An Easter Challenge For Christians

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day.

There are many that make the claim that the bible contains no contradictions. A former preacher, that now considers himself an atheist, Dan Barker, presented the challenge below for christians in his book, Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist, chapter 24.

Questions for debate:

1. Can one progressive story of what is believed by christians about the character known of as 'Jesus', that apparently took place as described in the 'New Testament', be presented in the light of the contradictions that the story contains ?

2. If the contradictions cannot be reconciled into one progressive story, then does this mean that the story itself is a fable ?

3. If one story is presented from the contradictions between the apparent authors of the 'gospels', or one version is considered truthful, does this negate the authenticity of other claims made by those 'gospel' writers that are not considered the truthful version of the 'Easter' story ?

4. Is it true when Dan Barker states that, "without the resurrection, there is no Christianity" ?

5. Considering the contradictions of the 'gospel' accounts of the 'Easter' story, does this negate the claims of fundamentalists that the 'bible is the inerrant Word of God' ?


If any christian is willing to take up former preacher Dan Barker's challenge, would you please provide in a post, the story of what took place on 'Easter' that you purport is the true accounting of events. If you have any evidence to back up your version of what took place, would you please provide that within the post as well. Thank you.



[center]Leave No Stone Unturned

An Easter Challenge For Christians[/center]

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.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

[Slopeshoulder]

These contradicitions are well known; I learned all about them in seminary. There are actually books students use that have the gospels side by side in three columns to highlight the differences.

They DO prove that the literal, fundamentalist, innerrant approach has no credibility. Well done.

But you and Barker seem to forget the huge number of Christians, clergy, and the seminaries and divinity schools that train them that reject the innerant apprach and replace it with quality hemeneutics and exegesis. The inconsistencies tell us what different communities were thinking and the theolgical slant of the author. Barker's challenge only addresses fundies who misuse and misunderstand these ancient texts. An educated Christian acknowledges the inconsistencies.

[McCulloch]

These contradictions are well known; I learned all about them in seminary. There are actually books students use that have the gospels side by side in three columns to highlight the differences.

They DO prove that the literal, fundamentalist, inerrant approach has no credibility. Well done.

But you and Barker seem to forget the huge number of Christians, clergy, and the seminaries and divinity schools that train them that reject the inerrant approach and replace it with quality hermeneutics and exegesis. The inconsistencies tell us what different communities were thinking and the theological slant of the author. Barker's challenge only addresses fundies who misuse and misunderstand these ancient texts. An educated Christian acknowledges the inconsistencies.

I completely agree with this post with the one exception in the use of the words huge number. I believe that outside of the ivory tower of the liberal academics, the huge numbers of Christians are primarily in the literalist camp, particularly in North America. The ignorance is a sad reflection on the inability on the part of the educated Christians in getting their message out, understood and accepted.

[Slopeshoulder]

These contradictions are well known; I learned all about them in seminary. There are actually books students use that have the gospels side by side in three columns to highlight the differences.

They DO prove that the literal, fundamentalist, inerrant approach has no credibility. Well done.

But you and Barker seem to forget the huge number of Christians, clergy, and the seminaries and divinity schools that train them that reject the inerrant approach and replace it with quality hermeneutics and exegesis. The inconsistencies tell us what different communities were thinking and the theological slant of the author. Barker's challenge only addresses fundies who misuse and misunderstand these ancient texts. An educated Christian acknowledges the inconsistencies.

I completely agree with this post with the one exception in the use of the words huge number. I believe that outside of the ivory tower of the liberal academics, the huge numbers of Christians are primarily in the literalist camp, particularly in North America. The ignorance is a sad reflection on the inability on the part of the educated Christians in getting their message out, understood and accepted.

Although they are far beyond the ivory tower, and make up the majority of mainstream church attendees, I DO COMPLETELY AGREE that this groups is shrinking, and is a tiny minority in much of the country (south, plains, mountains, non-urban, and right here in this forum, with few wonderful exceptions). While they slept, fundies drank their milkshake. This failure is a tragedy and a danger. I do my best to wake up and save my milkshake from them. It's why I'm here.

Consider: It's an observable linguistic shift that "Christian" used to mean cultural Christian or member (even nominal) of any denomination, usually a mainstream church. Now it means primarily evangelical, fundamentalist, biblicist. "Are you Christian?" now means "Are you bible-based and born again." They took over the very word itself (most deny my own christianity, which as you know is the farthest thing from conservative; I ain't winning any awards in the HH; I have no fundy friends), in favor of what they see as pure (read pig ignorant, proto-fascist, expansionist and dangerous) Christianity. I'm personally very hesitant even to use the word in self-description. I read their theology and I don't recognize it. Stuff about blood and lambs and freedom from law and old and new law and a cross and being justified and daily walk and fulfilled prophecy and no gays or fornication and adultury (oh yeah, and forgiveness, compassion, love, meaning: I like those bits). It's gibberish to me. I prefer Tolkein, Harry Potter, Hans Christian Andersen, or Asimov for my fantasy.

Yes, we agree.

Back on topic...I find that I'm drawn to practices of religion where, if confronted with a contradiction in a sacred text, instead of denying it or explaining it away via circular reasoning and magical thinking, instead they rush in and ask, "I wonder what that's about? what's going on there? how come? what does it suggest? let's discuss it, let's learn and compare. We may have revisit what we though we knew and get stretched somewhere better." Maybe eventually someone will say something wonderful, and THAT will be the text at work (the new text), THAT will be where "god" is found. The ancient text is a starting point, not an end point. We lose much when we lose that. Liberal Christians and AFAIK most Jews excel at this. Liberal muslims too I imagine. Vangies (i just made that word up) and fundies, not so much.

