Easter Answer

NO

You have in your account Mary Magdalene going to the tomb between 4 and 5:15 a.m. and coming back to report to Peter that, "We don't know where they have laid him," (see John 20:2).

You then have other women leaving for the tomb later that morning at 6:15. But Mark 16:1-2 contradicts your harmonization because it specifically lists Mary Magdalene as among the women who left to anoint and preserve Christ's body. Luke 24:9-12 also confirms that Mary Magdalene was among these women who left later that morning.

So, why would Mary Magdalene leave to anoint and preserve a body she doesn't think is there (see John 20:2)?

[Michael, If you had actually read the book you would know I proposed several possible answers to your question. Methinks you're making your judgments based only on the pdf chart from the book which I've provided on this website. This chart only provides a rough sketch of the reconstruction in The Easter Answer. You should read the book. If you've exhausted your book budget for the month (if so I can commiserate) send me an e-mail and I'll gratis you a copy. Thank you for your comments and interest in studying the resurrection. Peace, Stephen]

NO

Luke 24:9-12 explicitly says that Mary Magdalene was one of the women (she's actually listed first) who came back from the initial trip to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive.

This contradicts John 20:1-6, which actually proves that Mary was with other women (and not alone) on her first trip, indicated by the we in, "We do not know where they have laid him."

In one account Mary comes back from her initial trip and tells the disciples (including Peter) that he is alive. In the other she comes back and says that she doesn't know where he is.

Because Luke and John have Mary with the other women on the initial trip it seems strained to me to bring a time discrepancy in: at early dawn it is still very dark.

No. You people are desperate. Giant fail. Since this answer will be deleted, I might as well get my plug in: [link deleted]

[Aaron. Did you read The Easter Answer? I don't see any specifics to indicate you did. Many atheists are respectful and try to follow instructions like those above. Maybe you missed them. If you have any thoughtful criticism you're welcome to make it here. Stephen]

Yes. I have just finished "The Easter Answer" and you have met the challenge no ifs or buts.

I would only set the Emmaus walk later based on Luke 24:29:

"But they urged Him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over." So He went in to stay with them." How long would it take to walk 7 miles and then almost straight back again?

A fine piece of work and don't feel discouraged by atheist agression. When I read of Dan Barker's response I immediately thought of the Professor in the cage in the Interpreter's House in John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" and of Hebrews 10 v 26-31. For men such as Dan Barker there may be no hope.

YES Pastor Kingsley, you have done a masterful job - I knew many of the arguments against reconciling the accounts before I read the book. I believe you have made your case for the resurrection. Of course once one believes the accuracy of the account, one must still answer the question, Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?"

YES. The scriptural evidence is presented in a logical and detailed manner. Just because the authors of the various gospel accounts vary slightly in their narration does not mean that they contradict one another, and Stephen points this out clearly and succinctly in The Easter Answer. Thanks for taking the time to do the research and for putting it together into a palatable format, Stephen!

No. Your answer is unscientific in that it arranges the evidence to fit the assumed (desired) conclusion rather than forming the conclusion from the natural progression of the events revealed by the narrative. Your insertion of time-slip events after Matthew 28:1 is creative but not in any sense logical. Logic requires that one takes the literal translation of events without inserting unwarranted conjecture. I have not read your book in it's entirety but have read the bible many times and consider your arguments and timeline to be spurious and dogmatic. Thanks-cob

No. Based on Dan Barker's response to Easter Answer, any deviation by the Answer is wrong because Barker backs up his allegations by citing the inconsistencies articulated by the authors of the gospels and Paul whereas, the gnostic gospels completely disagree with the interloper John.

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

[Richard, The idea here is that you read The Easter Answer and answer the question above. Had you read the book, you would know that it does not so much as mention the Gnostic Gospels. Stephen]

[May 27, 09 Richard, You added another post today, which I have deleted because it contained a link to your website. This is not an open forum. You have voted and expressed your opinion, twice; once under the name Richard Grimes and again as Credulous Gentile. Thank you for having participated.

For the benefit of other readers and to give you the satisfaction of having clarified your previous point, in the post which was deleted today Richard wrote:

"What do you mean that you do not mention the gnostic gospels? You make reference to Mark, you quote John though he is not gnostic. On pg. 50 and 51 you assemble all gnostics as Jehovah assembled all his sons in Job 1:6 that included Jesus' brother, Satan. You bring gnostic Luke into the fray to counter John's allegations Re. Holy Spirit, the 3rd person in the Holy Trinity that transmogrifies into One -- One God, thus making all three equally liable for the evil done in this world which is impossible to exaggerate. Stephen: Look up the word gnostic. RG"]

Abstain.

I for one question the voting format here: "Yes" voters are not required to offer any analysis to substantiate their votes, unlike the dissenters.

Pastor Kingsley has made a decent effort at reconciling the very obvious problems with the gospel accounts, but only Doug (1/30) has offered anything analytical to counter the cheerleading trend of all the other "yes" voters.

