The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

[Easyrider]

Answers to these objections can be found in the following links:

Harmony of the Resurrection

http://www.new-life.net/resurrct.htm

Harmony of the Resurrection

http://answeringislam.org/Andy/Resurrec ... rmony.html

Harmony of the Resurrection

http://thebereans.net/arm-resurr2.shtml

[bernee51]

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

It is a story - urban legend.

The generally accepted timeline of biblical writings (resurrection passage) is:

Paul: 50-55 (I Cor. 15:3-8), Mark: 70 (Mark 16), Matthew: 80 (Matthew 28) Luke: 85 (Luke 24), Gospel of Peter: 85-90, and John: 95 (John 20-21).

If the 'extraordinary events' (natural and supernatural) in the stories between the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus: earthquakes, angel(s), rolling stone, dead bodies crawling from Jerusalem graves, Jesus appearing out of thin air and disappearing, the "fish story" miracle, a giant Jesus with head in the clouds, a talking cross, and a bodily ascension into heaven are listed against the above timeline we get something like:

Paul: 0, Mark: 1, Matthew: 4, Luke: 5, Peter: 6 and John: 8+.

Clearly the number increase as the years pass. The later resurrection reports contain more extraordinary events than the earlier ones, so it is clear that the story, at least in the telling, has evolved and expanded over time.

Just like an urban legend.

[Easyrider]

It is a story - urban legend.

The generally accepted timeline of biblical writings (resurrection passage) is:

Paul: 50-55 (I Cor. 15:3-8), Mark: 70 (Mark 16), Matthew: 80 (Matthew 28) Luke: 85 (Luke 24), Gospel of Peter: 85-90, and John: 95 (John 20-21).

That's your adopted timeline and conclusion. Other scholars don't agree with you.

If the 'extraordinary events' (natural and supernatural) in the stories between the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus: earthquakes, angel(s), rolling stone, dead bodies crawling from Jerusalem graves, Jesus appearing out of thin air and disappearing, the "fish story" miracle, a giant Jesus with head in the clouds, a talking cross, and a bodily ascension into heaven are listed against the above timeline we get something like:

Paul: 0, Mark: 1, Matthew: 4, Luke: 5, Peter: 6 and John: 8+.

Nope. Bible 1, Bernee51 0.

The later resurrection reports contain more extraordinary events than the earlier ones, so it is clear that the story, at least in the telling, has evolved and expanded over time.

According to YOUR adopted timelines, which contains at least one fatal flaw. It ASSUMES that just because Paul might have written first, someone like Matthew or John couldn't be the first / primary eyewitnesses, and who wrote later. Your ASSUMPTION is like someone who first-hand witnessed the JFK assassination writing 20-30 after another writer who wasn't an eyewitness. Then you believe the latter writer "developed" the story. That isn't very critical thinking.

[bernee51]

The generally accepted timeline of biblical writings (resurrection passage) is:

Paul: 50-55 (I Cor. 15:3-8), Mark: 70 (Mark 16), Matthew: 80 (Matthew 28) Luke: 85 (Luke 24), Gospel of Peter: 85-90, and John: 95 (John 20-21).

That's your adopted timeline and conclusion. Other scholars don't agree with you.

So what is your generally accpted timeline?

If the 'extraordinary events' (natural and supernatural) in the stories between the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus: earthquakes, angel(s), rolling stone, dead bodies crawling from Jerusalem graves, Jesus appearing out of thin air and disappearing, the "fish story" miracle, a giant Jesus with head in the clouds, a talking cross, and a bodily ascension into heaven are listed against the above timeline we get something like:

Paul: 0, Mark: 1, Matthew: 4, Luke: 5, Peter: 6 and John: 8+.

Nope. Bible 1, Bernee51 0.

Why? Because you say so?

The later resurrection reports contain more extraordinary events than the earlier ones, so it is clear that the story, at least in the telling, has evolved and expanded over time.

According to YOUR adopted timelines, which contains at least one fatal flaw. It ASSUMES that just because Paul might have written first, someone like Matthew or John couldn't be the first / primary eyewitnesses, and who wrote later. Your ASSUMPTION is like someone who first-hand witnessed the JFK assassination writing 20-30 after another writer who wasn't an eyewitness. Then you believe the latter writer "developed" the story. That isn't very critical thinking.

And if this first hand witness's testimont does not agree with others? What is your explanation for the increasing 'wonder' of the story between Paul and John?

Take the number of messengers at the tomb, which also grows over time, as well as the certainty of the claim that they were angels:
Paul: 0 angels; Mark: 1 young man, sitting; Matthew: 1 angel, sitting; Luke: 2 men, standing; Peter: 2 men/angels, walking; John: 2 angels, sitting.

