Are the post-resurrection accounts contradictory? -- Jason Gastrich vs. Sean McHugh

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Ladies and gentlemen,

The following is a debate between Jason Gastrich and Sean McHugh on the following resolution:

Resolved: The Gospel accounts of the post-resurrection period are in harmony and are without contradictions.

Jason Gastrich will go first, taking the affirmative, while Sean McHugh will oppose. The debate will have 6 rounds, as agreed to from the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70680).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73275) thread is set up in the Biblical Criticism & History forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

Jason

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear IIDB, Sean, and everyone reading,

I hope you are well, today.

A special thanks goes to IIDB for hosting this debate. I was happy with the moderation in my previous debate with Farrell Till regarding the Land Promise. I'm looking forward to another, interesting debate with fair moderation.

My name is Jason Gastrich and I'm the founding minister of Jesus Christ Saves Ministries. JCSM is a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization that is committed to leading people into a life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ. We have over 60,000 web pages and you can see http://www.jcsm.org for more details.

I affirm that the entire Bible is inerrant. Not every translation is inerrant, but the original manuscripts were inerrant and the manuscripts we have today and even the KJV are essentially inerrant.

Incidentally, I have written a book on biblical errors called "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained." It is a rebuttal to the entire Skeptic's Annotated Bible and it's in its 3rd edition.

The Bible was written by about 40 people from all different walks of life. These people used many different literary devices. Within these accounts, there are some omissions. The Bible never claims to contain every word spoken by every person in it. Therefore, the alleged problems that usually arise are because of omissions and not errors. This will likely prove to be the case in some of Sean's arguments. However, it would be unreasonable for every biblical author to write every word spoken by every character in it. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense that different authors record different events because certain things strike people differently and lead them to record what they feel is interesting and/or important. This will likely also be the case and the answer to some of Sean's arguments.

I'm very interested in reading Sean's assertions about the Bible. If he produces some arguments that are not used in The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, then it will be even more interesting because all of the SAB's assertions have already been corrected and explained.

Good luck to Sean and I hope all of you enjoy reading the debate.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Jason@jcsm.org
http://www.jcsm.org


[Edit: links edited or removed to comply with forum rules - NS]

[Sean McHugh]

Greetings all,

I would first like to thank the maintainers and moderators of this site for their efforts in providing this forum and for their hosting of this debate. I would also like to thank Jason Gastrich for his participation.


INTRODUCTION:

In this opening statement I will present my reasons for choosing this topic, along with an examination of the persuasiveness of the gospel evidence versus the incredibility of the alleged resurrection. I will submit proposals on why the onus lies with the apologist when challenges are made to claims of inerrancy in the gospels and will be proposing what should be the minimum requirements for defences of inerrancy. This will be followed by examples of problems in the post-resurrection accounts from the gospels along with explanations of why I believe they are errors. I will be explaining why, far from merely exposing the gospel accounts of the resurrection as errant, these problems are serious enough to completely discredit their testimony. That is even before one considers the heavy burden they bear given the incredibility of their claims.

Where practical, the gospel verses under discussion will be quoted. In the few instances where they are not or where the reader wishes to examine the text for himself/herself, they can be found here:

Matthew 28:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Mat+28&version=KJV

Mark 16:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Mark+16&version=KJV

Luke 24:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Luke+24&version=KJV

John 20-21:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=John+20-21&version=KJV

Unless specified otherwise, all biblical quotes are from the KJV.


ERRANCY IN THE POST-RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS:

There is no evidence more crucial to the case for Christianity than the testimonies to the resurrection. Indeed in 1 Corinthians (15:14) Paul said, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain". The New Testament gospels are the documents that provide accounts of this alleged event and because of the lack of details from other near contemporary writings, they become pivotal to any attempt to the establish the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Carl Sagan said in his book, The Dragons of Eden, "remarkable claims require remarkable proof." The truth in that eloquent statement should be commonsense. Actually, if anything, it is an understatement. David Hume, in his book, Of Miracles, shows that to establish a miracle, the falsity of the affirmative testimony would need to be more miraculous than the miracle to which it testifies and even then the degree of establishment would only be the latter subtracted from the former.

Now a resurrection must certainly be considered remarkable but is the gospels' evidence for that event even more remarkable or does it fall way short of being good enough, considering the magnitude of the event that it seeks to establish? To have any forcefulness, a minimum requirement would be mutual corroboration by the gospellers, especially in the important details. This certainly does not mean that the reports should be duplications, only that they should not conflict badly and should be seen to not conflict. Commentaries can be consistent with each other without duplication. In fact, evidence of copying should render a gospel's testimony inadmissible. As it happens, there is abundant evidence of copying of Mark by the writers of Matthew and Luke. However there is still sufficient original material to accommodate and exhibit numerous conflicts.

There are two areas in the synoptic gospels where the accounts differ very greatly, not only in the story line but even in the geography. They are the birth narrative and post-resurrection period. These happen to be the places where Matthew and Luke can't use Mark because Mark has no birth narrative and little of the post-resurrection period. The writer only provides a brief account of the discovery of the empty tomb. Mark properly ends at 16:8 and though a few additional verses (9-20) appear in the NT, they are considered to be a later addition. Mark's early retirement from steering the synoptics allows the greatest conflicts in the gospels to appear in the most crucial area, the evidence for the resurrection.

Inerrantists appeal to the gospels, and to the rest of the Bible, as being divinely inspired and thus necessarily without error. They try to rationalise the gospel contradictions by appealing to the individuality of the writers. They say the contradictions are merely apparent, the natural result of each gospel containing a different perspective from a different writer. In proposing this they inadvertently deny their own claim that the gospels are the divine word of God. They also remove any reason for assuming that the gospels are inerrant. That is because human error is human nature. Despite this, they still operate on the assumption of inerrancy and no matter how obvious an error would seem, they assume it is merely 'apparent'. They will zealously ignore Occam's razor and will submit even the most unlikely scenarios to rationalise the problems. In other words, to arrive at the conclusion of inerrancy, they assume inerrancy.

The apologist for inerrancy doesn't seem to realise that even exhibiting the appearance of contradiction raises problems for divine inspiration in the gospel accounts, especially for the evidence of the resurrection. Even if the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way of convincing us of his son's resurrection, than by arranging for some anonymous afterthought documents to be handed down, why didn't he at least ensure that these 'divinely inspired' documents appear to be inerrant? Surely God would want the accounts to be seen as mutually corroborating to any normal reading.

It is important to note that it is the assertion that these gospels are completely free of error that is the remarkable claim and therefore the onus is on the apologist to demonstrate the improbability of any apparent error being really an error. It is insufficient to propose possible but unlikely solutions. The apologist for inerrancy needs to show for any apparent error that is presented to him, that it not only doesn't need to be an error, but that it probably is not an error. He must show that the scenarios or interpretations that he proposes are more likely than that the questionable detail is actually what it looks like, an error. He must do so without assuming inerrancy as the default. In this debate, Jason Gastrich has the task of doing this with challenges to the post-resurrection evidence from the gospels. As he claims that all the evidence there is inerrant, as soon as one of his 'solutions' fails the described test, he has lost.

Below I present problems from the gospels' post-resurrection accounts. There are many inconsistencies in the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, however I will only be expounding on a few. They are the most serious ones. This should allow Jason the room to respond properly to all the points that I raise with those. Later I will briefly mention other conflicts.

Let us start with the question of who first went to the tomb on the day of the resurrection. John tells us it was Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). Matthew tells us it was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Mat 28:1). Mark tells us it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke tells us it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women - a total of at least five (Luke 24:10).

Jason may argue the standard inerrantist line that these are merely omissions. Let us consider John. Firstly, it would be very strange if the writer of John knew that several women went to the tomb that morning, heard the angel's message and met the risen Jesus (Mat 28:8-9) but decided to only mention one of the women. After all, an event like this requires all the corroboration it can get and the women were allegedly the first people to see the risen Jesus.

The second point to note is how the gospellers' internal consistency will keep telling us that these are not merely omissions. For example, Luke is very consistent with Luke. In Luke, Mary M (Magdalene) is described as being one of a group of women who went to the tomb, received the news of the resurrection from an angel and went to the apostles with that news (24:1-10). It is quite natural that she would be with them and that she, along with the others, would report what the angel said. Accordingly she receives mention (primary mention) as being one of the women who reported what the angel said. John is similarly consistent, but once again, only with John. John has Mary M alone going to the tomb that morning, then has Mary M abandoning the tomb without entering it (thus missing the angel's message) and then has Mary M going back to the apostles without hearing about the resurrection. She consequently only has bad news to report. John continues with the internal consistency by continuing to feature Mary M without any mention of other women. In doing so, he solidly establishes the one-woman program.

A third point to observe is the agreement to the lower number of women. It is very difficult to believe that even one gospeller would submit one or two woman as being there if he knew that at least five were there. But we have two gospellers that list two or less women while another gospeller lists only three. If the writers were the people who actually knew what transpired, what possible purpose would it serve to not mention witnesses who came from the tomb that morning bearing testimony to the resurrection? Luke indicates that at least five women were involved and probably more. The average from the other three gospels is two women.

A fourth point to consider is communication. What would be the normal inferences from the commentary? This can be applied to many of the gospel problems and used against the apologetics that ensues. It can certainly be applied to the question of who went to the tomb that morning. I invite anyone to hand a Bible to someone who hasn't been indoctrinated and ask that person to read John, chapter 20, verses 1 to 18 and note who was involved in that story. Then ask that person how many women were involved. That person will reply, "One". John 20:1-18 clearly implies that Mary M was alone and not with a group when she first went to the tomb and that she was not with other women for the rest of the described period.

The fifth point is based on the previous point. By only describing Mary M as being there, John is giving a false impression; that is, if there were several women there. It becomes a deliberate false impression if the writer knew that there were several women involved. How can that be regarded as inerrancy? The same applies in lesser and varying degrees to Mark and Matthew.

Sixth and lastly, John's single woman account resists being harmonised with the other gospels, especially with Luke. I will now demonstrate this. This will take us to the next section of disharmony. Compare the following accounts of what Mary M reported to the apostles after discovering the empty tomb:


John 20:
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.


