Dan Barkers "Easter Challenge"

[Reach]

I tried to edit Yoyo's quotes. Please let me know if I missed something.

 

Yoyo... to check the correct way to do quotes, you might try using the edit function; look at one of your posts I edited and just look at the way the quotes should be done. You can back out or close the browser without changing a thing, but hopefully you'll see the information you've missed and you won't continue making these confusing mistakes.

 

As mentioned, there is a ten quote limit for the quote function to work properly so exceed the limit at your own peril.

[Kay]

Would anyone be able to truly provide the accurate story?

 

Err...if you claim that yours is the one god to the exclusion of all others, and that yours is the one truth, to the exclusion of all others, then yeah, I would expect the one god of the universe to be able to get something as critical as the account of the evidence of his existence right. I mean, given there's no physical evidence of god, we have to rely on records, and if the records are unreliable, how on earth can any Christian make the claim that their god is the one true god and the same with their truth?

 

Bottom line is - if I'm going to have to give up my free will, lose half my freedoms and succumb to conditioning, it'd better be something that's concretely proven. Hearsay and contradictory accounts only makes me scorn those who insist that such hearsay and contradictory accounts is truth and something that I should throw my heart and soul behind.

[Zach]

YoYo-

 

Dan Barker's Challenge is, obviously, directed toward fundamentalist Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy. If you don't subscribe to that particular bit of dogma, more's the better.

[Reach]

yoyo, how come lokmer's post to you rated a response and mine didn't?  I know i'm quite an attention whore...but it's irksome to spend time on a post and then be totally ignored, while you respond to other people.

 

Guys...is there something repellent about me?

You call yourself "quite an attention whore." Noting that, could it be that that behavior turns people off?

 

The pattern I've come to see is that your name indicates you're a female and I've noticed that the majority of the Christian males who come here and post ignore women posters, for the most part, or at best, try to avoid us as much as they can. Why is that? It would be one thing if they showed a slight tendency to do this but worse than that, they show a propensity for this behavior. It's highly insulting to people of intelligence from both genders.

 

I am of the belief that this is a strong indicator of personal integrity of which they are sorely lacking. Also, some men are afraid of women and I think they have not dealt with the real reasons for finding us intimidating.

[Lokmer]

The pattern I've come to see is that your name indicates you're a female and I've noticed that the majority of the Christian males who come here and post ignore women posters, for the most part, or at best, try to avoid us as much as they can. Why is that? It would be one thing if they showed a slight tendency to do this but worse than that, they show a propensity for this behavior. It's highly insulting to people of intelligence from both genders.

 

I've noticed that too - it's deeply irksome. And, I'm sure, moreso to you ladies who actually have to experience it than it is to me, as a man, who simply observes it happening.

 

The terrible truth is that Christian men - even broad-minded, fairly liberal Christian men - are accostomed to not taking women seriously and viewing them with a certain amount of patronizing superiority. Even being who I am, surrounded by intelligent women from a young age and preferring the company of women, can hear the dying gasps of the patriarchal voice echoing from its grave in the back of my psyche. It's not the daily struggle that it was eight or nine years ago, thankfully. But I do remember, as a Christian, thinking how fascinating it was to watch how uncomfortable Christian "feminists" (self-proclaimed) were when they found out that I was working with women (having two as co-producers, one as a cowriter, and several as business partners in one way or another). The unspoken (but LOUDLY CLEAR) assumption was that the women I was working with were just killing time until they had children and/or were trying to take advantage of me for a professional leg-up now that their children were grown and gone. It's very, very sick, and not the least bit nauseating.

 

Bottom line, Christianity teaches that women are foolish and weak and not to be regarded seriously as an authority on much of anything, and that attitude is acidic and corrosive, infecting even most of the progressive and egalitarian-minded men who were raised in the church.

 

 

I am of the belief that this is a strong indicator of personal integrity of which they are sorely lacking. Also, some men are afraid of women and I think they have not dealt with the real reasons for finding us intimidating.

