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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by PinSeeker]

So the Jews had to suspend the beginning of Passover

This is part of why I want you to give us a full account, in your own words. Hopefully, if you do it, when you attempt to line up events from gospel to gospel, questions will arise in your mind.
Questions such as - wait...did the Jews really "suspend" their holiest day of the year? What does it mean to do that? Why am I saying this?

Things like that.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

I already did. Rebut away. Again, it's not mine, as in, it's not an original PinSeeker manifesto. But I generally agree with it. Like I speculated before, there are a few quibbles I have with a few of the things stated therein, but overall, it's pretty good. Read through it and tell me what objections you have.

No it didn't.

The challenge is to produce a continuous coherent account of Easter Sunday - the page you posted does NOT even try to do that.

As for the contradictions (which are NOT the challenge), TPH answers THREE out of SEVENTEEN.

Fail.

Kapyong
PS. I don't think PinSeeker reads my posts any more. Oh well

[JehovahsWitness]

You've left out where G.John says it was "still dark" and made up your own words.

QUESTION When did the women arrive at the tomb?

• The women setting out in the pre-dawn darkness and arriving at the tomb just as the sun was rising well harmonize the various accounts.

Matthew reports the episode as happening : "when it was growing light" (28:1 NWT) obviously implying it was growing light from darkness; so if they started out in darkness and finished in the increasing light of the early morning, this would harmonize with Mark who places event : "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV). Luke similarly says "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)


# But does John not state the women ARRIVED at the tomb while it was still dark?

John's narrative reads as follows:

JOHN 20:1: "On the first day of the week, Mary Magalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and she saw that the stone had already been taken away from the tomb". NWT

While in English "came" and "arrived" in the simple past tense can be synonyms (she came at 5am /she arrived at 5am), even in the english, the shift to present tenses (she is coming/she comes) refers to the motion or movement towards a destination which has yet to be completed. Notice now how the Greek literally reads:

To the but one [day] of th Sabbath Mary the Magdalene is coming (Greek erchomai) early of darkness yet being into the memorial tomb


So John didn't actually write "she came" (simple past) he wrote "she is coming" Greek present tense. While using the English past simple is a perfectly acceptable translation since the narrator is describing a story set in the past, what John actually wrote in Greek can be descrubed as "a historical present tense", meaning using the present tense to get the reader/hearer to imagine that they are in the story (that happened in the past) and are witnessing the action as it happens. We do a similar thing with jokes today ("Man walks into a pub, the bartender turns to him and says "what can I get you? ...") In other words strictly speaking John doesn't write Mary arrived at the tomb while it was still dark (a completed action, focusing on the end result, which is what a perfect tense would convey) but rather refers to her "coming" ie travelling (progressive action) in the dark. In short the scripture is far too ambiguous to say categorically that he meant it was dark when Mary arrived at the tomb and thus cannot represent any kind of contradiction to the other gospel narratives.


QUESTION Is it dark at dawn?

• The chart illustrates that if we take "dawn/sunrise" to be a general term describing the period during which night transitions to day, the degree of light actually goes through several stages at least two of which would probably be described generally as "dark" ie there not being enough natural light to go without some kind of artificial lighting for some activities.

Source: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/d ... light.html

Keeping in mind the "coming" to the tomb can refer to the journey as well as the arrival (see above) the biblical narratives can legitimately cover "astronmical" "Nautical" and "civil" dawn with no contradiction, especially if each writer chose to focus on a different aspect of the mornings events with them journeying ("coming") during "astronomical dawn" (when for all intense and purposes it is "dark") and arriving at civil dawn or sunrise no doubt meaning either when artificial light would no longer be needed or when any part of the sun could be seen above the horizon).

# But it's not dark at sunrise!

• Nobody said it was. John does not mention sunrise he speaks of darkness as Mary came (was coming - see explanation of the Greek above). The only narrative that speaks specifically of "sunrise"is Mark who presumably was refering to the end of their journey.

FURTHER READING

Greek Tenses - Insight on the scriptures Vol I p. 1006
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001767

Coming & Going in Kline Greek: Deixis & Aspect of erchomai by AJ Espinosa

[JehovahsWitness]

Gday JehovahsWitness and all

COMBINING THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS

Well,
thanks for at least trying, but -

Your account does not combine all the details at all - it's just a very brief summary which leaves out all the problems and contradictions.