Luke 24:
1. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6. He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7. Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8. And they remembered his words,
9. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
10. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

So according to John, after discovering the empty tomb, Mary M reported back with the upsetting news that Jesus' body had been taken (John 20:1-2). But according to Luke, Mary M and the others reported back with the joyous news that Jesus had risen (Luke 24:6-10).

It has been proposed to me (actually by Jason) that there were two trips from the tomb by Mary M, one to report the news that the body had been taken and another to report (this time with the other women) the resurrection. There are sufficient problems with this to deem it unworkable. Recall that according to three of the gospels, Mary M was only one of a group that went to the tomb that morning (Mat 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10). The proposal for rationalising the problem requires that Mary M separated from the others, went from the tomb to find and report to the apostles, delivered the message, returned to the tomb, then returned to Jerusalem and managed to reunite with the other women before they reached the apostles (Luke 24:10). That's three trips to one and we are told in Matthew 28:8 that these other women were running.

And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. [Mat 28:8]

A proposal was submitted (again by Jason), that on her way back to the apostles after first discovering the open tomb, Mary M encountered Peter and another disciple on the road to the tomb. This too is problematic because the text indicates otherwise. John 20:3 specifies that after Mary M reported to the two disciples, they started for the tomb:

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. [John 20:3, NIV]

Obviously it would not be correct to say Peter started for the tomb if Peter and the other disciple were already on their way to the tomb. Even if one is generous there, there is still the same problem. The scenario would still require Mary M to leave the tomb, go to Peter, then go back to the tomb, then go back to Jerusalem to see Peter and still arrive there at the same time as the other women. Recall that the other women only had to run from the tomb to Peter and the other apostles.

There is more comedy. The scenario would raise images of Peter (and the other disciple) racing back to the tomb (John 20:3), past the group of women who were coming to see him. This would be followed by him returning to his home (John 20:10), again passing the running women (Mat 28:8), so he could be there ready in time to receive them when they arrived with the news (Luke 24:10).

Then there is still another remaining problem. Mary M received the primary mention as one of women who relayed the angel's message (Luke 24:10). However, according to John (20:1-2), she did not hear any such message before quitting the tomb.

Now, just to suggest that all the questions regarding the women reporting to the apostles are redundant, Mark (16:8) tells us that the women did not report any of this to the apostles. To present it at its most glaring, let us compare Mark's (16:8) version with Luke's (24:8-9):

Luke 24:
8. And they remembered his words,
9. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.


Mark 16:
8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid

I would suggest that the only proper way to sort out the confusion is for Jason to propose a single account covering the discovery of the empty tomb and the reporting to the apostles. It would need to contain all the details from the four gospels that are pertinent to that section.

Let us now move along and examine what the apostles (and Jesus) did after they heard that Jesus had risen. As we shall see, all indications in Matthew are that they went to Galilee, while all indications in Luke are that they stayed in Jerusalem. This problem actually starts with the angel's message given to the women at the tomb:

The angel's message according to Mark, Matthew and Luke:

Mark 16 (NRSV):
6. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."


Mat 28 (NRSV):
6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7. 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.


Luke 24 (NRSV):
5. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.
6. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,

Matthew is quite close to Mark - though not close enough for a divinely inerrant quote. Luke, however, has important differences. Despite this, the scenario and similarities still leave little doubt that all those quotes are supposed to represent the same angelic message. In Mark, the message from the angel was a reminder that Jesus had told the apostles that he would go before them into Galilee (75 miles away) where they should go to meet him (Mat 28:7). In Luke it's a variation. It's a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no suggestion that the apostles should leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:6).

So what did the apostles do? As instructed, the apostles and Jesus went to Galilee:

Mat 28:
6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7. 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.
8. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11. Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13. Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
16. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

No, the apostles and Jesus stayed in Jerusalem:

Luke 24:
33. And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34. Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you
. . . . . . . .
49. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50. And he led them out as far as to Bethany [near Jerusalem], and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53. And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

For brevity, I have snipped the verses 37 to 48. That is a continuous commentary where the risen Jesus is convincing the apostles of his being genuine. I doubt that anyone would be foolish enough to suggest that this where they went to Galilee. Anyway, the complete section can be read here:

Luke 24:33-53:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Luke+24%3A33-53&version=KJV

In Matthew 28:16 the apostles followed what they were told to do in Matthew 28:7 and went to Galilee. In Luke, being given a different message by the angel (Luke 24:6), with no reason to go to Galilee, they stayed in Jerusalem (24:9-53). After meeting the risen Jesus in Jerusalem, something that was supposed to have happened in Galilee 75 miles away, the apostles are specifically told by Jesus to stay in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49). So, in either gospel, the actions of Jesus and the apostles are in keeping with the angel's instruction and vice verse. This mutual support well establishes the agenda of the two writers and by any reasonable reading those agenda must be considered to be in conflict.

A problem for the apologist is that in Luke 24:9-53 there is a continuous commentary that goes from the finding of the empty tomb, to Jesus meeting the apostles in Jerusalem, through to Jesus ascending. The commentary presents all those events as occurring on the day of the resurrection. So apart from there being no suggestion of a long journey to Galilee (in accordance with Matthew 28:7,16) to find and bear witness to the risen Jesus, there is simply no need or opportunity in Luke. Note that Jesus instructed them to stay in Jerusalem till they were endued with the power:

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. [Luke 24:49]

That refers to the time of Pentecost when the apostles allegedly did receive that power (Acts 2):

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Acts+2&version=KJV

That was 50 days after the Passover, the time of the crucifixion. If Jason wishes to maintain that they followed the instruction given by the angel in the tomb (and then by Jesus himself), to proceed to Galilee, he needs to tell us when this could have occurred.

Above I have expounded on some problems that I submitted for particular attention. It is my hope that Jason reciprocates. I believe that unless they are completely resolved, those conflicts are so serious that they not only demonstrate that the gospels are not inerrant, they demonstrate that the gospels are too unreliable to be used as historical evidence. How then can they be used as evidence for Jesus being raised from the dead and being taken up into heaven?

Here are other problems that I will mention briefly. According to Luke (23:56) the spices to anoint Jesus' body were purchased before the Sabbath. In Mark (16:1) they were purchased after the Sabbath. According to Mark (16:1) and Luke (24:1) the women went to anoint the body on the morning of the resurrection but in John (19:39) Jesus' body had already been anointed the previous evening with - get this - a hundred pounds of spices. According to Luke (24:2) the women found the tomb open when they arrived but in Matthew (28:1-2) it was only opened upon their arrival. In Matthew (28:2), the women at the tomb find a flying angel; in Mark (16:5) he is merely described as a young man; in Luke (24:4) it's two men and in John (20:11-2) it's two angels. In Matthew (28:2) these men/angels are outside the tomb; in Mark (16:5), Luke (24:3-4) and John (20:11-12), they are inside the tomb. In Luke (24:4) these men/angels were standing; in Matthew (28:2), Mark (16:5) and John (20:12) they were sitting. In Matthew (28:9) the women could touch Jesus; in John (20:17) Jesus couldn't be touched. And finally, Mark (16:2) tells us that Mary M came to the tomb after sunrise while John (20:1) tells us that it was while it was still dark:

Mark 16:2 (NRSV):
And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.


John 20:1 (NRSV):
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

One remarkable thing with all these problems is how small the area is in which so many occur. This is most apparent when one sees the relevant sections from the four gospels in isolation. That can be done using the links in the introduction to this document.

In the past I have proposed that Jason write a single account that includes all the post-resurrection details from the gospels (and Acts). There was no requirement for it to be submitted as the only solution, just a plausible solution. This challenge is actually well known and is presented by Dan Barker on the Internet. Jason declined at the time. Above I have asked him if he could at least do it to sort out the confusion regarding the sequence of events covering the discovery of the empty tomb and the reporting to the apostles. I will be very surprised if he attempts this. I will remind Jason that whatever solutions he submits, they need to be more likely than the likelihood of invention and/or human error in the self-serving religious documents called the gospels.

Once again, I thank Jason for his participation.


Sean McHugh

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jason Gastrich,

Please note that the deadline for your next statement has passed. According to the debate parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70680), you and Sean McHugh agreed to a 1 week maximum duration between statements. However, you are permitted a 3 day grace period, extending the deadline to January 26th.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jason

[Jason Gastrich]

SEAN:

Where practical, the gospel verses under discussion will be quoted. In the few instances where they are not or where the reader wishes to examine the text for himself/herself, they can be found here:

Matthew 28:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Mat+28&version=KJV

Mark 16:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Mark+16&version=KJV

Luke 24:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Luke+24&version=KJV

John 20-21:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=John+20-21&version=KJV

Unless specified otherwise, all biblical quotes are from the KJV.

JASON:

You can also find them here: http://study.jcsm.org and http://bible.jcsm.org .


SEAN:

ERRANCY IN THE POST-RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS:

There is no evidence more crucial to the case for Christianity than the testimonies to the resurrection. Indeed in 1 Corinthians (15:14) Paul said, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain". The New Testament gospels are the documents that provide accounts of this alleged event and because of the lack of details from other near contemporary writings, they become pivotal to any attempt to the establish the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

JASON:

For argument sake only, don’t forget that there is another option. Although I don’t believe this, it could be possible for the resurrection to be true and the accounts of it flawed. Don’t pretend like the resurrection depends on the KJV or the accounts.

SEAN:

Carl Sagan said in his book, The Dragons of Eden, "remarkable claims require remarkable proof." The truth in that eloquent statement should be commonsense. Actually, if anything, it is an understatement. David Hume, in his book, Of Miracles, shows that to establish a miracle, the falsity of the affirmative testimony would need to be more miraculous than the miracle to which it testifies and even then the degree of establishment would only be the latter subtracted from the former.

JASON:

Can you define the word “miracle”?

SEAN:

Now a resurrection must certainly be considered remarkable but is the gospels' evidence for that event even more remarkable or does it fall way short of being good enough, considering the magnitude of the event that it seeks to establish? To have any forcefulness, a minimum requirement would be mutual corroboration by the gospellers, especially in the important details. This certainly does not mean that the reports should be duplications, only that they should not conflict badly and should be seen to not conflict. Commentaries can be consistent with each other without duplication. In fact, evidence of copying should render a gospel's testimony inadmissible. As it happens, there is abundant evidence of copying of Mark by the writers of Matthew and Luke. However there is still sufficient original material to accommodate and exhibit numerous conflicts.

