• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Easter Challenge by Dan Barker

Let me put it this way:

The people close to Jesus - His disciples - were all experiencing duress, to say the least.
Not only do they fear for their lives, but they were also in confusion since their group is without its Leader.
On top of that, they suddenly had to contend with this event in the tomb, perhaps trying to come to grips as to what this might mean.
To say they could've been in panic-mode, is reasonable.

Surely you can cut them some slack for having differences in their account, considering the circumstances in the last 3 days.....
.....................when you can't even get your own argument straight considering you have all the time and luxury to read Matthew 28 -
and yet, you still messed up! :)

Except they did not write down their accounts at the time it happened. So they don't have the excuse that they panicked. Maybe memory problems is more like it. Or maybe they just made it up yo justify their beliefs.
 
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
  • Matthew: No (28:2)
  • Mark: Yes (16:4)
  • Luke: Yes (24:2)
  • John: Yes (20:1)

Corrections. Matthew 28: 1-4 says yes, it was already opened.


Okay, Drowning man......let me help you.



Jesus Has Risen

28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.


2 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.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.





The first line is an introduction to the narrative - explaining why the women were at the grave site.

Line 2-4 is like a flashback of what had happened BEFORE the women got to the grave site.


We don't know when exactly it happened, but it was before they got there. That revelation (info) was given to this particular author.
That's how the angle appeared to the guards!





5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.



Line 5, the angel's statement supports that. Obviously, when the women got to the grave site, they found the tomb opened, saw the angel,
and were concerned about the corpse of Jesus Christ.

The women did not seem as shaken by fear (compared to the guards who fainted away) at the sight of the angel - therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the fear these women had felt was in finding the tomb open, and seeing this stranger by the entrance.

If the women saw this angel the same way the guards did - you'd think they'd either be screaming at the very least, and running,
or maybe even fainting like the guards did! That's why it means, the women were not present when line 2-4 happened.


Anyway...

Wouldn't you feel fear for your own safety if you happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time - as in, catching a criminal
in the act of crime? The angel knew that, that's why he told them to be not afraid of him.

Line 6 shows the women have not gone inside the tomb yet, and didn't know His body was missing.
The angel invited them to go in, and see for themselves.



to be continued.....
 
Last edited:
Except they did not write down their accounts at the time it happened. So they don't have the excuse that they panicked.
Maybe memory problems is more like it. Or maybe they just made it up yo justify their beliefs.


No....they didn't write it down the moment it happened.....but considering the circumstances they're in - all the more reason why small details in their account vary! Don't forget too, the books they wrote each had its own theme, or focus. They also have their own style.

Not everyone gave a detailed account of the birth of Christ.
Does that mean it never happened? That they contradicted one another? NO!



Do all those small details negate the fact of the RESURRECTION? NO.

In fact, as being shown - a lot of those small details being critiqued by those who don't look at this objectively,
are coming from not understanding what they read.


They are blinded by their own prejudice that's why they're so quick to say,
"AHA! Gotcha!"
 
This Easter Challenge sounds like a good detective story!
What would Hercule Poirot make of this case?


More like a bumbling gumshoe Gadget ......definitely un-Columbo-like.
 
Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:


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)




When describing who rolled away the stone, the Gospel authors reported only one angel.
When describing who helped Jesus from the tomb, the Gospel authors reported two angels.

If I still had access to the eyewitnesses or their interviewers, I would definitely ask them to talk about the stone removal and the missing body in a more unified, consistent way, but like many of my cold cases, witnesses or interviewers are no longer available.
But if I could ask why a particular element is missing (either a description of who rolled the stone or who helped Jesus from the tomb),
I suspect the witness’ answer would be something akin to: “He never asked me!”

Each author addressed different questions and didn’t see a need to unify their description to match the others. This lack of effort to make the accounts match is yet another evidence, in my view, of their reliability.
As I said in my last post, when people have the opportunity to align their statements, yet still refuse to do so, I know I am getting the nuanced observations I need to properly investigate the case.
The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have even more confidence in the reliability of these accounts. They display the level of variation I would expect to see if they were true, reliable eyewitness descriptions.


There were two angels at the tomb of Jesus. One rolled away the stone. Both helped Jesus from the tomb. The Gospel accounts describe the angels in response to the specific questions and actions under consideration.
There is no contradiction in the New Testament accounts.






There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2).
The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12).
Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue and it isn’t the only one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one.

This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb.



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

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:


Take it from a real homicide detective:


In evaluating alleged “contradictions” of this nature, I think it’s important to remember a few overarching principles related to eyewitness testimony
(I describe many of these principles in my first book, Cold-Case Christianity).
Even though I accept and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, inerrancy is not required of reliable eyewitnesses.
In fact, I’ve never had a completely inerrant eyewitness in all my years as a homicide detective. In addition, I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime. Eyewitness reliability isn’t dependent upon perfection, but is instead established on the basis of a four part template I’ve described repeatedly in my book and on my website.

