p.s. the guy introducing Ballard sounds mighty familiar...

Ok this one may be more difficult:

"The Screwheads" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjti...

"Anti-Screwhead" music or not?

<The Screwheads sound like the Ramones speaking in tongues with NIN playing.>

heh

I'm very happy that both <Andy> and <Wim> passed the "Anti-Screwhead" genre test.

I still have the phone I got here in Korea seven years ago.

It now has a cracked cover. It features no features. It can't get on the internet.

But I will not "upgrade" it.

Why? It works!

I understood your explanation for the demise of the <Monkey Ranker>.

<Screwhead> I am indeed the man to know, though a certain cab driver might think you're not worth knowing.

The question was "Why not introduce a <Hybrid Nut Monkey> ranker?

Actually this time I *did* come here to call you home.

Only if you have time/inclination to do some editing, I've just posted a draft of Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929 in the forum.

From Dan Barker, shortly before last Easter: >

<I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter...The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened....The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?>

Fair enough. (Some non-essential material throughout deleted for the sake of space.)

<I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. >

I'm not surprised.

<Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. >

I am not sure what the point of this statement is. Is he suggesting <if only> three or more writers had recounted some event, <then> it would be easy to confirm?

<The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.>

A little poisoning the well while denying he's poisoning the well. I can safely say I'm underwhelmed by his debate skills.

<Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "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.">

I am pretty much in agreement with that. We might quibble what constitutes "disagreement".

<Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.>

Yes.

<One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.>

Here is Matthew 28:1, which apparently Mr. Barker appeals to for his claim that the women had arrived at the tomb before the events of Matthew 28:2.

Matthew 28:1-2 New King James version: "Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it."

Matthew 28:1-2 New International Version: "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."

Let me use an analogy for each version:

"Sunday morning, OhioChessFan and Waustad came to see the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And suddenly, there was a great earthquake."

"Sunday morning, OhioChessFan and Waustand went to look at the Pro Football Hall of Fame. There was a violent earthquake."

A question. Do any of those demand that the earthquake occurred after Waustad and I arrived at the Hall of Fame? I say no.

<Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.>

It happened before. See the above.

<Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?>

<Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "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." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32). >

It was of supreme importance.

<After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?>

I would like to point out that Barker uses perhaps 500 words on this point (I quit counting at 350). And what is his total argument that the Galilee appearance must have been first? A hypothetical question. No, seriously, <that> is the entire affirmative argument set forth. Here is his whole argument:

<Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?>

In fact, there is more than one plausible answer, but in his imaginary world of infallibility, his implied answer to his hypothetical question is so airtight that he is entitled to spend 500 words running with that answer.

I think it's almost certain that an unbiased look at the gospel accounts leads to the conclusion the Galilee appearance was the last appearance. And I won't rely 100% on a hypothetical question to show why I've concluded that.

Matthew 28:7 “And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”

According to Matthew 28:10, Jesus told the women to tell his brethren to go to Galilee.

Matthew 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

While "brethren" in that verse can mean something like "religious brethren", I think it is possible Jesus was telling the women to tell his earthly half brothers to go to Galilee. Here are some New Testament examples of that usage:

Matthew 12:46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.

Matthew 13:55 “Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

Acts 1:13-14 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

What is important about that? Here's what the apostle John had to say about Jesus' brothers:

John 7:1-3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. “For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

Is it possible the earthly brothers of Jesus were among those who didn't believe? I think it's entirely possible. The author of the book of James is almost surely Jesus' brother, and the author of the book of Jude is probably Jesus' brother. But we don't hear anything else about Joses and Simon. It would be incumbent on Mr. Barker to prove that it was not the earthly brothers who didn't believe to affirm a contradiction. He can not.

Is it possible some of the disciples went to Galilee, apart from the apostles, and some of them didn't believe? I affirm it is possible, and Mr. Barker can't prove to the contrary.

Is it possible some of the apostles were having bouts of faithlessness even after having believed? Such is seen repeatedly in the New Testament. As one example, the apostles were amazed at the capacity of Jesus to calm the wind and sea after having seen him raise the dead! And after a miraculous feeding of thousands of people, the next time the problem arose, they appeared to not know how to deal with the situation.

So, the rhetorical question, the entire basis of Mr. Barker's claim

<Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?>

that the Galilee appearance was first is answerable by 3 plausible explanations that don't necessitate that being the first post-ressurection appearance of Jesus.

<Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. >

This is all predicated on Mr. Barker's unsubstantiated claim that the Galilee appearance was first. I will address the timeline in a future post.

<John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile. >

They are easily possible to reconcile.

<Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection. >

I don't say that, so it doesn't apply. Mr. Barker does like to create feeble opponents to argue with though.

<Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection. >

More of the same. All these words when his total argument was the hypothetical question

<Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?>

Really? Mr. Barker thinks he has that strong a point there?

<I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth. >

More strawman building.

<Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away!>

Again, predicated only on this point:

<Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?>

<Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here. >

What is wrong, Mr. Barker, is your claim that the Galilee appearance was first. Garbage in, garbage out.

<This is just the tip of the iceberg.>

I shudder at the thought that Mr. Barker has more such unanswerable arguments to make.

<Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong. >

Maybe your original claim why the Galilee appearance was first:

<Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?>

<This challenge could be harder.>

Well, yeah. I've certainly dealt with harder challenges.

<I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. >

I could ask all kinds of questions. Most of the serial question askers I've dealt with have been people who disagree with me on doctrinal issues. In any case, there's <always> more questions. That means.....nothing, really.

<Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof. >

I'm okay with that.

<Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently?>

Because the outrageous claims of Christianity, in particular the resurrection, bear up to scrutiny.

< Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)? >

There will always be skeptics, even of the most undeniable historical events. That proves nothing, really. In any case, why didn't the mortal enemies of Jesus, the literally mortal enemies of Jesus, raise these issues to discredit him at that time? They were the political winners at that time, they were the persecutors, they had the ear of the authorities, they had the money and power and opportunity to record their opposition. Are we to believe a persecuted minority somehow suppressed all the evidence recorded by the deniers? Such is ridiculous to postulate, but I can't think of a better explanation for the stunning silence of the deniers.

<Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay.>

That's nonsense. You might as well say "Everything in a trial transcript is hearsay" since it's a written recording by the court reporter. In any case, Paul, Peter, and John, among others, go to great lengths to point out they were eyewitnesses to the events they recorded.

< I For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.) >

The Gospels aren't anonymous. The fact we have no originals doesn't preclude an overwhelming confidence the copies we do have are accurate. In any case, the recording of eyewitness evidence does not become de facto hearsay written evidence.

<But first things first:>

What silly argumentation. "Now that I've carried on for 500 words about how something is impossible, predicated on an original false claim, let's get to the first thing."

<Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.>

After the appearance at the gravesite, there was one and probably 2 appearances on that Sunday night. According to Luke 24:13-15, Jesus appeared to 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Luke 24:13-15
Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them.

The account mentions it growing dark, so it was later in the day. As Jesus rose on the third day, this statement indicates it was that very Sunday night in question:

Luke 24:21 “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.

Those 2 disciples rushed back to Jerusalem. Luke records the events at that point:

Luke 24:32-34 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

I am unable to determine who said "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon." I think it was the eleven and those who were with them. That would suggest Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter sometime that day. That would be in accord with Paul's accounting, which seems to me to clearly be a sequential, though non-exhaustive listing of appearances.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Cephas was the Aramaic name Paul typically used for Peter.

Mark 16:12 also records the two disciples in the country meeting Jesus:

After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country.

Very soon after the disciples came, Jesus appeared to the 11 in that room.

Luke 24:35-38 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?

There is an unfortunate pattern of disbelief in his resurrection. This is one of several times it's recorded.

Then Jesus shows the assembled group his wounds to prove that he was in fact Jesus.

Luke 24:39-40 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

A strange comment about the unbelief is next.

Luke 24:41
But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?

Mark also addresses the unbelief that night:

Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.

This is in accord with John's account.

John 20:19-20 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled,fn for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

A week later, Jesus appeared to them in the same room:

John 21:1 After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself:

John then specifies it was the third appearance.

John 21:14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.

Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 15 mentions only 2 of the appearances to the apostles. (Though they were 11 at that point, Paul still used the normal term "the twelve"). There is a reference to 500 at one time. That seems to me to most likely refer to the appearance in Galilee. There is no other record of that appearance, so that is a guess, but the other appearances don't seem to indicate such a huge crowd on hand. Matthew 28:16-17 records the 11 going to Galilee without a time reference available.

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

Whether it was some of the apostles, or Jesus' brothers, or other disciples who doubted is hard to determine.

Some time after that, he was seen by James, who I think is not the apostle, but Jesus' brother.

There is a passage in Matthew which is hard to pin down on the time frame. It might have been the Galilee appearance, though I think it most likely the last appearance, which was when Jesus ascended.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go thereforefn and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. “And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; “they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Luke 24:44 and Luke 24:46 start with the phrase "Then he said to them" which can be immediate, or some time after. Luke 24:46 appears to be during the appearance at Galilee, though it may be before that. The last appearance is introdcued by Luke 24:50 which states "And then he led them out as far as Bethany". It is clear that the ascension took place immediately after verse 50. I would suppose this is the final reference Paul makes to Jesus appearing to the apostles, though it could have been the second appearance at the seashore he was referencing.

In Acts 1, Luke gives a recap of the appearances.
Acts 1:1-3 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to 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 he appeared at various times over the course of 40 days. I don't know if there may have been appearances never mentioned.

This is Luke's recap of the last appearance.

Acts 1:4-7 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Mefn in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

This was at Mt. Olivet, just outside Jerusalem.