I have tried for several days not to become angry and have so far been successful, frustrated is how I’d describe my last post but I’ll try to cool it.
I am acknowledging that there weren’t necessarily present writers, alive when Christ was, who wrote about Him when Jesus was a man on Earth, well I admit that nothing has been found dated from 33AD or earlier, however I am merely saying that it not only happens with ancient figures but is common place.
I’ve just opened my Bible and have gone to Corinthians 1. You acknowledged this letter was written in 57AD:
So there we have a letter written in 57AD, discussing past “scripture” and “Gospel” being preached.
If the accuracy is true, that Mark is written around 70AD and it really is the first, then the Gospels have clearly got their information from “scripture” and accounts written many years earlier.
Paul is talking past tense too, he’s saying he has already preached scripture to these people, so let’s say a handful of months, maybe years earlier. This could have been only 20 years after the event. But he’s preaching scripture, where has that come from? Well obviously we don’t know but let’s presume he didn’t write it and he would have had to get a manuscript of such scripture, then it throws it even more into the past. He does clearly say “which I have passed on to you”, which means he received it and didn’t create it.
It wouldn’t be unreasonable to presume the scripture was written in a a very short space of time after 33AD. Maybe the 40’s or maybe even the 30’s.
As you know, the Gospels are a compilation of accounts and sources, well supposedly in your opinion, but they are relying on scripture that had been written many years earlier, to then compile it.
Paul is reminding people in 57AD that they know of the resurrection and they’ve seen the scriptures.
He’s also very much talking about the earthly Christ, who was “crucified” and “buried”.
Of course there are discrepancies to the stories but Matthew and Luke are thought to have had more sources to get information from. It’s also thought that certain sources may have placed themselves in a more significant role, such as who witnessed the Risen Christ. But what all or nearly all sources point to, is that many people saw Him and Paul, is actually calling himself the least of the Apostles. Why would he do that if he was out for personal gain in all of this?
Let’s not forget with Paul discussing the resurrection, we have a man who lived at the same time as Christ and then wrote about him, also claiming to see Him risen. Although yes, he wrote about him after his death.
Every time new evidence is found and every time you look deeper, it always leads to the result looking like the Gospels were biographical, even if you don’t believe the miracles or divinity.