Other items fit the pattern: bodily appearances are absent from the first two accounts, but show up in the last four accounts, starting in the year 80. The bodily ascension is absent from the first three stories, but appears in the last three, starting in the year 85.

[achilles12604]

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

OK here is a few - go to work...

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[23])
  * 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[23])
  * 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[23])
  * 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[23])
  * 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[23])
  * Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at that first appearance?

• * Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
  * Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
  * 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 more than a day?

• * Mark: No (16:19[23]) 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[23])
  * 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)

AH Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

Here ya go. . .

Easter Challenge

I am taking the Easter challenge. I do not expect to answer everything, however, I think I will have fun.

Before we begin, we have to understand the context of the times. After all a lot of things were different back then.

First, there is a style of writing which I do not think very many people are familiar with. Understanding this form of writing is important for reading some passages. Matthew uses a form of writing known as apocalyptic writing. This style was used in that day to bring attention to a certain section that the author was writing. Since the resurrection was of supreme importance it would be appropriate for Matthew to use just this form of writing concerning these events. The biggest problem with these writings, it that many people are unaware of apocalyptic writing style and so they try to read everything literally. Most people would agree however, that revelations is not to be interpreted literally, rather that there is a great deal of symbolism written there. I believe that some parts of Matthew are apocalyptic writing. I know skeptics will point at this as failure on my part to answer each and every part of the bible’s writings. To them I say they need to become aware of possibilities other than their own beliefs that everything should be taken literally.

For those who need some sort of evidence that I am not making this style of writing up, please visit :
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/Rev/apocalyptic.htm

It gives a good explanation of apocalyptic writings and how and why and when the Jews in particular used this style. Also for other example of apocalyptic writing visit these sites. You will see similarities.

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/b ... S/2ES0.HTM
http://www.nazarene.net/enoch/enoch.html

Now, the writings I am referring to are found right around the resurrection in Matthew. If it was going to exist within the Gospels, this is precisely where we would expect apocalyptic writing to be. Matthew 28: 1- 4 is the introductory paragraph to the resurrection. This is basically Matthew writing, “NOW PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE SOMETHING HUGE JUST HAPPENED!!!!!!!!” Because of these facts, I am inclined to think that the earthquake and sudden appearance of the angels was apocalyptic writing rather than actual events. The more I read this section the more sure I am that the very bold and flashy words are simply there to draw attention to the resurrection and what the angels are about to say.

The second preface we must understand is that the Hebrew week and calendar are not the same as we have today. The Hebrew day started at about 6PM on our current days. For example, the beginning of Sunday would be at 6PM on Saturday. Hence dawn on the first day would actually be at about the middle of the first day, not at the beginning. This concept is hard for some people to understand, but it is the accurate way to read any ancient Jewish reference to time.

With these points in mind we can get to the sequence of events.


Jesus dies on a Wednesday around 6PM. We know this because Matt 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44 all give the time as the ninth hour. Using their sense of time, this would be equivalent to our 6PM.

After being taken down from the cross the body was wrapped and spiced. Jesus was laid in the grave.

Jesus lay in the grave until Saturday evening.

On Saturday evening, Jesus rose from the grave.

Now this time frame is hard to understand because during the early centuries pagan traditions were added to the story to make it Friday to Sunday. For a very sound and complete argument for the time line given above, please go to the following sites.
http://www.ad2004.com/prophecytruths/Ar ... ights.html
http://www.ad2004.com/prophecytruths/Ar ... ights.html
http://biblestuff.freerovin.com/custom.html
http://www.abdicate.net/dates.aspx


Sunday Morning:

Women went to the tomb very early on Sunday morning, or dawn of the first day which would have been in about this middle of the Hebrew day. Remember that just because it was dawn on the first day does not mean it was the beginning of the first day.

The women that went included but was not limited to Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, Joanna, Salome and possibly others. Because no one says, “These were exactly the women that went and only these women.”, we can not be sure of exactly who went other than then names that were given. The one thing we are sure of is that the empty tomb was first discovered by a group of women. Mary and possibly others ran back to tell the disciples about the open tomb. Peter and possibly others ran to the tomb to see what they could. When they found nothing the left and Mary returned to the tomb again. Possibly to look around or ask anyone near by what had happened.

At this point knowledge of apocalyptic writing become important because Matthew uses this style of writing to bring attention to the huge event. Since he is the only one to do this, it makes sense that the flashy things he mentions, are not actual events but rather a great way of attracting attention to the great events and the angels words that are about to come.

The next event we know of is that the women go to the tomb and they are addressed by two creatures that looked like men. These men were very bright and spoke to the women. Although for us to try and give a direct quote of what was said would be impossible, they probably said something like, “Why are you crying? I know you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. But why do you look for the living among the dead? Come and see the place where they laid him. He is risen. Remember what he told you while he was still in Galilee? ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ Now go quickly and tell his disciples to meet him in Galilee.”

