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

[bjs]

G'day Bjs.

Would you be able to explain the four different stories given in each gospel cited below ?[/b][/color]

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)

Do you consider this as not a "genuine" contracdiction ?

If so, would you please offer your reason for doing so ?

I do not consider it a genuine contradiction. I consider it the focus of different writers telling the same story, but telling it in their own way and giving only the details that each one considered important. It has often been said that eyewitness accounts never agree, but that doesnt mean that any particular account is false. (I know none of the gospel writers were eye-witness to this event, but they are each telling the story as they see it.)

To the specific issue:

There were two angels.

Matthew mentions one angel, but does not say that there was only one angel.

Mark says there was a man (again not saying that he was alone), but the mans white robe (a reference back to Mark 9:3) and the fact that the women were alarmed by the sight of him indicates that he was an angel. Throughout the Gospels and the book of Acts angels are described as men wearing white.

[McCulloch]

The contradictions aren't the issue. Any decent professional biblical scholar takes it as axiomatic that they exist. The real issue is what we do with them. These are the options I see:
- deny they exist and claim that God's word is perfect if we could only see, so pray for insight.
- celebrate the contradictions and conclude that because they exist the entire edifice of judaism and christianity is a lie and a sick farce.
- engage them as the basis for a mature hermeneutic, one in which the bible is a collection of wiritings that give voice to the concerns, experience, and spiritual framework of assorted communities and writers.

I vote for the third one.
-

I go for a combination of the second and third. The biblical literalist evangelical version of Christianity is a sick farce and the Bible is a collection of writings that give voice to the concerns, not only of the first century Christians, but that has been found to be relevant to many since.

[mich]

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

Good interesting post I AM...oops; sorry for cursing

First we need to understand that such discrepancies is problematic to the theory that the gospels were copied from one source, such as the gospel of Mark;
for how could they have messed up the most important issue of what they called "gospel"? So, which is it?
In my opinion, such discrepencies supports the hypothesis that the gospel writers had separate and distinct sources of information.This would agree with an oral
tradition being circulated having a central focus, being the resurrection of a man called Jesus. However, the information was nevertheless still close enough for having the speculation to arise even among the biblical scholars, that a gospel was being used as the common source of information. This common source hypothesis reasoning is circular in nature and therefore is difficult to reconcile; for if Mark was used as the source of information, why would we find seemingly contradictions within the other gospel accounts especially concerning the central message of christianity?
Secondly, we also should reasonably assume that the early church had the power to eliminate any source which might be problematic to their teachings. The fact that the four gospels were accepted as canonical from the beginning , that is, they never were considered as being part of the disputed books, shows that such discrepancies were not looked as being problematic for them at all.... within such a viewpoint therefore, we ought to read the gospels.

So what was considered to be the gospel? It is found within the early confession of faith, which Paul himself used; that is, Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day and was seen by many, some of whom are mentioned by name.The exact manner of the incident was not considered important especially since most witnesses were still alive.

Papias, for example wrote; I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders; what was said by Andrev, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what was said by Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord. For I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving.

His source of information would therefore be fairly reliable. Of the gospel of Mark, he wrote: the elder also used to say this: Mark had been the interpreter (or translator) for Peter. And he wrote down as much as (Peter) told of the sayings & deeds of Christ --- accurately, but not in order.

Notice how the chronology is seen as being secondary?

Paul wrote Corinthians 15 :.. he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep

Many claimed direct witnesses of the resurrection were still apparently alive when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians between 53 to 57 AD. We have over a 20 years span berween Paul's letter and the crucifixion. This means at least 20 years exists,where, according to Paul, a multitude of five hundred people claimed in having witnessed the resurrection. This makes the gospel account multiplied not by 4, but 500. I'm certain the 500 or so accounts, most existing through an oral vehicle, did not agree in every detail.For this reason, it seems that the chronological order was not regarded as being important. However, if the story had been crafted and invented, it would seem that a perfect unison among the four gospels would have been used.

