jimwalton wrote:1. "It is clearly biased," you say, yet you give no evidence that it is. The fact that it has a motive doesn't make it biased. Any journalist must be selective with the information he or she actually puts in the article. Any historian has to condense his material and not write everything he knows. This is not bias. The authors of the Gospels want readers to follow Christ. This is not bias. You have to give evidence of bias, and yet you have none.

For me, the difference is about fair or unfair bias. I think we can all agree everyone has some bias-ness (if that's a word?) as we all have beliefs and opinions about things. You mentioned journalists and historians as they will present the information in a certain manner or how their brain perceives the information and move in that direction. But the difference is when we have fair and unfair bias. Fair is presenting the information as seen and to the best of our ability even if we have our own opinion. And unfair bias will misrepresent one side or hide certain details in favor of the direction they want you to choose. This is certainly not what the Gospel does. It presents the case and calls every person to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. This is clearly evident in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul writes a letter charging the church of Corinth. He lists out multiple people who saw Christ after His death and that some are still alive so go ask them yourself.

Heck, the disciples themselves struggled with believing Jesus was alive nor did anyone really expect it to happen. It makes little sense for them to just concoct this story after the fact and have it work so well (let alone die for it if it's a lie - who dies for a belief in Santa?). It would have tons of holes that point to a different narrative more clearly. Yet we have found none that fit as well as an actual resurrection. I do see bias in the bible in the sense that the authors want you to believe it. But I don't see unfair bias that they brush away the facts to give you something you can't find credible or substantiated. There is a big difference and I overall agree with you Jim. Just wanted to make that distinction as it helps me at times.

Interesting. You are still avoiding the question.

1. "It is clearly biased," you say, yet you give no evidence that it is. The fact that it has a motive doesn't make it biased. Any journalist must be selective with the information he or she actually puts in the article. Any historian has to condense his material and not write everything he knows. This is not bias. The authors of the Gospels want readers to follow Christ. This is not bias. You have to give evidence of bias, and yet you have none.

2. "You cannot read religious text as fact." Who says so? Prove it. Why can't it be read as fact, if it's true? You must first prove it's untrue, and then you will have proven your claim that "you cannot read religious text as fact."

3. In your eyes (since you do not agree with what I think its purpose is) what is the purpose of the bible? The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God. Let me ask this. the US Constitution is the constitution of the US because it says so, and because its writers say so. Does that make it unreliable? Biased? Does that mean its agenda is to prove itself, and therefore it can be disregarded?

4. "Idk where you got 4." I got it from your statement, "I disagree that the Bible makes you look at all the sources. Completely. And makes you look only at it as true word." So I want you to prove that's what the Bible says and wants. Where's your evidence? You still haven't given me any.

> I am just saying it has no sources to back it up.

Actually the Bible has plenty of sources to back it up. Just not about the resurrection from any extra biblical source from the 1st half of the 1st century. But it has plenty of sources to back it up. For instance, 21 of the places mentioned in Luke's Gospel have been corroborated from extra-biblical sources. 19 of the cultural references in Luke have been corroborated. 17 of the people in Luke have been corroborated. Four of the historical references have been corroborated. 17 of the religious references have been corroborated. That's just Luke. There are plenty more all over the Bible.

So I take issue with your unsupported claim that "it has no sources to back it up" and that it is an "unreliable source." You need to give evidence to support your claim. It's what I keep asking for. Where has it been proven to be unreliable? And why are you choosing to ignore the dozens and even hundreds of sources to back it up? Give evidence for what you are claiming, or admit that you are voicing opinions, not fact.

I believe you are just playing not understanding or ignoring when I answer your question. The bible is religious text. There are no credible or non religious sources to support the bible especially the resurrections. Here is the answer directly. If you don't like it that is up to you.

1. It is clearly biased. It clearly wants you to follow the teachings of Christ. Is this incorrect?
2. It is no. It is a religious text. You cannot read religious text as fact. You read it realizing that it is a text with a bias.
3. How about this. In your eyes (since you do not agree with what I think its purpose is) what is the purpose of the bible?
4. Idk where you got 4. I am just saying it has no sources to back it up.

You are still avoiding the question. I have asked you numerous times to substantiate your claims. I have yet to receive anything, despite several requests. Anything at all. It seems you have nothing but opinion, by virtue of what you have shown me. I'll admit that I'm disappointed that a person who says he/she cares so greatly about sources and reliability has no sources, let alone reliable ones, to back up your claims. I'll ask once again: Show me ANYTHING that supports ANYTHING you've claimed in your numerous posts. That will at least start the conversation.

Just to bring to your mind—You have claimed...

