Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ

[Apologia Xristou]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?

[rocketman]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?

I think it was Tacitus who made note of a Jesus being crucified in Judea in the year 33 AD, but he didn't say anything of note about him. There are also the pseudopigraphical or Gnostic gospels, but there are all sorts of things about Jesus in those that do or don't correllate with the 4 in the Bible.

[Amazing Rando]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?

Here is the best collection of writings countering the Christ-myth hypothesis that I've ever seen. It's got an overview of what secular historians have to say on the issue, a detailed rebuttal to Earl Doherty, leading Christ-myther as well as some other great stuff. Bede's Library

Also see JP Holding's Tektonics.org site for some good material that demolishes the arguments of the likes of Doherty.

[Ric]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?

Please read the book The Case for Christ .

The author was an atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong and he ended up being saved do to his research.

[Apologia Xristou]

Please read the book The Case for Christ .

The author was an atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong and he ended up being saved do to his research.

Hey there! Thank you very much for your suggestion to read The Case for Christ. I have read this book, and I found it very fascinating. However, many atheists have refuted the claims made in this book by stating all of the extra-biblical references to Jesus were forgeries. Any Suggestions?

[Amazing Rando]

Hey there! Thank you very much for your suggestion to read The Case for Christ. I have read this book, and I found it very fascinating. However, many atheists have refuted the claims made in this book by stating all of the extra-biblical references to Jesus were forgeries. Any Suggestions?

They can state they were forgeries all you'd like, but that doesn't make it true. The most famously contested passage, that from the Jewish historian Josephus, almost certainly contains some interpolated material, but very very few serious scholars actually believe the entire thing is a forgery.

[Ric]

Hey there! Thank you very much for your suggestion to read The Case for Christ. I have read this book, and I found it very fascinating. However, many atheists have refuted the claims made in this book by stating all of the extra-biblical references to Jesus were forgeries. Any Suggestions?

Do you have the book "The Case for Christ"? :???:

Look in the back at all of the footnotes and ask your atheists friends to prove those wrong. Trust me - they will go " " !!!

[Apologia Xristou]

Do you have the book "The Case for Christ"? :???:

Look in the back at all of the footnotes and ask your atheists friends to prove those wrong. Trust me - they will go " " !!!

I do indeed own "The Case for Christ". However, unfortunately it is back at my house. I will certainly take a look at those footnotes this weekend though.

[RC]

I may stand corrected, but I believe Jesus or the early church is mentioned breifly in Josephus. I think he also confirms aspects of the Gospels to be true. Like I say it has been years since I dove in to Josephus' writing, however, I do believe there is some info there. In a round about way the Atheists are fueling your desire for the truth. We as Christians know what the truth is and should continue to educate ourselves. Keep up the fight brother. Praise be to you CLW.

[jason]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?

Of course they argue like that. Any other tact will doom their argument.

What is wrong with the 4 gospels as evidence ?

Nothing, unless you have decided in advance that they cannot be true and cannot be trusted to give you evidence.

But that begs the question mightily.

If I recommend an excellent article to you. Bill Craig has written a number of articles on the historicity of Jesus, have a look here.

But the one article that is good to answer your question about why they talk as they do, try, Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar Dr. William Lane Craig.

It deals with the methodology of the clowns over at the Jesus Seminar that you see get reported in the papers from time to time.

Pay attention to the methodology they use (and what is so screamingly obviously suspect about it) and then beware of people smuggling in these sorts of assumptions when they look at the Gospels and the evidence for Christ.

Suffice to say, if you start with an assumption like, "Miracles are impossible", is it really a surprise that you do not consider the evidence about Jesus to be credible or reliable. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence though. You've decided ahead of time that any miracle claim you find must be bogus.

You'll find such methodology is the stock in trade of the skeptic ... Look for a persons presuppositions supplied by their worldview in these sorts of discussions and it will yeild vast amounts of information about why they draw the conclusions they do. It rarely has anything to do with evidence on the skeptics side in my experience, both as a christian and formerly as an atheist (not that I would have admitted that at the time).

Jason

[Omega Red]

A good start - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html.


Josephus- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html and
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#josephus

Tacitus - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

Thallus- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_THL.html

Pliny the Younger – http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_PL.html

Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html

Lucian (mid-2nd century) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_LUC.html

Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_MBS.html

Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TAL.html

Also: Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3) and Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).

