Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Pine Apples]

The four Gospels that were centuries later put under one cover. They lasted for 300 years as separate sources.
While you are correct that the gospels are four independent records of Jesus, they did begin to travel together earlier than you said.

P45 is dated around 250, so even if you go with an early date for the writing of the gospels, that’s still under 200 years before they were bound together that we know of, they could have traveled all together even before this codex was created.

This is important because people like to claim that it was much later that someone “decided” which gospels to keep and which to exclude. In reality Christians knew early on which gospels were legitimate and which ones such as the gnostic gospels were illegitimate forgeries.

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3539

[jimwalton]

> While you are correct that the gospels are four independent records of Jesus, they did begin to travel together earlier than you said.

I know this, and I agree with it. I was being very careful and specific with my claim. Sure, these documents were studied together even by the early 2nd century, if not earlier. They traveled together, for sure. But they weren't bound together into one book until Vaticanus in AD 300. But in 97, Hermas mentions 4 Gospels. In 180 Irenaeus tells us of four Gospels. The Diatesseron (about 180) is a 4-Gospel harmony. The Moratorian Fragment (185 or so) mentions 4 Gospels.

> This is important because people like to claim that it was much later that someone “decided” which gospels to keep and which to exclude. In reality Christians knew early on which gospels were legitimate and which ones such as the gnostic gospels were illegitimate forgeries.

I agree. When the church councils met in the 4th century to solidify the canon, the deliberations of the Church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God rather than deciding what books to include. The difference is a subtle but important one. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the Church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings.

[Lord Cat]

I personally find the gospels to be far too difficult to believe, given that most information I find online dates them well after the events allegedly took place

[jimwalton]

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.

[Pine Apples]

> 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?

[jimwalton]

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.

[Dark Lion]

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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.

[Dark Lion]

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.

[jimwalton]

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.