Real Contradiction in the Resurrection Accounts?

Our atheist friend the regular on the comment section "Pixie" has an argument about the Resurrection accounts that is interesting and deserves answering:

Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jerusalem contradict that. You page on harmonization fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!...Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.
We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative. The author of Mark wrote what he wrote for a reason. I suggest he wrote that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee because that is what he believed, bec…

Six Levels of Verification for the Gospels

This is a thumb nail summary I did to post on CARM showing the eight levels of verification I've researched for the Gospels and listing the sources I use to back each one up. For the content see my "Historical Validity of the Gospels 1-3."

what's the point? Atheists are too easily dismissing the concept of validity by just declaring that Bible has none and no book has any. they have no tetrameters for what validity means, totally ignore the fact that scholars have scientific rules for establishing validity and taking the Bible out of the picture as though it doesn't exist by just stipulating that it's a pile a crap and not bothering to deal with the huge amazingly immense body of scholarly work surrounding the Gospels. This little thumb-nail is not even scratching the surface. This is just to highlight how ridiculous the atheist position is to simply ignore this whole discipline that's hundreds of years old and well proved.

Eight levels of Verification f…

Christianity Stuck with Flood Story

On Thursday I had a strange experience. There is a poster on You Tube who has a video about arguing with ark people at the big ark exhibit in Grant County, Kentucky in 2016. The guy seemed reasonable and he said he next wanted to talk to a Christian about Christianity. I volunteered. I commented saying, "talk to me next." He contacted me and  we arranged to talk on the phone, I want give his name because this is all a private phone. I will try to be fair. I'll call him "Mike." I wont say it was"a perfect phone call" but he tried to be fair as best he could.We did get excited and shouted but we did not degenerate into name calling or insulting. I liked Mike I thought he was a nice guy, but I can't accept his position.

After 20 years of arguing with skeptics (Mike says he is not an atheist but  is skeptical of Christianity) i have seen skeptics (some of them atheists) who have  similar position. His position seemed to be that  because  the God of the…

Bowen's 10 things

Gospel of John

Last fall (around Sept 20,2019) Bradley Bowen (secular outpost) and I had a sort of debate over his take on the swoon theory of resurrection. He asserts with no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross but merely swooned,revived latter in the  tomb and somehow got out. Thus the empty tomb is accounted for without miracles. I think I won rather handily. The reader be the Judge:Here. Now he comes back on it. He's attacked me on Metacrock's Blogconcerning quoting a certain source. He had reference to 10 arguments he makes,[1] he called them "the 10 things" that he thought just settled the matter and proved his swoon theory cold.   He fell back on them  a lot.

I answered these "10 things" in the comment section of that last debate. But I post them here since he's dug it all up again, I am enhancing my answers.  These are Bowen's "10 things"that supposedly demonstrate that John cannot be taken seriously as a historical source.…