.
According to Mark's original ending, the women told no-one.
According to Matthew, the women told the disciples.
According to Luke, the women (including Mary Mag in their number) told the disciples, with no mention by Luke of Mag seeing Jesus on her own.
According to John, Mary Mag goes to the tomb (no mention of anyone else with her), sees the stone has been removed and runs to tell Peter and the other disciple. No mention is made of Mary going into the tomb before Peter checks it. This stands in contrast to Luke, who has the women enter, with Luke being in contrast to Matthew, who has an angel descend from heaven to roll away the stone (so the woman know who did it) and who tells the women what to do.
Mark has the women enter the tomb.

The fact that the other three don’t mention it means nothing, other than that John possibly views it as a more significant detail than do the others,

Except that Mary Mag could not then have been among the women who, according to Luke, told the disciples of the two men wearing clothes gleaming like lightning, of the command to go to Galilee.

The fact that Matthew only references one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

It does preclude it. If Matthew's narrative had two angels present, Matthew would have mentioned two angels, since angels are pretty darn significant, don't'cha think? No, all we can say is that Matthew is aware of, and only mentions, the one angel. We cannot say that Matthew is aware of, or meant to write, or thought it unimportant, to mention a second angel.

a real historian can determine that the man described by Mark was indeed an angel and that “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting�

Not so fast.
If you do a Google Image search for "clothing gleaming like lightning", there are plenty of photos of people wearing clothes that Google recognises as gleaming like lightning (for whatever reason, don't ask me about their algorithm).
We don't know for a fact that "gleaming like lightning" means automatically an angel. Indeed, Mark describes a single man in a white robe, nothing fancy about that. It's only in Matthew that we are explicitly told angel, and in the singular; then in John, when Mary Mag goes into the tomb alone, and sees two angels.
If Alan describes a man wearing a uniform was in the building, and Bob describes a man wearing combat fatigues & carrying a side-arm, does this mean Alan was describing a soldier?

LOL! No, they are angels, and not just mere men. There are two of them. See above.

I find it strange that you are so sure that it is two men, who are both angels, and yet only one account mentions two angels for sure. You have chosen a detail from one source, decided it must be true, and then forced it onto all the other sources. If the idea is that the authors of the four Gospels all talked to the same people, surely all these people would have told all four Gospel authors the same thing(s)?
Unless maybe...the four Gospel authors did not talk all to the same people. One of John's sources (presuming he had more than one) mentioned two angels, while a different person talked to Mark, and that person mentions no angels. Surely all the people who were present at the tomb would have talked to each other afterward, and the "fact" that there were two angels would have been more or less confirmed? It seems highly strange to me that whoever talked to John told him about two angels, but whoever it was who spoke to Mark presumably knew nothing about any angels.

Neither is necessary, as both are very evident. You know, by employing the complementary nature of the Gospels.

By assuming there is a thing to be salvaged. You honestly have no idea that Mary Mag left the women, versus her going to the tomb alone. This is similar to my critique just above - how could the sources who presumably talked to the authors of Matt, Luke and Mark not be aware at all that Mag had supposedly gone off on her own, away from the other women?

Mark just breaks off his narrative after the encounter with the angels at the tomb,

and thus, this is where you must acknowledge that as far as Mark is concerned, there was no Jesus appearance.

Mark jumps immediately to Jesus’s first post-resurrection appearance,

There is no appearance by Jesus in Mark, unless you count the additional, false verses.

LOL! Nope. Two angels. See above. Ruined another of Rik’s “gotcha� moments.

Nope, go back to your Post 47. Carefully re-read it. I did a few times when I caught this mistake, just to make sure of it. In your narrative (the one you write, just to be clear), you make mention of one angel. Then you said that mistake, where you have the women reporting what the angels, plural, had commanded them to say.
The first time you mention two angels is after this, when Mary looks into the tomb and sees the two angels sitting inside. Before this, in your narrative, there had only been the one (in contradiction to what Luke reports, of two men whom you are convinced are angels)

Ah, but they are angels. See above.

Is Alan's man wearing a uniform a soldier as Bob reports?

Sigh. See above. One appearance, consisting of two angels. Wow.

So then your narrative is in error at the start, where you make mention of one angel, singular, talking to the women.
"The women who remain encounter an angel who declares to them"
Again, that sentence is grammatically correct for someone thinking of a person in the singular, instead of being a typo where you meant to write angels plural.

