Rebuttal Part 2 of Barker’s Rebuttal of Kingsley’s Answer to Barker’s Easter Challenge
Posted by Anthony on June 11, 2009
This is the second and hopefully last installment in a rebuttal of Dan Barker. Barker’s Easter Challenge was taken up by Pastor Stephen Kingsley, and Barker issued forth a 70 page answer. Here is my review of Kingsley’s ‘Answer.’ Here is my first reply to Barker’s rebuttal. You are reading my second. Barker has not, to my knowledge, publicly released his rebuttal. If he ever does, I will link to it.
Barker’s response could have easily been slimmed down to 5 to 10 pages, easily. It is filled with inaccuracies, diversions, and tangents. The main objection is not easy to pick out against all of the background, but we can sum it up I think this way:
Pastor Kingsley achieves his harmonization by breaking up Matthew 28:1-8 in a way that is unsustainable given Matthew’s use of time. On this basis we can see that Matthew 28:1-8 “is a discrete, unbreakable element of Matthew’s story.”
There is an obvious flaw in this objection. Namely, Barker is asking for a plausible harmonization, which by definition requires a blending of the four Gospels, but setting himself up as the judge, jury, and executioner, as far as how and when a portion from one book can be spliced between the passages of another book. Barker consistently says that one can indeed do such splicing and just as consistently rejects any and every attempt. Why should we accept that Matthew 28:1-8 is a ‘discrete, unbreakable element’? Because Barker says so, that’s why. Read the rest of the entry… »


