The women turned and began to leave the tomb when they saw Jesus. They spoke with Jesus briefly and he again told them to tell the others what had happened and to meet with him. The women then leave and tell the others what happened.

This brings us to the appearances. The first appearance already took place. It was to the women at the tomb. Later that same day Jesus appeared to two men walking on the road. He ate with them and they spoke but they did not recognize him at first. Then as soon as they realized who Jesus was, he vanished and the two ran to meet the disciples and tell them about seeing Jesus.

These two men ran to meet the disciples “where they were assembled.” Since this was the same day, they probably went to a house or other building near Jerusalem. While gathered there Jesus appeared to them and ate with them however, Thomas was not with them. Then about a week later Jesus appeared to Thomas in particular. Then over the course of the next few weeks he appeared to his disciples on a mountain, probably in Galilee. Since Jesus told them to gather and meet him in Galilee this was probably the time that He appeared to the 500 people. This would constitute all the brothers Jesus left. After all remember that Jesus 12 disciples were not his only followers. In fact he mentions sending out 72 men totally devoted to him. Anyway the mountain was a likely place for the 500 because they would have been outdoors. There was plenty of space and also it was in an area where he did so many amazing things, therefore there would have been plenty of people wondering about the ravings of the disciples who had seen Jesus in the weeks before. Towards the end of Jesus stay on earth, he appeared to the men fishing. I think this would be toward the end because the men would have been settling down from the craziness of recent events and beginning to support themselves since they had relied on Jesus for the years Jesus was here. During this last meeting, which occurred outside Bethany, Jesus gave them the Great Commission and reinstated Peter. Then he ascended into heaven.

===============================================================

I believe this series of events accurately fits all of the biblical accounts and does not skip or ignore any events provided in the Bible.

While doing this exercise, I found the only major issue between the scriptures to be Matthew’s use of apocalyptic writing. However, just simply understanding apocalyptic writing styles deals with the questions this section raises. Every other verse has fit in fairly easily and quickly. Now I am going to go through the “problems” that Mr. Barker claims exist within and between the accounts. I am going to use direct quotations from his internet posted work.

First I would like to point out a couple stipulations which Mr. Barker admits to. First, Mr. Barker stated, “My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof.” Since Mr. Baker is not asking for proof, I will not defend anything I have claimed other than against the very scriptures I took it from. I do however recognize that my arguments must fit the basics of logic. For example, the disciples can not be in both Jerusalem and Galilee at the same time. That is logically impossible. My second stipulation is written by Mr. Barker, “Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses.” This is important to both acknowledge and understand. There are very few placed where exact times are given. Here are examples of exact times:

Matthew 27: 45-51 – From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice . . . he gave up his spirit.

Matthew 28: 1 – After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week. . .

Mark 15: 33-36 – At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, . . . With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Mark 16: 1 When the Sabbath was over . . . Very early on the first day. (this isn’t even an exact time)

Notice that in the entire book of Matthew there are only 2 times that are given with any form of certainty. And both of them come before the appearances. Exact times for the appearances are found in Luke and John however, there are still only a handful for both books. This is important because I believe that Mr. Barker has added his own opinions about the timing of certain events and this is what caused the problem, not the actual documentation itself.

Now with these two points in mind which Mr. Baker himself admits to, I will go through Mr. Barkers objections and problems. If I am able to offer an explanation to the issues he presents which is both reasonable and logical when considered without bias, and add to that my previous rendition of the events of Easter which was the original challenge by Mr. Barker, then I will I think earned the right to say that I have answered Mr. Barkers Easter Challenge.

PROBLEM #1

Mr. Barker writes,” 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.

First, I must point out that Mr. Barker is jumping to conclusions. Absolutely no where in this entire section does it say that the Tomb was opened in the presence of the women. At worst, it mentions three events but does not give any timeframe other than chronological timeline. At best, the entire section that Mr. Barker refers to is in my opinion apocalyptic writings. This is a great solution to Mr. Barker’s “problem” and makes perfect sense when you consider the time and style of the writings. Let me illustrate.

“After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. (end paragraph)

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, and going to the tomb rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid that the shook and became like dead men. (end paragraph)

The Angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid . . .”

When this one section is removed Matthew reads almost exactly like the other Gospels accounts. In addition to this section, Matthew was clearly using apocalyptic writing when he described the death of Jesus raising dead people and them appearing to many. (Matthew 27: 51-53) This is almost a textbook example of apocalyptic writing. Since Matthew used this form of writing just a little before for the exact same series of events, why is it not possible that he meant the angels appearance in an apocalyptic fashion? I say he could and that he did mean for us to understand his writings with this style in mind.