JASON:

You’ve tried to set a premise by arguing by assertion. If you think that there was copying, then please prove it. You can’t just say there was and have people believe it without proof. This is only a theory.

Even if there were copying, how could it render a gospel’s testimony inadmissible? If a judge hears two defendants that are unrelated, yet witnessed the same event, and they had different, yet non-conflicting testimonies and one copied a few details from the other that were unknown to him, would the judge reject his entire testimony? Of course not. To do so would be to the judge’s own detriment.

SEAN:

There are two areas in the synoptic gospels where the accounts differ very greatly, not only in the story line but even in the geography. They are the birth narrative and post-resurrection period. These happen to be the places where Matthew and Luke can't use Mark because Mark has no birth narrative and little of the post-resurrection period. The writer only provides a brief account of the discovery of the empty tomb. Mark properly ends at 16:8 and though a few additional verses (9-20) appear in the NT, they are considered to be a later addition. Mark's early retirement from steering the synoptics allows the greatest conflicts in the gospels to appear in the most crucial area, the evidence for the resurrection.

Inerrantists appeal to the gospels, and to the rest of the Bible, as being divinely inspired and thus necessarily without error. They try to rationalise the gospel contradictions by appealing to the individuality of the writers. They say the contradictions are merely apparent, the natural result of each gospel containing a different perspective from a different writer. In proposing this they inadvertently deny their own claim that the gospels are the divine word of God. They also remove any reason for assuming that the gospels are inerrant. That is because human error is human nature. Despite this, they still operate on the assumption of inerrancy and no matter how obvious an error would seem, they assume it is merely 'apparent'. They will zealously ignore Occam's razor and will submit even the most unlikely scenarios to rationalise the problems. In other words, to arrive at the conclusion of inerrancy, they assume inerrancy.

JASON:

You are missing the fact that a document could have been written by many people and it could contain omissions, yet still be inspired from God and inerrant. These things aren’t mutually exclusive as you present them.

Occam’s Razor is one of the best arguments for God’s existence and biblical creation. The evolutionist must weave a faith-based web of assumptions to tell their story of human development. The Christian says that God did it. What easier explanation could there be? If a person wants to follow Occam’s Razor, then they should “avoid making more assumptions than the minimum needed.” The theory of the evolution of species makes far more assumptions than biblical creation.

SEAN:

The apologist for inerrancy doesn't seem to realise that even exhibiting the appearance of contradiction raises problems for divine inspiration in the gospel accounts, especially for the evidence of the resurrection.

JASON:

Appearances are only problems for those that rely on them.

SEAN:

Even if the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way of convincing us of his son's resurrection, than by arranging for some anonymous afterthought documents to be handed down, why didn't he at least ensure that these 'divinely inspired' documents appear to be inerrant? Surely God would want the accounts to be seen as mutually corroborating to any normal reading.

JASON:

I don’t mind your conversational style, but I do mind your arguments by assertion. You aren’t laying any kind of a premise. You’re just chatting.

The gospel accounts are not anonymous. They each have a name. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Are you implying those are fake names?

It is your opinion that the gospels don’t appear inerrant. Millions of people would disagree with your opinion. Have you read “The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained”? Perhaps that would change your mind about the appearance of the Bible.

SEAN:

It is important to note that it is the assertion that these gospels are completely free of error that is the remarkable claim and therefore the onus is on the apologist to demonstrate the improbability of any apparent error being really an error. It is insufficient to propose possible but unlikely solutions. The apologist for inerrancy needs to show for any apparent error that is presented to him, that it not only doesn't need to be an error, but that it probably is not an error. He must show that the scenarios or interpretations that he proposes are more likely than that the questionable detail is actually what it looks like, an error. He must do so without assuming inerrancy as the default. In this debate, Jason Gastrich has the task of doing this with challenges to the post-resurrection evidence from the gospels. As he claims that all the evidence there is inerrant, as soon as one of his 'solutions' fails the described test, he has lost.

Below I present problems from the gospels' post-resurrection accounts. There are many inconsistencies in the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, however I will only be expounding on a few. They are the most serious ones. This should allow Jason the room to respond properly to all the points that I raise with those. Later I will briefly mention other conflicts.

Let us start with the question of who first went to the tomb on the day of the resurrection. John tells us it was Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). Matthew tells us it was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Mat 28:1). Mark tells us it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke tells us it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women - a total of at least five (Luke 24:10).

JASON:

In order to know, without any doubt, who was the first person to the tomb, we’d have to see the word “first.” If we don’t see one gospel claiming that their visitor was first, then we can’t assume who was first. However, there are some tell-tale details that help us determine who was first.

I hope you can be more articulate with your claims. The scriptures above do not say that any particular character came to the tomb first. You have said that they said a particular character came to the tomb first.

Please read the accounts closely. It’s not impossible to determine a sequence of events. Why? Because we see indicators based on the amount of sunlight and time of day that the visitors came to the tomb.

John 20:1 - “while it was still dark”

Matthew 28:1 - “as the first day of the week began to dawn”

Mark 16:2 - “very early in the morning”

Luke 24:1 - “very early in the morning”

SEAN:

Jason may argue the standard inerrantist line that these are merely omissions. Let us consider John. Firstly, it would be very strange if the writer of John knew that several women went to the tomb that morning, heard the angel's message and met the risen Jesus (Mat 28:8-9) but decided to only mention one of the women. After all, an event like this requires all the corroboration it can get and the women were allegedly the first people to see the risen Jesus.

JASON:

John never mentions the morning. He mentions what happened while it was still dark.

SEAN:

The second point to note is how the gospellers' internal consistency will keep telling us that these are not merely omissions. For example, Luke is very consistent with Luke. In Luke, Mary M (Magdalene) is described as being one of a group of women who went to the tomb, received the news of the resurrection from an angel and went to the apostles with that news (24:1-10). It is quite natural that she would be with them and that she, along with the others, would report what the angel said. Accordingly she receives mention (primary mention) as being one of the women who reported what the angel said. John is similarly consistent, but once again, only with John. John has Mary M alone going to the tomb that morning,



JASON:

No. John has Mary M going to the tomb while it was still dark.

SEAN:

then has Mary M abandoning the tomb without entering it (thus missing the angel's message) and then has Mary M going back to the apostles without hearing about the resurrection. She consequently only has bad news to report. John continues with the internal consistency by continuing to feature Mary M without any mention of other women. In doing so, he solidly establishes the one-woman program.

JASON:

If you would read the text closely, you would see how John was referring to a time “while it was still dark.” His account of Mary M fits perfectly into the other accounts. If you change the text and insert “morning,” then you run into some problems. I hope this early mistake of yours causes you to be more careful throughout the debate.

SEAN:

A third point to observe is the agreement to the lower number of women. It is very difficult to believe that even one gospeller would submit one or two woman as being there if he knew that at least five were there.

JASON:

This isn’t difficult to believe at all. These biblical accounts don’t claim to include every word spoken or every person present. It is quite normal to omit a few words or people; especially if they did not speak.

In the case of the demoniacs, we see one account listing two of them and another listing one of them. We know that one account omitted the one that didn’t speak for precisely that reason. He was inconsequential to the story.

SEAN:


But we have two gospellers that list two or less women while another gospeller lists only three. If the writers were the people who actually knew what transpired, what possible purpose would it serve to not mention witnesses who came from the tomb that morning bearing testimony to the resurrection? Luke indicates that at least five women were involved and probably more. The average from the other three gospels is two women.

JASON:

Luke mentioned “at least five women.” Even from Luke’s account, we see that the names of the women weren’t that important to him. Why should the presence of those women be important to another author?

SEAN:

A fourth point to consider is communication. What would be the normal inferences from the commentary? This can be applied to many of the gospel problems and used against the apologetics that ensues. It can certainly be applied to the question of who went to the tomb that morning. I invite anyone to hand a Bible to someone who hasn't been indoctrinated and ask that person to read John, chapter 20, verses 1 to 18 and note who was involved in that story. Then ask that person how many women were involved. That person will reply, "One". John 20:1-18 clearly implies that Mary M was alone and not with a group when she first went to the tomb and that she was not with other women for the rest of the described period.

JASON:

If the hypothetical person made a judgment about the event by reading only one account, then they should be held in contempt. They should read all of the accounts, then determine what happened.

If a crime were committed, for instance, and four people witnessed it and give amazing, congruent details about it, would it matter how many other witnesses were there? In ancient Israel, would it matter how many women (that weren’t even recorded as speaking) were present at the resurrection? The point of the resurrection account was the resurrection.

SEAN:

The fifth point is based on the previous point. By only describing Mary M as being there, John is giving a false impression; that is, if there were several women there. It becomes a deliberate false impression if the writer knew that there were several women involved. How can that be regarded as inerrancy? The same applies in lesser and varying degrees to Mark and Matthew.

JASON:

This is only significant if you can demonstrate why John needed to write as you think he should write. If you can’t support your opinion, then what good is it? Why do the details you require need to be there?

SEAN:

Sixth and lastly, John's single woman account resists being harmonised with the other gospels, especially with Luke. I will now demonstrate this. This will take us to the next section of disharmony. Compare the following accounts of what Mary M reported to the apostles after discovering the empty tomb:




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 20:
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.


Luke 24:
1. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6. He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7. Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8. And they remembered his words,
9. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
10. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So according to John, after discovering the empty tomb, Mary M reported back with the upsetting news that Jesus' body had been taken (John 20:1-2). But according to Luke, Mary M and the others reported back with the joyous news that Jesus had risen (Luke 24:6-10).

It has been proposed to me (actually by Jason) that there were two trips from the tomb by Mary M, one to report the news that the body had been taken and another to report (this time with the other women) the resurrection. There are sufficient problems with this to deem it unworkable. Recall that according to three of the gospels, Mary M was only one of a group that went to the tomb that morning (Mat 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10).

JASON:

Actually, this is more accurate than using the word “morning.”