It really would have been quite unbelievable for Paul to relate details of what actually happened on the day of the resurrection, because he was nowhere near the scenes where these things were taking place and was totally disconnected from the events themselves as they were happening. In addition to that, his inclination at the time would have been to deny it all and denounce it as rubbish. He absolutely was unaware of what happened at the empty tomb. As far as we know, he never even knew Mary Magdalene. He may have, but there is no mention of any meeting of the two or any acknowledgement by one of the other.

This reply from you means that Paul should therefore NOT have mentioned Peter's seeing Jesus. Peter should not then be in Paul's list. According to your narrative, Peter saw/met Jesus on his own, apart from the other disciples, on Easter Sunday.
Oh and of course Paul wouldn't have written any of this down on the day. He would have written it down years/decades afterward...which means there would have been plenty of time for him to talk to the people who supposedly were there...oh boy, did I just expose a contradiction?

thank you for acknowledging that they were angels, by the way

I acknowledge when and who says angels. Note that I said " Luke’s two men wearing robes like lightning " because I wanted to stress that not all Gospel authors thought these men were angels, or surely they would have mentioned it.

Um, because Rik, it’s after APPEARANCE NUMBER 1 (where He appears to Mary Magdalene). One comes after two, if you recall from your first grade math class…

I didn't ask why you called this APPEARANCE NUMBER 2, I opined on you not mentioning how you figure it to be the second appearance. It could very well have been the first, or the third, or whatever.

Right, because Paul’s list is a synopsis of some (not all, only the ones he is aware of, after the fact) of Jesus’s appearances over the 40 days leading up to Pentecost.

Because surely Paul is such a trustworthy source that he would have been careful to ask for as much information as he could have, and reported it...right? Also, Paul does not mention 40 days. For all we know, Paul's list all happens on the same day. Or it could have been stretched out over years.
Have you yet realized the problem of reading details mentioned by one source into another's narrative?

then Matthew skips to the Great Commission, which is 40 days later. Mark does the same thing.

Didn't it ever strike you as strange that Matthew's source(s), who could only possibly have been the people present at the tomb that day, apparently did not tell him of the (first?) meeting with Jesus in Jerusalem?
There is a possible way out of this dilemma, and that is saying that Matthew is receiving his information second hand (instead of first)...but this then means that Matthew does not have first hand sources. Matthew's sources could have made it all up or been mistaken for all he knew (and for all we know).

Rather, they said, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him.� (Matthew 28:7, Mark 16:7) And Jesus did not say to the women at the tomb, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will NEXT see Me.� Rather, He said to them, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.�

Didn't it strike you as strange that those Gospel authors who make mention of an order to the disciples to travel to Galilee to meet with Jesus, are those same Gospel authors who are unaware of a meeting (earlier?) with Jesus in Jerusalem.
Also you made a mistake (that I didn't point out first time around). Luke's two men in clothing like lightning do not give orders, via the women, for the disciples to go to Galilee. They merely mention what Jesus supposedly prophesied when he was last in Galilee. This might be because Luke has the disciples meeting Jesus in Jerusalem; can't very well have the same guy say the disciples went to the two different places on what looks to me to be the same day.

These two men are not disciples.

I'll grant you this. The text does just mention them as men, with no indication of who they are (one's name is given, and it is not a name familiar to me as possibly belonging to any of the eleven/twelve).

Paul does in fact say – having probably gathered this information during subsequent conversations with Peter and the other apostles

And yet somehow Paul is unaware of who the first appearance-ee was? Did Paul not talk to the women? Did the women not talk to the apostles? Did the apostles never mention to Paul this valuable tidbit of information?
Something here just doesn't add up.

So, he appeared to Peter first – late in the evening of Resurrection Sunday

So then Mary Mag isn't APPEARANCE NUMBER ONE? The first appearance is now to Peter...

LOL! Matthias was obviously with the disciples all along, as was Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and several others, and together they were all witnesses with the other eleven of the resurrection, as we see in Acts 1:21-22. Yes, Matthias was not officially added as the twelfth apostle until after Jesus’s ascension. But this is no matter at all to Paul, who was not even a Christian at the time all this occurred; he was converted sometime after Jesus’s ascension and Pentecost in Acts 9. So Paul rightly includes Matthias as an apostle, even though he wasn’t an apostle at the time of Jesus’s first appearance to the disciples.