 

Amen to that! Actually, I've found that MOST men are afraid of women. It's actually refreshing to come here where that is less often the case. And the terrible irony is that the fear of women is actually most often a man's fear of his own sexuality and his own desires. It's easier to blame the woman for the butterflies in his stomach, for the feeling of being a little high and out of control, than it is to take responsibility for his own actions and the way he treats people.

 

So sad

 

And disgusting!

 

"Men aren't from Mars and Women from Venus. We're both from Earth, and we'd be a lot happier if we acted like it and treated one another as human beings."

-Lokmer

[Ouroboros]

Now lets say that members 1 2 3 wrote a story about the events(1yr after)

Lets say that 4 5 6 7  wrote a story about the events(5 yrs later)

Lets say that 8 9 10 wrote a story about the events (20yrs later)

 

Lets say that some varity of these members before the writting of events in the future had contact and some have not. Lets say at the "time of the writtings",  they had no contact "documented" from each other in there writtings.

 

Are their storys going to be considered "myth" events?

 

The text might be very different based upon the scene of eachs mind, but would the writtings  "basic what happened" be correct.

 

Also, what if in the same sequence the members wrote a Biography based on the persons life and death, Would these be considered "untrue" to people that didnt know them at all and read the writtings.

 

The point is that there are many writting and testimonies about many people, but the main suggestion is that the stories developed are their testimonies.

 

Are these writtings of Family A going to adhere to each others in perfect accordance?

 

No, of course not. But that doesnt make the story untrue.

 

Dan Barkers Easter Challenge

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

 

Your right in the essence that they would differ in details and sometimes even in bigger picture. Like the dispute would be if the kitchen was 50 sq.ft, or 100 sq.ft, but would one say that they were in the house when the fire started and the other say they were traveling and not home at all? In court this wouldn't be proof enough for anything. Certain parts would have to be common knowledge between them.

 

Besides this family didn't get help from God to write their testimonies, and the documents would not become the most important document for mankind, or being the book of all books that are totally infallible and the one and only guide to salvation or you will go to hell, kind of book.

 

What you brought up, is the exact reason why a lot of people doubt that the Bible is the word of God. It's only based on peoples faulty recapturing of distant events.

 

The Bible doesn't have enough standing to even be allowed in court. If the argument that "their stories will be totally different, therefore they must be true", doesn't hold water.

 

You can believe Jesus died on a cross if you will, but still the stories around the event make it very suspicious, considering the spectators couldn't even remember if they were in Jerusalem or in Bethlehem when certain events took place.

 

I'm sure if my house burnt down, I would remember where I was at that moment I got the news.

 

Like 9/11, I can still remember what I did and where I was, and so can many other people. Compare this to the greatest event in human mankind. It was the death and resurrection of the Son of God, none the less. And you can't remember if you gathered in the city or in the country side. You can't remember if you were alone of if you had a bunch of people with you. You can't remember if you saw an angel or two angels or none at all. And so on.

 

I can understand if the Bible can't agree on if they shoes were leather or fabric, which would be irrelevant information, but if angels said something important of if he was quiet, is somewhat important, considering he spoke words from God.

 

What about thunder, earthquakes and dead people walking on the street that was reported? Wasn’t that event extreme enough, to remember? I would. If I've seen dead people walking down the street like zombies, and preaching that God has resurrected the Son of God, Jesus the one you crucified, I would for sure remember that until I died. And not only that I would write, not one, but 100 books about it, because it would be so amazing. So why only a handful people wrote it, many years later, sounds to me that the event wasn't that astounding after all, and the story was made to sound bigger than it was, or maybe even didn't happen at all.

[Ouroboros]

yoyo,

 

how come lokmer's post to you rated a response and mine didn't?  I know i'm quite an attention whore...but it's irksome to spend time on a post and then be totally ignored, while you respond to other people.

 

Guys...is there something repellent about me?

 

 

No, there is nothing repellent about you.