Matthew 28:1 - “as the first day of the week began to dawn”

Mark 16:2 - “very early in the morning”

Luke 24:1 - “very early in the morning”

The proposal for rationalising the problem requires that Mary M separated from the others, went from the tomb to find and report to the apostles,

JASON:

According to the scriptures, they ran into Peter and one other.

SEAN:

delivered the message, returned to the tomb, then returned to Jerusalem

JASON:

I’ve been to Jerusalem twice. I’ve also been to the garden tomb and all over the city. For you to say that they went to the tomb, THEN to Jerusalem is either disingenuous or ignorant. Why? The garden tomb is near the Damascus Gate and in Jerusalem. It’s a stone’s throw away from the gate and the Old City.

SEAN:

and managed to reunite with the other women before they reached the apostles (Luke 24:10). That's three trips to one and we are told in Matthew 28:8 that these other women were running.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. [Mat 28:8]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A proposal was submitted (again by Jason), that on her way back to the apostles after first discovering the open tomb, Mary M encountered Peter and another disciple on the road to the tomb. This too is problematic because the text indicates otherwise. John 20:3 specifies that after Mary M reported to the two disciples, they started for the tomb:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. [John 20:3, NIV]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously it would not be correct to say Peter started for the tomb if Peter and the other disciple were already on their way to the tomb.

JASON:

[comment deleted - NS] Can anyone guess why Sean suddenly avoided using the KJV (the translation he claimed to want to use all throughout the debate) and used the NIV? Only because it uses the word “started” that he thinks helps his argument. However, this does demonstrate his poor scholarship and his lack of authenticity. [comment deleted - NS]. Take a look at the other translations and the one he claimed to want to use throughout the debate and see how they translated this verse.

John 20:3 -

KJV - Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

NKJV - Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.

ASV - Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.

SEAN:

Even if one is generous there, there is still the same problem. The scenario would still require Mary M to leave the tomb, go to Peter, then go back to the tomb, then go back to Jerusalem to see Peter and still arrive there at the same time as the other women. Recall that the other women only had to run from the tomb to Peter and the other apostles.

JASON:

Once again, you have to be either ignorant of disingenuous to say that a person had to go FROM the tomb TO Jerusalem because the tomb is IN Jerusalem and very close to everything in the city.

SEAN:

There is more comedy.

JASON:

I’m sure there is, but the readers are probably not laughing at what you are laughing at.

SEAN:

The scenario would raise images of Peter (and the other disciple) racing back to the tomb (John 20:3),

JASON:

Why “back” to the tomb? Had they already been there?

SEAN:

past the group of women who were coming to see him. This would be followed by him returning to his home (John 20:10), again passing the running women (Mat 28:8),

JASON:

This is an assumption. We don’t know when the women arrived at the tomb, again. So what if they did pass the men, again? Or what if they met the men there?

SEAN:

so he could be there ready in time to receive them when they arrived with the news (Luke 24:10).

JASON:

According to the biblical record, this is somewhat how it happened. Since someone that had predicted his death and resurrection was supernaturally raised from the dead, you could expect a little hysteria. People running to and fro wouldn’t be inappropriate or absurd in a situation like this.

SEAN:

Then there is still another remaining problem.

JASON:

Another, remaining problem? You haven’t given even one problem that couldn’t be easily harmonized or understood. However, understanding these passage does require one to be honest about the scriptures (e.g. the translations and the “start” deception, read them and notice the fine details (e.g. “while it was still dark”), have an idea about the city of Jerusalem in relation to the tomb, etc.; all of which you have failed to understand (and I’m putting this nicely).

SEAN:

Mary M received the primary mention as one of women who relayed the angel's message (Luke 24:10). However, according to John (20:1-2), she did not hear any such message before quitting the tomb.

JASON:

This is an argument from silence about an omission. In other words, this is one of the weakest forms of argumentation.

SEAN:

Now, just to suggest that all the questions regarding the women reporting to the apostles are redundant, Mark (16:8) tells us that the women did not report any of this to the apostles. To present it at its most glaring, let us compare Mark's (16:8) version with Luke's (24:8-9):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 24:
8. And they remembered his words,
9. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.


Mark 16:
8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would suggest that the only proper way to sort out the confusion is for Jason to propose a single account covering the discovery of the empty tomb and the reporting to the apostles. It would need to contain all the details from the four gospels that are pertinent to that section.

JASON:

The solution to this problem is quite simple. There was a time when they didn’t say anything about this because of their fear and there was a later time when they did speak about it.

We see a similar “problem” when the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible tries to cite a biblical error. It says Jesus’ mission and His apostles’ mission was contradicted in different passages of scripture. It cites Jesus’ words as He told them to simply minister to the Jews. It cites Jesus’ words as He tells them to simply minister to the Samaritans (half-Jews) and it cites Jesus’ words as He tells them to minister to the whole world (Jews and Gentiles).

Assuming this is a contradiction is awfully silly. Seeing the logical progression of His ministry (and the logical progression of time), we see that it was FIRST to the Jews, then to the Samaritans and Gentiles. You can see this correction and thousands other explanations like this in my book called “The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, 3rd Edition.”

SEAN:

Let us now move along and examine what the apostles (and Jesus) did after they heard that Jesus had risen. As we shall see, all indications in Matthew are that they went to Galilee, while all indications in Luke are that they stayed in Jerusalem. This problem actually starts with the angel's message given to the women at the tomb:

The angel's message according to Mark, Matthew and Luke:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 16 (NRSV):
6. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

Mat 28 (NRSV):
6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7. 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.

Luke 24 (NRSV):
5. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.
6. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JASON:

Out of curiosity, why are you using the NRSV? It seems awfully arbitrary (I’m putting this nicely) and it contradicts the earlier premise where you said you’d be using the KJV.

SEAN:

Matthew is quite close to Mark - though not close enough for a divinely inerrant quote. Luke, however, has important differences. Despite this, the scenario and similarities still leave little doubt that all those quotes are supposed to represent the same angelic message. In Mark, the message from the angel was a reminder that Jesus had told the apostles

JASON:

No, it doesn’t. The word “apostles” is never used. Here lies your confusion.

Jesus had thousands of disciples. The statements above are all to His disciples; not necessarily His apostles. Therefore, all of them are congruent and mentioning future appearances of Jesus Christ to His DISCIPLES.

SEAN:

that he would go before them into Galilee (75 miles away) where they should go to meet him (Mat 28:7). In Luke it's a variation. It's a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no suggestion that the apostles should leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:6).

So what did the apostles do? As instructed, the apostles and Jesus went to Galilee:

<snipped two pages of quotes scriptures and poor arguments based on the word “apostles” that isn’t present in the text.>

JASON:

If you had read the text more closely, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time and bandwidth. I hope you become a more astute student of the Word. If this were baseball, you would have struck out by now.

<snipped rapid fire questions and closing statement in order for me to have 250 words for my closing words>

Since the questions you “expounded” on were answered quickly, thoroughly and quite easily, it will likely be in your best interest to ask the additional questions. However, it would also be wise for you to study the text and give a sound argument with your questions. Questions can be answered quite easily. If you really think you have found a biblical error, then please prove an argument with your statement or question. (I’m referring to the rapid fire, question bombing at the end of your post.)

I would have addressed some or all of those questions, but I’m out of room. Furthermore, I’m sure you’d rather form an argument instead of asking rapid fire questions because I’m also sure you’d appreciate me to give an argument instead of rapid fire answers. Right?

With all due respect, the alleged errors that you have presented only demonstrate a lack of scholarship, some lazy reading skills, [comment deleted - NS] thrown into the mix. In this moment, you are representing skeptical thought. I hope you learn to bring it to a higher standard. Many people are reading and watching and I’m sure these errors in your logic are quite embarrassing to those that take the art and philosophy of skepticism seriously.

Thanks to all who have read to the bottom of this debate. May God bless you richly.

Serving Jesus Christ,
Jason Gastrich


[Edit: A few comments deleted and Gospel links fixed.
Please try to keep the formal debate to a cordial level. Accusations of deceit are not appropriate. Thanks - NS]

[Sean McHugh]

Greetings all,

Here again are the relevant verses:

Matthew 28:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Mat+28&version=KJV

Mark 16:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Mark+16&version=KJV

Luke 24:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Luke+24&version=KJV

John 20-21:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=John+20-21&version=KJV

In this first rebuttal I will start by addressing some of the proposals from Jason’s opening statement.

Jason Gastrich:
I affirm that the entire Bible is inerrant. Not every translation is inerrant, but the original manuscripts were inerrant and the manuscripts we have today and even the KJV are essentially inerrant.

The statement, "Not every translation is inerrant" would suggest that some translations are inerrant. The statement that, “the manuscripts we have today and even he KJV are essentially inerrant” would suggest they are NOT inerrant. “[E]ssentially inerrant”, like “mainly inerrant”, is an oxymoron.

Recently Jason effectively denied that the translations that we have today are inerrant. In a debate in his own forum, while arguing against a contradiction, he charged Farrell Till with ignoring an unspecified alternative way of translating a three-word clause. Farrell then presented twenty-one (twenty-three all told) Bible translations which all provided the meaning that Farrell was employing. He challenged Jason to find one that didn't. Jason didn't budge and called Farrell's exegetics, "Tillagetics". Had he felt that these Bibles were inerrant, Jason should have agreed (insisted!) that Farrell was NOT employing an incorrect translation. That debate can be found here:

<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=90&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0>

The citing of all the Bibles (by Farrell) occurs on page 2. I recommend that the whole thing be read. On page 8, Jason, by then very disorientated, starts arguing against his own position to John Powell.

Anyway, Jason needs to tell us what he means when he says that the Bible, and therefore the gospel accounts, is without error.

When Jason refers to the "original manuscripts", as being inerrant, which ones is he talking about? With respect to the gospels, is he talking about some particular extant Greek texts (which ones?) or some lost/theoretical documents?

Here’s the bottom line. Can Jason point to a Bible and say, “This Bible is inerrant”? If not, then he needs to offer some reason for assuming that the gospels and hence the post-resurrection accounts, escape this fallibility. Jason should not underestimate the importance of addressing that.

Jason alluded to the absence of contradictions in the gospels by asserting that the Bible is inerrant. Nowhere though does he provide support for that assertion. Trying to shoot down my negative evidence, although necessary, is not sufficient. Jason can't, by special pleading, grant the gospels inerrancy/harmony as the default. He needs to present a case for his affirmative position. He has wasted the opportunity to do this in his opening statement and has done so again in his first rebuttal.