Hmm...okay I'll give you this one.

Not “made up� at all. This must the case, because 1.) Paul verifies that Jesus appeared to Peter before appearing to the rest of the disciples, 2.) the two men themselves relate their story of their encounter with Jesus, and then 3.) the other disciples then verify (in Luke 24:34) that “(t)he Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon,� who is Peter. They would not be able to say this had Peter not informed them of his meeting with Jesus. At some point, Peter had to have been apart from the rest of the disciples. The exact timing we do not know.

Ditto. To be honest, after reading this, I did scratch my noggin for a good while trying to figure out where you could be wrong.

Luke does not,

Then Luke should not have said eleven. He should have said ten, shouldn't he? A crowd of ten people cannot be described as being a group of eleven, if the eleventh member is missing.
Unless Luke was unaware of Thomas being missing.

Well, you may, but that would be wrong, because the first Sunday (according to Jewish tradition at the time) would have been counted as one of the eight days.

Very well, we can chalk this up to a difference as to how one counts days. I must say though that this is literally the first time in my life where someone has said anything like "eight days after Sunday 1, the next Sunday...", as in counting days this way.

And Jesus did not say to the women at the tomb, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will NEXT see Me.� Rather, He said to them, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.�

So let me get this straight. Your narrative, the timeline of events, has the women being told either by angel(s) and/or Jesus himself, to report to the disciples, to order them to go to Galilee, which is quite some distance away. The women receive this command in the morning, first thing in the morning.
So tell me PS...why is it that Luke places the eleven (with or without Thomas) as being still in Jerusalem in the evening or at night? Given that the two men on the road to Emmaus have dinner with Jesus in Emmaus, and then after that go to Jerusalem to meet the eleven (which would take I'd estimate about 1-3 hours walk)? Surely they would have left immediately?

The way I figure it is, there is at least two narratives being told, where those who say Jesus met with the disciples in Jerusalem are unaware that there are others saying he met with them in Galilee.

<chuckles> Again, the two men on the road to Emmaus are not disciples.

I reiterate my acknowledgement of my mistake.

But Paul’s list only encompasses the appearances he is aware of. It is not an exhaustive list of the appearances of Jesus. My goodness.

If we take Paul at his word here, he mentions Jesus appearing to 500 brothers and sisters. Meaning Paul would have spoken to women...like the women he didn't speak to who were at the tomb? Like Peter who surely, as the man whom Jesus entrusted to build his church, would not have done something as heinous as lying to Paul and saying he was the first Jesus appeared to?
Hmm...this makes Peter out to be somewhat of a serial liar, doesn't it? First he denies Jesus three times, and then apparently from what I can reason out here, he almost certainly lied to Paul.

Well, the Bible as a whole… sure, you could say that. It’s not a history book in the sense of a history textbook.

Meaning that it contains at least some accounts that are overblown, legendary, mistaken or quite possibly just fabricated all together. Note what Gospel John says "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah,"
Not that it is indeed the truth.
After all, if I may Godwin for a moment...Hitler wrote Mein Kampf so that readers would believe (among other things) that Jews were a threat to Germany.
You're only lessoning the credibility of the Bible, not raising it, in my eyes.

It’s only the first appearance that Paul is aware of, probably because of first hand discussions with Peter and the other disciples.

So why wouldn't Peter and the other disciples mention that Jesus appeared to the women first? If Jesus really did appear to the women and/or Mary Mag first, and this got to the authors of the Gospels and got put into the Gospels, then why would the disciples, in their discussions with Paul, not mention it at all?
Unless...maybe...the detail of the women being first is a detail that was told after Paul wrote his documents?
Hmm...quandaries upon quandaries.

We can call them “additions� if you like, but again, that doesn’t make them invalid; that’s only your opinion.

Last I checked, poisons and snakes still kill, and people can't heal by laying on of hands. This isn't just opinion: it's fact, unless you'd care to dispute this?
If you don't dispute it, if you acknowledge that the stuff about snakes, poison and healing are false...then what makes the rest of the additions true?

Matthew doesn’t relate anything between Easter Sunday and the Great Commission.

Because, as far as Matthew is concerned, they take place on the same day. Indeed, if I may break the challenge's rules for a moment, ...
I have to stop myself there. After writing this, I will send a PM to JW, just to make sure he reads this...but I was wrong about saying Galilee, according to Matthew happens on Easter Sunday.
The command is given for the disciples to go to Galilee and as everyone knows (since I made such a big song and dance about it), such a journey would have taken several days. The disciples cannot already be at Galilee or near it, since Jesus's tomb is supposed to be nigh at hand to Jerusalem.