Hello there,

If you would like to tell me specifically which so-called "problems and contradictions" you believe I have left out I will certainly consider doing a revision.

NOTE: My understanding was that the "challenge" was to write using my own words a synopsis that encompasses all the details found in the gospel narratives but in a way that harmonizes into a plausible and logical coherence.

Here is the original
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#926583


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

You've left out all mention of what the purpose was,

... Matthew saying it was to see the tomb,
... Luke and G.Mark saying it was to spice the body,
... John saying the body was already spiced.

QUESTION What was the purpose (ie WHY/for what reason) did the women go to the tomb?

• Evidently they went to the tomb to see it a second time AND spice the body (again). The above can be true whether or not they knew they body had already been treated. The important point however is that none of the snoptic gospels say that the body had not already been treated nor do they say the women would be treating the body for the first time (eitehr of which statements would be needed for there to be a contradiction). The evidence indicates that they did in fact know the body had already been treated but wanted to do it again; it would not be the first time in human history a woman decides she wants a job done over.

# Doesn't saying they went to see the grave mean they had NEVER seen it previously?

• If a man says he went to Dublin to see his grandma, does it necessarily mean for the first time in his life? Both Matthew and Mark explain that the women were not only present at Jesus death (Mark 15:40, 41; Matthew 27:55-56) but specifically indicates that has Mary and at least one of the other women fully aware of where Jesus had been laid (15:46), so saying they wanted to "see the grave" cannot mean they wanted to discover its location for the first time. We use "see" for some kind of action even today, for example when we tell someone that is looking unwell to "see a doctor" we don't mean discover where one lives or just gaze at one, but rather "see" means interact with a view to having some kind of treatment. In a similar way the women evidently intended to see the tomb (again) with a view to taking specific action (namely re-spicing the body).

QUESTION Why would they want to spice a body twice?

• We don't know but while John characteristically omits details already presented in the synoptics, both John and Mark indicate there were constraints on time due to the rapidly approaching Sabbath (which started at sundown). While the reason why the women would want to re-treat the body they had seen or were aware had already been treated is not specifically stated, but it is not beyond the realms of reason to conclude that due to those time constraints the process was not done to their satisfaction. .

CONCLUSION There is nothing contradictory in the gospel statements that the women went for the purpose of both "seeing" the grave AND spicing the body and the accounts can be harmonized if they did indeed concluded their purpose was to do both.

Do the gospel narratives speak of an inordinate amount of spices?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p968701

To learn more please fo to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by Kapyong]

You should forgive JW, and his supporter PS, they have taken the response of literalism to avoid the point of your topic.

They have answered your questions literally, by presenting each fact as unrelated to each other, they hope to be able to preserve their beliefs by not integrating them.
Something like you asserting that they owe you a $500 US restaurant bill, and them refusing by presenting each item one at a time, without adding them up.

"You owe me $500."
R: "No I don't. I had the surf and turf, it's only $75."
"No I don't, I had the soup, it's only $25." ...
You get the idea.

Were he to do anything else, he would be forced to abandon his belief as being false.

Surely you do not expect him to do that?

Awesome regards,

[PinSeeker]

I read all relevant posts.

Okay, fellers, here's my answer. I didn't want to, because I don't want to engage in endless -- and really pointless -- debates. They are pointless not because it is unimportant to discuss and understand, but because it is foolish to engage in endless arguments with conceited folks who have a morbid interest -- note that there is nothing wrong with interest itself, but merely morbid interest -- in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction (1 Timothy 6:4-5). In addition, it's really just not worth the time, and frankly, it's exhausting. But just to show that I'm not "afraid" of any "challenge" concerning anything regarding the Bible, I'll answer, but I'm telling you right now, there will be no debate. If there are minor clarifications you want me to make concerning what I have written, I'm happy to do so. But overall, I'm fine if you want to say (and I fully expect this will be the case), "Well, PinSeeker, that's just bovine scatology" (or some variation thereof). That doesn't bother me one bit. But there will be no debate... at least on my part. You asked me to give a plausible explanation and reconciliation. Here it is:

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.

* Mary Magdalene runs to Peter and John with distressing news of likely grave robbers (John 20:2). 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). They are filled with fear at first and depart from the tomb afraid to speak (Mark 16:8). Some time later, they recover their courage somewhat and decide to go to the disciples. (Luke 24:9; Matthew 28:8).