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

[comment deleted - NS]

JASON:
For argument sake only, don’t forget that there is another option. Although I don’t believe this, it could be possible for the resurrection to be true and the accounts of it flawed. Don’t pretend like the resurrection depends on the KJV or the accounts.

In similitude, the evidence for the tooth fairy could be flawed and the tooth fairy could still exist. The point is, that because it is a very extraordinary claim, the resurrection needs strong evidence. It doesn't get any privilege of being true by default.

The reader should note that Jason, perhaps without realising it, has admitted that it is possible for the Bible and gospels to be flawed

SEAN:
David Hume, in his book, Of Miracles, shows that to establish a miracle, the falsity of the affirmative testimony would need to be more miraculous than the miracle to which it testifies and even then the degree of establishment would only be the latter subtracted from the former.

JASON:
Can you define the word “miracle”?

This red herring appears to be only for the purpose of wasting my space. There would be no one on either side of the fence here who would dispute, that if alleged resurrection happened, it would constitute a miracle.

SEAN:
Commentaries can be consistent with each other without duplication. . . . . As it happens, there is abundant evidence of copying of Mark by the writers of Matthew and Luke. However there is still sufficient original material to accommodate and exhibit numerous conflicts.

JASON:
You’ve tried to set a premise by arguing by assertion. If you think that there was copying, then please prove it. You can’t just say there was and have people believe it without proof. This is only a theory.

I don't merely think there was copying between the gospels; I am certain of it. There is no great difficulty in proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it’s just that it consumes bandwidth. I will therefore present a brief case for the charge at this location:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2bcca3f7.0401260231.2cedf596%40posting.google.com

The synoptic gospels result from a common Greek document. Jason may like to make this issue our next debate.

JASON:
Even if there were copying, how could it render a gospel’s testimony inadmissible? If a judge hears two defendants that are unrelated, yet witnessed the same event, and they had different, yet non-conflicting testimonies and one copied a few details from the other that were unknown to him, would the judge reject his entire testimony? Of course not.

I am not just talking about just a "few details" being copied. I am also not talking about non-conflicting testimonies. The gospels have both profound contradictions and vast copying. Many apologists argue that the two features are mutually exclusive, but they are not.

SEAN:
Despite this, they [inerrantists] still operate on the assumption of inerrancy and no matter how obvious an error would seem, they assume it is merely 'apparent'. They will zealously ignore Occam's razor and will submit even the most unlikely scenarios to rationalise the problems. In other words, to arrive at the conclusion of inerrancy, they assume inerrancy.

JASON:
You are missing the fact that a document could have been written by many people and it could contain omissions, yet still be inspired from God and inerrant. These things aren’t mutually exclusive as you present them.

“These things” ARE mutually exclusive. If the Bible is God's word, then it can't represent the perspectives of different human writers and vice verse. Jason is trying to have it both ways. The moment Jason appeals to different human writers, reporting what they thought to be correct and important, he can no longer appeal to divine inerrancy. Human error is human nature. Trying to induct others into one's religious superstition by use of misinformation is another of humanity’s failings.

[snip Jason's digression to evolution versus creation and the existence of God]

SEAN:
The apologist for inerrancy doesn't seem to realise that even exhibiting the appearance of contradiction raises problems for divine inspiration in the gospel accounts, especially for the evidence of the resurrection.

JASON:
Appearances are only problems for those that rely on them.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck!

SEAN:
[W]hy didn't he [God] at least ensure that these 'divinely inspired' documents appear to be inerrant? Surely God would want the accounts to be seen as mutually corroborating to any normal reading.

JASON:
I don’t mind your conversational style, but I do mind your arguments by assertion. You aren’t laying any kind of a premise. You’re just chatting.

The gospel accounts are not anonymous. They each have a name. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Are you implying those are fake names?

Jason confuses a book's title with its authorship. Even Christians (outside fundamentalism) concede the gospels to be anonymous. See the first footnote from the following:

http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/843633angelo.html

[snip promotion of Jason's book]

SEAN:
Let us start with the question of who first went to the tomb on the day of the resurrection. John tells us it was Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). Matthew tells us it was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Mat 28:1). Mark tells us it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke tells us it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women - a total of at least five (Luke 24:10).


JASON:
In order to know, without any doubt, who was the first person to the tomb, we’d have to see the word “first.” If we don’t see one gospel claiming that their visitor was first, then we can’t assume who was first.

Jason seems to be arguing against a notion of me implying that the different gospels are suggesting a different order of female visitations to the tomb. Nothing could be further from my position. I consider that all four accounts that I gave above represented different versions of the one trip, where Mary Magdalene, plus a changing number of women (between 0 and 4) went the tomb to discover it to be open/empty. My usage of "first" – which could be left out - was merely to emphasise that the women (1, 2, 3, 5 or more), were the first witnesses to the tomb, thus emphasising their importance. They are too important to be omitted, making it worse still for any gospeller to not mention any proposed earlier visitations. I added that last bit because it looks like Jason is now alluding to earlier visitations, though it’s hard to tell.

JASON:
It’s not impossible to determine a sequence of events. Why? Because we see indicators based on the amount of sunlight and time of day that the visitors came to the tomb.

John 20:1 - “while it was still dark”

Matthew 28:1 - “as the first day of the week began to dawn”

Mark 16:2 - “very early in the morning”

Luke 24:1 - “very early in the morning”

How do those conflicting reports help Jason's position? All Jason needs to do is present a plausible and likely sequence of events. It doesn't need to be the only possible one. I have already told him this, not only in this debate but also in previous discussions. One reader from the gallery has already presented an attempt at a harmonisation. Jason can use that if he and his book can't come up with a better one.

SEAN:
Jason may argue the standard inerrantist line that these are merely omissions. Let us consider John. Firstly, it would be very strange if the writer of John knew that several women went to the tomb that morning, heard the angel's message and met the risen Jesus (Mat 28:8-9) but decided to only mention one of the women. After all, an event like this requires all the corroboration it can get and the women were allegedly the first people to see the risen Jesus.

JASON:
John never mentions the morning. He mentions what happened while it was still dark.

Good grief man! It says, "early, when it was yet dark". To any sensible reading that is describing the time as being early in the morning before sunrise - like when I have to get up to go to work.

[comment deleted - NS]

SEAN:
John. John has Mary M alone going to the tomb that morning,

JASON:
No. John has Mary M going to the tomb while it was still dark.

So what point is Jason trying to make? Whatever it is it seems based on a ridiculous understanding of the verse.

SEAN:
[John] then has Mary M abandoning the tomb without entering it (thus missing the angel's message) and then has Mary M going back to the apostles without hearing about the resurrection. She consequently only has bad news to report. John continues with the internal consistency by continuing to feature Mary M without any mention of other women. In doing so, he solidly establishes the one-woman program.

JASON:
If you would read the text closely, you would see how John was referring to a time “while it was still dark.” His account of Mary M fits perfectly into the other accounts. If you change the text and insert “morning,” then you run into some problems. I hope this early mistake of yours causes you to be more careful throughout the debate.

Jason is STILL on about whatever it is! Perhaps one of his newer Bible students will explain to him that John 20:1 refers to the morning.

SEAN:
A third point to observe is the agreement to the lower number of women. It is very difficult to believe that even one gospeller would submit one or two woman as being there if he knew that at least five were there.

JASON:
This isn’t difficult to believe at all. These biblical accounts don’t claim to include every word spoken or every person present. It is quite normal to omit a few words or people; especially if they did not speak.

That argument is circular. It justifies biblical 'omissions' by invoking biblical 'omissions'.

SEAN:
Luke indicates that at least five women were involved and probably more. The average from the other three gospels is two women.

JASON:
Luke mentioned “at least five women.” Even from Luke’s account, we see that the names of the women weren’t that important to him. Why should the presence of those women be important to another author?

How about normal communication? Anyway, I have provided several reasons for the importance.

JASON:
If the hypothetical person made a judgment about the event by reading only one account, then they should be held in contempt. They should read all of the accounts, then determine what happened.

Presenting a determination of what happened, by using the details from all the accounts, is precisely what I have been asking Jason to do. So when will he be presenting it? Never, I suspect.

JASON:
If a crime were committed, for instance, and four people witnessed it and give amazing, congruent details about it, would it matter how many other witnesses were there?

But we aren't getting congruent reports of the resurrection. We aren't even getting congruent reports on who were the witnesses.

SEAN:
The fifth point is based on the previous point. By only describing Mary M as being there, John is giving a false impression; that is, if there were several women there. It becomes a deliberate false impression if the writer knew that there were several women involved. How can that be regarded as inerrancy? The same applies in lesser and varying degrees to Mark and Matthew.

JASON:
This is only significant if you can demonstrate why John needed to write as you think he should write. If you can’t support your opinion, then what good is it? Why do the details you require need to be there?

I said that if other women were known to be there, John writing as if only one woman was there, gives a deliberate false impression. I don't think I need to support the opinion that deliberately giving a false impression is NOT good.

SEAN:
Sixth and lastly, John's single woman account resists being harmonised with the other gospels, especially with Luke. . . . . Compare the following accounts of what Mary M reported to the apostles after discovering the empty tomb:

It has been proposed to me (actually by Jason) that there were two trips from the tomb by Mary M, one to report the news that the body had been taken and another to report (this time with the other women) the resurrection. There are sufficient problems with this to deem it unworkable. Recall that according to three of the gospels, Mary M was only one of a group that went to the tomb that morning (Mat 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10).

JASON:
Actually, this is more accurate than using the word “morning.”

Matthew 28:1 - “as the first day of the week began to dawn”

Mark 16:2 - “very early in the morning”

Luke 24:1 - “very early in the morning”

What is Jason’s point?

Sean:
The proposal for rationalising the problem requires that Mary M separated from the others, went from the tomb to find and report to the apostles,

JASON:
According to the scriptures, they ran into Peter and one other.

Where is there actual evidence for that? As I have already shown, John 20:2 indicates that Peter started for the tomb after Mary M reported to him.