Hmm...when I get some time to myself, I'll have to undertake the challenge myself, keeping in mind what I have learned here.

[PinSeeker]

Well given that you said you weren't going to debate, it seemed to me that such an endeavour would have been pointless.

But I invited this, even saying I would be happy to make clarifications. But you didn't want to do that. Which tells me a lot about you, like I said..

The Barker challenge is to not leave out a single detail in the construction of one's narrative.

Right. I didn't.

Some of your sources do indeed say the women go there to complete burial customs, but you did not mention Matthew's saying that they went to look at the tomb (which does not necessarily include completing burial rites).

Heh, heh, heh. "Some of my sources." You mean the other Gospel writers (Mark, Luke, and John). Yeah, those. LOL! Yeah, they went to look at the tomb also. Sure. It's not an either-or thing, it's a both-and; both are true. Which was perfectly clear given my emphasis on the complementary nature of the Gospels, which I repeated several times. My goodness.

The Gospels -- as I have said several times -- are complementary.

No, they are not, not necessarily.

Yes, they are, Rik. They weren't intentionally complementary in writing them, but since they are writing, generally speaking, about the same thing, and none of them are purportedly lying, then the proper assumptions is that 1.) they are all telling the truth, 2.) where details are different between them, that details written by each writer are true, and 3.) where details mentioned by one Gospel writer but omitted by another writer are still to be included in the synthesis of the four and therefore in entire narrative.

As I showed in my rebuttal, you had to leave out several details, such as not mentioning that Mark says the women do not tell anyone what they are commanded to tell. You left that part out, because it was inconvenient to the narrative you wanted to write.
You very well couldn't write that the women both told the disciples and told no-one, because such a thing cannot happen in reality. It's called a contradiction.

Well, you said this in your rebuttal, but as I showed in my clarification to your rebuttal -- and am now showing again -- I didn't leave anything out. I said (and I quote):

"...they did say nothing to anyone… until Mary Magdalene reached Peter and John, and the other women reached the rest of the disciples. Mark just stopped his account when the Marys fled the tomb, but he did, however, relate what the angel told them to do (as did Matthew): to go and tell Jesus’s disciples. It can be assumed that the Marys did as they were told, but we don’t have to assume, because it’s verified in the other Gospels. So again, they told no one until they got to the disciples, just like the angel instructed."

I explicitly acknowledged (in bold print above) that it is not mentioned by Mark, but no matter, because it is verified in the other Gospels. You need to turn that little mirror back around and look at yourself, man. But you don't want to do that, and you don't want to acknowledge the complementary nature of the Gospels, because that would ruin your narrative. No matter. There is no "contradiction."

Why do you default to there being many women, instead of just John for example?

Because all four gospels, synthesized together -- which was the "challenge," for goodness' sake -- verify this.

so we have to go back to Luke 23 to see who “they� actually are.

I thought the challenge was explicit in what verses/chapters one was allowed to read?

Well, we don't really even have to do that (go back to Luke 23) to do that, do we? We can, but we can also see it clearly by just Luke 24:10 -- "Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles." Going back to Luke 23 gives us an even fuller picture, but it's not absolutely necessary.

This is why I did not in my rebuttal mention the differences in the Last Supper scenes.

Well, it's probably good for you that you didn't, because I would have blown those objections out of the water, too.

So he was aware of the presence of more people than just Mary Magdalene at the tomb, but just didn’t mention them. He only mentions Mary Magdalene not because she was the only person to see the tomb but because she is the one who was present at the tomb and then reported the news to Peter and John.

A supposition on your part, one where you read what you want into the text. I am not saying you are necessarily and fundamentally incorrect...just that what you reason has very little support. Yes, there is that "we"...but that's really it.

Yet the "we" is quite enough to prove me correct, fundamentally and otherwise.

Doesn't it strike you as strange at all that John only mentions Mary Mag? Surely he would have written Mary Mag and some other women, if he was honestly aware of them.

Actually, it doesn't strike me as strange at all but rather perfectly understandable, in view of who Mary Magdalene was and her background coupled with John's purpose in writing his Gospel. She was by far the most heinously sinful of the bunch, and that's probably why John focused on her and her miraculous conversion to Christ.