But beyond these generalities, much can be said specifically about the variations between the descriptions of the angels.

In the many supplemental interview reports I’ve read over the years as a cold case detective, I’ve come to learn an important principle: Eyewitness accounts are largely dependent upon the questions asked by the interviewer.
I’ll never forget one example of this. In a case from 1981, I reviewed three reports written by three different detectives who interviewed three separate witnesses. Two of these detectives had since passed away, so I couldn’t ask them about their interview process. But I observed an apparent contradiction in the witness accounts. One of the witnesses mentioned nothing about an important detail of the crime. It seemed to be a glaring discrepancy. When I located the witness and re-interviewed her, I asked her about her old observations and she immediately included the missing component. I then asked her why she hadn’t told this to the original detective who interviewed her. She had a simple answer: “He never asked me!” The first detective never specifically asked about the issue, so the witness never offered the information. Eyewitness testimony is often shaped by the kinds of questions asked by the interviewer.

 
No....they didn't write it down the moment it happened.....but considering the circumstances they're in - all the more reason why small details in their account vary! Don't forget too, the books they wrote each had its own theme, or focus. They also have their own style.

Not everyone gave a detailed account of the birth of Christ.
Does that mean it never happened? That they contradicted one another? NO!



Do all those small details negate the fact of the RESURRECTION? NO.

In fact, as being shown - a lot of those small details being critiqued by those who don't look at this objectively,
are coming from not understanding what they read.


They are blinded by their own prejudice that's why they're so quick to say,
"AHA! Gotcha!"

So panic is not the excuse for the differing versions, as you originally claimed. Keep on moving those goalposts.
 
So panic is not the excuse for the differing versions, as you originally claimed. Keep on moving those goalposts.





Read again.

No....they didn't write it down the moment it happened.....but considering the circumstances they're in - all the more reason why small details in their account vary!
Don't forget too, the books they wrote each had its own theme, or focus. They also have their own style.



Panic, could be................................... ONE OF THE MANY REASONS!
 
Read again.

No....they didn't write it down the moment it happened.....but considering the circumstances they're in - all the more reason why small details in their account vary!
Don't forget too, the books they wrote each had its own theme, or focus. They also have their own style.



Panic, could be................................... ONE OF THE MANY REASONS!

Keep the wheels on your goalposts. You are going to need them. Don't think they were panicking years afterward when the wrote the mythical stories.

As to the books, fiction written in different styles explains that.
 
Keep the wheels on your goalposts. You are going to need them.

You're obviously in desperate need of serious wheels right now!



Don't think they were panicking years afterward when the wrote the mythical stories.


Lol. David - THINK!

Where did they get what they wrote years afterwards? Their recollection from THOSE DAYS when they were in fear, and panicking.


And, speaking of years afterwards - that's another possible reason for any discrepancies in minor details (if there are any)!
What was Peter wearing that day? Did John shave? What color was Mary's veil? Who was it that yelled, "you've gotta be kidding me!"






As to the books, fiction written in different styles explains that.

:rolleyes:



Seems like you've read only one non-fiction in your life. 🤷

Non-fiction authors have different styles, too.




The 12 Non-Fiction Writing Styles for Authors



Looks like I'll have to ignore you again for now.....until you've got something worth responding to.
 
Last edited:
Btw....where did Drowning Man go?



All those blasts of detailed critiques - all critiques of the Bible for that matter
Kinda remind me of a shooting star! Fizzles out in the end.
Lucky if it lasts 10 seconds. Shooting star, that is.
 
Last edited:
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)


I don't want to be too redundant. Kindly review previous answers.

After everything that has been explained -
all these petty questions actually reveal more about......................................... the person asking them.
 
You're obviously in desperate need of serious wheels right now!






Lol. David - THINK!

Where did they get what they wrote years afterwards? Their recollection from THOSE DAYS when they were in fear, and panicking.


And, speaking of years afterwards - that's another possible reason for any discrepancies in minor details (if there are any)!
What was Peter wearing that day? Did John shave? What color was Mary's veil? Who was it that yelled, "you've gotta be kidding me!"

Seems like you've read only one non-fiction in your life. 🤷

Non-fiction authors have different styles, too.




The 12 Non-Fiction Writing Styles for Authors



Looks like I'll have to ignore you again for now.....until you've got something worth responding to.

So now you offer more excuses which are actually reasons to doubt the veracity of any of the stories in the bible.
 
Back
Top Bottom