Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Dark Lion]

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.

[jimwalton]

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.

[Scape211]

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.