Also, as I pointed out there is no timeframe other that the order of events that the writer chose to write in so even if Matthew meant the angels literally, there is no way Mr. Barker can be sure that the angel was not opening the tomb as the women were walking to the tomb, rather than while they were there. Mr. Barker assumed, (although not totally illogically) that the women were there before the tomb was opened. I think Mr. Barker’s objection is both logical and has some valid question to it however, I also think that my explanation of this passage answers his objections logically and without resorting to any extreme methods.


PROBLEM # 2

The second problem Mr. Barker writes about is, “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).”

I agree once again that Mr. Barker is not incorrect to wonder or question this section in light of the other two. This however, is one place where exact time frames are not given. Matthew simply says, then. When I am relaying a series of events, I say, “X happened to person A. Then Y took place. Then Z happened.” However, X, Y and Z could be days, weeks or even a huge amount of time apart. Let me give you an example.

In 1861 the Civil War began. Then, the north finally won. Then, Lincoln was shot.

My rendition of the events is accurate in both detail and chronologically. However, because I use the word then, without giving any frame of reference, you might be able to conclude that all of these things happened within a few days, weeks, months or even years. We have no way of telling how much time elapses. We are also not told about events that took place between the “thens”. Where is the Battle of Gettysburg? Where are Lincoln’s speeches? Was their a conspiracy to shoot Lincoln or just one man? So it is with Matthew. He is talking about the women at the tomb. Then he talks about the guards. Then he talks about the meeting outside and the speech leading to the ascension. I ascertain therefore that like my example, Matthew simply included the barest facts of Jesus being risen and ended his book.

Another possibility which makes some sense in the context of the writings, is that we may not have all of Matthew’s book. It seems to me that there is a really abrupt jump from the excuses of the guards to . . . THEN this happened. There seems to be a few connecting words or even passages missing. The rest of Matthew’s book flows fairly easily along but this is a rather sharp transition. Therefore a second possibility is that we do not have all of Matthew. We may be missing a couple passages.

In contrast, in Luke he presents a VERY clear timeline. In fact he uses phrases like “The next day.” And “later that day” and “next week.” Luke is very time oriented. This is a far cry from simply saying, “Then.”

So while once again Mr. Barker’s objections are worthy of consideration, there are simple and logical explanations which can fill in those questions very easily. I do not see any real hard core problems with the second objection of Mr. Barker’s.



Now, the above are the main two problems that Mr. Barker addresses in the body of his writings. Then he proceeds to list further, “contradictions.” I will now cut and past his writings from his document and then proceed to address them in turn.




Discrepancy # 1

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)

I am unsure about the problem here. Unless Mr. Barker is splitting hairs about early morning and still dark, there is no problem. The women went in the very early morning, dawn. As everyone knows, just before the sun rises the sky turns lighter and almost a shade of light gray. We also know that at this time we still have our lights on when we drive. Why? Because even though the sun is just dawning, it is still dark. Hence the sun can be rising, dawn can be breaking and yes, it is still dark, all at the same time. There is no issue here. What would have been a problem is if one had said, “ sometime in the early afternoon.” Now that would have been an issue. But to split hairs over, “still dark” and “just at sunrise” is unnecessary.

There is no discrepancy between these accounts.

Discrepancy # 2

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)

Once again I do not even agree that the question should be raised. Unlike some earlier points that Mr. Barker made, this objection was relatively unfounded. Luke even says that there were other women there. If there is a group of 5 people at a light pole and I say that persons 1 thru 4 were at the light pole, does it make it untrue simply because I did not think to mention person 5? What if I, like Luke, simply state that there is a group of women. Does that contradict someone who lists some of those women? Certainly not. Once again, if someone had said, “these women and . . . oh yea. . . James Bond was there too”, then that might be a problem. But questioning the statements simply because some writers focus on some of the women and others write on the others does not in any way cause their statements to be in doubt.

There is no discrepancy between these accounts.




Discrepancy # 3

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)

This question has a very little amount of validity to it. I do not think that this is Mr. Barker’s strongest argument by far. My question to Mr. Barker is how does he know that the women in Matthew’s version did not bring spices along to do the same thing that is mentioned in the other three gospels? How can he be sure that the women’s intention in Matthew was to do absolutely nothing other than look at a rock? Who would seriously think that a large group of women would go out in very early morning to look at a rock? That would be silly. They must have had some other purpose that Matthew just simply did not feel the need to S-P-E-L-L out for us. To him, the reason the originally went was unimportant next to what they found when they got there.

There is no discrepancy between these accounts.