LOL! There was certainly an earthquake. The earthquake occurred before the women (and the others) got to the tomb. There, there, now, Rik. All better?

And yet it was a detail you left out. It's in the chapter of Matthew that you were told to read, and the challenge is to not leave out a single detail. You also didn't muse or mention on why it is none of the other sources mentioned this earthquake - seems quite a strange thing for anyone to leave out of their narratives.

I didn't purposely leave it out; just an oversight, but now corrected. There is no need for me to "muse" or "mention" why any of the other Gospel writers fail to mention it, as the complementary nature of the four Gospels, which I reiterated several times, explains that sufficiently to any reasonably thoughtful person. I will acknowledge, though, that it's reasonable to think at least one of the other three could have mentioned the earthquake, but that's still really of no consequence.

No, they did say nothing to anyone… until Mary Magdalene reached Peter and John, and the other women reached the rest of the disciples. Mark just stopped his account when the Marys fled the tomb,

So was Mark aware that Mag talked to Peter and John? Again, seems a strange thing for a Gospel writer to leave out if they were aware of it.

No way to know that. Maybe he became aware of it at some later point, but that's only speculation.

but he did, however, relate what the angel told them to do (as did Matthew): to go and tell Jesus’s disciples.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we have men, angel(s) and even Jesus himself all giving orders to do the same thing? Seems a bit redundant, don't you think?

No, because Mary Magdalene left the tomb before the angels gave the other women the instructions to go tell the disciples. She ran into Peter and John and told them and returned to the tomb with them. The other women had left (as the angels instructed them). She lingered at the tomb after Peter and John left and then encountered Jesus, who told her (it was the first time for her to receive these instructions -- to go and tell the other disciples. There is no repetition and therefore no "redundancy."

It can be assumed that the Marys did as they were told, but we don’t have to assume, because it’s verified in the other Gospels.

No it cannot.

Yes it can. You don't want it to be, but that's... okay.

According to Mark's original ending, the women told no-one.
According to Matthew, the women told the disciples.
According to Luke, the women (including Mary Mag in their number) told the disciples, with no mention by Luke of Mag seeing Jesus on her own.
According to John, Mary Mag goes to the tomb (no mention of anyone else with her), sees the stone has been removed and runs to tell Peter and the other disciple. No mention is made of Mary going into the tomb before Peter checks it. This stands in contrast to Luke, who has the women enter, with Luke being in contrast to Matthew, who has an angel descend from heaven to roll away the stone (so the woman know who did it) and who tells the women what to do.
Mark has the women enter the tomb.

Bless your heart. One clarification seems needed here: Mary Magdalene, after her solo encounter of Jesus outside the tomb, obviously caught up with the other women either on their way back to tell, or when the reached, or just after they reached the other disciples to tell them of Jesus's resurrection and relay the angels' instructions. After all, the time lapse between when the women got to the tomb and when they told the other disciples was not very long, and probably only about an hour or two at most. It was probably still pretty early in the morning. None of the four Gospels specifically says this, but it's the logical way to mesh the four, which was what the "challenge" demanded. This fits perfectly with what I said above, that John only focuses on Mary Magdalene because of her background as by far the most heinously sinful of the bunch and her miraculous conversion to Christ.

The fact that the other three don’t mention it means nothing, other than that John possibly views it as a more significant detail than do the others,

Except that Mary Mag could not then have been among the women who, according to Luke, told the disciples of the two men wearing clothes gleaming like lightning, of the command to go to Galilee.

She was with the other women when they told the disciples of Jesus's resurrection and, I'm sure, everything else they saw.

The fact that Matthew only references one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

It does preclude it.

It doesn't. I know you want to think it does, but it doesn't. To say it does is just to be obstinate.

If Matthew's narrative had two angels present, Matthew would have mentioned two angels, since angels are pretty darn significant, don't'cha think?

No, all we can say is that Matthew is aware of, and only mentions, the one angel. We cannot say that Matthew is aware of, or meant to write, or thought it unimportant, to mention a second angel.

a real historian can determine that the man described by Mark was indeed an angel and that “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting�

Not so fast.