 

I think Zoe sounds 53xy.

 

More on a serious note, religous guys can be very insecure, but act as they know everything. I know I did.

 

And maybe we just don't want to get into a discussion with women, because we know we'll loose anyway... even when we know we're right

[NorthenSun]

I would cut YoYo a little slack on being able to respond to everyone. After all even Custer had trouble shooting back at all the Indians when he was surrounded by over 10 to one.

 

As for western religion (Jewish, Christian, Islamic) in general, it does seem to me thay they tend to be much more oriented toward reigning in excessive male behavior than controlling the more limited transgressions committed by women. The Islamic books talk about rewards of 72 virgins for male martyrs but mention little about compensation for women's sacrifice.

 

I just watched the movie Kingdom of Heaven which is over two hours of men slaughtering men for various reasons: religion, power, greed, land. Somehow I think women would have been smarter than spending over two centuries fighting over a sun baked pile of rocks (Jerusalem), had they been in power.

 

I don't want to stereotype too much, but sometimes I think women just "go along to get along". Maybe Christianity would die out if women stopped going to church and cooking all those delicious casserole dishes for the pot luck dinners after the service.

[Mr. Neil]

The pattern I've come to see is that your name indicates you're a female and I've noticed that the majority of the Christian males who come here and post ignore women posters, for the most part, or at best, try to avoid us as much as they can. Why is that?

I have to assume that's a facetious question, because you know exactly why Christian males do that.

 

skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

 

 

Yes, I know that's a cheap shot, but there's also some truth to that. And unfortunately, it's not just the Christian men who gloss over the intellectual prowess of women.

 

I was watching the news when the new Pope was selected, and I saw a woman who literally said that women aren't fit for priesthood, endorsing the very discrimination that her religion has against her own gender. The fact that women in Christian communities actually reflect what their dogma tells them is one of the most tragic effects of theism. They're brought up to think that they're inferior, so they reflect that. As a result, you see less female scientists, engineers, and programmers, and these are fields that we actually need them in.

 

Have you noticed that secularism erases the lines between the genders? There is no atheist male that I know of who values the opinion of a woman less than the opinion of a man. You just don't see it.

[Cynical Realist]

He also claimed to be the Christ in all accounts to Pilate and even the Bold statement ofbefore Abraham, I am, when questioned.

 

 

I always found this to be rather fascinating. The whole give and take between Jesus and Pilate. I'm curious as to who was there to record this conversation? Which apostle heard this taking place? Same thing goes for the conversation between Jesus and Satan in the desert. It was just them two there.

 

I smell bullshit.

[Ouroboros]

I always found this to be rather fascinating.  The whole give and take between Jesus and Pilate.  I'm curious as to who was there to record this conversation?  Which apostle heard this taking place?  Same thing goes for the conversation between Jesus and Satan in the desert.  It was just them two there. 

 

I smell bullshit.

 

It was the talking donkey from the old testament, he saw it and told the disciples afterward, that ass.

[Cynical Realist]

It was the talking donkey from the old testament, he saw it and told the disciples afterward, that ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You know that makes about as much sense as the explanation I would get from a Christian. I guess I'll put my faith in that then.

[Matthew]

I love you atheist men.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I love atheist women!

 

Matthew

[Matthew]

There's precious little I can say in a thread like this that Lokmer hadn't already addressed. But I have a hard time taking "YoYo" seriously because he seems to highly admire Jason Gastrich. I find it impossible to take that guy seriously. It's like reasoning with a Kent Hovind disciple. It's just something I avoid.

 

Matthew

[Mr. Neil]

But I have a hard time taking "YoYo" seriously because he seems to highly admire Jason Gastrich.

Really? I thought YoYo's intellect was closer to that of blueeyeliner. Jason's arguments are just bad enough that I can trace his faulty logic to its source and use it against him, but I see YoYo's posts and I'm exasperated.

