Dan Barker's Easter Challenge

[Aggie]

An interesting link here.  Dan Barker is asking for:

 

"My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born."

 

He has an interesting list of bible discrepancies which the resurrection accounts are famous for...

 

http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/20393-leave-no-stone-unturned-an-easter-challenge-for-christians

[ironhorse]

The fact that there are minor discrepancies in the four Gospel narratives

was known by early scribes who copied the manuscripts during the early centuries

of the faith. They could have easily edited them to harmonize completely, but they didn't.

 

If the four gospels today were in complete agreement, skeptics would take the view

that this 'harmony' is evidence the writers conspired together and fabricated the story.

[Kris]

Ugh-- you keep saying minor discrepancies! These ain't minor!! Remember--- this is supposed to be the inerrant work of god. There shouldn't be any mistakes!! I bet you would rip apart these types of "minor changes" in the Koran!

[mymistake]

The fact that there are minor discrepancies in the four Gospel narratives

was known by early scribes who copied the manuscripts during the early centuries

of the faith. They could have easily edited them to harmonize completely, but they didn't.

 

If the four gospels today were in complete agreement, skeptics would take the view

that this 'harmony' is evidence the writers conspired together and fabricated the story.

 

 

Luke and Acts say that the disciples did not leave Jerusalem.

 

John says the disciples went to Galilee.

 

Of course this is a major discrepancy because one fiction was written so the Church in Galilee could call the church in Jerusalem false.  And the other fiction was written so the church in Jerusalem could do the same thing to the church in Galilee.

 

The book of Luke says that the disciples were preaching the Good News when Jesus was still alive.  That means the disciples knew the Good News when Jesus was still alive.  John says that the disciples didn't understand the gospel until after Jesus rose from the dead.  If they can't agree on the meaning of Good News how can this be minor?

 

And of course nearly every book of the Bible gives a different answer on what one must do in order to be saved.  That is because these books were written for different religions.  Each religion had a different path to salvation.  Are you going to tell us that the very theme of the book is a minor detail?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The fact that there are minor discrepancies in the four Gospel narratives

was known by early scribes who copied the manuscripts during the early centuries

of the faith. They could have easily edited them to harmonize completely, but they didn't.

 

If the four gospels today were in complete agreement, skeptics would take the view

that this 'harmony' is evidence the writers conspired together and fabricated the story.

Skeptics today take the view that the only reason those particular gospels were canonized as opposed to such gospels as that of Thomas, Judas, or the wife of jesus, is because those particular four gospels didn't disagree with one another quite as often as they did the others.  The fact that they do disagree, though, is proof enough that they were not divinely inspired.

[Aggie]

The fact that there are minor discrepancies in the four Gospel narratives

was known by early scribes who copied the manuscripts during the early centuries

of the faith. They could have easily edited them to harmonize completely, but they didn't.

 

If the four gospels today were in complete agreement, skeptics would take the view

that this 'harmony' is evidence the writers conspired together and fabricated the story.

 

Ironhorse,

 

I admire your tenacity.  A few thoughts.

 

(1) Early scribes did harmonize the gospels sometimes.  That's one reason for all the junk in the textual transmission process (they either deliberately or accidentally harmonized). Also, Tatian actually composed a gospel harmony in the 2nd century called the Diatesseron that some early Christians regarded as Scripture.  (This was not the only gospel harmony that was made btw).

 

(2) The gospel accounts give some indication that later versions were trying to "correct" earlier versions.  Luke 1:1 itself mentions how "many" had attempted to "set down an orderly account"-- it seems he wants to make sure that Theophilus isn't getting any bad info (which would suggest that there were some bad accounts out there in Luke's opinion).  Studying the differences in Luke and the other Synoptics is very interesting I think.

 

(3) The early Christians argued over which Gospel(s) was/were the accurate ones.  Some favored one or another of the four.  Many in Rome didn't like John.  Church father Papias thought that Mark was generally correct but out of order.  Ireneaus mentioned that some Ebionites approved of Matthew only.  Some Jewish Christians only accepted the Gospel According to the Hebrews and thought that you also had to obey the Law to be saved.  Some gnostic Christians had other gospels altogether-- some asserting that proto-orthodox believers were ridiculous to be so literal-minded in their faith.

 

(4) Bart Ehrman asked these questions-- all of which I think are good ones:

“It would be wrong, however, to say—as some people do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them.  … Was Jesus an angry man?  Was he completely distraught in the face of death?  Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed?  Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild-mannered warning?  Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament?  Is Jesus actually called the “unique God” there?  Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come?  The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us.” 

