Emails from Christian apologists: 10



    One would presume that Christians who visit this site would at least read this page and grasp the need to supply supporting evidence for the things that they assert if they choose to send emails. Incredibly, this is not so.
    One rambling email received from Christian, was made worse by being almost impossible to understand due to the atrocious spelling. A reply was sent asking for supporting evidence and the suggestion that a spell-checker was used in any further communications.
    Later, there was a reply. The writer's statements and my responses to these are as follows:

> You want a case? Disprove the resurrectin of Christ
> using objective verifiable evidence. Since NO ONE
> has ever been able to do so I bet even with ur vast
> experience u wont be able to either.
    Reply: As you are (presumably) claiming that Christ's resurrection (please note the correct spelling) was historical, then you need to offer evidence for its historicity. The onus of supplying proof is on the Christian who makes the positive assertion of the resurrection. If you are so sure of the historicity of this event, and the reliability of the Biblical account, why not provide a verse-by-verse reconciliation of the resurrection narratives of Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1, and 1 Cor 15:3-8?

>By the way
> you will have to admit that u have no evidence
> to prove ur explanation of the resurrection of
> Jesus, but, remember, there is more evidence to
> prove it as a historical event than to prove
> that the kingdom of Rome even existed.
    Reply: 'And precisely what is this evidence for the resurrection as a historical event? All that exists are contradictory versions of a myth in a collection of writings, most of which are anonymous and not even contemporary with the event.
    In fact proposing there is 'more evidence' for the resurrection than there is for the existence of the Roman empire merely demonstrates your gross ignorance of history.'

> Furthermore I
> am not going to college to study spelling but:
> archeology, lil' bit of physics, history,
> theology, philosophy, worldviews, and I'll
> probably pick up a lil' bit a' greek hebrew and
> anthropology.
    Reply: 'As you actually confirm here that you are studying history, this makes your earlier comment (i.e., there is 'more evidence' for the resurrection than for the existence of the Roman empire) extraordinary. It would also seem that your college is content to accept a student's unwillingness or inability to spell. This presumably only confirms the sorry depths to which current education has descended.
    I would suggest that rather than composing emails full of meaningless rhetoric, you supply factual and referenced evidence for all of your assertions. I appreciate careful consideration, analysis of facts and the studious determination of evidence are alien concepts for Christians, but you may find trying this to be useful - if only for yourself'.

    Any hopes that the writer would comprehend the need to support his assertions were dashed on receiving the next email.

> Of course the accounts
> differ. A "careful" historian will by no means dismiss the possibility of a historical event
> because of "minor secondary details." Think about it. What would be the point of recording
> four accounts of an event if they were identical. Why not just have one. Truthfully,
> each witness will have observed something missed by another, while at the same time
> remaining consistent on most details. It'd be like four witnesses to a car wreck. One might
> say the driver at fault was on a cell phone while another may say that the other driver was
> gauking at a female pedestrian wearing a red dress. Nevertheless, all agree that there was a
> wreck. Another thing you must consider is the theological style of the author. For example,
> Mark liked to leave the reader in a state of reverrant fear or awe. This was his theological
> style and he did this on several occasions in his gospel account. He did this when he
> recorded that the women after discovering the tomb empty fled and out of "fear told no one."
> We know, of course that they did tell the disciples because Mark later mentions that they
> did so and the disciples believed not, and who could blame them. The resurrection of an
> idividual before the judgement of man was alien to their Hebrew mindset (could go into further
> detail). Also, the testimony of women was considered worthless in that time. Had the
> gospels been merely "religious propaganda" then the writers would have recorded the cheif
> witnesses to be men. That way more people would buy into it. Women in that day were so low on
> the social ladder that their were even rabbinical sayings like, "Cursed is the man
> whose child is a women," and "Let the law be burned rather than deliverred into the hands of
> a women." The question or questions, rather, are:1) Why did the Jewish authorities not
> exhume the body?; 2) Why did the Roman government not investigate to find out who
> broke the seal? which would have resulted in the upside down crucifixion of the offender; 3)
> If the body was stolen, who defeated the Roman guard? which would have been 14-16 strictly
> discipline fighting men; and what influenced the disciples to believe the resurrecion and
> willingly sacrifice their lives for a lie that they would have known was untrue? Just a few of
> the many things to consider. Who would be dumb enough to go on a suicide mission like this? I
> will dig deeper into your inquiries. If you take the red pill you wake up in your bed as if
> nothing ever happened. If you take the blue pill you'll find how deep the rabbit
> hole goes. I only offer you truth, nothing more.
    I replied to this saying:
    'Firstly, you have not supplied any 'evidence' whatsoever that you said existed for the resurrection. Secondly, the contradictions are not 'minor secondary details'; the accounts include major and almost continual divergences and contradictions throughout. The accounts are not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'consistent on most details' and this statement suggests that you have not even read them.
    In the upshot, the N.T resurrection accounts are so contradictory they make the event that they describe to be impossible. It really is as simple as that. Your refusal to supply a harmonisation can only be viewed as an admission of this'.