 

I can't believe some of the things that person has tried to pass off as an argument. I've never seen anyone so passive in dealing with conflicting accounts of the same event. Did you see how YoYo "handled" the contradiction of Judas' death? Two entirely different stories depicting the events leading up to Judas' death, and YoYo's entire answer was to say that different authors knew Judas in different ways.

 

I mean, what do you say to something like that? I mean, besides "You're a moron".

[Matthew]

There are some fascinating observations made by Lokmer that I would like further clarification on, if Lokmer doesn't mind.

 

They do not agree about whether Jesus taught publically or in secret, whether he did signs and wonders or declined to do so, whether he claimed to be God or merely dodged the question, whether he was a hypcrite and a liar or a fine, upstanding guy.  They disagree on the length of his ministry, the place of his birth, the nature of his divinity (was he God from the start of all time, was he a part of God incarnated into a body at birth, or did God adopt him at his Baptism?).  I could go on - and these are NOT trivial details, these are major matters that characterize him as a person, and they are irreconcilable (I know, I've tried!).

 

I have tried as well to reconcile many of these. What about the first of them? Where does one or more gospel say that Jesus taught publically as opposed to another gospel or so which says that he did so in secret? Where does Jesus seemed to have dodged the divinity question? As for the length of his ministry, I am not all that certain that the synoptics mean to imply that it was one year. Only one Passover is mentioned in the Synoptics while three are mentioned in John so at best, it seems to me, that the synoptics establish a lower limit while John seems to establish an upper limit in terms of how many years Jesus' ministry is said to have lasted.

 

Would you agree with me that some texts which are said to go back to St. Paul himself seem to have an adoptionist slant? Romans, if I am not mistaken, seems to suggest that Jesus was made the Messiah upon his resurrection. Then there is the Philippian creed, and if Couchoud is right about it, it would seem to suggest that the name of Jesus was not given to him until after he ascended which, if it was the belief of St. Paul and some of the earliest Christians, then there was no man named Jesus here on earth. Price seems to suggest this in his conclusion of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

 

Did he ascend into heaven or didn't he?

 

Just curiously, what is there to suggest that he may not have ascended ?

 

Thanks Lokmer!

 

Matthew

[Matthew]

I can't believe some of the things that person has tried to pass off as an argument.  I've never seen anyone so passive in dealing with conflicting accounts of the same event.  Did you see how YoYo "handled" the contradiction of Judas' death?  Two entirely different stories depicting the events leading up to Judas' death, and YoYo's entire answer was to say that different authors knew Judas in different ways.

 

Neil,

 

I am very much inclined to agree with you. I share your incredulty that some people can actually resort to these kinds of lame excuses. I believe that Matthew and Acts both give very conflicting stories of Judas' death that can be reconciled only torturously. It really takes a stretch to bend the two together. But, even if they could be successfully meshed, what do you do with the irreconciable difference of how the Field of Blood was named?

 

I am reminded of the contradiction between the synoptics over the death of Jairus's daughter. With some imagination the gospels can be reconciled on this point but it gets ludicrous when trying to reconcile events further down the road in the same pericope here. IIRC, Matthew has the women trying to touch the cloak of Jesus but Jesus turns and sees her before she can touch him and she isn't healed until after Jesus says something whereas in another gospel, the woman touches Jesus, and poor Jesus is almost dumbstruck as all these people are pressing against him and finally the woman throws herself in front of Jesus like a drama queen and confesses to Jesus that she was the one who touched him and stole his power as if she were Rouge of the X-Men.

 

Last but not the least, even if all these details could be reconciled by some wild and crazy hermeneutical sleight of hand, Jesus seems to have been mistaken. The text says that the crowd knew she was dead, and Jesus says that she's not dead but asleep and Jesus says that magic command and her spirit returns to her (WTF? You mean her spirit left her body and she was dead after all? Go figure)

 

Matthew

[Outsider2]

Lokmer,

 

 

 

Not much else can be said. That was a great read!