Now, for the question, what type of chronology would sarisfy all four gospels?
First, a group of women, among whom Mary Magdalene seems to be a prominant figure, as Peter and John are prominant figures, are going to Jesus' tomb.While Matthew speaks of an earthquake, he could actually be refering to the one that happened on calvary,since he also wrote of the resurrection of the saints at the time when Jesus died. In fact such persons dressed in dazzling white also called angels, could be a refference to those who were raised from the dead....according to the author.They arrive at the tomb and are greeted by one or more people dressed in dazzling white (Elvis perhaps?). Here, the event becomes blurred. When exactly did Mary Magdalene see Jesus and when did she and the others go to tell the disciples, is certainly not definitely known. Now, while Mark wrote that the woman did not say anything to anyone because they were afraid, it simply could easily mean that they did not speak to anyone "but" the disciple, since Mark clearly wrote that they were ordered by the angels/men in white to go and indeed tell the disciples.


Andre

[Zzyzx]

.
Andre,

Are you arguing for the biblical accounts of resurrection being true or against them being true? I ask because this post seems to present about equal amounts of supportive and non-supportive information

Many claimed direct witnesses of the resurrection were still apparently alive when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians between 53 to 57 AD.

How can one determine if claimed direct witnesses were alive since their identity is unknown?

We have over a 20 years span berween Paul's letter and the crucifixion.

Twenty years removal leaves a great deal of opportunity for misremembering, embellishing, exaggerating or inventing facts and details. Can we be assured that none of the above occurred and that the accounts are truthful and accurate?

This means at least 20 years exists,where, according to Paul, a multitude of five hundred people claimed in having witnessed the resurrection.

The key phrase is according to Paul. We have ONE mans writing " a man who is clearly VERY biased in favor of the religion he is promoting " and he is promoting -- he has an agenda.

Why should a claim by one man, who is known to be biased, be accepted as truthful and accurate?

Is it POSSIBLE that Paul exaggerated the number or even the existence of direct witnesses? Can anyone be even reasonably certain that he actually spoke to 500 people to be able to say they were witnesses?

If someone declares that Pauls word is true, they have the obligation to give reason for others to accept that claim. I ask, why should Paul be believed?

This makes the gospel account multiplied not by 4, but 500. I'm certain the 500 or so accounts, most existing through an oral vehicle, did not agree in every detail.

If accounts of any event differ in SIGNIFICANT details, does that not call into question the accuracy of ALL the accounts UNLESS one version can be shown to be accurate?

For this reason, it seems that the chronological order was not regarded as being important. However, if the story had been crafted and invented, it would seem that a perfect unison among the four gospels would have been used.

Why would you make that assumption?

First, a group of women, among whom Mary Magdalene seems to be a prominant figure, as Peter and John are prominant figures, are going to Jesus' tomb.

If all reports of an incident are written by employees of a single company and their boss was involved in the incident, is there any potential for bias?

While Matthew speaks of an earthquake, he could actually be refering to the one that happened on calvary,since he also wrote of the resurrection of the saints at the time when Jesus died.

Yes, Matthew COULD also have been adding that claim or speaking allegorically or in hyperbole. Is there any way to know? If not, how can his mention of an earthquake be evaluated intelligently?

In fact such persons dressed in dazzling white also called angels, could be a refference to those who were raised from the dead....according to the author.

Yes, the angels COULD have been those who were raised from the dead, or they COULD have been the product of an overactive imagination, or they COULD have been any number of things. Is there any way to know?

There are many accounts in literature of strange events and characters " reported with only hearsay or testimonial evidence. Are they ALL to be believed? If not, why are some accounts to be believed and others not? How is the determination made?

They arrive at the tomb and are greeted by one or more people dressed in dazzling white (Elvis perhaps?).

Is there any reason that the people dressed in dazzling white could not be Satan (and helper)? Since that character is presented in bible stories as being supernatural and a deceiver of humans, he could have been setting the sage for Paul to construct a false religion (to compete with Judaism) centered upon a dead preacher named Jesus.

I do NOT claim this version to be true " BUT correctly state that it is a POSSIBILITY that cannot be ruled out. It is no less fantastic than the angel version.

Also, the story assumes a tomb " though there is no assurance aside from the stories themselves that a tomb was involved.

Here, the event becomes blurred.

Actually the event becomes blurred before that when the characters said to be present are variously identified and in different numbers.

[Goat]

The contradictions aren't the issue. Any decent professional biblical scholar takes it as axiomatic that they exist. The real issue is what we do with them. These are the options I see:
- deny they exist and claim that God's word is perfect if we could only see, so pray for insight.
- celebrate the contradictions and conclude that because they exist the entire edifice of judaism and christianity is a lie and a sick farce.
- engage them as the basis for a mature hermeneutic, one in which the bible is a collection of wiritings that give voice to the concerns, experience, and spiritual framework of assorted communities and writers.