Discrepancy # 4

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
• Matthew: No (28:2)
• Mark: Yes (16:4)
• Luke: Yes (24:2)
• John: Yes (20:1)

I have already discussed this. I showed that by reading Matthew word by word you can read it that the tomb was closed, but only if you take Matthew’s apocalyptic writings literally. Otherwise you can read it as the tomb may have very well been opened by the time the women arrived. Because Matthew once again does not give us any timeframes and this is in addition to his use of apocalyptic writings, I think the second explanation is the most viable and therefore there is not problem. However, as I stated before, this question of Mr. Barker’s is probably his best argument. It is a far better question than any of the previous discrepancies.

However, even considering Mr. Barker’s question, I think that Mr. Barker’s discrepancy on this point is not unexplainable. On the contrary I have offered a couple of different solutions.



Discrepancy # 5

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)

With this discrepancy Mr. Barker is beginning to provide weaker arguments again. This one has no where near the potential for being a problem as #4 does. This one is simple to explain. Where the author talks about one angel he is simply referring to the only one who spoke. When both are mentioned, then both are mentioned. For a very example from modern day to back up my explanation, if you are talking with the police, I am pretty sure you are only talking with one officer. However, there are probably at least two officers present and possibly more. This is a concept known as contact and cover. One officer is the contact officer who does ALL of the talking. The other is the cover officer who is careful to watch the contact officer’s back while he is distracted in the conversation. Police departments do this all the time. Now, when you ask the person being talked to what happened, that person will sometimes mention the cover officer and sometimes they sill simply talk about the conversion he had with the contact officer. In the case of the latter, it does not mean that there was only one officer or that the individual is lying about his interaction with the police. He simply is mentioning only the officer he spoke with.

There is no discrepancy between these accounts.


Discrepancy # 6

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)

This discrepancy actually lends indirect evidence to my argument against discrepancy #4. You see, all of these accounts agree except for Matthew who in the apocalyptic section of his writings, says that the angel sits down on the rock he moved. However, just a couple lines later, the angel says, “Come and see the place where he lay.” This is the exact same words said by all the other accounts, and in those accounts the angels were inside. This phrase being in Matthew almost necessitates that the angel be near where he is telling the women to “come” to. Hence the angel is inside. This indicates that Matthew’s rendition of the angel’s entrance is actually apocalyptic writing. This is additional indirect evidence that Matthew did not mean for his flashy writings to be taken literally at that point but rather that he was simply drawing attention to the event of the resurrection by way of apocalyptic writings.

Also, in addition to this option, there are two other possibilities. If Matthew is to be taken literally, then there is the possibility of one angel sitting on the stone while the other is just inside the doorway. Once again, I do not think that Matthew meant for this particular section to be read this way but I must offer explanations for both possibilities since either could be true and both explain away Mr. Barker’s objections. Lastly, there is nothing in Matthew’s writings that says that the angels could not have moved from outside to inside. In fact, for any of this to be in any way true, it almost necessitates them moving around. Certainly Mr. Barker is not suggesting that his argument is correct because everyone knows angels are stationary creatures? Of course not.

Therefore since I have given not just one but several explanations for Mr. Barker’s “discrepancy”, and one of my explanations actually supports evidence against a second of Mr. Barker’s “discrepancies”, I would submit that so far as this section is concerned, there is no discrepancy between these accounts that is not easily explained.


Discrepancy # 7

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)

I presented a fairly decent representation of what I think MAY have been said. However, as I already acknowledged, we will probably never know the exact dialog between the women and the angels. This makes perfect sense though, for several reasons.

1) The writers of the books must have asked the women in the group what they heard.

2) Sense most people can not remember exact words for even a few minutes it makes sense that they would all relate similar yet, not exactly identical renditions of what transpired.

3) Main ideas of a conversation are much more lasting. Hence, each of the descriptions of the discussion agree on the central points.

4) This is simply a logic question for anyone out there doubting my explanations. . .

Which would seem more likely to have been fabricated . . . The accounts of what was said which agree on the main points and key phrases and words but are not identical, or a conversation which is relayed totally identically from all parties who were involved and presented without a single question or the slightest bit of disagreement?

Or course when two people hear a conversion they hear different things. Volumes of books about this have been written. Hence, MARRIAGE COUNSILING!

With the explanation given above, there is no discrepancy regarding what was actually said by the angels.


Discrepancy # 8

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)

This discrepancy is very quickly unraveled by simple logic.

Lets assume for a moment that Mr. Barker is right and that the fact that Mark does not include them speaking to anyone.

With this in mind, how did Mark get the information of what the women saw?

Obviously this is a silly question. The women MUST have told someone or else how would Mark know their story. How about the simple explanation that Mark simply stopped writing before he got to the part about how the women told everyone? That answers the questions on both sides.

Obviously the women told someone. There is no discrepancy between these accounts.