SEAN:
delivered the message, returned to the tomb, then returned to Jerusalem

JASON:
I’ve been to Jerusalem twice. I’ve also been to the garden tomb and all over the city. For you to say that they went to the tomb, THEN to Jerusalem is either disingenuous or ignorant. Why? The garden tomb is near the Damascus Gate and in Jerusalem. It’s a stone’s throw away from the gate and the Old City.

Will Jason be happy if the wording is changed to, "went into the city" (of Jerusalem)? That is in keeping with Matthew’s report on the holy zombies (27:53):

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=mat+27%3A51-53&version=KJV

As Jason himself will tell us, the supposed site is OUTSIDE the city (Jerusalem):

http://holysites.com/Jerusalem.htm

During the lifetime of Jesus, this site [the tomb] was probably a disused quarry outside the city walls. [J. Gastrich]

Peter starts for the tomb:

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. [John 20:3, NIV]

Obviously it would not be correct to say Peter started for the tomb if Peter and the other disciple were already on their way to the tomb.

JASON:
Can anyone guess why Sean suddenly avoided using the KJV (the translation he claimed to want to use all throughout the debate) and used the NIV? Only because it uses the word “started” that he thinks helps his argument. However, this does demonstrate his poor scholarship and his lack of authenticity. Take a look at the other translations and the one he claimed to want to use throughout the debate and see how they translated this verse.

John 20:3 -

KJV - Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

NKJV - Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.

ASV - Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.

I chose the NIV there because it illustrated my point in the straightest language. "[W]ent forth" is archaic and "went out" is clunky. However none of them suggests that Peter was en route and all of them suggest that he started for the tomb. A consultation of Thayer's Lexicon also supports that Peter's departure for the tomb is being described, rather than a continuance of it. What is more, for the relevant lemma (exerchomai) Thayer’s indicates a suggestion of leaving a building. This is supported further along in John, where it says:

Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. [John 20:10]

That suggests that they returned to the place from where they left.

SEAN:
Even if one is generous there, there is still the same problem. The scenario would still require Mary M to leave the tomb, go to Peter, then go back to the tomb, then go back to Jerusalem to see Peter and still arrive there at the same time as the other women. Recall that the other women only had to run from the tomb to Peter and the other apostles.

JASON:
Once again, you have to be either ignorant of disingenuous to say that a person had to go FROM the tomb TO Jerusalem because the tomb is IN Jerusalem and very close to everything in the city.

It was OUTSIDE the city. Coming from some grave area outside the city to a destination inside a city would generally involve some distance. But it’s all rather academic because even the Garden Tomb Association no longer claims that its property contains the Tomb of Jesus.

In any case, it's still three trips to one and that is still a problem until Jason provides a harmonisation.

SEAN:
The scenario would raise images of Peter (and the other disciple) racing back to the tomb (John 20:3),

JASON:
Why “back” to the tomb? Had they already been there?

Mary M had just come from the tomb and joined Peter and the other disciple. The three then headed back to the tomb.

SEAN:
past the group of women who were coming to see him. This would be followed by him returning to his home (John 20:10), again passing the running women (Mat 28:8),

JASON:
This is an assumption. We don’t know when the women arrived at the tomb, again.

Where does Jason get "again" for the women there? I was referring to a single trip by the women from the tomb to report to the eleven. As I clearly said, Peter would have passed the women who were coming to see him as he went to the to tomb and passed them again on his way back, so he could be back home ready to receive them.

Jason:
So what if they did pass the men, again? Or what if they met the men there?

Read what I said, again.

SEAN:
. . . so he could be there ready in time to receive them when they arrived with the news (Luke 24:10).

JASON:
According to the biblical record, this is somewhat how it happened. . . . . . you could expect a little hysteria. People running to and fro wouldn’t be inappropriate or absurd in a situation like this.

Then let Jason use the “biblical record” to provide a single likely account. Has Jason noted that not even the singular support he is getting from the readers denies that there are problems that still need to be explained?

SEAN:
Then there is still another remaining problem.

JASON:
Another, remaining problem? You haven’t given even one problem that couldn’t be easily harmonized or understood.

Vague and hopeless solutions tend to be easy.

Jason:
However, understanding these passage does require one to be honest about the scriptures (e.g. the translations and the “start” deception, read them and notice the fine details (e.g. “while it was still dark”), have an idea about the city of Jerusalem in relation to the tomb, etc.; all of which you have failed to understand (and I’m putting this nicely).

Please note the vagueness of Jason's ‘point’ and how he doesn't explain how it affects my argument.

SEAN:
Mary M received the primary mention as one of women who relayed the angel's message (Luke 24:10). However, according to John (20:1-2), she did not hear any such message before quitting the tomb.

JASON:
This is an argument from silence about an omission. In other words, this is one of the weakest forms of argumentation.

Nonsense! John indicates quite clearly that Mary M left the tomb and reported to Peter without hearing any good news from an angel or anyone else:

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [John 20:1-2]

Perhaps Jason wishes to propose that Mary M received a separate angelic message of the good news. But where can he put it? I’ll bet that we won’t be getting a straight answer on that.

The did/didn't tell any man, contradiction:

Luke 24: 8. And they remembered his words, 9. And returned from the sepulchre, [b]and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

Mark 16: 8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid ---

JASON:
The solution to this problem is quite simple. There was a time when they didn’t say anything about this because of their fear and there was a later time when they did speak about it.

That’s ridiculous. We are informed in Matthew and Luke that they were not only instructed to tell the apostles/disciple, but that they hurried/ran with great joy to do it. From Matthew:

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. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. (Mat 28:7-8]

Jason’s ‘solution’ simply ignores that.

JASON:
We see a similar “problem” when the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible tries to cite a biblical error. . . . [etc etc].

[rest of diversion into 'solution' for an apparent contraction during Jesus' ministry, snipped]

I have been patient. Jason, please stick to the topic.

The Jerusalem/Galilee, contradiction:

The angel's message according to Mark, Matthew and Luke:

(I have restored the boldfacing)

SEAN:
Mark 16 (NRSV): 6. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

Mat 28 (NRSV): 6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7. 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.

Luke 24 (NRSV): 5. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. 6. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,


JASON:
Out of curiosity, why are you using the NRSV? It seems awfully arbitrary (I’m putting this nicely) and it contradicts the earlier premise where you said you’d be using the KJV.

First, notice that Jason didn't address the problem of the differences in what the angel was supposed to have said. Secondly, I DID NOT say I would only be using the KJV. Others have read what I really said and have not had difficulty understanding it.

To answer Jason, I chose the NRSV there because it best illustrated my point. Would he contend that the NRSV is not inerrant? If so, please let him tell us which Bible/s is/are inerrant.

By the way, if the Bible is inerrant and the NRSV is not, then the NRSV can't be a Bible. It's that simple. The same goes for any other translations that cause Jason to object. As I indicated above, the list of translations that Jason rejects would seem to be quite long, if not exhaustive.

SEAN:
Matthew is quite close to Mark - though not close enough for a divinely inerrant quote. Luke, however, has important differences. Despite this, the scenario and similarities still leave little doubt that all those quotes are supposed to represent the same angelic message. In Mark, the message from the angel was a reminder that Jesus had told the apostles . .

JASON:
No, it doesn’t. The word “apostles” is never used. Here lies your confusion.

By any name the primary recipients of that instruction are to be the 'eleven'. Would Jason have us believe that the angel didn't want them told and that there was some secret code in the message that alerted the women to this?

JASON:
Jesus had thousands of disciples. The statements above are all to His disciples; not necessarily His apostles. Therefore, all of them are congruent and mentioning future appearances of Jesus Christ to His DISCIPLES.

It’s absurd to suggest that 'disciples' there doesn't refer to the twelve (minus one) apostles and it would be even more ridiculous to suggest that the instruction excluded them as recipients. This is, after all, the news of the resurrection.

Mat 27:
(7) 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. (8) And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

(16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

There’s the instruction, the delivery and the implementation. All are congruent.

SEAN:
Jesus had told the apostles that he would go before them into Galilee (75 miles away) where they should go to meet him (Mat 28:7). In Luke it's a variation; it's a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no suggestion that the apostles should leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:6).

So what did the apostles do? As instructed, the apostles and Jesus went to Galilee:

JASON:
<snipped two pages of quotes scriptures and poor arguments based on the word “apostles” that isn’t present in the text.>

Jason has deleted and ignored my arguments and questions on the basis of a silly quibble. I will repeat my questions. Did the apostles (‘the eleven disciples’ for the desperately pedantic) go to Galilee, or did they remain in Jerusalem? If they went to Galilee, when did they do it? Where does the lukan account provide the instruction, the need or the opportunity to go to Galilee?

I will finish by reminding Jason that he has yet to present to the case for the affirmative, that the post-resurrection accounts are without contradiction.

Yours sincerely,

Sean McHugh


[Edit: disparaging remarks deleted - NS]

[Jason Gastrich]

Hello Readers and Sean,

I hope you are well, today.

For the purpose of this debate, I affirm that the Greek, New Testament manuscripts that we possess, regarding the post-resurrection accounts are inerrant. This will keep us focused on the resolution: The post-resurrection accounts are inerrant. I realize that my opening statement mentioned the entire Bible and I also realize that I may have given a confusing statement. Nonetheless, the statement regarding the entire Bible is inconsequential to this debate.

In order for the post-resurrection accounts to be inerrant, they would have to be logically harmonizable. Of course, a person can invoke “God did it” or a variety of supernatural reasons for things. This is one way of harmonizing the different accounts, but I propose that these accounts are harmonizable even by using common logic.

As we saw in Sean’s last post, the skeptic must do an extraordinary amount of bad exegesis before he or she can find an error in the post-resurrection accounts that cannot be logically harmonized. Sean has the burden of proof to show that there is an error in the accounts. So far, he has not demonstrated anything convincing. He has not tarnished the claim or inerrancy.

Something is perfect because it is without an imperfection. Similarly, a document is inerrant if it is free from errors.

An inerrantist should be able to harmonize the scriptures if they are to be inerrant. An inerrantist should be able to explain any apparent contradictions. If someone defending inerrancy cannot harmonize the scriptures and cannot explain the alleged contradictions, then one could conclude that the scriptures may be in error. I’ve challenged Sean to expand on his rapid-fire question bombing from the end of his Round 2 post and I hope that he does. I’ve studied the New Testament in great detail and I’ve found harmonizations and explanations to all of the allegations against the scriptures.