* At about the same time, Peter and John have gone out to the tomb to investigate Mary’s claim. Mary Magdalene follows Peter and John back out to the tomb, and they arrive before the other women have left. 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 (Luke 24:9-11).

* 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. I feel sure they know exactly why, but that's just speculation on my part. Jesus then approaches her from behind. Mary supposes him to be the gardener, which some will say (but not me) is because she is not looking directly at Him. I think it's because Jesus is unrecognizable to her at first and then she recognizes His voice (which would mesh perfectly with what Jesus said in John 10:16, 27... "they will hear My voice" and "My sheep hear my voice"). 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). Subsequently, Jesus sends her back to the disciples with the news to prepare them for His appearance later that day (John 20:17).

* While this is happening, the other women depart the apostles. They are probably on their way back home, but there's no way to know where they intended to go. It's possible that they were headed back to the tomb, but probably back home.

* 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).

The afternoon and evening of day 1 (Easter Sunday)
* 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. 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.

* 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.

* 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).

* Subsequently, Peter goes back and informs the other disciples, who then believe. Thus the men from Emmaus -- who are still lingering with the disciples -- are now told, perhaps by way of apology, that it is indeed true that Jesus has risen (Luke 24:34). At this point, the two men talk more in detail about the encounter with Jesus and later breaking bread with Him.

* 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. The disciples are startled but Jesus reassures them and opens the Scriptures to them (Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23).

Interlude 1
* 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. We do know that sometime during this time the disciples surely exclaim to Thomas that they have seen the Lord, but he refuses to believe it (John 20:24-26).

One week later, Sunday two
* Jesus appears once again (APPEARANCE NUMBER 6) to the disciples gathered. This time Thomas is with them. Jesus calls Thomas to faith, and Thomas now confesses Jesus to be Lord and God (John 20:24-29).

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.

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. 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). Peter has a poignant discussion with Jesus in this appearance and is commissioned to tend the flock of Christ (John 21). Catholics believe Jesus commissioned Peter as the first Pope. I believe the Lord was merely -- "merely," as if it's some small thing, which of course it is not -- giving Peter the opportunity to reaffirm his love for Him (three times) because he had denied knowing Jesus three times before the crucifixion.

The Appearance to the 500
* Of all the appearances, one might think this one would have been recorded in some detail since it was the most widely experienced appearance. It may seem to some that many accounts would have existed and at least one would have made its way into the Scriptures. Yet there is no account of it other than that it did in fact happen. Paul records this appearance bu writing, "Then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 15:6; APPEARANCE NUMBER 8). Where this took place, what it was like, and what the reaction was, we simply do not know.

NOTE:
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 ("Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name", 20:30).

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.

The rest of the forty days
* Jesus certainly had other on-going appearances with the disciples. Luke attests to this in Acts when he writes: "To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).

* 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.

NOTE:
Although Mark’s text may seem to imply that Jesus was taken up from this mountain, such a conclusion is rash since Mark only indicates that Jesus ascended only “after he had spoken to them� (Mk 16:19). The events described in verses 19-20 did not immediately follow those events described in verses 14-18. Jesus had also summoned them back to Jerusalem at least toward the end of the period of the forty days. There they would be present for the feast of Pentecost. We can imagine frequent appearances with ongoing instruction; Luke records that Jesus “stayed with them.� Most of these appearances and discourses are not recorded. Luke writes, "And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'� (Acts 1:4)

The final appearance and ascension
* After forty days of appearances and instructions we have a final account of the last appearance. Here, the Lord leads them out to a place near Bethany and gives them final instructions to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit is sent. And then Jesus is taken up to heaven in their very sight. (Luke 24:50-53; Mark 16:19-20; Acts 1:9-11).

There you have it. Again, there will be no debate. If you need me to make any clarifications here or there, I am happy to do that. If you disagree, then we can just agree to disagree.

Grace and peace to you all.

[rikuoamero]

For the record, I am busy writing a rebuttal to Pinseeker's answer to the Dan Barker/Kapyong challenge, which I expect to publish sometime Saturday evening/night. For now though, I will state something that I find troubling, and namely, it is this.

but I'm telling you right now, there will be no debate. If there are minor clarifications you want me to make concerning what I have written, I'm happy to do so. But overall, I'm fine if you want to say (and I fully expect this will be the case), "Well, PinSeeker, that's just bovine scatology" (or some variation thereof). That doesn't bother me one bit. But there will be no debate... at least on my part. You asked me to give a plausible explanation and reconciliation.