Discrepancy # 9

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)

For this discrepancy to bear ANY weight, Mr. Barker must totally ignore parts of scripture and include others. Atheists have been doing this ever since I have been discussing with them. Every time I see this I ask them to read only one line in Psalms 14. It says, “There is no God . . .”. Now does this mean that the bible itself says that God does not exist? Nope. The very next line is, “Says a fool in his heart.” You see you must read in context. Mr. Barker’s discrepancy is cleared right up by reading John 20:18. Obviously Mary eventually is told where Jesus is. John just adds in a small detail of a previous return trip. Nothing more.

There is no discrepancy between these accounts.

Discrepancy # 10

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)

The answer for this question is the exact same as above. Just because John includes an extra trip which was totally unimportant and therefore excluded in the other’s books, does not make John a liar and does not disprove anything. Also, John’s story reads exactly the same after Mary returns to the tomb the second time so I have no problem with Mary going twice to the tomb and most of the writers only talking about the time she met the angels. After all that meeting was what was important so therefore it should be recorded. The first trip to the tomb was totally irrelevant so why should they be discredited for ignoring it in favor of the rest of the story? The answer is they should not receive any discredit for how or what they recorded because they were the writers and therefore could include or exclude what they saw fit in their own tellings. This offers no evidence of a contradiction and is easily explained for Mr. Barker.

There is no discrepancy between these accounts.




Discrepancy # 11

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
• Matthew: Yes (28:9)
• John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

I would like Mr. Barker or anyone else to show me where it says God can not require his son being newly raised to return to him before having further contact with men of this world. For this is exactly what Mr. Barker is claiming is a problem. Where John says Jesus asked not to be held and then explains that he must first return to the father and then he can be touched is not in any way contradicting when Jesus returned from the father a couple minutes, hours, days or weeks later. The only way to claim this as a problem is to deny the existence of a supernatural will. To make that claim as evidence is a circular argument so therefore there is no discrepancy between these accounts if proper unbiased debate is allowed to exist.

Discrepancy # 12

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)

Taking the last objection first, Mr. Barker is not quoting Paul correctly. Paul does not say that he appeared to Peter first. He simply says, “ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures and that he appeared to Peter, . . .”

No where does Paul say he appeared to Peter first. Also and equally important is to recognize that this is not a complete list of the people Jesus appeared to. If so then where are the very first women? Where is the distinction between the disciples and Thomas which the gospels agree on? Mr. Barker is incorrectly assuming that Paul is compiling a complete list in chronological order of all the appearances which a simple cursory reading of the passage clearly shows he is not. Therefore Mr. Barkers objections about Paul in contrast to the Gospel accounts are unfounded.

Secondly, as I pointed out several times, Mr. Barker’s claim that just because two of the accounts mention one thing and the other two do not, does not prove anything false. I have shown how many times different people remember and record different things about events that take place. Even Mr. Barker recognizes this when he writes, “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.”

However, this is not a question of two different towns. This is a question just like the ones that Mr. Barker states are totally understandable. Small omissions or tiny details that are not mentioned are hardly conclusive evidence of the fabrication of the entire story. THESE DETAILS ARE NOT EVEN CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER. Some are simply not mentioning the events another one does. This is even a step above what Mr. Barker admits is acceptable.

In other words, just because John skips the description of Jesus meeting the disciples on the road does not mean it did not happen. In fact both Mark and Luke mention the same thing and then proceed straight into John’s rendition without skipping a beat. Luke even offers a timeline for the events.

As for Matthew, as I said before Matthew’s abrupt change in direction leads me to think that either he simply did not include most of the appearances for some reason or perhaps we are missing a small part of his original writings. In either case, just because Matthew does not mention what the other three do, does not contradict the other three.

As for Mark there is an additional problem with Mr. Barker’s theory. The section of Mark which he is quoting from was in all likelihood added after Mark was done writing. I think this because Mark 16: 9-19 is not included in some of the earliest manuscripts. This is noted in every bible I have read. If even the publishers of the Bible are willing to admit that there may be an issue with a few verses, then it seems a little unfair for Mr. Barker to then turn around and say those verses have a potential issue. This is simply restating what the Christian publishers have already acknowledged. Additionally, I do not think that even if we do include this section of Mark that there is a problem. Mark was simply referring to the second time Jesus appeared to the eleven when Thomas had returned. So either way, there is absolutely no problem.

Lastly, absolutely no where in any of the gospels do the words, “First Jesus appeared to person X Mr. Barker. Next, approximately 1 hour and 37 minutes later Jesus appeared to persons Q and T Mr. Barker. Next. . .” You get my point. The writers were not writing apologetic documents. They were simply recording events they found to be very important. As Mr. Barker admits, just because some small details are not told by everyone does not make the whole thing false. It simply means that one person gives a more complete description of what occurred than someone else.

