Historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ

[Nick333]

I am not sure what you are trying to saying, do you refer to translation?

No.

[phenom]

The New Testament was written on 5600 ancient found copies of which have 99.5%% accuracy

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, it is a very very trustworthy historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below

Author1 Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span Between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies

Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/trustbible.htm

[Neo]

The New Testament was written on 5600 ancient found copies of which have 99.5%% accuracy

http://www.carm.org/evidence/trustbible.htm

I must say I find LSD to induce similar kinds of hallucinations, but it's expensive.

What do you use?

[Kalvaer]

Well on the same topic but different point.

In the new Tesitement in the Gospel of John, he goes on to speak about Jesus healing people at the Pool of Bethesda. He goes on to speak about the 5 porticoes as well. However this place doesn't exist.. At least everyone though so until Archaeologists found it buried underground, complete with the 5 walkways.

This at least goes to show us that John was at least there at the time to have been able to give an eyewitness account of a location that in modern times, we thought was made up

[Nick333]

Well on the same topic but different point.

In the new Tesitement in the Gospel of John, he goes on to speak about Jesus healing people at the Pool of Bethesda. He goes on to speak about the 5 porticoes as well. However this place doesn't exist.. At least everyone though so until Archaeologists found it buried underground, complete with the 5 walkways.

This at least goes to show us that John was at least there at the time to have been able to give an eyewitness account of a location that in modern times, we thought was made up

At best it proves that John heard about the five porticoes from another source. I can tell you that there is a place called the Voortrekker monument without having been there.

[Neo]

Well on the same topic but different point.

In the new Tesitement in the Gospel of John, he goes on to speak about Jesus healing people at the Pool of Bethesda. He goes on to speak about the 5 porticoes as well. However this place doesn't exist.. At least everyone though so until Archaeologists found it buried underground, complete with the 5 walkways.

This at least goes to show us that John was at least there at the time to have been able to give an eyewitness account of a location that in modern times, we thought was made up

You can easily write a story today and include some actual, real detail in the story to give it more credence. Authors of novels do this all the time. They write a completely fictional story but in a historical setting. (DA Vinci code being a good example)

So you can write a story today and give relative accurate detail on, say the wall of China.

Does that mean you were there?

[Kalvaer]

All Correct, but now we have 3 other people all writing about the same thing again as well. Plus countless others mentioning these things. 1 person's credibilty you can doubt, but when you start having an entire army of people writing about something, you can no longer to doubt the 1 person.

Even if you doubt him though, there has to be something to the story he was talking about in the first place with so many accurate discriptions and different sources.

Writing a story today would be much easier due to the means of research we have available to us. 2000 years ago, it was a whole different ball game, You usually had to write about things you yourself had seen, or at least known somebody else who had directly themselves. Its not like you could pick up the sunday paper and read about what was going in Iraq while sitting in Isreal

[nthdimension]

We have three gospels that are too similar to each other giving the appearance that the stories all came from one source or they copied from each other. And we have John which is completely different to the other three.

The fact that the places are real does not mean the story has to be true.

[ghoti]

Well on the same topic but different point.

In the new Tesitement in the Gospel of John, he goes on to speak about Jesus healing people at the Pool of Bethesda. He goes on to speak about the 5 porticoes as well. However this place doesn't exist.. At least everyone though so until Archaeologists found it buried underground, complete with the 5 walkways.

This at least goes to show us that John was at least there at the time to have been able to give an eyewitness account of a location that in modern times, we thought was made up

Umm.. John did not write the Gospel of John.... eyewitness? Right. Someone who lived after John wrote the "eyewitness" account.

[The Cosmos]

Ok, here's a site with regards to the subject of the thread !

anchorstone.com & click on the garden tomb link.

also check out:
surprisingdiscoveries.com

There's some DVD's for sale if i'm not mistaken. I've got the videos and watched them all, and it's wonderful !

[Electrra]

Everyday proofs for evolution:

All living creatures have parents. Parents pass on their genome combinations to their progeny. We kinda look like our parents. Not exactly, the combos create differences.

Different genes are involved in the pigmentation of skin. Those living in the north, far from the equator, lighter skin is important for producing vitamin D, which is often formed in the body following exposure to the sun's ultraviolet rays. These genes developed 14 000 years ago.

Humans have food intolerances, particularily wheat and milk, due to rapid changes in society (changing from hunter gatherers to farmers - rapid in evolutionary terms). Those without the intolerances have dominate mutated genes adapted to their dietry changes.
These genes developed 10 000 - 8 000 years ago.

[Kalvaer]

@ Electra : I never said anything about "evolution", or even disputed it :P

We have three gospels that are too similar to each other giving the appearance that the stories all came from one source or they copied from each other.

So if everyone who was at the Rugby game this weekend all gave the same story did they all copy each other? Or as you said.. is it possible that they were all at the "source" and were actually there at the time.

[nthdimension]

So if everyone who was at the Rugby game this weekend all gave the same story did they all copy each other? Or as you said.. is it possible that they were all at the "source" and were actually there at the time.

If you read up on this you'll find that the similarities are of the sort that do not occur in the circumstance where three people see the same even and write about it indepedently. What we see in the gospels is exactly the sort of thing that is evidence of copying.

No, there may have been one source for the story, i.e a possible person who actually saw or claimed to have seen the events firsthand, and this person told the same story to all three writers. The source is not the event itself.

[Kalvaer]

Myself I think that there are just way to many "storys" for it made up. Regardless of, if you believe in what Jesus stood for or not. Even those opposing him didn't dispute that he was alive or certain events happened.