It is best to work through the reading list used to compose these net-articles. As previously said in posts above, there is a distinct lack of historical reconstruction of the processes that brought the NT/extra-Biblical documents into being, but having read some of Vorkosigan posts' my reading list is not main stream enough.

Hope it helps

[Ric]

I do indeed own "The Case for Christ". However, unfortunately it is back at my house. I will certainly take a look at those footnotes this weekend though.

That's all I can ask of you.

There are numberous footnotes for each chapter that backs up all that is said in Lee's book.

God Bless!

[Apologia Xristou]

A good start - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html.


Josephus- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html and
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#josephus

Tacitus - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

Thallus- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_THL.html

Pliny the Younger – http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_PL.html

Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html

Lucian (mid-2nd century) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_LUC.html

Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_MBS.html

Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TAL.html

Also: Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3) and Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).

It is best to work through the reading list used to compose these net-articles. As previously said in posts above, there is a distinct lack of historical reconstruction of the processes that brought the NT/extra-Biblical documents into being, but having read some of Vorkosigan posts' my reading list is not main stream enough.

Hope it helps

Hey there. Thank you for sending me all of these links. I am sure they will be valuable resources for supplying evidence for Jesus' historicity.

[Ric]

[Tophet]

This post is a continuation of a discussion first begun on the thread, "Questionable Prophecies by Joseph Smith", which is more appropriate here.

TROUT:
A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.

POWELL:
Maybe we'll discuss this mythical view later in another place.

TOPHET:
Try:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...storicity+Jesus

POWELL:
Thanks.

John Powell

POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

POWELL:
Since Tophet seems to think that merely quoting scriptures proves he's right

TOPHET:
Actually, I am citing eyewitness testimony. In this manner the eyewitnesses speak for themselves.

JOHN MORMON:
Excellent, then let Joseph Smith give His eyewitness account of his first vision of the Father and the Son.

You're sidetracking, John. I'm not talking about Joseph Smith's "first vision." I'm talking about eyewitness testimony, and historicity, of Jesus Christ.

POWELL:
. . . then I will let John Mormon quote Mormon scriptures "proving" that Mormons are right.

You are sidetracking again, John.

JOHN MORMON:
Given what you said, perhaps you'll see that Mormon Doctrine is Biblical.

Another red herring. Poo.

JOHN MORMON:
Good, Tophet. Mormons agree with that, but they think the Book of Mormon counts as scripture and that there are other prophets besides those mentioned in the Bible.

Yes, and you're sidetracking yet again. You haven't disproved the historicity of Jesus Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Although those N.T. passages were speaking specifically about the O.T

Well, here are the passages. Tell me where the O.T. is mentioned, specifically:


2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

JOHN MORMON:
You realize, don't you that by those words Paul and Peter were specifically thinking of the OLD TESTAMENT, right?

TOPHET:
Not necessarily. Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as scripture and Paul refers to the Gospel accounts as scripture.

JOHN MORMON:
I agree that Paul's epistles and the Gospels are scripture, but where does Paul SPECIFICALLY claim this?

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

These events are recorded in the Gospel accounts.

See here:
http://www.tektonics.org/truthfulness.htm#fourg

and here:
http://www.tektonics.org/truthfulness.htm#fivem

POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity.

TOPHET:

1 Corinthians 1

Divisions in the Church

10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[1] "; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[2] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Corinthians 3
4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

These verses demonstrate there is no "brand" of Christianity other than itself.

JOHN MORMON:
The existence of huge numbers of separate denominations of Christianity is a clear rebuttal to your claim.

First, it is not “my” claim. It is Paul’s claim in the above verses, which you are ignoring.

Second, the definition of “Christianity” is a clear rebuttal to your claim.

Oxford English Dictionary

Christianity:

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM. Obs.
2. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chris•ti•an•i•ty P Pronunciation Key (kr s ch - n -t , kr s t -)
n.
1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Christians as a group; Christendom.
3. The state or fact of being a Christian.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Christianity
\Chris*tian"i*ty\, n. [OE. cristiente, OF. cristient['e], F. chr['e]tient['e], fr. L. christianitas. ] 1. The religion of Christians; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ.

