Easter Challenge

Here is a supposed "Easter Challenge" reposted by alleged atheist blogger William Hounslown who blogs under the pseudonym "Rosa Rubicondior." 

This "challenge" is similar to the "10 questions Christians can't answer" which is apparently meant to show people that Christians and their faith have contradictions and therefore this invalidates their beliefs.

 

The original post dated MONDAY, 27 AUGUST 2012 is found at:

Easter Challenge

Rosa writes:
{The Easter Challenge
Here's a challenge for Christians, especially those who believe the Bible to be the literal, inerrant
word of a god, and even those who believe the five accounts of the resurrection of Jesus by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul are an account of an actual resurrection by Jesus.}


Sacerdotus comments:
Esther clearly does not understand what it means when Christians state that the Bible is the "word of God." In reality, Jesus is the "Word of God," the Bible is a reflection of this Word. The books of the Bible convey the salvific mission of God. It captures the stories of humanity's interaction with God's saving power.  These books are inspired by God. This means that God inspired the writers using their own experiences, education, culture, language and forms of communication in order to convey His Word.

Rosa writes:
{First, a few words from Thomas Paine: I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true.Thomas Paine. The Age Of Reason. 1776}

Sacerdotus comments:
Thomas Paine repeated arguments he heard at coffee shops during his time. He had only six years of
education (Thomas Paine, Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of MOdern Nations - Craig Nelson).  In this quote he clearly contradicts himself. First he states that if all parts of a story are in agreement, then this does not mean the story is true.  He then goes on to state that if there are disagreements in the parts of a story, then the whole story cannot be true.  So when is a story true?

Rosa writes:
{The challenge is to take all five accounts of the events following the supposed crucifixion of Jesus
and, starting on Easter morning and, omitting none of the details given in the five biblical accounts,
construct a logical sequence of events.I make no claim of authorship of this challenge which
appears in Dan Barker's book 'Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One Of America's Leading Atheists'.}


Sacerdotus comments:
This "chellenge" is no challenge at all.  It is clear that if Dan Barker understand his studies at seminary, then he would not posit such ridiculous claims. The accounts of the events surrounding Jesus' passion, death and resurrection must be read in its entirely.  That is to say, using each source, not just one. Each Gospel has a specific audience and communicates to each audience in different manners.  Moreover, papyrus was expensive.  The writers were not at liberty to possess enough of it in order to go into more detail. They had to be succinct, only including what told the narrative. Therein lies the apparent "contradictions" or "illogical" sequence of events.


Rosa writes:
{The relevant chapters and/or verses of the Bible are:
Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 24
John 20-21
Acts 1:3-12
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
If the Bible is giving an account of a real sequence of events as seen from the perspective of five
different views, these events should line up in their sequence of events and in the important details, and should occupy the same approximate time-span.It might help if, as you read the 165 verses, you
attempt to answer these questions and to reconcile and harmonise the differing accounts:}


Sacerdotus comments:
The idea that a sequence of events must be "line up" after deriving from different perspectives is
illogical.  Again, each account targets a specific audience. That being said, the wording and details
will be a bit different.  This is why I stress that it must be read in its entirely and not cherry picked. What determines if an account is real or not is the content, not necessary the sequence of events. Take the Michael Brown case. Some claimed that officer Darren Brown shot him in the back, while
others claimed Michael Brown was facing him and had his hands up. After close scrutiny, it was discovered that Darren Wilson's account of events matched the evidence showing the witness accounts to be flawed or rehearsed in order to favor Michael Brown's case.



{Question
The Bible's Answers
1. What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: As it began to dawn - Matthew 28:1
Mark: Very early in the morning... at the rising of the sun - Mark 16:2
Luke: Very early in the morning - Luke 24:1
John: When it was yet dark - John 20:1}


Answer:
If you read the above accounts carefully, you will see that the content does match.  The words "dawn, very early in the morning, it was yet dark" all perfectly describe dawn when the sun is rising.  If
you have ever ventured out early in the morning as the sun was rising, you will notice that it is in fact still dark with just light coming from the horizon. As the day advances, it gets brighter.  

{2. Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary - Matthew 28:1
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome -Mark 16:1
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women - Luke 24:10
John: Mary Magdalene - John 20:1}


Answer:
I actually answered this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbGpFEtVxXQ
Again, if we combine the accounts given in each Gospel, we can count at least five women: Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, Mary.

The blog post at https://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-easter-challenge.html, published on August 8, 2012, by Rosa Rubicondior (Bill Hounslow), presents "The Easter Challenge," adapted from Dan Barker’s book Godless. It tasks readers with reconciling the five biblical accounts of Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) into a single, coherent timeline starting from Easter morning, claiming discrepancies prove the story is a myth. Below, I’ll refute the core argument and key implications, showing the challenge doesn’t hold up as a definitive disproof of the resurrection.

---

Core Claim: Irreconcilable Differences Disprove the Resurrection

Rubicondior asserts that if the resurrection accounts can’t be harmonized into one logical sequence without omitting details, they must be fictional—implying the Bible’s central narrative collapses.

