Dan Barker's Easter Challenge (for PinSeeker)

Kapyong · Post by **Kapyong** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:23 pm

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 · Post by **rikuoamero** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:20 am

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 59 by rikuoamero]

Thank you for your post but I can't seem to find the answer to my question: Does the writer actually state that the events in Galilee took place on the same day as those in Jerusalem?

JW

Yes. Matthew identifies the day in Verse 1. He identifies it as such "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,".
Luke also identifies the day. "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning,", and also "Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus"
However, I also have to answer no, because Matthew writes with no knowledge of the meeting in Jerusalem.
If your question up above had been written as "Does the writer identify the meeting in Galilee as taking place on the same day identified by the writer of Luke for the meeting in Jerusalem", that would be a straight yes. No way for me to answer "No".
However, that is not what you asked. The wording of your question implies that the writer of Matthew was aware of what the author of Luke wrote, and of course there is no indication of this.

Here is my question, or should I say challenge to you JW.
Read Matthew 28. Read the entire chapter. At what point does Matthew shift to talking about a day other than what he identifies in Verse 1?
Then read Luke 24. Read the entire chapter. At what point does Luke shift to talking about a day other than what he identifies in Verse 1, and Verse 13?
Can you provide quotes?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:22 am

rikuoamero wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 59 by rikuoamero]

Thank you for your post but I can't seem to find the answer to my question: Does the writer actually state that the events in Galilee took place on the same day as those in Jerusalem?

JW
Yes. Matthew identifies the day in Verse 1. He identifies it as such "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,".

That was not my question, does he state that the events in Galilee were on the same day as those in Jerusalem (there is no mention of Galilee in verse 1 of Matthew 28)?

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:44 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 59 by rikuoamero]

Thank you for your post but I can't seem to find the answer to my question: Does the writer actually state that the events in Galilee took place on the same day as those in Jerusalem?

JW
Yes. Matthew identifies the day in Verse 1. He identifies it as such "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,".
That was not my question, does he state that the events in Galilee were on the same day as those in Jerusalem (there is no mention of Galilee in verse 1 of Matthew 28)?

If you mean something like "Does Matthew do like Luke did, and identify on more than
one occassion what happened on Easter Sunday", no.
Now, are you going to answer MY question? At what point does Matthew shift what days he's talking or thinking about within Chapter 28? Is there any indication that this is what he's doing?
Or are readers of Matthew Chapter 28 going to naturally think that everything talked about in that chapter takes place on the same day?
You're correct, there is no mention of Galilee in Verse 1. Does there need to be? It's a sequential narrative, a sequential ordering of events, and again, at no point does Matthew say that Galilee is on a different day than Easter Sunday. The entire chapter fits on one page. If you're going to claim that Matthew did indeed mean for Galilee to happen on a day that is NOT Easter Sunday, then I have two words for you my friend...
Citation. Needed.
You would need to quote it.
Or you can try and explain how people aren't meant to think a sequential ordering of events on a single page, with just the one day identified, aren't meant to be automatically understood as all taking place within that one day.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:52 am

rikuoamero wrote:If you mean something like "Does Matthew do like Luke did, and identify on more than one occassion what happened on Easter Sunday", no.

No I mean does the writer make the statement that the events in Galilee happened on the same day as those in Jerusalem.

My question is as follows (no need to rephrase it): Does the writer actually state that the events in Galilee took place on the same day as those in Jerusalem?

JW

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:06 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:If you mean something like "Does Matthew do like Luke did, and identify on more than one occassion what happened on Easter Sunday", no.
No I mean does the writer make the statement that the events in Galilee happened on the same day as those in Jerusalem.

My question is as follows (no need to rephrase it): Does the writer actually state that the events in Galilee took place on the same day as those in Jerusalem?