Let me say what it is I am seeing here. On a debate website, an atheist posted a challenge (originally from someone else) that the events of Easter from the Gospels couldn't be lined up if using all the relevant parts of those Gospels, that there would be conflicts/contradictions.
A conversation ensues between the OP and a one Pinseeker, who says (paraphrasing and condensed) that there is no conflict/contradiction and that contrary to what Dan Barker says, an account can be made.
I get involved and after some cajoling, Pinseeker responds with his own version of the resulting narrative.
Okay, no problem there.
However, and this is where I have extreme problems: Pinseeker says that there is to be no debate.

Why? Or should I say, why not?
Is Pinseeker demanding that his answer (Post 47) be immune from critique/criticism? Is he not allowing any challenge to what is his own response to a challenge? Is Post 47 to be considered "correct" "true" "meets the challenge"? Does Pinseeker not understand the nature of challenges in debates?
"I challenge Xers to do this Challenge Y"
"Okay, here's my response to Challenge Y...but there is to be no debate about it".

Pinseeker, I know that I cajoled you into posting your submission to the challenge...but why did you enter this thread at all if
1) you never really wanted to put up a submission to the challenge
2) upon submission, you're not actually going to debate it?
Was your original plan upon entering this thread just to say that an Easter narrative can be constructed but never provide one? Or to just link to the website you did earlier, and never defend it?

[PinSeeker]

Why? Or should I say, why not?

Perhaps I mis-conveyed my message. Let me clarify: There will be no debating me, as in, I'm not debating over what I've written. You can debate it with others all you want (as if you needed my okay to do that). I'm just not participating. Like I said, if you want me to clarify anything -- just as I'm doing here -- I will be happy to do that. But I'm not participating in any debate.

Is Pinseeker demanding that his answer (Post 47) be immune from critique/criticism?

Nope.

Is he not allowing any challenge to what is his own response to a challenge?

I'm disallowing anything. I'm just not participating. In any further debate. Clarifications, if needed, are fine. But I'm not debating further. Are you trying to say I don't have the right to abstain from any further debate? Surely that's not the case, is it, Rik? No, like I said, you disagree, we can agree to disagree.

[rikuoamero]

Why? Or should I say, why not?

You can debate it with others all you want (as if you needed my okay to do that). I'm just not participating. Like I said, if you want me to clarify anything -- just as I'm doing here -- I will be happy to do that. But I'm not participating in any debate.

Is Pinseeker demanding that his answer (Post 47) be immune from critique/criticism?

Nope.

Is he not allowing any challenge to what is his own response to a challenge?

I'm "allowing" anything. But not participating. In any further debate. Clarifications, if needed, are fine.

Very well then. For the record, this means you are allowing myself (and possibly Kapyong and others who also respond) to post a rebuttal to your submission to the challenge, and that we will have the last word.
I'll give you a preview of just what it means. Here's a repeat of the challenge.

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. ''

Here's one place where you went wrong.
You did not include the relevant detail that there is simply not enough time for the disciples to travel. What am I talking about, you may ask?
Why simply, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. On Easter Sunday, they meet the Eleven in Jerusalem and then Jesus appears to them, frightening some of them, and asking them why they are afraid. He calms them, and convinces them that is indeed him, their master returned from death.
Thing is...what does Matthew tell us happened that very same day? Chapter 28 tells us in Galilee, about sixty miles away (and thus, too far to travel even on horseback), that Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples and that some doubted.

Which meeting happened first? The one at Galilee, or the one at Jerusalem? Why were the eleven disciples afraid, doubtful and confused at both meetings? Did it take two appearances from Jesus to convince them he had returned?
How did the disciples travel from Jerusalem to Galilee all in the one day? On horseback? To do that, they must have had super horses, ones that didn't tire in the 4 or 5 hours it would have taken to traverse the distance at full gallop, and trained horse riders will tell you that you just don't do this with horses, that you have to stop and/or slow down every so often. I suppose the disciples could have ridden their horses to the brink of, if not to actual death in order to make the journey on...but why would they have done so? There is no reason at all offered for such an explanation, and without it, I am forced to consider...
That the disciples, if they had indeed travelled from Galilee to Jerusalem (or the other way around) would have done so at a more sedate pace. One that would have taken longer (indeed, Jesus's journey from Nazareth in Galilee to Jerusalem took about five days).