With these thoughts, I do not think that there is any further problem with this discrepancy Mr. Barker offered.





Discrepancy # 13

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

The only issue that Mr. Barker really brings up here is Matthew vs. the other three. As I stated above Just because John does not mention the meeting on the road before the meeting he describes, does not make his statements false in any way. This takes care of John.

As for Matthew, as I stated several times no where in Matthew’s book does he offer any timeframe for what he writes. Remember my example of using the word “Then”. He also does not include vast amounts that the other books do. However, as Mr. Barker stated just because he does not mention the same things that the others do, does not mean he contradicts them. If Matthew had said that the same day that Jesus rose he met them in Galilee, then there would be an issue. However, he gives no frame of reference for the timing of the meeting. Also since other gospels have an account very similar to that in Matthew just near the end rather than at the beginning I once again state that Matthew either did not mention or perhaps we are missing part of his book which mentions the other appearances. In either case, there is simply a question of what was mentioned. There is no case of contradiction because there is no problem with timing.

As for Mark and Luke they say almost the exact same thing. The road that is talked about can be both near a city and also in the country. After all the roads from city to city must cross country to get anywhere. Then the meeting in the rooms where the disciples ate are almost exactly the same in both accounts and in no way are there contradictions that can not be reconciled. In fact there are no real contradictions at all in this passage. John mentions this same meal.

Overall, I have explained away the discrepancies and they no longer pose any issue to these accounts.










Discrepancy # 14

Did the disciples believe the two men?
• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

This contradiction stands. Using only the gospels as sources, this discrepancy is irreconcilable. Mark does say they were not believed and Luke says they were. There may be a good explanation. There may be a logical reason why these two situations are actually not in disagreement. However, for the moment, I must concur with Mr. Barker on this first, and single point. There seems to be an issue here.

On the other hand, this contradiction, while I think it is a problem, does absolutely nothing to disprove anything else and it does not put anything MAJOR into jeopardy. At most it shows the great confusion which was taking place at the time. It does not threaten any Christian doctrine that I am aware of.

Well done on this point Mr. Barker.

Discrepancy # 15

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

The first question I have for Mr. Barker is which appearance is he referring to. He has listed several and they are not necessarily the same event. For example he says that in John there is no reprimand. However, in John 20: 26-30 Jesus does reprimand them for doubting.

Second, as I mentioned before the section of Mark the Mr. Barker is referring to was probably added later and by an unknown person. This later section is also very brief so we can not be sure of exact details about what Mark’s last section is referring to. Even still it is very close to both Luke and the corresponding section in John.

Matthew I have discussed before and I do not wish to beat a dead horse. Please read my comments above about Matthew abruptly switching tone and subject, skipping over a lot and not providing a clear time frame.

Basically Mr. Barker needs to pick a time he is referring to. He is assuming that all the sections he picked are in fact the same event when clearly they are not because he picked an event out of John and then made a claim about it, yet the correct section which corresponded well with the other sections, he totally ignores. Before Mr. Barker can ask what happened at the appearance, he must first decide which appearance he is referring to. This would be like me asking what happened during the war. Which war?




Discrepancy # 16

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)

I’m not sure that Mr. Barker read very carefully because if he did he would realize that he refuted his own argument. His evidence in Mark consists of the words “later” and “afterwards” which are obviously very vague. This in itself is enough to de-rail Mr. Barker’s attack because there is no positive frame of reference for the reader to go by. However, there is an even larger problem concerning his linking Mark 16:14 with John 20:19 to show it all happened in one day.

“Later Jesus appeared to the eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.” Mark 14:16

“On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” After he said this he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.” John 20:19-20

These are the two passages that Mr. Barker claims are the same event and show that Jesus must have been on earth for only one day. However, he is mistaken when he makes this claim. Look at John 20:26

“A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “peace be with you.” . . . . Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20: 26-29

This passage sounds a lot more like the passage in Mark about the disciples being rebuked that the first passage that Mr. Barker claimed. So you see Mr. Barker’s claim that Mark and John can not coincide is simply incorrect. This passage shows that Marks can easily be showing at least a week. Mr. Barker was incorrect about Mark’s timing because of the lack of timeframes given by Mark.

This is an EXCELLENT example of how lack of timeframes can cause incorrect assumptions and then be used to advance inaccurate information.

I am very skeptical about Mr. Barker’s claim regarding Luke. I will write out the entire passage and I challenge Mr. Barker to show me where in this passage it even alludes to ANY timeframe much less it happening all in one day.

“When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple praising God.” Luke 24: 50-53

I do not see anything at all here that would even point to everything happening in one day.

