ShakyJake

I was showing this link

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html</a>

to a Christian friend of mine. I thought it was very good evidence for the possibility that the resurrection of Christ never happened (due to the inconsistent reports by the authors).

However, my friend pretty much shrugged it off saying that, well, as with any story, the re-telling over time has created the differences. He doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

So my question is, is the "Easter Challenge" only applicable to the Biblical literalists out there? Or is it still flawed reasoning to say, hey, it's just the usual confusion that's caused by the retelling of a story throughout the ages.

Thanks for any replies.

CX

I seems to me Barker's challenge really only applies to inerrantists. As soon as we admit the possibility that various details can be mistaken contradiction between the different accounts is not really that surprising. There are certainly far better reasons for doubting the ressurrection than the fact that the accounts in the gospels don't match up.

Amos

Barker's Easter challenge is really quite simple from a metaphysical perspective. From here the historic resurrection is not important at all and will not be part of this perspective. All Barkers errancies mean nothing and are easily resolved in this train of thought.

The resurrection of Jesus means that reason prevails after rebirth has taken place. In my view Jesus was the reborn Joseph now with a dual identity of Joseph and Christ and therefore called Jesus which was the old ego identity of Joseph soon to be crucified to prevent its re-awakening. After this the purified Joseph identity must be placed subservient to the Christ identity of the subconscious mind because without the rational ability of the conscious mind (Joseph), reason will not prevail (and we have all kinds of religious fundamentalists prove this to be true.

A nice analogy for the above is the rising action of our life during the invultionary yang period that leads to a crisis moment. A necessary condition of crisis is that it brings about change and if resurrection does not follow the crisis event the beholder will be torn between heaven and hell in the saved sinner complex that exists when he fluctates between his conscious and subconscious mind for orientation. The children of Israel had this problem also and therefore died nonetheless. If an identity switch can be made the ex-believer will not be torn between heaven and hell and will take up residence in the "upper room" of his own [subconscious] mind and from there assume all of the eidetic images (disciples) he made while he was resident of his conscious mind. I use the word ex-believer because religion is redundant in heaven.

Julius Ceasar is good in this and the pivotal speach made by Mark Anthony points directly at this swith of identity (III,i,185-210).

Edited to add that resurrection leads to a divine comedy and failure to resurrect after the crisis moment leads to a not-so-divine-tragedy (Senecan tragedy).

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Butters

I disagree that Barker's challenge only presents a problem for "innerantist's". It is a problem for anyone that Claims it is history. If someone claims that the events depicted are true, the only wittness they have are the gospels. If the writers of the gospels tell different versions, they cannot be trusted as historians. If the text has been corrupted over time, then they still cannot be trusted as historical accounts. Your freind dosen't want to talk about this challenge because it exposes the gospel accounts as pure myth, which they are.

CX

I disagree with your disagreement. If one is not attached to the notion of inerrancy the doctrinally significant parts of the easter story match up. I.E. At some point after he died Jesus was resurrected and appeared to someone. The rest is just narrative window dressing. Now don't misunderstand, I do not obviously think the accounts have the slightest bearing on reality, but for entirely different reasons than that the stories don't match up.

Polar Bear

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Marduk

I'm with CX as well, it's not unusual for different people tell or remember something in a slightly different way, ask a cop interviewing witness's "there were three gunshots not four, it came from the grassy knoll, no it came from the book depository" Either way Kennedy is still dead.

Butters

While I see your point CX, I think Barker himself explains mine as well as I could.

Sojourner553

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dark Jedi ]</p>

-DM-

Inasmuch as what the Church believes to be authentic about the life and ministry of Jesus depends upon the accuracy of the Gospel accounts, your friend puts himself in an awkward position by disbelieving the inerrancy of the Bible; he would have no certain way of knowing what to believe about Jesus--or anything else.

-Don-

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>