If you do a Google Image search for "clothing gleaming like lightning", there are plenty of photos of people wearing clothes that Google recognises as gleaming like lightning... We don't know for a fact that "gleaming like lightning" means automatically an angel.... Mark describes a single man in a white robe... It's only in Matthew that we are explicitly told angel... If Alan describes a man wearing a uniform was in the building, and Bob describes a man wearing combat fatigues & carrying a side-arm, does this mean Alan was describing a soldier?[/quote]
LOL! Well, in your little example here, Bob doesn't say it's a soldier, so we can't make that assumption. It's reasonable to speculate that to be the case, but it can't be assumed. On the other hand, Matthew specifically says the guy is an angel, so we don't have to speculate or assume.

You have chosen a detail from one source, decided it must be true, and then forced it onto all the other sources. If the idea is that the authors of the four Gospels all talked to the same people, surely all these people would have told all four Gospel authors the same thing(s)?

Rik, men can be angels. As can women, I feel sure. The fact that some said "men" and some said "angel" shouldn't trouble you in the least. Unless your standard is exactness, which is... sigh... unreasonable.

Mark just breaks off his narrative after the encounter with the angels at the tomb,

and thus, this is where you must acknowledge that as far as Mark is concerned, there was no Jesus appearance.

LOL!!!

LOL! Nope. Two angels. See above. Ruined another of Rik’s “gotcha� moments.

Nope, go back to your Post 47. Carefully re-read it. I did a few times when I caught this mistake, just to make sure of it. In your narrative (the one you write, just to be clear), you make mention of one angel. Then you said that mistake, where you have the women reporting what the angels, plural, had commanded them to say.
The first time you mention two angels is after this, when Mary looks into the tomb and sees the two angels sitting inside. Before this, in your narrative, there had only been the one (in contradiction to what Luke reports, of two men whom you are convinced are angels)

No need; there is no "mistake." I think you should read again; or maybe not -- obviously you've been poring over it far too long. Matthew reports the one sitting on the right. Luke mentions two angels. Where the other one was in relation to the first is not known. Perhaps the other man/angel was on the left, perhaps he was inside the tomb but behind the ladies, perhaps he was in the air above the ladies... who knows. But he was there somewhere. Good grief.

It really would have been quite unbelievable for Paul to relate details of what actually happened on the day of the resurrection, because he was nowhere near the scenes where these things were taking place and was totally disconnected from the events themselves as they were happening. In addition to that, his inclination at the time would have been to deny it all and denounce it as rubbish. He absolutely was unaware of what happened at the empty tomb. As far as we know, he never even knew Mary Magdalene. He may have, but there is no mention of any meeting of the two or any acknowledgement by one of the other.

This reply from you means that Paul should therefore NOT have mentioned Peter's seeing Jesus. Peter should not then be in Paul's list. According to your narrative, Peter saw/met Jesus on his own, apart from the other disciples, on Easter Sunday.

It absolutely does not mean that. Peter and Paul, Rik, were very close friends, as we see in Acts. Peter would have recounted his eyewitness account to Paul, and I'm sure did. It's perfectly reasonable for Paul to include Peter in his list. It's also logical that he wouldn't include the women in his list even if they told him what they witnessed, too, because of women's status in society at that time.

Oh and of course Paul wouldn't have written any of this down on the day. He would have written it down years/decades afterward...which means there would have been plenty of time for him to talk to the people who supposedly were there...oh boy, did I just expose a contradiction?

LOL! Nope. See above.

Right, because Paul’s list is a synopsis of some (not all, only the ones he is aware of, after the fact) of Jesus’s appearances over the 40 days leading up to Pentecost.

Because surely Paul is such a trustworthy source that he would have been careful to ask for as much information as he could have, and reported it...right? Also, Paul does not mention 40 days. For all we know, Paul's list all happens on the same day. Or it could have been stretched out over years.
Have you yet realized the problem of reading details mentioned by one source into another's narrative?

Again. Synthesizing -- reconciling -- all the narratives is the "challenge," and that's exactly what I did. If you want to debate these things, find somebody else (or one of your other personalities, maybe -- I keed! I keed!) to do that with.

then Matthew skips to the Great Commission, which is 40 days later. Mark does the same thing.

Didn't it ever strike you as strange that Matthew's source(s), who could only possibly have been the people present at the tomb that day, apparently did not tell him of the (first?) meeting with Jesus in Jerusalem?

Nope.

There is a possible way out of this dilemma, and that is saying that Matthew is receiving his information second hand (instead of first)...but this then means that Matthew does not have first hand sources. Matthew's sources could have made it all up or been mistaken for all he knew (and for all we know).