[- AUB -]

Yoyo, though you've probably left, here's a dissection of your response to my post.

 

I respect your writting of the Gospels and Im sure that it will be of good craftsmanship. I do although want to say that for every single paragraph that is in your writtings, there will be someone waiting to disprove the logic and try to discredit it.

 

Of course there will, using reasoning so weak and logic so flawed that only desperate and deluded theists will find them convincing. I know it’s hopeless to change the minds of the xtians who are really damaged goods, but at least the facts will be out.

 

This in retrospect to the veiws that are being discredited on the other side.

 

No, each sides sees each other being discredited, but only one side is really losing, the other is lying, cheating, and self deceiving, so they think they have a case. By the standards of logic and evidence the bible is bunk, by the standards of faith and fallacy, it is true, the later opinion is invalid by the methods it relies upon to remain true in the minds of believers. This is objective fact, but the subjective will never agree, as long as the I remain true the objective reality then all the lies in the world will not change anything, this is not a matter of opinion but who respect facts, and who runs away from them.

 

This is an ongoing war of whos right and whos wrong. In all honesty, we cant prove anything, other than variation,

 

You are wrong, variation is only the beginning, we can show the gospels “borrow” elements, names, locations and events off Josephus and other sources, and piece together the likely motives from the historical context that go far further in explaining the gospel’s content then any apologist. Its called explanatory power, we have the greater amount, making our position more likely to be true. Passages that have confused xtians for centuries we can explain as being a product of a theological agenda mixed with other work of the period, work that provided the details to everything from Paul’s prison visitors in Acts to Jesus’s miracles. Our explanations cover the facts, the theistic ones will rely entirely of faith, we will be right, but disbelieved due to bias. We can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a great deal, as the plagiarism of the gospels can be shown categorically, but no amount of proof with change a believer’s delusions. Both within a realm of logic and reason we will succeed, that there will be those who still disagree is irrelevant as there opinions are not based on anything reasonable but pure blind desperation.

 

 

and the POV for me is that even if the scripture was in complete alliance with each other, there would be a different route of disproof.

 

That does not negate the fact that they are not, ignoring the problem because there are others does not change the fact that the degree of disagreement is more than enough to rule out the possibility that the gospels are either divinely inspired or eye witness accounts.

 

For example, I have heard many againist the proclaims of the Bible say that the religious leaders in early 300-400AD's to have "revised the Bible and picked the Books, stories, and passages for there satisfaction" in ultimate decievment of the true word.

 

That they did that is a matter of historical record, however the changes where trivial, the origin of the gospels is the main proof against them. You believe the council of Nicea’s voting pattern was a product of divine will? Just study that period, don’t just dismiss what we say about it, see for yourself.

[- AUB -]

Either way it goes there will always be a debate.

 

 

Only because there are people who will never except facts, not because there is anything to really debate about. We can prove the gospel writers where not Jewish, we can prove they were never in Judea, we can prove they where writing after 74 AD, and that they stole their material from other sources, the evidence is un-surmountable, but xtians simply ignore it.

 

My purpose of this is to bring forth a different veiw(similar to finding the truth proclaimed often to me) of ones open minded,

 

What you are is not open-minded but gullible, you use the term open minded to describe the fact that you are prepared to believe xtian dogma but nothing else, that is close minded.

 

more common sense,

 

What the hell is common sense? Science has shown it is completely unreliable when dealing with things we have no common experience for, (Quantum etc) and as you weren’t around in 1st century Judea, and know nothing of theological and pseudopigraphical methodology of the 1st to 2nd century you have no basis for any “sense”. You just have faith, which leads you to twist everything to your liking, that is not common-sense, if it where your opinions would be self evidently valid, instead anyone with a brain can rip them apart.

 

out side the box thinking.

 

You are so in the box it’s freaky.

 

If I strike out, then Oh well, I still enjoy the conversation and knowledge that I receive

 

Jolly good, I imagine you strike out quite a lot, you know there my be a good reason for that.