1. The Bible is biased.
2. The Bible is an unreliable source.
3. The Bible's agenda is to prove itself.
4. The Bible frowns upon examining other sources.

Please show me the evidence that stands behind these claims of yours. Otherwise, I'll have to take them as mere opinion with no basis.

Because it is a religious text! That simple. Really. Heck even the example of the women would be opinion based. But the Bible is not accusing someone of something human. And even then these women are first hand accounts. The Bible is not that.

How about this. Show me these references? I'm talking about the stuff written in the Bible. Not ppl talking about the Bible. I am talking about the actual references used to build it. Also you say it's a good source on its own. I just playing disagree for all the reasons I've mentioned. I just playing disagree.

I'm not even saying uts false. I'm just saying that it cannot also be proven real as it is biased and has no outside sources to back it up. It has supporters. But I'm talking about evidence in things like the actual ressurection. Heck do we even know if those supposedly 500 ppl existed? CAn you prove that? Is there anyway to identify that there was really 500 ppl there.

Again the gospels are not reliable as they are biased. There purpose is to tell you that the ressurection happened. And I believe when it comes to things like magic (a ressurection) it does that more to prove it as it is unrealistic.

> I am just pointing out how it makes this a biased book. So it itself is not it's own credible sources.

Because the Bible was written by people convinced of the truth of it (just as many female gymnasts could write a "biased" book about Larry Nassar) doesn't mean the source is not credible. You continue to avoid the issue of EVIDENCE that the Gospels are filled with mistakes that make the books unreliable.

> I disagree that the Bible makes you look at all the sources.

Again, this is what you must substantiate. You continually make statements that are opinions, but you refuse to back them up with any substantiation. Where's your proof that the Bible is not credible and that it frowns on examining any and all sources?

> Again glad we were agree on it being a religious text.

Of course it's a religious text. No question there.

> Again tho that shows it bias and why it's not a good source on its own.

It does NOT show that. The Bible has thousands of references to show that it is reliable and that it's a good source on its own. As I've mentioned, just because they were convinced of its truth doesn't make its "bias" any less reliable than Jews who were in the concentration camps telling us about them.

> The only account is in the Bible. There is no other account of it. That's the issue.

Then how do you know it's false? I would have to presume you consider it to be false because of your own bias, since you have no evidence that the text is unreliable.

> Things like ressurections. They really are a larger claim to prove.

It's a less common claim to prove, but it only demands the evidence that anything else demands: reliable evidence from reliable sources. What you haven't proven is that the evidence the Gospels have given is not reliable or that the sources themselves are unreliable. That's where the conversation has to be.

That is fine. I am just pointing out how it makes this a biased book. So it itself is not it's own credible sources. When ppl write books to convince you of something there is a reason ppl demand sources for the content.

How about this. I disagree that the Bible makes you look at all the sources. Completely. And makes you look only at it as true word. But that's just what I believe.

Again glad we were agree on it being a religious text. Again tho that shows it bias and why it's not a good source on its own.

Lol what angles to look at? The only account is in the Bible. There is no other account of it. That's the issue.

See when those groups of ppl talk about things not only would they cite sources of their content but are speaking from things we can all see and experience. Racism, violence, and so on. All things that are not big claims. But when you get into things like mysticism and magic. Things like ressurections. They really are a larger claim to prove.

I believe the Gospels themselves were written in the 1st century.

You're right (I stand corrected) that the fragment we know as P45 preceded Vaticanus by 50-100 years. This would, then represent the earliest codex containing all 4 Gospels.

> They traveled together, for sure. But they weren't bound together into one book until Vatican's in AD 300.

So your claim is that P45 was written around 250, but then not bound together until much later? What makes you think this? Why assume they were bound together at a later date than they were written?

The Gospels were written down anywhere from 30-60 years after Jesus's death. That would be like us trying to write a book about Bill Clinton in 1991 or the Beatles in 1963. You seem to be saying that information this old is unreliable, and yet there are plenty of eyewitnesses around from both eras, and all those inbetween to get accurate information. So, I'm curious, why might you believe something you hear about Clinton, Reagan, Jimmy Carter, or even Nixon, the Vietnam War, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, U2, or Kurt Cobain, but you wouldn't believe things about which the Bible writes 30-60 years later. Why is one OK and the other not?

The only biographies we have of Alexander the Great are written 300-400 years after Alexander, and the four sources disagree with each other, but we don't question Alexander. Tacitus wrote about Roman emperors 100 years prior to his writing, but few question his reliability. We have biographies of Abe Lincoln written 150 years later that receive great acclaim. So it's not time that motivates you to question the Bible. Maybe let's dig deeper and hear your real reason.