A Decent Response?
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:34:38 -0500 (CDT) (00876803678, 199710132234.RAA03264@cdale3.midwest.net)
At 08:49 AM 10/13/97 -0700, Jason and Heather wrote:
>
>One of my friends used the Easter Challenge and got this reply.
>Please critique, and/or consider for the prize.
>
>jason
>
>-----Forwarded message from Brian Trosko <btrosko@primenet.com>-----
>
>Received: from usr02.primenet.com (root@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.6.202])
> by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA12856
> for <steiners@primenet.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:58:58 -0700 (MST)
>Received: from usr01.primenet.com (btrosko@usr01.primenet.com [206.165.6.201])
> by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA28092
> for <steiners@primenet.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:58:58 -0700 (MST)
>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:58:57 -0700 (MST)
>From: Brian Trosko <btrosko@primenet.com>
>To: Jason and Heather <steiners@primenet.com>
>Subject: Easter challenge.
>In-Reply-To: <19970811032155.06376@primenet.com>
>Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.971013075330.26423A-100000@usr01.primenet.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
>Check this out. A guy on the thread I told you about actually took the
>easter challenge, and came up with a decent response.
>
>From: "Stephen Wilhelm" <swilhelm@mc.edu>
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan
>Subject: Re: TAN: Mormons (was Re: TAN: Cults...)
>Message-ID: <61sch6$esk$1@ox.mc.edu>
>
>Brian Trosko wrote in message <61o8o1$gci@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>>
>>Go to http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/lfif/stone.html. It's not a
>>difficult challenge to undertake, and shouldn't take that long. But
>>you'll find you're unable to do it.
>
>Well here goes...
>
>Brian is challenging me to explain the story of the Resurrection,
>without any possible discrepancies. I choose not to give one really
>good explanation (because I can't), but rather I used a few sources I
>have to try to list as many possibilities as I can. I feel that any one
>of these is consistent with the story as told in the Bible, though I
>have not done an exhaustive analysis to confirm this (no time, sayeth
>the Swilly).
>
>First, let me begin by saying that none of the Gospels are intended to
>be complete historical records of everything that happened, but rather
>to teach about Jesus Christ. John 20:30-31 says, "And many other signs
>truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written
>in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus
>is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life
>through his name." See also John 21:25. That none of the writers gives
>all the circumstances does not introduce a discrepancy. To be honest,
>none of the writers intended to give all of the circumstances. Each
>writer selected that which was felt most
>important when writing the book.
>
>Some of the points you mention can be explained rather well if there
>were two parties of women (in fact, it bests answers all the points on
>the web page, while I can't find many alternate explanations for some).
>One of the more common explanations I ran across was given by Robinson
>in the Bibliotheca Sacra for February 1845, on pages 187 and 188. I now
>quote everything he said:
>
> "At early dawn on the first day of the week, the women who had
>attended on Jesus, viz. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,
>Joanna, Salome, and others went out with spices to the sepulcher, in
>order further to embalm the Lord's body. They inquire among themselves,
>who should remove for them the stone which closed the sepulcher. On
>their arrival they find the stone already taken away; for there had been
>an earthquake, and an angel had descended and rolled away the stone, and
>sat upon it, so that the keepers became as dead men for terror. The
>Lord had risen. The women knowing nothing of all this, are amazed; they
>enter the tomb, and find not the body of the Lord, and are greatly
>perplexed. At this time, Mary Magdalene impressed with the idea that
>the body had been stolen away, leaves the sepulcher and the other women,
>and runs to the city to tell Peter and John.
<snip>
TILL
This is a "decent" response? I have to go out of town and won't be back
until tonight. When I return, I will send a reply that points out the
problems in it and also the details that were excluded. The $1,000 reward
offered by *The Skeptical Review* requires that all details in the four
gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15 that pertain to the resurrection and
postresurrection appearances be included. This effort obviously didn't
include everything besides not resolving some major problems in the narratives.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net