 

(5) Ancient skeptics also noticed the discrepancies in the stories.  Men like Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and Galen had some very modern-sounding criticisms of the gospels.  IMO, this is not an issue of post-modern hyper-skepticism.

 

(6) If you admit what I think is inescapable-- that there are real differences in order and content in the gospels-- then you have to ask the hard follow-up questions:

• How do you know you have the "inspired" gospel or gospels?  Has the devil got in the details?
• Which gospel has the correct order of events?  Do any of them?
• Which stories are genuine to the life of Jesus and which are spurious?
• Which stories are partially true but wrong on details?  Couldn't the incorrect transmission of a couple words in places totally distort a doctrine?  Especially as the words are going from Christ's Aramaic to koine Greek before translated into English?
• If "God's books" have mistakes, then how does that affect how you view them?  how you trust them?
• How major can these mistakes be?  How much can they affect doctrine?
• If a pure "spiritual transmission" is what we are looking for, why should we not trust the Qu'ran's version of Jesus?  Or Joseph Smith's?  Or some other modern visionary?  Why would a perfect, all-knowing God be bound up in such an imperfect and sloppy transmission process??

(6) With the Synoptics at least, there is ample evidence that there was deliberate borrowing (and deliberately not-borrowing) of textual information.  The old Josh McDowell type apologetic of "independent eyewitnesses" doesn't work-- the gospels are anonymous, they report accounts that even no one would have witnessed (private conversations, etc), and Luke isn't an eyewitness no matter which way you slice it.

 

(7) Lastly (as Barker notes), when you have amazing stories that are fuzzy on details, doesn't that give you more cause to be skeptical of the basics of the stories themselves?  Can you say that since the details (at least) are fuzzy, maybe it's not quite right to have eternal consequences riding on one's interpretation or understanding of what the stories mean?  We can debate to what extent King Arthur, or the Buddha, or Zoroaster, or Socrates were historical figures.  But if you're wrong about their significance should you be tortured in hell?  (Some would say that's the case with the Buddha or Zoroaster btw...)

[Roz]

I'm betting 7000 sacrificial oxen, 5000 sacrificial lambs, 10,000 sacrificial doves, and 1 easter bunny that Ironhorse won't ever answer Aggie's questions.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm betting 7000 sacrificial oxen, 5000 sacrificial lambs, 10,000 sacrificial doves, and 1 easter bunny that Ironhorse won't ever answer Aggie's questions.

I'll see your bet, and raise you 8,000 unblemished goats, 14,000 Amalekite girls who have never known a man, 30 pieces of silver, and one authentic Son of Man.

[mymistake]

I want in on this.  I've got a dragon with seven heads and ten horns.  I've got a flying sword that turns this way and that.  I've got a floating wheel that is a wheel within a wheel.  I've got a small heard of beomoths and a full grown leviathan.  Last but not least, I offer up the seven bowls that hold the woes that will destroy Earth at the end of time.

 

All of it says Ironhorse will pretend to respond but only give "happy rainbow" style answers.

[ironhorse]

I guess you guys can collect on your bets. At the moment I am not going to answer any of the questions

posted by Aggie. Not to dismiss the questions or the motive, but there are dozens of sites online that deal

with these discrepancies. These discrepancies do not alter or conflict with the basic tenants of the Christian

faith. This why I view them as minor. The message is what I see as major.

 

The devil it seems is in the details for the skeptics here.

 

The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God. Each writer maintained their writing

style and vantage point. For a collection of 66 books written many centuries apart they convey a

distinct record of God's revelation and message to us.

 

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." ~2 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

 

 

"That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God."

 

~S.R. Driver 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God. Each writer maintained their writing

style and vantage point. For a collection of 66 books written many centuries apart they convey a

distinct record of God's revelation and message to us.

 

 

Why would god make his message so unclear?

[ironhorse]

 

 

The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God. Each writer maintained their writing

style and vantage point. For a collection of 66 books written many centuries apart they convey a

distinct record of God's revelation and message to us.

 

 

Why would god make his message so unclear?

 

 

 

I don't think the message is unclear. I don't understand every verse

or know the answer to every question but I believe the central message.

 

I've thought before on how to say this with only a few sentences.

Herman Bavinck, a Dutch theologian, summed it up in one sentence.

"God the Father has reconciled His created but fallen world through the death of His Son, and renews it into a Kingdom of God by His Spirit.

[Thought2Much]

"God the Father has reconciled His created but fallen world through the death of His Son, and renews it into a Kingdom of God by His Spirit.

 

This... doesn't actually mean anything. It's nothing more than Christian deepity.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God. Each writer maintained their writing

style and vantage point. For a collection of 66 books written many centuries apart they convey a

distinct record of God's revelation and message to us.