Unless Sean can prove an error in the post-resurrection accounts that I have never encountered, then he will have lost the debate. Sean is arguing for errancy. He is claiming that there are numerous errors in the Bible. I do not intend to avoid EVEN ONE of his allegations. Not only is his exegesis abysmal, his assertions about the Bible are juvenile and mundane. They are the kinds of things found in the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. If anyone has read that commentary, then they would know that it reaches for all kinds of absurd answers as it tries to show how bad and confusing the Bible is. However, there are a number of people like Sean and like Steve Wells that have set out to show how ridiculous and errant the Bible is, but have actually found how it is inerrant. Josh McDowell is one that comes to mind.

Unless Sean can produce an error that I’ve never seen (which would be shocking since I corrected and explained EVERY alleged error from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible in my book), you can decide for yourself if the Bible is in error or not. You will not have any evidence against the claim of inerrancy. You will not having any convincing proof that the Bible contradicts. You’ll have corrections, explanations, and harmonizations that are both logical and perfectly reasonable.

In order to prove that the post-resurrection accounts are inerrant, wouldn’t one have to explain and harmonize every allegation against them? In order to know that those scriptures are not in error, would an inerrantist have to harmonize everything that seems contradictory? Well, that is exactly what I have done and exactly what I intend to do.

SEAN:
Commentaries can be consistent with each other without duplication. . . . . As it happens, there is abundant evidence of copying of Mark by the writers of Matthew and Luke. However there is still sufficient original material to accommodate and exhibit numerous conflicts.

JASON:
You’ve tried to set a premise by arguing by assertion. If you think that there was copying, then please prove it. You can’t just say there was and have people believe it without proof. This is only a theory.

SEAN:
I don't merely think there was copying between the gospels; I am certain of it. There is no great difficulty in proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it’s just that it consumes bandwidth. I will therefore present a brief case for the charge at this location:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2bcca3f7.0401260231.2cedf596%40posting.google.com

The synoptic gospels result from a common Greek document. Jason may like to make this issue our next debate.

JASON:
At this point, you haven’t proven it. Giving a link and saying there is a better argument on that link than you can make isn’t convincing. If you want someone to believe something (like what you say), then you’ll have to post an argument. Right now, you want us to assume that there was copying. You want people to blindly believe you. Feel free to support your assertions; or not. The choice is yours, but don’t think you have an argument unless you support it. This is an argument by assertion.

JASON:
Even if there were copying, how could it render a gospel’s testimony inadmissible? If a judge hears two defendants that are unrelated, yet witnessed the same event, and they had different, yet non-conflicting testimonies and one copied a few details from the other that were unknown to him, would the judge reject his entire testimony? Of course not.

SEAN:
I am not just talking about just a "few details" being copied. I am also not talking about non-conflicting testimonies. The gospels have both profound contradictions and vast copying. Many apologists argue that the two features are mutually exclusive, but they are not.

JASON:
“Talking” is the key word. All you’re doing is talking.

SEAN:
Despite this, they still operate on the assumption of inerrancy and no matter how obvious an error would seem, they assume it is merely 'apparent'. They will zealously ignore Occam's razor and will submit even the most unlikely scenarios to rationalise the problems. In other words, to arrive at the conclusion of inerrancy, they assume inerrancy.

JASON:

On the first read, I didn’t see how much of a straw man argument this was. Sean should try and stick to the arguments instead of inventing them. Already, we see Sean avoiding to support his arguments and making up arguments to attack. When are we going to see him actually debate the issues?

SEAN:
“These things” ARE mutually exclusive. If the Bible is God's word, then it can't represent the perspectives of different human writers and vice verse. Jason is trying to have it both ways. The moment Jason appeals to different human writers, reporting what they thought to be correct and important, he can no longer appeal to divine inerrancy. Human error is human nature. Trying to induct others into one's religious superstition by use of misinformation is another of humanity’s failings.

JASON:
Different people recorded different details. This is quite common. It is the atheist who likes to create a straw man for the Bible by holding it to an unreasonable standard; one of their choosing. It is no surprise that one who rejects God because God is not who they think He should be is also rejecting the scriptures because the scriptures are not what they think they should be. Nonetheless, admitting that the scriptures are not what you think they should be still isn’t producing a biblical error.

SEAN:
The apologist for inerrancy doesn't seem to realise that even exhibiting the appearance of contradiction raises problems for divine inspiration in the gospel accounts, especially for the evidence of the resurrection.


JASON:
Appearances are only problems for those that rely on them.

SEAN:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck!

JASON:
Up until now, your arguments have relied on your opinions, appearances, and things that you think are probably true. This isn’t convincing argumentation, though. It isn’t showing how the post-resurrection accounts are in error.

SEAN:
A third point to observe is the agreement to the lower number of women. It is very difficult to believe that even one gospeller would submit one or two woman as being there if he knew that at least five were there.

JASON:
This isn’t difficult to believe at all. These biblical accounts don’t claim to include every word spoken or every person present. It is quite normal to omit a few words or people; especially if they did not speak.

SEAN:
That argument is circular. It justifies biblical 'omissions' by invoking biblical 'omissions'.

JASON:
No, it’s not a circular argument. It’s a reasonable argument. There has never been a requirement on people to record every person present or every word spoken.

SEAN:
Luke indicates that at least five women were involved and probably more. The average from the other three gospels is two women.

JASON:
Averaging people doesn’t seem to serve any rational or logical purpose. If one is genuinely interested in discovering the truth about these accounts, why would they average the number of spectators mentioned by the different authors?

SEAN:
The fifth point is based on the previous point. By only describing Mary M as being there, John is giving a false impression; that is, if there were several women there. It becomes a deliberate false impression if the writer knew that there were several women involved. How can that be regarded as inerrancy? The same applies in lesser and varying degrees to Mark and Matthew.

JASON:
This is only significant if you can demonstrate why John needed to write as you think he should write. If you can’t support your opinion, then what good is it? Why do the details you require need to be there?

SEAN:
I said that if other women were known to be there, John writing as if only one woman was there, gives a deliberate false impression. I don't think I need to support the opinion that deliberately giving a false impression is NOT good.

JASON:
Once again, you are merely giving your opinion. In your opinion, each gospel author should have written every single person present in every single situation. Right? This isn’t reasonable and I see no reason why readers should agree with you and your opinion.


SEAN:
Sixth and lastly, John's single woman account resists being harmonised with the other gospels, especially with Luke. . . . . Compare the following accounts of what Mary M reported to the apostles after discovering the empty tomb:

It has been proposed to me (actually by Jason) that there were two trips from the tomb by Mary M, one to report the news that the body had been taken and another to report (this time with the other women) the resurrection. There are sufficient problems with this to deem it unworkable. Recall that according to three of the gospels, Mary M was only one of a group that went to the tomb that morning (Mat 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10).

JASON:
I’ve been to Jerusalem twice. I’ve also been to the garden tomb and all over the city. For you to say that they went to the tomb, THEN to Jerusalem is either disingenuous or ignorant. Why? The garden tomb is near the Damascus Gate and in Jerusalem. It’s a stone’s throw away from the gate and the Old City.

SEAN:
Will Jason be happy if the wording is changed to, "went into the city" (of Jerusalem)? That is in keeping with Matthew’s report on the holy zombies (27:53):

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=mat+27%3A51-53&version=KJV

JASON:
I’d be happy if you avoided pretending like it was a long trip from the garden tomb to Jerusalem. As I said, you can literally throw a stone from the tomb and hit Jerusalem’s wall and Damascus Gate.

SEAN:
As Jason himself will tell us, the supposed site is OUTSIDE the city (Jerusalem):

http://holysites.com/Jerusalem.htm

JASON:
This link has nothing to do with this topic. It doesn’t show or tell how far the garden tomb is from the wall of Jerusalem.

SEAN:
Even if one is generous there, there is still the same problem. The scenario would still require Mary M to leave the tomb, go to Peter, then go back to the tomb, then go back to Jerusalem to see Peter and still arrive there at the same time as the other women. Recall that the other women only had to run from the tomb to Peter and the other apostles.

JASON:
If this is how it happened, it would be no trouble whatsoever.


JASON:
Once again, you have to be either ignorant of disingenuous to say that a person had to go FROM the tomb TO Jerusalem because the tomb is IN Jerusalem and very close to everything in the city.

SEAN:
It was OUTSIDE the city. Coming from some grave area outside the city to a destination inside a city would generally involve some distance. But it’s all rather academic because even the Garden Tomb Association no longer claims that its property contains the Tomb of Jesus.

No, as I said, it’s a literal stone’s throw away. Don’t worry about the semantics. Be concerned with your disingenuous insinuation. The is a stone’s throw away from the wall.

When I was there a few years ago, the garden tomb guide said it was a possible location. You can see Golgotha from there, so it is very likely the right site. Here are two links. Here is a picture of Golgotha - the place that is said to be near the tomb. It looks like the skull described in the Bible as it is called “The Place of the Skull.” I took this picture from the garden tomb. Link: http://www.jcsm.org/Israel1997/Golgotha.jpg

SEAN:
As I clearly said, Peter would have passed the women who were coming to see him as he went to the to tomb and passed them again on his way back, so he could be back home ready to receive them.

JASON:
This seems to be your best argument; that people had to pass each other in transit and that certain people could possibly not get certain places soon enough. This is awfully weak. If you can’t demonstrate a biblical error any better than saying that these people crossed each other’s paths a couple of times and couldn’t have returned to the tomb, you don’t have any kind of argument.

SEAN:
Then let Jason use the “biblical record” to provide a single likely account.

JASON:
In order to win this debate, providing a single likely account is unnecessary. All I have to do is show how your claims about errancy are false. We are talking about a few chapters in the Bible; not the whole Bible and not the whole New Testament. For the sake of this debate, I only need to show how the passage harmonizes and can be explained; and I have done this.

JASON:
However, understanding these passage does require one to be honest about the scriptures (e.g. the translations and the “start” [[i]remark deleted], read them and notice the fine details (e.g. “while it was still dark”), have an idea about the city of Jerusalem in relation to the tomb, etc.; all of which you have failed to understand (and I’m putting this nicely).