You can bounce it around inside that head of yours all you want.

Also you made a mistake (that I didn't point out first time around). Luke's two men in clothing like lightning do not give orders, via the women, for the disciples to go to Galilee. They merely mention what Jesus supposedly prophesied when he was last in Galilee. This might be because Luke has the disciples meeting Jesus in Jerusalem; can't very well have the same guy say the disciples went to the two different places on what looks to me to be the same day.

Well that's the problem; the two meetings are a week apart. Which is specified in Scripture. So, no "mistake" made on my part. Nice try. Or... not... LOL!

These two men are not disciples.

I'll grant you this. The text does just mention them as men, with no indication of who they are (one's name is given, and it is not a name familiar to me as possibly belonging to any of the eleven/twelve).

AH! You're so gracious. Thank you, my liege.

Paul does in fact say – having probably gathered this information during subsequent conversations with Peter and the other apostles

And yet somehow Paul is unaware of who the first appearance-ee was? Did Paul not talk to the women? Did the women not talk to the apostles? Did the apostles never mention to Paul this valuable tidbit of information?
Something here just doesn't add up.

See above. Paul wouldn't relate the testimony of women, not because he didn't think them reliable and believable, but because the general public, who he was preaching to, would not have accepted the testimony of women.

So, he appeared to Peter first – late in the evening of Resurrection Sunday

So then Mary Mag isn't APPEARANCE NUMBER ONE? The first appearance is now to Peter...

LOL! You lifted this little bit out of the context of my post. Dishonesty. I wonder why I am not surprised.... Jesus appeared to Peter before he appeared to the rest of the disciples, which was in response to your request for clarification. It was not his first overall appearance to anyone. My goodness.

LOL! Matthias was obviously with the disciples all along, as was Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and several others, and together they were all witnesses with the other eleven of the resurrection, as we see in Acts 1:21-22. Yes, Matthias was not officially added as the twelfth apostle until after Jesus’s ascension. But this is no matter at all to Paul, who was not even a Christian at the time all this occurred; he was converted sometime after Jesus’s ascension and Pentecost in Acts 9. So Paul rightly includes Matthias as an apostle, even though he wasn’t an apostle at the time of Jesus’s first appearance to the disciples.

Hmm...okay I'll give you this one.

Again with the graciousness. Two times in one post! Wow. Wonders never cease.

Not “made up� at all. This must the case, because 1.) Paul verifies that Jesus appeared to Peter before appearing to the rest of the disciples, 2.) the two men themselves relate their story of their encounter with Jesus, and then 3.) the other disciples then verify (in Luke 24:34) that “(t)he Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon,� who is Peter. They would not be able to say this had Peter not informed them of his meeting with Jesus. At some point, Peter had to have been apart from the rest of the disciples. The exact timing we do not know.

Ditto. To be honest, after reading this, I did scratch my noggin for a good while trying to figure out where you could be wrong.

MORE grace? Three! Unbelievable!

Well, you may, but that would be wrong, because the first Sunday (according to Jewish tradition at the time) would have been counted as one of the eight days.

Very well, we can chalk this up to a difference as to how one counts days. I must say though that this is literally the first time in my life where someone has said anything like "eight days after Sunday 1, the next Sunday...", as in counting days this way.

I'm sure it is, because we don't count days like the Jews did 2000 years ago. That was my point.

And Jesus did not say to the women at the tomb, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will NEXT see Me.� Rather, He said to them, “…go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.�

So let me get this straight. Your narrative, the timeline of events, has the women being told either by angel(s) and/or Jesus himself, to report to the disciples, to order them to go to Galilee, which is quite some distance away. The women receive this command in the morning, first thing in the morning.
So tell me PS...why is it that Luke places the eleven (with or without Thomas) as being still in Jerusalem in the evening or at night? Given that the two men on the road to Emmaus have dinner with Jesus in Emmaus, and then after that go to Jerusalem to meet the eleven (which would take I'd estimate about 1-3 hours walk)? Surely they would have left immediately?

As I said before, they probably left the next day, probably very early in the day. They would not have traveled by night at all.

The way I figure it is, there is at least two narratives being told, where those who say Jesus met with the disciples in Jerusalem are unaware that there are others saying he met with them in Galilee.

Nah. But you're welcome to your opinion.

<chuckles> Again, the two men on the road to Emmaus are not disciples.