JW

My answer is yes, for two reasons.
1) he identified the day in verse 1
2) no indication is given to me the reader that verse 16 onwards takes place on a different day.
This is what a plain reading of Matthew 28 has me doing. If you want to argue that verse 16 onwards does take place on a different day, then you'll have to do two things.
Provide a citation and explain why my plain reading is in error.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:08 am

PinSeeker wrote: Actually... You know, why re-create the wheel? Here you go:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

Now, admittedly, I didn't read it yet, but I will. There may be some things in there that I might quibble a bit with. But at the very least, it dispels your claim that no one has ever been able to answer it. The internet is a great thing, is it not? Catch you later, Kapyong.

Grace and peace to you.

I didn't read the whole thread but the site PinSeeker pointed to fails miserably in its first sentence:

First sentence from that web site:

The infamous "Easter Challenge" of Dan Barker has been around for years, and I passed on addressing it for a while to see if any enterprising critic could tell us why differences in the Gospel accounts should be any more problematic or unresolvable than those found in four biographies of Abraham Lincoln done by professional historians.

The answer to this question is quite simple. Historical reports of Abraham Lincoln may indeed contain errors. No one is claiming that Abraham Lincoln was the Son of God. No religion is based on the life and times of Abraham Lincoln..

So this apology fails miserably before it even begins and apparently already concedes that there are problems with the resurrection story of Jesus. So this attempt to meet Dan Baker's challenge shoots itself in its own foot before it even gets off the ground.

If the Gospels are the inspired word of God, inspired guided and protected by God himself then there is no excuse for them to contain so many errors and confusion.

Also, Christians seem to keep forgetting that the God behind this religion is threatening to eternally damn anyone who refuses to believe these flawed superstitious tales that were basically told by a mere 5 men. Most of whom were already aware of the rumors the others had told.

This is totally unimpressive and not the least bit compelling. Yet some God is going to damn us to hell if we fail to believe these troubled rumors?

Sorry PinSeeker, but Dan Baker wins this challenge hands down. And apparently the Christian apologists even concede that Dab Baker is indeed correct since their excuse for these self-contradictory rumors begins with an open confession that the rumors do indeed contain errors and contradictions.

Christianity is a religion based on the hearsay rumors of a mere 5 men who didn't even tell the same story. And two of them (Matthew and Luke) were simply repeating the original rumors that Mark started and just each adding their own contradictory tales including an ascension story that Mark never even told.

That's a pretty weak foundation for a religion.

In fact, it's not the least bit compelling if you really stop and think about it.

A God who will condemn us to hell if we fail to believe the self-contradictory rumors of basically 3 men and 2 others who can't even repeat an original rumor without adding their own additional nonsense.

If there are any miracles associated with Christianity the only miracle I can think of is the miracle that anyone still believes this stuff today.

benchwarmer · Post by **benchwarmer** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:17 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:If you mean something like "Does Matthew do like Luke did, and identify on more than one occassion what happened on Easter Sunday", no.
No I mean does the writer make the statement that the events in Galilee happened on the same day as those in Jerusalem.

My question is as follows (no need to rephrase it): Does the writer actually state that the events in Galilee took place on the same day as those in Jerusalem?

It's fun watching you two talk past each other, but you are missing the point of Riku's argument. Granted, he is also missing your exact question.

If I understand you correctly JW, you are asking if there is a scripture quote along the lines of "all these events in Galilee happened on the same day as the events described by another author in Jerusalem" or "The same events happened again on the same day in Galilee and Jerusalem". To which the answer is of course not. The authors of the conflicting passages would not have created such an obvious problem. They probably were either unaware of what they were doing by changing the venue or were aware of it and trying to make their version the 'true' version. They probably didn't expect both versions to land in the same collection and be declared 'correct'.

Riku is asking you to take both texts separately and figure out which day the events happened on. After doing that, lo and behold they appear to be on the same day. Oops. If they don't happen on the same day, he is asking you to provide a reason to believe otherwise. Looking at them both after the fact and trying to mash them together requires ignoring context and inventing missing details.

Anyway, carry on.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:38 am

[Replying to post 67 by benchwarmer]

I am fully aware that there writer did not state that the Galiean encounter happened on the same day as the Jerusalem one and that to conclude it did is an assumption. If it takes 12 posts to get someone to make a simple statement of fact as to the words that are or are not in the text I don't believe there is any hope of being able to engage in reasonable exchange.