I think that showing that Mr. Barker’s choice of the wrong passage in John to compare to Mark, using sections in Mark which provide no time reference at all and then using a passage in Luke which had nothing to do with time, all show that Mr. Barker has no real case for a discrepancy. Mr. Barker also showed a section in John, which allows for Acts to be the correct final timeframe. Therefore, since there is a totally lack of contradicting evidence, I would state that the timeframes given in John and Acts are correct and that they are supported by the other books and that there is no discrepancy concerning any of the sources at this point.

Discrepancy # 17

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)

This complaint by Mr. Barker is really stretching. He admits above that Mark, Luke and Acts all have Jesus ascending from the same place. He also admits that Matthew and John do not even mention an ascension. There is no discrepancy there. They just did not write about it. John himself writes that Jesus did a bunch of other things which he did not record. So basically John spells it out for the skeptics. He simply did not write about it.

As for Paul, I am absolutely shocked that an EX-priest would claim that Paul makes no mention of the ascension. I am not sure why Mr. Barker would make such an UNTRUE claim but here is the proof that he is either gravely mistaken or else misleading people on purpose, an idea I find very dark and underhanded.

“But to each one of us, grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: ‘When he (Jesus) ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.’ (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)” Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 4:7-10

Paul speaks of Jesus not only ascending but he also goes even further to clarify that the ascension was from earth. This is in direct contradiction with Mr. Barker's claim.

Therefore, base on a reading of the accurate scriptures, I would submit that not only is there no discrepancy between the books, but there is actually a DIRECT discrepancy between what is written and what Mr. Barker claims.



In conclusion, Mr. Barker put forth an exceptional challenge. However, with just a little understanding of the culture and writings of the day, this challenge was easily completed. I then went a step further and showed how all but one of Mr. Barker’s discrepancies were easily reconciled. With all this being done, I would respectfully submit that the Easter Challenge has not only been met, but surpassed.



I already did it. It wasn't really that bad.

[bernee51]

In conclusion, Mr. Barker put forth an exceptional challenge. However, with just a little understanding of the culture and writings of the day, this challenge was easily completed. I then went a step further and showed how all but one of Mr. Barker’s discrepancies were easily reconciled. With all this being done, I would respectfully submit that the Easter Challenge has not only been met, but surpassed.

Perhaps someone should let Mr Barker know. Defeated yet again in the wonderful sport of "hermeneutic gymnastics".

I already did it. It wasn't really that bad.

You already did it???

[Sleepy]

Perhaps someone should let Mr Barker know. Defeated yet again in the wonderful sport of "hermeneutic gymnastics".

Actually all I see is valid hereneutics

There is are nice summaries on the subject to be found online or some books you may wish to read on the subject.

Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation by Henry Virkler is a particularly good example.

[AB]

In Luke, Jesus was born during the Census when Cyrenius
was first govenor of Syria. This so happens to could only have occured after Juddah become part of the providence of Syria, and that happened at 6 CE.

Just to make sure I am clear. Is Cyrenius another name for Quirinius? Quirinius is who I read as governor of Syria at that time(Luke 2:2)

One is the greek writing of the name, the other the roman. Same person.

Awesome. I got to log off now. But, I am going to check this out and see the story. If there is a contradiction, I'll give it up to you.
Later.

This is very interesting. I didn't know about this Luke 2:2 dilema before. Although it really doesn't hit on any contradiction of the gospel, it does indicate that the author Luke may have mis-appointed when Jesus was born. Or better said, who was around doing during the time when Jesus was born... still not bridging into the Gospel.

However, it does refer to the FIRST census during Quirinius. So, there was more than one census with Quirinus. Also, Quirinius was in the area taking care of the homanadensians from 10bc to 7bc. Quirinius could very well of had control of the Syria area at that time and a census performed. Plus, the Luke writings do not indicate that Herod was not prevalent at that time.. story of John the Baptist birth Luke 1:5. So, it appears in Luke's stroy Herod and Quirinius are present during that time.

On the surface, it really appears there is a contradiction. But, this contradiction appears to be within the book of Luke.. since Luke is bringing Herod and Quirinius prevelant at the same point of time. But, given Quirinius's influence in the Syria region at the time of Herod, I can see this.

[AB]

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

OK here is a few - go to work...

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)

All indicate early in the morning. If they had watches and they were off a minute you would claim contradiction?? Funny
Next... quote]

[AB]

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

OK here is a few - go to work...

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)

All indicate early in the morning. If they had watches and they were off a minute you would claim contradiction?? Funny
Next... quote]

I cant believe I answered that. This is what you consider contradiction that in-validates?? Sorry. Doesnt' stack up.

Check out this writting by two different authors you refer to:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week... Matthew 28:1 (NIV)
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning.. Luke 24:1 (NIV)

Sorry, I don't see any contradiction.