SEAN:
Please note the vagueness of Jason's ‘point’ and how he doesn't explain how it affects my argument.

JASON:
The readers can decide how much it effects your argument. [ad hom deleted]

SEAN:
Mary M received the primary mention as one of women who relayed the angel's message (Luke 24:10). However, according to John (20:1-2), she did not hear any such message before quitting the tomb.

JASON:
This is an argument from silence about an omission. In other words, this is one of the weakest forms of argumentation.

SEAN:
Nonsense! John indicates quite clearly that Mary M left the tomb and reported to Peter without hearing any good news from an angel or anyone else:

quote:
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [John 20:1-2]

JASON:
No, it’s not nonsense. You are using an argument from silence. You haven’t proven that a statement could not have been made. You are arguing from the silence in the scriptures that nothing was said. This is a poor and weak argument.

SEAN:
The did/didn't tell any man, contradiction:

Luke 24: 8. And they remembered his words, 9. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

Mark 16: 8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid ---

JASON:
The solution to this problem is quite simple. There was a time when they didn’t say anything about this because of their fear and there was a later time when they did speak about it.

SEAN:
That’s ridiculous. We are informed in Matthew and Luke that they were not only instructed to tell the apostles/disciple, but that they hurried/ran with great joy to do it. From Matthew:

quote:
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. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. (Mat 28:7-8]

Jason’s ‘solution’ simply ignores that.

JASON:
My solution doesn’t ignore anything. It is reasonable for there to be a short time of awe and silence. Afterwards, they told everyone AS COMMANDED. You are simply saying that you doubt they could be silent or that you don’t think the scriptures allow for any period of silence; which is silly.

Read Mark 16:10 and 11. Only two verses later, after the verse about silence, we see them TELLING PEOPLE. They read, “She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.”


The Jerusalem/Galilee, contradiction:

The angel's message according to Mark, Matthew and Luke:

SEAN:
Mark 16 (NRSV): 6. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

Mat 28 (NRSV): 6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7. 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.

Luke 24 (NRSV): 5. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. 6. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,

(Snipped rant on translations and posts that obviously didn’t get the key point.)



JASON:
Jesus had thousands of disciples. The statements above are all to His disciples; not necessarily His apostles. Therefore, all of them are congruent and mentioning future appearances of Jesus Christ to His DISCIPLES.

SEAN:
It’s absurd to suggest that 'disciples' there doesn't refer to the twelve (minus one) apostles and it would be even more ridiculous to suggest that the instruction excluded them as recipients. This is, after all, the news of the resurrection.

JASON:
It wouldn’t be absurd at all! Why would Jesus ONLY want to reveal Himself to 11 people? He was the resurrected Christ! Jesus was seen by thousands of people in the 40 days that He walked the Earth with a resurrected body.

SEAN:
Jesus had told the apostles that he would go before them into Galilee (75 miles away) where they should go to meet him (Mat 28:7). In Luke it's a variation; it's a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no suggestion that the apostles should leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:6).

So what did the apostles do? As instructed, the apostles and Jesus went to Galilee:




JASON:
<snipped two pages of quotes scriptures and poor arguments based on the word “apostles” that isn’t present in the text.>

SEAN:
Jason has deleted and ignored my arguments and questions on the basis of a silly quibble. I will repeat my questions. Did the apostles (‘the eleven disciples’ for the desperately pedantic) go to Galilee, or did they remain in Jerusalem? If they went to Galilee, when did they do it? Where does the lukan account provide the instruction, the need or the opportunity to go to Galilee?

JASON:
You have missed the point. The point is that the word “disciples” was used. Besides you being either misleading or ignorant [ad hom deleted], Jesus walked the Earth for 40 days after His resurrection. He visited DISCIPLES in Galilee and in Jerusalem. As Jesus was about to ascend to Heaven, He told His disciples to stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came. This happened one week later (50 days after Passover on a day called Pentecost).

Acts 1:1-3 “The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

So, we have an account that tells us Jesus had PLENTY of time to fulfill both the scriptures about Him meeting some disciples in Galilee and the scriptures about Him meeting them in Jerusalem.

–

If the post-resurrection accounts are contradictory, then why don’t they seem contradictory? Are these really the best arguments you have? With all due respect, even a child could harmonize these accounts and make these arguments. All you have done is make assumptions regarding the way you think things should have happened. You’re acting like there should have been a picture perfect situation where everyone did and said what you think they should. Quite silly.

Why would you make arguments by assertion (and assumption) and arguments from silence? These are the weakest forms of arguments. Why would you say that Jesus couldn’t visit both Galilee and Jerusalem in 40 days? Why would you say that the people visiting the tomb couldn’t leave the tomb, return, then meet up, again?

As I said already, an inerrant set of accounts needs to be harmonized and explained logically before it can be accepted as error-free. This has been accomplished. Unless we see better arguments (and surely different arguments because these aren’t going anywhere for Sean), then we can logically conclude that the post-resurrection accounts are inerrant. Only a fool would say otherwise.

This is a debate. This is the time where Sean needs to present his most meaningful and most convincing case against the post-resurrection accounts’ inerrancy. Perhaps someone reading could give him some help. I’d be happy to tackle tougher questions and arguments. With all due respect, these are awfully mundane and basic.

Perhaps Sean will consider giving up and accepting the fact that these accounts may be inerrant. Perhaps his argumentation will reveal to him that he doesn’t have a good case against the post-resurrection accounts. It’s hard to see how they could tell him anything differently.

If Sean wishes to surrender, then I will accept. However, I’d still like for us to give final statements. If he wishes to proceed, then that is fine as well.

Thanks for reading. May God bless you richly.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://www.jcsm.org


[Edit: ad homs deleted & a few links fixed
JG, once again, we insist that you stick to attacking the arguments, not the arguer. - NS]

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jason Gastrich,

You have been warned twice about the tone you have taken with your responses to Sean McHugh. Personal attacks are not permitted in formal debates. I suggest that you change the tone of your responses or further infractions may constitute a forfeit, ending the debate.

Sean McHugh,

We also strongly recommend that your statements be adjusted to a more respectable level.

Thanks,

Jason

[Sean McHugh]

Greetings all,

Here is Jason’s new inerrancy statement:

JASON:
For the purpose of this debate, I affirm that the Greek, New Testament manuscripts that wepossess, regarding the post-resurrection accounts are inerrant. This will keep us focused on the resolution: The post-resurrection accounts are inerrant. I realize that my opening statement mentioned the entire Bible and I also realize that I may have given a confusing statement Nonetheless, the statement regarding the entire Bible is inconsequential to this debate.

Is Jason implying that none of the English translations is inerrant in the post-resurrectional accounts? How has Jason determined that the Greek New Testament manuscripts are inerrant? Where is his support for this claim? If this is what he defending, shouldn't all of his arguments refer to what the Greek is saying, rather than what the supposedly fallible English versions are saying? We already know that he has challenged English translations of this section. It’s ironic that the only appeal to the Greek was by me.

JASON:
In order for the post-resurrection accounts to be inerrant, they would have to be logically harmonizable. Of course, a person can invoke “God did it” or a variety of supernatural reasons for things. This is one way of harmonizing the different accounts, but I propose that these accounts are harmonizable even by using common logic.

Yet Jason is still to provide a harmonisation. All he needs to do is provide one plausible and likely account that incorporates all the pertinent gospel details for this short gospel section. He has been asked to do this many times.

JASON:
As we saw in Sean’s last post, the skeptic must do an extraordinary amount of bad exegesis before he or she can find an error in the post-resurrection accounts that cannot be logically harmonized. Sean has the burden of proof to show that there is an error in the accounts. So far, he has not demonstrated anything convincing. He has not tarnished the claim or inerrancy.

My hypothetical inability to present real contradictions or Jason's hypothetical ability to harmonise such submissions, does NOT provide proof of inerrancy. Documents can be a pack of lies yet still hypothetically agree. Jason has now shifted the premise for his affirmative statement, from biblical inerrancy to Greek NT post-resurrectional inerrancy. One must therefore conclude that Jason is premising his claim, for no contradictions in the post-resurrectional accounts, on the supposed inerrancy of some two-thousand-year-old Greek documents. If Jason thinks he has no burden of proof in this debate with such a remarkable (if not clairvoyant) claim/premise, then he is very mistaken.

JASON:
I’ve challenged Sean to expand on his rapid-fire question bombing from the end of his Round 2 post and I hope that he does. I’ve studied the New Testament in great detail and I’ve found harmonizations and explanations to all of the allegations against the scriptures.

As I will be showing, Jason has yet to deal with the current challenges. I don’t intend to use my bandwidth and furnish Jason with an excuse to skip them. When Jason finally answers the current challenges he can address those supplementary questions. The latter are in the form of A-conflicting-with-B with references for A and B. That is all that is required to present a contradiction. The reader can confirm that presentation by going to the bottom of my Round 1 statement.

JASON:
Unless Sean can prove an error in the post-resurrection accounts that I have never encountered, then he will have lost the debate. I do not intend to avoid EVEN ONE of his allegations. Not only is his exegesis abysmal, his assertions about the Bible are juvenile and mundane. They are the kinds of things found in the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.

For some, exegeses require special reading of the Bible, something with which to dazzle and amaze. To me, the proposal that the Bible requires special reading suggests it doesn’t make sense when inferred through normal communication. I submit that in the hands of zealous proponents, biblical exegeses become corrosive to normal comprehension. I suggest that in examining the Bible, the apologist should worry less about biblical exegeses and more about reading.

JASON:
Unless Sean can produce an error that I’ve never seen (which would be shocking since I corrected and explained EVERY alleged error from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible in my book), you can decide for yourself if the Bible is in error or not.

That strange statement seems to be saying that the readers can only decide themselves on errancy/inerrancy if I can't produce a biblical error that Jason hasn't previously seen. Does that make any sense?

SEAN:
I don't merely think there was copying between the gospels; I am certain of it. There is no great difficulty in proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it’s just that it consumes bandwidth. I will therefore present a brief case for the charge at this location:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2bcca3f7.0401260231.2cedf596%40posting.google.com

The synoptic gospe