Scripture offers the ingredients, but we make the recipes, eat the meal, and get fed by it, based on our needs and context. Got no use for mace or tarragon? Got no taste for allspice? Not much call for fenugreek or ghee in your neck of the woods? Toss 'em, or let them sit. It's all food, it all feeds.

[Flail]

Since fundamental Christian beliefs are not 'evidence based', adherents are free to pick and choose among the various concoctions in what to believe and what to discard. When the guideposts of verifiable evidence are not in play, 'anything' can stand for 'anything.'

[Slopeshoulder]

Since fundamental Christian beliefs are not 'evidence based', adherents are free to pick and choose among the various concoctions in what to believe and what to discard. When the guideposts of verifiable evidence are not in play, 'anything' can stand for 'anything.'

That's a very good point, and I never thought of that. At the very least, if defangs and turns the tables on the fundy charge that liberal christians are "cafeteria" christians who pick and choose from a belief menu (to stick with my food analogy). Indeed, the liberals have much more respect for evidence; that's why they don't take it all face value. Whereas fundies feel free to discard all evidence (or make a mockery of what evidence is).

[Ooberman]

My question is if pastors are being taught the truth about the resurrection story, why aren't they teaching it?

Never, once, in all my years of going to church did a pastor say "here is the story.. now, there are some discrepencies, but they'll help us understand the broader historical context and personal perspectives from each apostle..."

The pastors, as Hector Avalos often says, come out of seminary looking for a job and the churches hiring aren't looking for the truth - they just want a pastor who can pull in more people and keep the regulars. The regulars don't want to hear anything that confuses them.

It's a farce, really, IMO.

[McCulloch]

My question is if pastors are being taught the truth about the resurrection story, why aren't they teaching it?

There are three possible answers that I can see. One is that Slopeshoulder is wrong and the teaching of a reality based rational view of religion is not as pervasive as he thinks. That is many pastors are teaching what they were taught, and what they were taught is not the mainline liberal interpretation that Slopeshoulder believes is commonly taught in seminaries.

The second has to do with the milk and meat metaphor. In the judgment of most pastors, the layman in the pew is not spiritually, intellectually or emotionally equipped to be taught the full truth. You will not get these teachings from the pulpit. You might get them in more in-depth sessions with the pastor, once he or she has some assurance that you have a deeper spiritual understanding. I find this answer to be paternalistic. I fail to see how anyone might benefit from a less than accurate teaching.

The third, even more cynical, is that pastors realize that teaching truth does not draw the crowds. And they're in the business of drawing in crowds.

It's a farce, really, IMO.

I agree. There is no other explanation that I am aware of. For example, the pastor at my in-law's Presbyterian church is quick to bring forward to the congregation every hint of archaeological evidence to support the Biblical accounts, such as the Ossuary of James. Yet, he has never made it public, when those are shown to be (ahem) less than truthful. The (false) picture he paints to his congregation is that there is a mountain of archaeological evidence supporting Biblical literalism and nothing refuting it. Anyone with even a small dose of skepticism and access to outside resources, can easily see through his deliberate deception. Fortunately for him, few of the people who attend church have even the slightest degree of skepticism.

[Slopeshoulder]

My question is if pastors are being taught the truth about the resurrection story, why aren't they teaching it?

Never, once, in all my years of going to church did a pastor say "here is the story.. now, there are some discrepencies, but they'll help us understand the broader historical context and personal perspectives from each apostle..."

The pastors, as Hector Avalos often says, come out of seminary looking for a job and the churches hiring aren't looking for the truth - they just want a pastor who can pull in more people and keep the regulars. The regulars don't want to hear anything that confuses them.

It's a farce, really, IMO.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This defines the failure of the mainstream churches.

Well, it's more than that, maybe:
1. yes, it's economics.
2. clergy only talk about it in adult ed. for those who come and can handle it.
3. it IS reflected in their preaching. In subtle ways like saying things like "when matthew inserts blah in his narrative" or "which was so imprtant to community of Mark" or "the Lukean perspective on the events" etc. I've heard it, but usually within 100 miles of Harvard, Columbia, or Yale, and in Episcopal, some Congreationalist, and churches like that.

I agree that it is too little, and the result is what we see today. But maybe people are indeed idiots (NOTHING sells that isn't dummied way way down) and still want the simple tales. It's a HUGE issue I can't figure out how to solve. One the one hand, we have a more eductaed miodern populace who would be expected to want more; but these same peoplek are often busy overworked people with little time for ideas and culture, looking to church, radio, and shrinks for simple and reliable direction. I don't know the answer. I do know that many smart people ask the questions and then they reach a fork: do I bail, or do I study forever? and in what order or combination?

[naz]

4. Is it true when Dan Barker states that, "without the resurrection, there is no Christianity" ?

No, mainly because Christianity was around well before the coming of Jesus. Many were Jews and others were from ancient Mesopotamia that chose to believe in one god and not many. That is one of the reason why so many Greeks and Romans killed early Christians. Early Christians followed the teachings of Moses, as did Jesus. Jesus isn't the end of Christianity, nor is he the beginning. However, he is a big part of it.