    At the same time the writer composed yet another email:
> Even errors in peoples
> logic cannot dismiss their evidence when it's
> concrete. Their conclusion may be wrong but
> their evidence it undeniable. Probabilty,
> there's true matter. Yet, it is without
> evidential support.
    I replied:
    'And I am still waiting for the evidence that you said existed for Christ's resurrection...
    Evidence: 'Data on which to base proof or to establish truth. Matter produced before a court to prove or disprove a point in issue' (Collins Dictionary).
    From what you have said, it would seem that you do not know the meaning of 'evidence'. It is not your speculations or fanciful theorising, but factual data. As you choose not to supply any, e.g. reliable eyewitness testimony, for the resurrection, it is clear that there is none'.

Nothing further was heard...

    Even though a summary of the canonical resurrection accounts is supplied on another website page, I include them here for easy reference:

The Resurrection (in Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1).

Who went to the tomb?
 Matt - 2 Marys
Mark - 2 Marys and Salome
Luke - at least 5 women
John - Mary Magdalene
What was seen?
 Matt - Earthquake with angel sitting outside on the recently-moved stone
Mark - Stone already moved and a young man sitting inside
Luke - Stone already moved with two men standing inside
John - Stone moved. No one seen on 1st visit, but two angels sitting inside after two earlier visits.
When did the woman/women leave to go to the tomb?
 Matt - Towards dawn
Mark - Very early
Luke - At early dawn
John - Still dark (NB. John states it was still dark when Mary arrived at the tomb).
What did man/men/angel/angels say?
 Matt - Jesus was risen and disciples to go to Galilee
Mark - As Matt
Luke - Jesus had risen
John - Asks why Mary is crying.
What do the women/woman do next?
 Matt - They run away but meet Jesus who repeats angel's instruction
Mark - They flee and say nothing to anyone. This obviously contradicts the other three in which the women do go and tell the disciples (original Mark apparently ended at 16:7, or the text after 16:7 was lost)
Luke - They go and tell disciples
John - Mary meets Jesus and they talk.
What is first conversation with the risen Jesus?
 Matt - Women on way from tomb
Luke - The two disciples on road to Emmaus
John - Mary Magdalene.
What was the time between the resurrection and the ascension?
 Matt - At least the time to reach Galilee
Luke - Clearly one day only (see 24:13,33,36,50 - it is made very clear that Jesus rose, made all his appearances and ascended back to heaven on the same day)
John - At least a week accepting John 20 as the original end to the Gospel, but with the John 21 appendix the period was even longer as this has a Galilean appearance
Acts - 40 days.

    One attempt to reconcile John's visit of just Mary Magdalene whilst still dark with the Synoptics where there are several women and it is daytime, is to claim that the visit in John was an earlier one, i.e., the one in the Synoptics was a different one that followed an earlier visit by Mary Magdalene. However this cannot be the answer as John has Mary Magdalene seeing the empty tomb (20:1) and in the Synoptics when the women go to the tomb they ask about who would roll the stone away (Mark 16:3) - but Mary Magdalene was with them (Mark 16:1) and if she had already been to the tomb, she would have seen the stone moved away and the question would be irrelevant. She would have hardly not mentioned this to them!
    Furthermore, Luke makes any appearance at, or a journey to Galilee absolutely impossible as it has everything happening in the area of Jerusalem with the disciples being told to stay there until Pentecost, and the conclusion being Jesus' ascension from nearby Bethany. This is made clear - in Luke the first appearance is to the two travelling to Emmaus (10 miles West of Jerusalem) and 24:13 states this was "that very day"; the two then go "that same hour" to the eleven in Jerusalem (24:33); Jesus then appears whilst they are still explaining what they had seen (24:36). Jesus then tells them to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost (24:49). In Luke 24:51 it is stated that the ascension occurred on the same day this all happened so Luke prevents any Galilean appearances by Jesus to the eleven as in Matt and John.
    Luke's account therefore makes nonsense of Matt's account that Jesus told the women to instruct the disciples to go up to Galilee (Matt 28:10) if he was going to see them himself later that day in the Jerusalem area (as in both Luke and John). Also, Luke makes it clear that the eleven were told to stay in Jerusalem from the day of the resurrection to Pentecost, but Matt has them travelling up to Galilee (28:16) as does John (21:1ff). Important to note is Mark 16:7, that contradicts the other three Gospels as this says the women 'said nothing to anyone' and yet Matt, Luke and John refer to the women telling the disciples about what they had seen at the tomb.
    Luke also has Jesus appearing to "the eleven" on the same day as the resurrection (24:33-36), but John states Thomas was missing on this appearance and it was a week later that Jesus appeared to all eleven - with Thomas then being present (20:24,26).

    Note: 1 Cor 15:5-8 provides a list of resurrection appearances (commentators believe this is in a chronological order and by the time Paul heard it, was already a Christian statement of faith) which contradicts all of the above saying the risen Christ was seen by:
[a]'Cephas,
[b]the twelve.
[c]more than five hundred brethren at one time
[d]James
[e]all the apostles
[f]last of all, he was seen of me [Paul]'
And unlike the Gospels, 1 Cor 15 depicts Christ's resurrection as non-physical:
   44]"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
   45] So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam [Christ], a life-giving spirit...
   50] I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..."