 

 

and administer to others, possibly.

 

“Administer”? Even your choice of words betray your sheepish culture.

 

That's it for now. Good stuff Lokmer.

[Abiyoyo]

ZoeGrace

Ok here is the point.  If you aren't a fundamentalist who takes every single sentence in the bible as literally 100% true, then this does not apply to you.  This mainly is for the fundies.  Those who say "every single letter of the bible is the word of god and it's all factually, historically, literally true."  to those people: you can't have your cake and eat it to.  Either the new testament has some factual errors in it, or you can't take it all literally.  end of story.  For example...in matthew we have several hundred ressurrected saints running around right around the time of the resurrection.

 

I agree to disagree on this point. The point of The Easter Challenge is simply the falsification of the Gospels. I is clearly guided toward the actual "wording" of text, but moreover guided toward the "can not be proved" category.

 

 

Nevertheless...it doesn't appear in any other book of the gospel.  You can say: "well it may have happened, they just didn't feel the need to report it in the other gospels because each gospel was for a different audience." fair enough.  But if such a thing had actually historically occurred...SOMEONE somewhere would have reported it.

 

There are many things when Jesus was with the disciples, that He instructed to tell to no person. Thinking logically here, if someone that was of this much importance, spiritually, and claimed that He was the Christ, the One etc,. .I would also, putting myself in those shoes, probualy not have mentioned some things or mentioned some things, in simply making a "human" judgement call. Some of the disciples were from totally different backgrounds and could have possibly saw a need for a story or event that was otherwise "secret" or even useless to the other disicples.

 

There were many active historians at that time...a few of which charted all kinds of minute weather and natural ocurrences...such as the earthquake that supposedly happened when all the saints were resurrected.  Such an earthquake was never mentioned.

 

Yes, correct. There were many historians that lived, and How did they see Jesus? I think that if the knowledge that is being applied here could be applied in half to find the answer to this question. Anyhow, I will only ask, Who were the peoples and there professions that put Jesus to death?This your answer of why facts and events werent recorded. One only focuses on what they deem to have worhty of focus.

What about the entire earth growing dark when christ died?  No other cultures report this bizarre blackout.  Maybe it was just that one area...but there were no solar eclipses recorded around that time.

 

That doesnt make this false, it makes it an unknown. There is a huge difference between a falsehood and an un known. My question is, Did anyone record that this day was sunny, cloudy, rainy, etc.. I think this is a fair assumtion to the comment. Also, there is much debate even in the Christian groups about what actual day Christ was crucified. Is there evidence that there was a solar eclipise in any other cultures that all happened on the same day nearly 2005 years ago? This is probualy a better formed question of the point being made in this comment. The answer is we dont know.

 

Those are just a couple of problems...but then you have the fact that all the stories tell something slightly different.  If you put the gospels in the order they were actually penned...mark first, then matthew and luke, then john...you will see the building of a legend right before your very eyes...there is no arisen jesus stories in mark.  the tomb is empty and that's all she wrote.  THen matthew and luke you start getting more details and more fantastic ideas...by john you have all this flowery theological language putting forth doctrine for the new budding religion.

 

I truly understand your point and I dont degrade it in any way. I do however want to point out that what we perceive to be is what we will see. Jesus in the Gospels said Those that can hear, let them hear. Why did He say this? There are alot of different avenues that have been explored to these comments. I personally, believe He stated these things to people that had undersatnding. My point is that one could rip apart the Greek mythology, just as one could do the sme here. The one that believes in Gree mythology would earnestly defend, same to the other. In direct answer, My thinking is based very similar to the Family A challenge as to the writtings of the Gospels. This is a very logical and worthy mindset to determine these Books by, of course given the alterations in time of the entire Bible.

 

The point is...this is obvious to anyone who doesn't have a need to believe.  And if some of those things didn't happen (which obviously they did not), then how does anyone know any of the other fantastical things happened...namely Jesus' resurrection.