I vote for the third one.
-

And I have no problem if someone acknowledges the contradictions, and are willing to discuss the concerns, experience and spiritual framework.

It is the people that deny that contradictions, yet insist that I have to follow their belief, or be punished for eternity that I have problems with. This type also trys to push laws in favor of their particular theology,and tries to poison the education system by having to teach their myths as scientific fact.

[Slopeshoulder]

The contradictions aren't the issue. Any decent professional biblical scholar takes it as axiomatic that they exist. The real issue is what we do with them. These are the options I see:
- deny they exist and claim that God's word is perfect if we could only see, so pray for insight.
- celebrate the contradictions and conclude that because they exist the entire edifice of judaism and christianity is a lie and a sick farce.
- engage them as the basis for a mature hermeneutic, one in which the bible is a collection of wiritings that give voice to the concerns, experience, and spiritual framework of assorted communities and writers.

I vote for the third one.
-

I go for a combination of the second and third. The biblical literalist evangelical version of Christianity is a sick farce and the Bible is a collection of writings that give voice to the concerns, not only of the first century Christians, but that has been found to be relevant to many since.

We agree. Well said. Option 1 is pedalled by dangerous fools to gullible morons.

[Slopeshoulder]

The contradictions aren't the issue. Any decent professional biblical scholar takes it as axiomatic that they exist. The real issue is what we do with them. These are the options I see:
- deny they exist and claim that God's word is perfect if we could only see, so pray for insight.
- celebrate the contradictions and conclude that because they exist the entire edifice of judaism and christianity is a lie and a sick farce.
- engage them as the basis for a mature hermeneutic, one in which the bible is a collection of wiritings that give voice to the concerns, experience, and spiritual framework of assorted communities and writers.

I vote for the third one.
-

And I have no problem if someone acknowledges the contradictions, and are willing to discuss the concerns, experience and spiritual framework.

It is the people that deny that contradictions, yet insist that I have to follow their belief, or be punished for eternity that I have problems with. This type also trys to push laws in favor of their particular theology,and tries to poison the education system by having to teach their myths as scientific fact.

Yes, and they must be defeated!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's time for the rest of us to fight 'em. We're in a religious cold war for sure.

[mich]

.
Andre,

Are you arguing for the biblical accounts of resurrection being true or against them being true? I ask because this post seems to present about equal amounts of supportive and non-supportive information

My argument centers only on the gospels having been written by individuals who acquired information concerning a resurrection event and "believed" to having been witnessed.
I am not arguing as to whether the resurrection truly happened or not, just whether the historical evidence point to a witnessed event believed to have happened or whether it was a story simply invented by the authors.If it was a story,it would seem logical that the structure would be flawless between each separate gospel accounts. However, if the gospels were written through witnesses accounts, it is indeed understandable that the stories might differ in some manners.
Now, Luke starts his gospel by saying that "many trials " were made in writting down the gospel accounts before his own. Why many? Probably because of the difficulty in synchronizing all of the wirnesses accounts with a some chronological order. Therefore it would seem that Luke's gospel might be the best to use. Notice that he is writing to an important individual (high priest?) who has heard all sorts of stories, certainly some of which were not reliable, being the reason as to why Luke write's his own investigated version.
Luke 1
Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

How can one determine if claimed direct witnesses were alive since their identity is unknown?

Paul is making a claim which could easily be refuted if only a handfull did actually claim to have witnessed the resurection. Again, the argument is not in whether the claim is true or not, but whether it was believed to be true, and the claim is that 500, which need not to be an exact number. Do you believe that Paul directly lied about this, or simply had the incorrect info?

Twenty years removal leaves a great deal of opportunity for misremembering, embellishing, exaggerating or inventing facts and details. Can we be assured that none of the above occurred and that the accounts are truthful and accurate?

But we're left with versions which are so close in agreement that the unity is hypothized as being due to a synoptic theory, and, at the same time, the differences are as such that some believe the story isn't factual because of the differences involved. In other words, if you believe that the story is an invention because of the differences involved, then, what would be your approach, let's say to the resurrection story found within the gospels.Are the characters involved real persons? Do you think that such persons believed what they claimed to have witnessed to be true, even if this would render them as being disolusioned?