In the absence of an explicit statement either way one is left with a choosing the most reasonable assumption. Given the distances between the two locations the most reasonable assumption is that Matthew is not presenting the two encounters as taking place on the same day. This assumption neither conflicts with any explicit statement in Mattews text nor does it conflict with anything in Luke's.

I am totally uninterested in your or anyone elses speculations as to what the writer was thinking as he wrote and have chosen to engage only in an analysis of the actual written words in the text .

JW

RELATED POSTS

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

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:50 am

[Replying to post 50 by rikuoamero]

QUESTION Did the Aposltes doubt Jesus resurrection after meeting him?

Jesus appeared over an extended period of 40 days, in at least 3 towns and at various locations to various groups of individuals: As could be expected the reaction to the encounters as well as to the reports of the encounters varied.

Matthew: Galilee: "some doubted" (28:17-20)
Luke: The men don't initially believe the women; are frightened when Christ materializes in a locked room (24:13-51)
John: Reports that Thomas, who was absent for the Sunday evening appearance, is reprimanded for his lack of faith the following week (21:19-23)

#ANSWER As with any major event, people reacted differently as different times. If extra gospel accounts are to be believed* and there is nothing in the gospels that precludes this being the case, Matthew's report of Jesus' Galilean appearance (Northern Territories) could well have been nearly a month after his initial appearance to the Apostles, by this time the report of his resurrection would have probably reached multitudes of disciples up north. Since Matthew does not identify the "some" nor does he state that there were no other disciples present with The Eleven for the Galilean commission, the "some" that doubted may well have been a reference to other Galilean Christians who gathered at the appointed place on that occasion who had heard the reports but had not yet witnessed an appearance, rather than the Eleven.

* See Acts 1:3

RELATED POSTS

Did Thomas have valid reason to doubt?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 969#904969

Was Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 616#753616

Further reading: The resurrection of Jesus: Did it really happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

PinSeeker · Post by **PinSeeker** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:44 pm

Divine Insight wrote:Sorry PinSeeker, but Dan Baker wins this challenge hands down.

It's very curious to me how you can say that when you so clearly misrepresent -- either because of lack of understanding or willful ignorance or both -- my arguments against his. But you're welcome to you opinion; I have no probem with it, although it's very hard to respect because of that.

Divine Insight wrote:Christianity is a religion based on the hearsay rumors of a mere 5 men...

Actually eyewitnesses (even Paul, who did encounter Christ Himself)...

Divine Insight wrote:...who didn't even tell the same story.

Mm-hmm. Because they didn't all use the same exact words. Gotcha.

Divine Insight wrote:And two of them (Matthew and Luke) were simply repeating the original rumors that Mark started...

Speculation and hearsay...

Divine Insight wrote:...and just each adding their own contradictory tales...

An opinion, and horribly flawed at that.

Divine Insight wrote:...including an ascension story that Mark never even told.

Just because he didn't tell it doesn't mean it didn't happen. At least you admit that he didn't contradict it; that's at least a small step in the right direction.

Divine Insight wrote:That's a pretty weak foundation for a religion.

Gotcha.

The rest of your post... ugh.

Sorry, Divine Insight, but your misunderstandings concerning Christianity (and Dan Barker's, as well) are so profound that they are not worth addressing further. Except for three things:

1. I said that I generally agree with what they have written, but would have a few quibbles with the Tekton folks, and I do. If you have any problems with anything in their synopsis and want to get my opinion on those things, let me know.

2. I said that I generally agree with what JW has written, but would have a few quibbles with him, and I do. If you have any problems with anything in his synopsis and want to get my opinion on those things, let me know.

3. I posted my own response to Barker's "challenge," so you can read that. I have been very clear. If there are some clarifications you want me to make to any of the points made, I am happy to do that, but I'm not joining in any debate concerning it. I'm sure you will continue to disagree with what I wrote, but I have no concern whatsoever about that.

In short, I have been very clear, and yet you continue to misrepresent what I have said and, much more importantly, what the Bible says. You disagree.
So we agree to disagree. That should be enough for both of us; for me, it is.