Refutation:

• Nature of Eyewitness Accounts: The Gospels aren’t written as a single, chronological police report but as separate testimonies from different perspectives—Matthew (disciple), Mark (via Peter), Luke (historian), and John (disciple). Variations in detail (e.g., who arrived at the tomb, number of angels) are expected in eyewitness accounts, especially under emotional stress like post-crucifixion. Studies of witness psychology (e.g., Loftus, 1979) show discrepancies in minor details don’t negate a core event’s truth. All accounts agree Jesus died, was buried, and appeared alive later—core consistency matters more than peripheral variance.
• Harmonization is Possible: Scholars like Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (The Big Book of Bible Difficulties) have shown the accounts can align with careful reading. For example:
  • Tomb Visitors: Matthew (28:1) says Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” went; Mark (16:1) adds Salome; Luke (24:10) names others; John (20:1) focuses on Mary Magdalene. This reflects different emphases, not contradiction—a group went, but individuals are highlighted variably.
  • Angels: Matthew (28:2) and Mark (16:5) mention one angel; Luke (24:4) and John (20:12) mention two. The single-angel accounts don’t deny a second; they focus on the speaker. Multiple angels could be present, with narration differing by author intent.
  • Timeline: Women visit early (all Gospels), find the tomb empty, report back variably (to Peter and John in John 20; to disciples in Luke 24). Jesus appears later—first to Mary Magdalene (John 20:16), then others (Matthew 28:9, 1 Corinthians 15:5). The sequence holds if you allow overlapping events and partial reporting.
• Literary Style, Not Fabrication: The Gospels use selective storytelling, not exhaustive logs. 1 Corinthians 15 (Paul’s summary) lists appearances broadly, not sequentially, as a creedal statement, not a narrative. Expecting perfect alignment ignores ancient historiographical norms—Josephus and Tacitus similarly vary in detail without being dismissed as false.

The challenge assumes modern forensic standards apply to 1st-century texts, which is anachronistic. Discrepancies don’t equate to myth; they reflect human authorship, not divine dictation.

---

Implied Claim: No Coherent Sequence Means No Historical Basis

Rubicondior suggests that failure to produce a single timeline proves the resurrection is a fabricated “myth” like pagan tales (e.g., Eastre/Ishtar).

Refutation:

• Historical Corroboration Exists: Beyond the Gospels, early non-biblical sources affirm Jesus’ death and the belief in his resurrection. Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, circa 93 CE) notes Jesus was crucified and his followers reported him alive. Tacitus (Annals 15.44, circa 116 CE) confirms his execution under Pilate. These align with the biblical core—death and resurrection belief—independent of narrative details.
• Rapid Spread Supports Event: Christianity exploded from a small, persecuted sect to a regional force within decades (e.g., Acts 2, Pliny the Younger’s letter, 112 CE). This growth is unlikely without a catalyzing event. Myths like Eastre evolved over centuries; the resurrection claim was immediate, with 1 Corinthians 15 dated to 55 CE, citing 500 witnesses—some still alive to verify.
• Pagan Myth Miscomparison: Rubicondior ties Easter to Eastre/Ishtar, but this is etymological speculation (Bede’s 8th-century claim lacks evidence). Easter’s timing aligns with Passover, not pagan rites, and the resurrection lacks parallels to cyclical fertility myths—Jesus’ rising is a one-time historical claim, not a seasonal allegory.

A single timeline isn’t required for historicity. The accounts’ differences suggest independent sources, not a rehearsed lie, and external evidence supports the event’s impact.

---

Specific Challenge: Answer These Questions

The post lists questions (e.g., “Who was at the tomb?” “Did the disciples believe?”) and implies they can’t be answered consistently.

Refutation:

• Who Was at the Tomb? All Gospels name women—Mary Magdalene universally, others variably. A group arrived; authors highlight different members. No contradiction—just focus.
• Guards or No Guards? Matthew (28:4) alone mentions guards, likely from his Judean perspective (he targets a Jewish audience aware of temple authority). Others omit them as irrelevant to their narrative. Silence isn’t denial.
• Did Disciples Believe? Luke (24:11) says they doubted the women; John (20:8) says the “other disciple” believed at the tomb. This reflects individual reactions over time—Peter doubts, then sees Jesus (Luke 24:34). Emotional complexity, not inconsistency.
• Appearances: 1 Corinthians 15 lists broad appearances (e.g., 500 people); Gospels detail specifics (e.g., Emmaus, Upper Room). Paul summarizes; Gospels narrate. Both can be true.

These questions have answers when read contextually, not as a trap. The post exaggerates minor variances into fatal flaws, ignoring narrative intent.

---

Broader Critique

• Overstated Burden: Rubicondior demands a flawless synthesis modern readers rarely apply to other ancient texts (e.g., varying accounts of Caesar’s death). The Bible’s purpose isn’t a legal transcript but theological witness—discrepancies don’t negate its historical kernel.
• Dismissive Tone: Calling it a “dustbin myth” assumes the conclusion. If the challenge were unanswerable, why have scholars (e.g., N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God) harmonized it for centuries?
• Ignoring Context: The post skips cultural factors—oral tradition shaped these accounts before writing (30-60 CE). Variation reflects authenticity, not invention.

---

Conclusion

The Easter Challenge doesn’t disprove the resurrection. The accounts align on the essentials—empty tomb, appearances—while differing in focus, as real witnesses do. Historical echoes (Josephus, Tacitus) and Christianity’s rise bolster the event’s plausibility. Rubicondior’s demand for a single, gapless timeline misjudges ancient writing and overplays discrepancies as fatal. The resurrection stands not on perfect harmony but on convergent testimony and impact—hardly dustbin fodder.