The key phrase is according to Paul. We have ONE mans writing " a man who is clearly VERY biased in favor of the religion he is promoting " and he is promoting -- he has an agenda.

Very possible; what agenda did you have in mind?

Why should a claim by one man, who is known to be biased, be accepted as truthful and accurate?

I would think that any chrisitan claim would be considered biased towards the christians' agenda, which doesn't prove much of anything. .

Is it POSSIBLE that Paul exaggerated the number or even the existence of direct witnesses? Can anyone be even reasonably certain that he actually spoke to 500 people to be able to say they were witnesses?

He never claimed to have spoken to or met all of them, but simply relayed some information; and of course, the number could have been exagerated; it certainly was an approximation. However, Luke speaks of there having over 120 believers in one house.He did also claim that Jesus appeared to rhem as well.

If someone declares that Pauls word is true, they have the obligation to give reason for others to accept that claim. I ask, why should Paul be believed?

We are mearly trying to make sense with the information we have on hand. Everything within scriptures can indeed be questioned if you will. This would bring about the hypothesis that the person of Jesus is a myth who never existed historically, if you want...Is this your position?

If accounts of any event differ in SIGNIFICANT details, does that not call into question the accuracy of ALL the accounts UNLESS one version can be shown to be accurate?

If accounts of any event differ in SIGNIFICANT derails? Certainly, however, an hypothesis explaning the inaccuracy is also needed in such a case, wouldn't you think?

For this reason, it seems that the chronological order was not regarded as being important. However, if the story had been crafted and invented, it would seem that a perfect unison among the four gospels would have been used.

Why would you make that assumption?

On the basis that if we have hypotherically 100 different versions of a witnessed event, the information which corrolates exactly will be regarded as true, the similarities as being highly probable, and the conflicts as being uncertain.

If all reports of an incident are written by employees of a single company and their boss was involved in the incident, is there any potential for bias?

Why would you think that lies woud be made concerning a boss "dying" due to an incident? Why would the health and safety commitee try to hide the truth?

They arrive at the tomb and are greeted by one or more people dressed in dazzling white (Elvis perhaps?).

Yes, Matthew COULD also have been adding that claim or speaking allegorically or in hyperbole. Is there any way to know? If not, how can his mention of an earthquake be evaluated intelligently?

Yes, the angels COULD have been those who were raised from the dead, or they COULD have been the product of an overactive imagination, or they COULD have been any number of things. Is there any way to know?

There are many accounts in literature of strange events and characters " reported with only hearsay or testimonial evidence. Are they ALL to be believed? If not, why are some accounts to be believed and others not? How is the determination made?

Remember that we are not trying to prove such things did actually happen, but only whether the authors and followers"believed" that such events did indeed happen

Is there any reason that the people dressed in dazzling white could not be Satan (and helper)? Since that character is presented in bible stories as being supernatural and a deceiver of humans, he could have been setting the sage for Paul to construct a false religion (to compete with Judaism) centered upon a dead preacher named Jesus.

I do NOT claim this version to be true " BUT correctly state that it is a POSSIBILITY that cannot be ruled out. It is no less fantastic than the angel version.

Of course it's possible . However, again, we are trying to understand what the authors themselves, along with the followers believed; and no, they did not believe the resurrection to be a satanic deception. While I do agree with you that it's possible, we would then be in agreement that a spiritual dimention does indeed exist.

Also, the story assumes a tomb " though there is no assurance aside from the stories themselves that a tomb was involved.

There's no physical evidence of a cross as well. Then again, there's also no physical evidence for the existance of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.

Here, the event becomes blurred.

Actually the event becomes blurred before that when the characters said to be present are variously identified and in different numbers.

I would disagree with you here. Luke reads
1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb
9When they (the women) came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

None of the gospel accounts mentions the name of "all" the women, possibly because there could have been too many to mention.


Andre

[WinePusher]

And tries to poison the education system by having to teach their myths as scientific fact.

I am only aware of creationist groups trying to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution as theory, not fact..........

[Slopeshoulder]

And tries to poison the education system by having to teach their myths as scientific fact.

I am only aware of creationist groups trying to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution as theory, not fact..........

But as presented, does intelligent design theory even rise to the level of theory? As science, it is anything other than a farce?

I'm not saying that great God almighty didn't make the universe and you and me, just that this is apparently not something we establish through science. Trying to so mocks both God and Science.