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

[Bryan. If readers agree, there is no need for any additional analysis, but no restriction either. By not requiring anything but a YES from those that agree, it was with a view to keeping those comments brief and to the point.

This is the same idea I had in mind for this page in keeping the question constrained to the contradiction-consistency issue. Barker also asked for plausibility, which is certainly more subjective in nature. As this develops it is likely that there will be other places on the Internet where its plausibility and many other related issues will be discussed. I might look into adding a forum to this site, or at the very least I'll post links to other forums where this is being discussed.

Concerning dissenting opinions, last week I received an 89 page rebuttal from Dan Barker. It is titled "The 'Easter Answer' Answered." He has not posted a link to it yet on his site or made a public announcement that he has answered. So far, I've only skimmed it. I'm glad for the respite this delay affords me to be prepared for the storm of controversy which may well ensue.

For now however, I appreciate your Abstain vote and understand your objections. For the record, there have not been any NO votes offered by readers--to date anyway. Thank you. Stephen]

Yes without a doubt, Thank you Pastor Kingsley for your research and dedication to this challenge. In these times of Christian bashing and insulting the followers of Christ have to stand up for the truth. Your work into this question has helped me in my walk and fellowship with the Lord. You have clarified a very important aspect used by the critics. Again, Pastor I thank you.

Yes. Absolutely. I don't think the text needs to stand up to this level of scrutiny, but it's great to know that it can. I've enjoyed reading this book over the last week. Thanks for posting the book over to Ireland! Keith

Yes! Not only does Pastor Kingsley clearly, directly and undoubtedly solve the so-called Easter "Challenge," but he does so in a manner that is succinct and accessible to any reader. His book is an excellent tool that can be easily and quickly used to answer anyone who claims that the resurrection accounts are hopelessly contradictory. Now, only one question remains: Will anyone from the other side admit Pastor Kingsley's success and rethink their previously held biases against the gospel resurrection accounts?

Overall, outstanding work!

YES. Having studied the Bible for most of my life, I appreciate the careful approach and its result. The Easter Answer was easy to read and left no difficulty hanging unanswered or unresolved. Good job Steve!

YES. The Easter Answer pulls everything together. I think Mr. Nielsen owes Pastor Kingsley the $1,000 he promised. I’m a fan of the ASV (1901) and enjoyed following the translation of Mt. 28:1 from it to the NASB. The quote from the Lockman Foundation trying to justify their change from “late on the Sabbath” in Mt. 28:1 to “after the Sabbath” was, for me, the icing on the cake. It was a pleasure to read and I also gave a copy that I purchased to our church youth leader to use with the youth. Thank you for taking the challenge and upholding the Word of our awesome God.

YES. The solution in The Easter Answer goes above and beyond the scope of the Easter Challenge. I would be surprised to hear any criticism or cries of contradiction from anyone. But I might also agree that the challengers may not hail it with open arms or fall prostrate at your feet any time soon. Usually atheists are not willing to give up their bag of rocks so easily. We must pray for them! And we will pray for you Stephen. You have done an admirable job and I know that the Holy Spirit has helped you all the way. Praise God!

YES. Absolutely no contradiction at all. I completely accept Kingsley's explanation of why Mary kept silent when she went back with the other ladies. As a woman, his explanation makes perfect sense to me. This was very well done, is complete and is set out easy enough for even the most simple-minded to be able to grasp unless they have predetermined that they will NOT believe no matter what.

A thorough, thoughtful, even inspiring presentation. I think it works to answer the challenges.

I definitely thing Mr. Kingsley did a superb job answering the Easter Question. I also think Mary M's behavior upon her return is the most troublesome part of the answer, but it is definitely not a contradiction.

YES-ish. Mr. Kingsley is more logical and coherent in rationalizing the accounts than most opponents of the gospel are as they try to manufacture contradiction. My biggest trouble with the Easter Answer is the behavior of Mary Magdalene on her return to the tomb with the other women. It is strange, to say the least, that she should be silent if she had already seen the risen Lord.

But in any case, I am not of the opinion that the gospels need to attain to a standard of "history" that is unique to the twenty-first century. They were written in and for a different culture and a different time. Each of the authors did their homework, but their sources were all human. The message of the Easter Puzzle (not Problem) is that God can and does use human beings with all their failings and forgetfulness.

YES. Pastor Kinglsey did an excellent job of harmonizing all 165 verses into one plausible narrative with a reasonable time line. His explanation of HOW he thought through the process is just as helpful as the end result. Others will learn how to approach Bible study in a way that lets the Bible speak for itself and not impose their own preconceived ideas on the text. I particularly appreciated Kingsley's being true to the Hebrew concept of time (sundown to sundown), as well as his explanation of Greek words, so that the whole resurrection story fits within a Friday-to-Sunday timeframe as it should.