The Easter Challenge

I admit it. I got sucked into the "Easter Challenge". I gave my "plausible explanation", and they assured me that it was wrong. One, DagoodS, told me I needed to read his article on inerrancy, although he was sure I wouldn't. I did.

In it, he makes this suggestion:

I offer my method that if a neutral jury would feel it is more likely to be a contradiction, based upon the facts and the human condition then it is.

Then he offers an alternative:

Examine the proposed contradiction and see if there is an explanation that can account for it. The explanation must be more plausible and more believable than the opposing view of a contradiction.

But it is apparent that he would not be part of any "neutral jury". He says things like:

Inerrantists are not stupid. They are well aware that if the method is too exacting the Bible will fail.

In other words, the Bible cannot be inerrant, so those who believe it is must find a way around it.

Then there's:

There is a fear that by using a neutral, they are far more likely to naturally determine contradiction.

In other words, everyone knows the Bible contradicts itself; those who try to say otherwise are simply biased and fooling themselves.

Thus, while seeking to appear "neutral" and "unbiased", the biases are showing. I'm not offended or surprised. He assumed I wouldn't even bother reading his article. You see, people who believe in Christ are stupid people, refusing to consider the arguments against their position and refusing, ultimately, to think. I get it all the time. It's just assumed. Oddly, it appears to only be assumed about people who believe. Those who do not believe are obviously without bias, clear thinking, intelligent people. So I'm used to it.

I wonder if anyone actually believes in a "neutral jury". I would bet that attorneys who are attempting to put together a jury are not interested in a "neutral" one. I would bet that the people who actually sit on juries are not "neutral". Everyone has their biases and presuppositions, and to argue that they don't is an argument from a presupposition. This "neutral jury" doesn't exist.

It doesn't help the case for this "neutral jury" that the book that they are to evaluate says they don't exist. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Matt 12:30). No middle ground there. Paul said that the flesh is hostile to God (Rom. 8:5-8). No middle ground there. He wrote that the unbeliever sees the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:22-25). I know. This doesn't make the anti-Christian any happier with me. "Well, then, how can you expect us to believe if it says we won't?" But I didn't say it. I do see it, but I didn't say it.

---------------------

In case anyone is interested, here's my version of the story, attempting to take into account all the elements of each Gospel. First, the actual challenge:

“The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.”

Note: In the actual challenge, the author allows for "educated guesses." Unfortunately, most skeptics will not. But ... here goes:

Before first light, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. She found the stone rolled away. There had been an earthquake that removed the stone. The guards had passed out from the appearance of an angel. So Mary Magdalene, very confused, went back to the other women. As the sun rose, she went back with Mary, the mother of James, Joanna, and Salome. There were two angels there. One inside the tomb said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” They headed back out, and the other said, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”

They remembered He had said that, but this was very befuddling. This wasn’t making sense. While Mary Magdalene ran to the disciples, they headed home to keep their mouths shut. Who would believe this? But as they went they encountered Jesus Himself. They fell at His feet and worshiped Him. He told them to go tell the disciples where to meet Him.

By now Mary Magdalene had reached the disciples. She wasn’t yet convinced that He had risen, nor did she think that they would believe her, so she simply told them “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” No one believed her. But soon some of the other women arrived and told them that He was gone. Finally Peter and John went to look. The others didn’t believe. John got there first, but stopped at the entrance. Peter went in and saw the burial cloth lying in place and the face cloth folded and off to the side. John came in and was convinced, too.

Mary Magdalene had followed them. She looked inside for herself, overcome with grief. (She wasn’t buying into this resurrection thing yet either.) The two angels (who had gone inside the tomb by now) asked her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” She turned around and, in her tears, didn’t recognize Jesus behind her. He asked her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take him away.” Then He said, “Mary,” and she recognized Him. She clung to Him, but He told her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” So she went off and told them that He was risen (not stolen like she had thought).

Meanwhile, on the road between Jerusalem and Emmaeus, two disciples were talking about His death. Without them knowing who He was, Jesus joined them. They conversed for awhile and He explained to them why He had to die and how the Scriptures told of Him. They invited Him to eat with them since it was almost dinner time, so He joined them. But as He broke the bread and blessed it, they realized who He was, and He vanished. They ran off to tell the disciples in Jerusalem. They found them gathered in a room, still confused and frightened. Imagine everyone’s surprise, then, when Jesus Himself appeared in the room. They thought perhaps He was a ghost, so He asked for some food and ate it to prove He wasn’t merely a ghost. After a conversation, He seemed to vanish into the sky, leaving them elated and worshiping.

Jesus appeared multiple times to people after that. He visited the disciples on occasion. By the time He was leaving for the last time, around 500 people had seen Him. On one occasion he had a personal encounter with Thomas, offering to let him touch His wounds. Thomas decided he didn’t need to in order to believe. Jesus had told them to meet on a mountain in Galilee, so they went there and met with Him to receive “the Great Commission”. On another occasion, He met with them while they were fishing and helped them catch more fish than they had imagined. Finally, after 40 days, He gathered His core disciples, told them to wait for the Holy Spirit, and ascended into heaven.

---------------------

(Note: I have excluded Mark 16:9-20. There is scant manuscript evidence of their authenticity.)

I don’t think I left anything important out. I admit that there is some conjecture, but 1) none of it is contradictory, and 2) none of it contradicts any of the accounts. I suspect that those who wish to believe it will, and those who don’t won’t. That’s the problem with this "challenge". If someone actually answers it ... it will be ignored by those who started the challenge and applauded by those who didn’t care about the challenge. It was a fun endeavor, but it is a losing proposition if I actually thought someone would say, "Oh, yeah, I guess there is a logical explanation for all of these paradoxes. Thanks!" The truth is that one approach is to find how they correlate, and the other is to show that they don't. If you are looking for correlation, you'll likely find it. If not, you won't. If the goal is to "judge by a jury" and "eliminate reasonable doubt", I don't think it will happen. The Bible wasn't written, by its own admission, to remove reasonable doubt. Neither is it irrational. Like I said in yesterday's Presuppositions, your presuppositions will determine your conclusions.