I reiterate my acknowledgement of my mistake.

Thank you. And I reiterate my acknowledgment of your graciousness in doing so.

But Paul’s list only encompasses the appearances he is aware of. It is not an exhaustive list of the appearances of Jesus. My goodness.

If we take Paul at his word here, he mentions Jesus appearing to 500 brothers and sisters. Meaning Paul would have spoken to women...like the women he didn't speak to who were at the tomb? Like Peter who surely, as the man whom Jesus entrusted to build his church, would not have done something as heinous as lying to Paul and saying he was the first Jesus appeared to?
Hmm...this makes Peter out to be somewhat of a serial liar, doesn't it? First he denies Jesus three times, and then apparently from what I can reason out here, he almost certainly lied to Paul.

LOL! You're "reasoning" is extremely faulty. See above, regarding women's place in society of that day, Peter not being the recipient of Jesus's first overall post-resurrection appearance, etc. Oh, and Peter was not "The One" whom Jesus "entrusted to build His church," but that's sort of a non-sequitur. Peter was certainly a sinner, like all the rest of us, but Scripture neither records nor implies any lies told by Peter.

Well, the Bible as a whole… sure, you could say that. It’s not a history book in the sense of a history textbook.

Meaning that it contains at least some accounts that are overblown, legendary, mistaken or quite possibly just fabricated all together.

Of course not. LOL! Nah. Other categories that certain books fall into -- though they recount certain events here and there -- are Wisdom and Poetry, the Law, Apocalyptic, Prophecy, and Epistles (letters).

You're only lessoning the credibility of the Bible, not raising it, in my eyes.

I'm quite sure that's true, but it's not me that's doing that, it's you doing it to yourself. I mean, there's a larger truth behind that -- hint: it's not God, or His Spirit working in you to do that -- but experientially, it's you doing it to yourself.

It’s only the first appearance that Paul is aware of, probably because of first hand discussions with Peter and the other disciples.

So why wouldn't Peter and the other disciples mention that Jesus appeared to the women first? If Jesus really did appear to the women and/or Mary Mag first, and this got to the authors of the Gospels and got put into the Gospels, then why would the disciples, in their discussions with Paul, not mention it at all?
Unless...maybe...the detail of the women being first is a detail that was told after Paul wrote his documents?
Hmm...quandaries upon quandaries.

LOL! See above...

We can call them “additions� if you like, but again, that doesn’t make them invalid; that’s only your opinion.

Last I checked, poisons and snakes still kill, and people can't heal by laying on of hands. This isn't just opinion: it's fact, unless you'd care to dispute this?
If you don't dispute it, if you acknowledge that the stuff about snakes, poison and healing are false...then what makes the rest of the additions true?

LOL! Rik, Rik, Rik. There is no command here from Jesus or anybody else to pick up snakes or drink poison. It's merely a promise of short-term protection for those on the very front end of the Great Commission. An example in Scripture is found in Acts 28:3-4...

"...when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand... However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm."

Matthew doesn’t relate anything between Easter Sunday and the Great Commission.

Because, as far as Matthew is concerned, they take place on the same day.

No, as I said, Matthew just breaks off his narration at that point and skips ahead a few weeks to the Great Commission. It's not so hard -- if you give it even a half-hearted try -- to understand that Matthew relates the events of the day of the resurrection and then skips forward and relates the implications of that day according to the words of Jesus Himself shortly before His departure/ascension. It's sort of like two people at a wedding, and one shoots a video of the entire wedding, while the other takes only a couple pictures -- one of the couple standing at the altar in front of the pastor and one of the bride and groom kissing. Both tell the entire story, that they got married and are now husband and wife, but one provided more detail than the other. Right? Right??? Of course. Right.

Indeed, if I may break the challenge's rules for a moment, ...
I have to stop myself there. After writing this, I will send a PM to JW, just to make sure he reads this...but I was wrong about saying Galilee, according to Matthew happens on Easter Sunday.
The command is given for the disciples to go to Galilee and as everyone knows (since I made such a big song and dance about it), such a journey would have taken several days. The disciples cannot already be at Galilee or near it, since Jesus's tomb is supposed to be nigh at hand to Jerusalem.

Right.

Hmm...when I get some time to myself, I'll have to undertake the challenge myself, keeping in mind what I have learned here.

Well, hell, Rik, it should be easy for you, you know, since I gave you all the answers.