 

Heres the thing that cannot be denied. The "moving" of the Holy Spririt has been "recorded" in all times since the death of Jesus. Are ALL these people mentally having seizures and spells?

[Lokmer]

Where does one or more gospel say that Jesus taught publically as opposed to another gospel or so which says that he did so in secret?

 

In John, Jesus declares publicly that he has taught no secret doctrine (at his trial, IIRC). In Mark, we find him teaching the secret doctrine to his disciples on several occasions, for example after the parable of the sower. He even goes so far (in Mark) to tell them that it is a secret doctrine, and that he has not told the people because he wants them to be confused and deceived.

 

Where does Jesus seemed to have dodged the divinity question?

 

In all of the synoptics (in Mark most prominently) he tells people to shut up and be quiet when they call him God or Son of God. He tries to keep a low profile, and is not forthcoming about the nature of his divinity. In John, he claims to be God in so many words, and doesn't tell other people to keep quiet about it.

 

Would you agree with me that some texts which are said to go back to St. Paul himself seem to have an adoptionist slant?

 

Yes, Paul's Christology - indeed, his whole theology - is thoroughgoing adoptionism. Mark is also adoptionistic, which is why it doesn't have a birth narrative - Jesus early life, to Mark, is irrellevent, because he wasn't the son of God until the baptism.

 

Just curiously, what is there to suggest that he may not have ascended ?

 

Matthew has no ascention narrative, and there was a rival tradition in the early church (among the Alexandrians, IIRC) that Jesus lived into his 50s.

 

-Lokmer

[Abiyoyo]

Lokmer

 

They do not agree about whether Jesus taught publically or in secret, whether he did signs and wonders or declined to do so, whether he claimed to be God or merely dodged the question, whether he was a hypcrite and a liar or a fine, upstanding guy

 

"They" refereing to the Gosples or critics of the entire religion?

Anyhow, I find this to be the absolute objection of the Easter Challenge summed up in this paragraph. All the Gospels mention the teachings publicly in the synagogues. They also mention private teachings(Remember, if looking at the Bible as a story of guidance, not literally, then one would know that He also stated that the disciples knew the mystery of the kingdom of God, and some things told were for them. Example, many of the parables were told to them, but left to us to undersatnd, if seeking to understand. This is the answer to the whole meaning of the Bible; in that if one wants to undersatnd then understanding will be given unto them.

 

 

They disagree on the length of his ministry, the place of his birth, the nature of his divinity (was he God from the start of all time, was he a part of God incarnated into a body at birth, or did God adopt him at his Baptism?).

 

Jesus proclaimed in all the Gospels that He was the Son of God, the I am. Even at his confrontment with Pilate, these claims became repeated.

 

I could go on - and these are NOT trivial details, these are major matters that characterize him as a person, and they are irreconcilable (I know, I've tried!).

 

"tried", The real question is what was being tried. Sometimes people try to be what God doesnt want someone to be. The reason I say this is because that is the realization that I came to in a very similar matter. If God wanted someone to be a "heavenly" proclaimer of the proofs of the scripture, then I hold myself back to say that Jesus said, In His will for us, whatever we ask for in prayer we will receive. The bigger question with trying is, What was Gods will? Some have a pinpoint conclusion, while others float about, not sure. The power is in the Question. Not to me, but another. Is His hand too short to give simple direction in life? No, but sometimes we come upon a matter that is not in His will, therefore resulting in our will for ourselves. The important matter is the use of discernment in all aspects of life to know whether someone is truly in Gods will.

 

 

 

I will reply soon to the other comments.

[crazy-tiger]

What about the entire earth growing dark when christ died?  No other cultures report this bizarre blackout.  Maybe it was just that one area...but there were no solar eclipses recorded around that time.