 

 

Why would god make his message so unclear?

 

 

 

I don't think the message is unclear. I don't understand every verse

or know the answer to every question but I believe the central message.

 

I guess that's why you and I are so different.  I don't accept the central message of something when I have areas of uncertainty sitting off to the side.  When I have questions I have an inner drive to find answers to the best of my ability.  I lacked this drive when I was a christian.  I was satisfied with the explanations I was told by others.

[Aggie]

I guess you guys can collect on your bets. At the moment I am not going to answer any of the questions

posted by Aggie. Not to dismiss the questions or the motive, but there are dozens of sites online that deal

with these discrepancies. These discrepancies do not alter or conflict with the basic tenants of the Christian

faith. This why I view them as minor. The message is what I see as major.

 

The devil it seems is in the details for the skeptics here.

 

The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God. Each writer maintained their writing

style and vantage point. For a collection of 66 books written many centuries apart they convey a

distinct record of God's revelation and message to us.

 

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." ~2 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

 

 

"That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God."

 

~S.R. Driver 

 

Ironhorse,

 

I'd say that your post overlooked a few things.  My thought is that even minor discrepancies help show how major the problems are.

 

First, there is not Christian agreement on the canon, both now or historically.  Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestant groups have different lists.  This Ethiopian Orthodox list has 81 books: http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html  The Council of Trent would declare you damned for rejecting the Apocrypha-- so make sure you're right here on your number!  Also, historically there have been arguments over the lists even among "catholic" circles-- as Eusebius noted in the 4th century:

 

"Among the disputed books, although they are known and approved by many, is reputed, that called the Epistle of James and Jude.  Also the Second Epistle of Peter and those called Second and Third of John ... Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, the Revelation of John, which some, as before said, reject but others rank among the genuine.  … There are also some who number among [the spurious] the gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have received Christ are particularly delighted."

 

Your view of inspiration is just one among many.  It's better than some because it does allow for some error, but it still does nothing to address how you would show one list of books to be inspired over another.  How do you, a sinful man, decide what to include?  Do you put yourself over the Ethiopian Orthodox Fathers?  Are you wiser than the Council of Trent?   Are you more spiritual than St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who didn't accept Revelation?  Think of what spiritual errors you could be making.  St. Augustine thought it was important to pray for the dead, as is so clearly laid out in 2 Macc. 12:

 

"For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."

 

Plus, even after agreeing on a list of books it does nothing to show how to interpret them. Tertullian, at least before his Montanist "apostasy," would have asserted that you were disconnected from the Catholic Church (Christ's only Church) and were not holding to the rule of faith, and so your scriptural interpretations could be ignored.  According to Tertullian, the Bible does not belong to you:

 

"Accordingly, we oppose to them [the heretics] this step above all others, of not admitting them to a discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the usage."

 

Of course, you would also have to explain what "the basic tenets of the Christian faith" actually are.  A couple words or a phrase can turn you into a heretic here so be careful.  If you believe in "justification by faith" or "justification by faith alone" there are problems for you by huge portions of Christendom.  (By the way, Protestants here-- who usually regard this as a central tenet of the faith-- are very much in the minority today and there were no supporters of this doctrine before the Reformation.)  If you believe or disbelieve that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (filioque) there are problems for you.  If you believe that the Son is of similar substance to the Father (homoiousios) or the same substance of the Father (homoousios), there are problems for you.  Catholics and Orthodox hold the Real Presence of the Eucharist as central to the Christian life, etc. etc.  You may think that the justification by faith alone controversy, the filioque controversy, the Arian controversy, or eucharistic doctrines are not central to the faith-- many, many would disagree with you.

 

And a last thought... Even if you take books that most major Christian groups have accepted, it doesn't account for the extremely unlikely parts in them.  Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish?  Do axeheads float?  Do donkeys talk?  Did God really swallow up people in the earth for disobedience?  Did Jesus walk on water?  Was the Red Sea parted?  Was Elijah taken up into heaven?  I'd say the problem goes like this: we know there are errors in the books, there is disagreement about which books to choose, and the books have fantastic stories.  

 

Isn't skepticism just a reasonable reaction?

[Ousian]

I don't think the message is unclear. I don't understand every verse or know the answer to every question but I believe the central message.

 

If you presume the Bible to be God-inspired and inerrant, as per 2 Timothy 3:16, then the inherent subjectivity is a problem.  I don't doubt you think the message is clear.  I'm sure most Christians would say the same thing.  I would have too, a year ago.  I'm sure you've heard this before, but the fact that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations should cause some question.  If the Bible truly is God's principle means of revealing his truth to mankind, why is that truth so subjectively open to interpretation?  

