[Dimensio]

Empirical evidence is given for the death and resurrection of Christ.

You cannot use a source that claims the existence of eyewitnesses as evidence that said source is correct. You are employing circular reasoning.

If you believe JFK and Lincoln were presidents who were assassinated, you should be able to, on the same basis of historical evidence, believe the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Christ.

You have not demonstrated the same level of historical evidence for your claim. You have cited a single text. That the text claims that the events that it describes were witnessed is not evidence that those events actually occured.

[Quix]

You have cited a single text.
= = = =

Goodness! Your ignorance is showing.

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN

1, 2, 3 & 4 . . . texts by 4 different witnesses. Add in Paul who was also alive at the time . . . for a 5th.

Add in the OT prophets who predicted dozens of specific things about Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection . . . calculate those REPEATEABLE odds . . .

It's not for lack of evidence that there's a problem.

It's for lack of submission to GOD ALMIGHTY and a compulsive need to rationalize and justify rebellion that's the problem, imho.

[unlearner]

You cannot use a source that claims the existence of eyewitnesses as evidence that said source is correct. You are employing circular reasoning.

Not so. When Peter writes that He heard God speak from heaven and saw Jesus transfigured and radiating glory, Peter IS THE EYE WITNESS. And his writing IS the record of it.

There is also a long continuous chain of witnesses over several generations. So it is silly to assert that Jesus was not a real person, or Paul or Peter or John, etc. Everyone who makes these claims is pushing an agenda, and is a hypocrite because they are accusing others of pushing an agenda. We have the actual words of Christ and the apostles recorded and preserved for us in the scriptures.

Why do you think Christianity spread so rapidly immediately after the brief time of Christ's teachings, His death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven? Other religions offered financial advantages or enticed men with sex. Christianity had none of that. The message advocated a life of self denial and suffering. Converts expected persecution, not health and prosperity. Answer: it was a true message brought by men and women who had personally seen the things they were proclaiming. People from all walks of life found hope and meaning where it was not before. They heard the message, or confirmation of it, from eye witnesses.

What else do you think eye witness testimony is? Peter is not present here to speak for himself. He knew that he would die by martyrdom before the return of Christ because Jesus told him so after Jesus rose from the dead. (See John 21:18.) Peter recorded his testimony so we could have a firsthand account.

1 Peter 1:14-15

Knowing that shortly I must put off this tent [my body], even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me. Moreover I will endeavor that you may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

You have cited a single text.

The Bible contains many texts from many authors who wrote over a large time span. That is hardly a single source even if they are collected together. Further, extra biblical writings tend to support the history contained in the Bible. There is no contemporary and reputable historical source that contradicts the accounts of Christ's life or the apostles for that matter. There are no historical artifacts that contradict the scriptures either.

You will not find a non Christian record of the resurrection of Christ because to believe this historical event is to be a Christian.

That the text claims that the events that it describes were witnessed is not evidence that those events actually occured.

Firsthand, eye witness testimony is evidence. It is historical evidence. It is also the type of evidence that is accepted in a court of law. It is also similar to the type of evidence science uses: namely observations which are documented and recorded.

[muawiyah]

There are, in fact, multiple texts. What you are looking for is independent cooborative testimony, e.g. a Roman inquest perhaps.

Sorry, they didn't do such things in those days, and it's remarkable we have as many records as we do.

I think by now all known materials written in Latin in Classical times are actually on the internet, which is a first for any language.

[metmom]

You have cited a single text.

Not a single text. Several different texts written by differnt authors sometimes in different languages. Just because they were placed together in one text for convenience does not make them all one source and invalidate them any more than a scientist writing a research paper invalidates the paper by including different sources together for convenience sake.