That doesnt make this false, it makes it an unknown. There is a huge difference between a falsehood and an un known. My question is, Did anyone record that this day was sunny, cloudy, rainy, etc.. I think this is a fair assumtion to the comment. Also, there is much debate even in the Christian groups about what actual day Christ was crucified. Is there evidence that there was a solar eclipise in any other cultures that all happened on the same day nearly 2005 years ago? This is probualy a better formed question of the point being made in this comment. The answer is we dont know.

Now, if there is no record of a WORLDWIDE BLACKOUT, something that would be so out of the ordinary that it is impossible to accept that no-one recorded it, then it's bleeding obvious that there was no worldwide blackout.

 

Remember, there were plenty of cultures extant at the time that made a point of recording anything out of the ordinary, yet such an occurance somehow failed to be noted.

 

What we do know is that there were no eclipses at that time of year for the possible years that Jesus would have been crucified in.

 

 

What is the conclusion? THE BIBLE LIES when it says it was a worldwide blackout.

[Lokmer]

"They" refereing to the Gosples or critics of the entire religion?

 

"They" is the gospels.

 

Anyhow, I find this to be the absolute objection of the Easter Challenge summed up in this paragraph. All the Gospels mention the teachings publicly in the synagogues. They also mention private teachings(Remember, if looking at the Bible as a story of guidance, not literally, then one would know that He also stated that the disciples knew the mystery of the kingdom of God, and some things told were for them. Example, many of the parables were told to them, but left to us to undersatnd, if seeking to understand. This is the answer to the whole meaning of the Bible; in that if one wants to undersatnd then understanding will be given unto them.

 

Since you obviously don't know the Gospels well, please see my comments to Matthew above for clarification and general references. In John, Jesus said that he taught in public, propouding no secret doctrine. Yet in all the synoptics we see Jesus teaching secret doctrine to his disciples. Quod Erat Demonstrandum - thus it is proved.

 

Is the point of the Easter Challenge to demonstrate that the Gospels are not what Christians say they are? Absolutely. And it's very simple, and very obvious, and the only way you can avoid it is by making shit up. Inventing things that have NOTHING to do with the text in order to allow the text to make sense. Is God so impotent that he needs people to imagine things and reinvent them in order to make his message viable? Isn't that blasphemy?

 

Jesus proclaimed in all the Gospels that He was the Son of God, the I am. Even at his confrontment with Pilate, these claims became repeated.

 

Check my post to Matthew, I have already covered this.

 

"tried", The real question is what was being tried. Sometimes people try to be what God doesnt want someone to be. The reason I say this is because that is the realization that I came to in a very similar matter.

 

"Tried" - as in spent many many months and years in prayer and meditation and thought trying to find a way to believe in that the Gospels are true. In the end, there was no way I could do that without lying on behalf of God - something I was not, and still am not, willing to do.

 

If God wanted someone to be a "heavenly" proclaimer of the proofs of the scripture, then I hold myself back to say that Jesus said, In His will for us, whatever we ask for in prayer we will receive.

 

He lied. I asked for his will, his enlightenment, his truth, and the ability to believe with integrity. I got none of that.

 

The bigger question with trying is, What was Gods will? Some have a pinpoint conclusion, while others float about, not sure.

 

The fact that NO ONE agrees on what God's Will is, when he has promised to communicate it to those who are faithful, should tell you something.

 

The power is in the Question. Not to me, but another. Is His hand too short to give simple direction in life? No, but sometimes we come upon a matter that is not in His will, therefore resulting in our will for ourselves. The important matter is the use of discernment in all aspects of life to know whether someone is  truly in Gods will.

I will reply soon to the other comments.

 

 

Meaningless doubletalk, all designed to avoid the unavoidable - i.e. that Christianity is vapid and foundationless. You don't need secular evidence to prove this, you don't need to go into archaeological problems or historical anachronisms. All you need is the Bible - all the other evidence from external sources is gravy. Christianity is wrong on its own terms, no matter how far you go back. It is a pagan religion of human sacrifice built upon the foundations of post-exhillic Judaism - a religion which SPECIFICALLY DISAVOWS human sacrifice of any kind.

 

-Lokmer