[jluetjen]

As I said earlier -- the Bible as a single bound book is a modern construction. It is in fact a collection of books and letters written by a number of different people -- as even Nota has mentioned. Those people obviously believed that Jesus Christ in fact rose from the dead. So by definition you have multiple witness accounts right there.

Those books also report the existance of other people (such as Stephan) who believed that this was true, but who did not write down their beliefs. Then there are also the people in Rome, Greece, Ephesus and elsewhere such as Egypt and Turkey who met Peter, Paul and the others of the original disciples first-hand (such as the Apostle John - who was closest to Jesus and moved to Ephesus), and believed what they told them (irrespective of if Peter, Paul and John even wrote what is currently attibuted to them in the Bible) since many of those Christians continued their faith in the face of persecution and death.

Even Josephus (ignoring the "enhancements") acknowledges the sudden rise of Christianity in Rome at that time in spite of the fact that Jesus was killed.

At the end of the day, the Bible (especially the NT) contains a series of witness accounts. No more, no less. If you chose to accept the validity of those witnesses is up to you. But as I said, that is about the same level of information that we have regarding George Washington Crossing the Delaware.

- Other people said he did.
- He said he did.
- People (such as the Hessians) acted in a fashion that would support or suggest that he did cross the Delaware.

But at the end of the day, there is no DNA evidence nor a secure provenance that places George Washington in Trenton on that winter day. There are no pictures except those apocriphal images made after the fact. But yet it is widely accepted that George Washington did in fact cross the Delaware River and beat the crap out of a camp of Hessians. Why should Jesus be treated any differently?