 

I am referring to more than the minor details as well.  Christians disagree on some of the most important doctrines, including infant baptism, works vs faith based salvation, etc.

[♦ ficino ♦]

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." ~2 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

 

 

"That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God."

 

~S.R. Driver

I join others in my response to the above. Driver's last sentence is just an assertion. Once you drop infallibility and inerrancy, what are you left with? Fallible and errant. If the scriptures err in matters where they can be tested, there is no reason to follow them on doctrine or morals, where they cannot be tested.

[mymistake]

I guess you guys can collect on your bets. At the moment I am not going to answer any of the questions

posted by Aggie. Not to dismiss the questions or the motive, but there are dozens of sites online that deal

with these discrepancies. These discrepancies do not alter or conflict with the basic tenants of the Christian

faith. This why I view them as minor. The message is what I see as major.

 

 

 

Got it.  

 

Salvation is NOT a basic tenant of the Christian faith.

 

What one must do to be saved is NOT a basic tenant of the Christian faith.

 

The nature of Jesus is NOT a basic tenant of the Christian faith.

 

The nature of God is NOT a basic tenant of the Christian faith.

 

 

The message of the Bible is physical geography and political geography.  You know, it's the part of the Bible that does not contradict itself.

 

 

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." ~2 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

 

-Said some anonymous guy who knew he was breaking one of the Ten Commandments when he lied and claimed to be Paul.  But since the lie was turned into scripture by Rome that means sometimes lies are inspired by God and useful to teach what is true . . . blah blah blah

[Aggie]

 

"God the Father has reconciled His created but fallen world through the death of His Son, and renews it into a Kingdom of God by His Spirit.

 

This... doesn't actually mean anything. It's nothing more than Christian deepity.

 

 

"Christian deeply" -- good phrase.  This summary reminds me of a great ex-C thread just recently.  My summary of the gospel was "God, who hates human sacrifice, sacrificed Himself as a human to appease himself since the people He had cursed were acting like accursed people."  Christian formulations can sound rather poetic at times but when you step back they often seem to not mean anything at all.

 

Perhaps it's just that we have the wrong religion's inspired texts!  The great Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrians clearly inspired their Creed which asserts it to be "of all faiths which are and shall be the greatest, the best, the fairest..."  I'm sure that Zorastrianism has no problems relating to fantastic stories, contradictory and dubious assertions, or problematic canonical transmission and selection...

 

Thank goodness for ex-C!  I get so little chance to unload in polite company...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I guess you guys can collect on your bets. At the moment I am not going to answer any of the questions

posted by Aggie. Not to dismiss the questions or the motive, but there are dozens of sites online that deal

with these discrepancies. These discrepancies do not alter or conflict with the basic tenants of the Christian

faith. This why I view them as minor. The message is what I see as major.

 

The devil it seems is in the details for the skeptics here.

 

The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God. Each writer maintained their writing

style and vantage point. For a collection of 66 books written many centuries apart they convey a

distinct record of God's revelation and message to us.

 

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." ~2 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

 

 

"That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God."

 

~S.R. Driver 

He's parked his Iron Horse just inside of Dodge City.  I guess you really can't have genuine dialogue with some folks.

[amateur]

"The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God." -- ironhorse

 

That kills it for me right there.  If god wanted to be clear, he WOULD have dictated it word for word, simply and clearly, to one intelligent person, and with no contradictions.  Or better yet, god would have just made a complete, succinct, perfect bible appear which would have made sense to everybody hearing it or reading it.

 

But no....

[mymistake]

A blogger has already put some work into this question:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-4/

 

"The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other gospels)."

 

It goes on to list many more.

[BrotherJosh]

 

http://www.nonstampcollector.com/1/post/2014/04/the-most-sensible-explanation.html

[ironhorse]

"The scriptures were not dictated word for word by God." -- ironhorse

 

That kills it for me right there.  If god wanted to be clear, he WOULD have dictated it word for word, simply and clearly, to one intelligent person, and with no contradictions.  Or better yet, god would have just made a complete, succinct, perfect bible appear which would have made sense to everybody hearing it or reading it.

 

But no....

 

 

I'm just the opposite. I'm glad God did not throw golden plates from the sky

all perfect and shiny.

 

He chose people to help tell the story and message. I agree, it makes things

a bit messy at times, but the message got through.

[Roz]

Meaning he's glad the message was unclear, so humans maimed, tortured, executed, raped, terrorized, and hated other humans because their beliefs about god aren't shared by the others.

 

God is good, and you're a good little nazi schutze aren't you.