2. Practical conformity of one's inward and outward life to the spirit of the Christian religion

3. The body of Christian believers. [Obs.]

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Christianity
n 1: the system of Christian beliefs and practices [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: a group of Christians; any group professing Christian doctrine or belief; "church is a biblical term for assembly" [syn: church, Christian church, Christianity] 3: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history; "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]


Oxford English Dictionary
Christian, a. and n.
A. adj.
1. a. Of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ.

2. a. Of things: Pertaining to Christ or his religion: of or belonging to Christianity.
B. n.
1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chris•tian P Pronunciation Key (kr s ch n)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Christian
\Chris"tian\, n. [L. christianus, Gr. ?; cf. AS. cristen. See Christ.] 1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. --Acts xi. 26.


The standard is the standard. The standard is not those who claim to follow the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the standard.

The head of the church is Christ. Jesus is the author and finisher of the Christian faith.

Hebrews 12:2
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Are you claiming that every sect of self-proclaimed Christians has the same beliefs about God, Jesus, Salvation, etc.?

No. Because those who claim to follow the standard is not the standard. The standard of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

Granted there can only be ONE true "brand" of Christianity, but the controversy is which, if any of the existing churches claiming to be Christian, is it.

You'll find the answer in the definition of Christianity.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say you have to join a church to be saved, and to have eternal fellowship with Him?

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Did Jesus say the church is the way? No. He is the way.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Who mediates between God and men? Only Jesus. Certainly not the church.

This is precisely the question young Joseph Smith had and why he asked God for the answer and had his First Vision and was called to restore that true "brand" of Christianity to the Earth.

Yes, yes, another red herring. Just like this one:

JOHN MORMON:
Scripture Verse:
3 Ne 11:29-30
29 For verily, verily I [Jesus] say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

TOPHET:
Not all contention is bad.

JOHN MORMON:
I didn't claim it was.

Therefore, we don’t need to sidetrack any further on this issue.

JOHN MORMON:
Your method of debate, Tophet, seems to be to quote scriptures without explanation of their relevance.

The scriptures are self-explanatory, as the eyewitness accounts provided the answers to the questions you raised.

Your method of debate, John, is to complicate matters by introducing red herrings and introduce new tangents to the discussion. Why not stay focused? Or are you admitting you can’t handle the current argument by sidetracking to other issues?

POWELL:
Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

Well as we can see from Paul's testimony, it does:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

POWELL:
Just because His body was buried does not mean His body came back to life leaving the tomb empty.

TOPHET:
The eyewitnesses say He did.

POWELL:
Sure, Tophet, and eyewitnesses claimed that Lehi and his family went to the Americas and Jesus visited them 600 years later. It's right there in the BOM.

You're sidetracking again. This topic is about Jesus, not Lehi. BOM was written by Joseph Smith, not by contemporary eyewitnesses. The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.

POWELL:
Perhaps Jesus was resurrected in spirit form.

Luke 24
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.

41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

POWELL:
Who was the AUTHOR of this account, Tophet,

Luke.

and WHERE in the book does the author identify himself?

The title of the book.

John 20
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

POWELL:
Who was the author of this account, Tophet,

John

and WHERE in the book does the author identify himself?

The title of the book.

More information can be found here:
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

I cite the following to demonstrate Paul's recount of the historical event of the resurrection -- and here you go sidetracking again.

TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:5
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

POWELL:
Who did Jesus appear to first, wasn't it to Mary before Peter?

TOPHET:
Possibly. But Paul didn’t say "appeared to Peter first," did he?

POWELL:
That's the implication.

Not at all. Paul’s statement is still true even without naming Mary – or the other women at the tomb. There is therefore no discrepancy.

Paul is apparently listing the order of appearances.
Fiirst Cephas (not Peter)

Cephas is Peter.
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[ 1:42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.] ).

, then the twelve, then over 500 at one time, then James, then all the apostles, then Paul.

According to the Gospels, Jesus did not appear to the "twelve" because Judas wasn't with them. Jesus appeared to the "ten" (minus Thomas) and then to the "eleven" (including Thomas). Don't you agree?

According to the Gospels, and Acts, Jesus did appear to the twelve. Matthew had replaced Judas. With Thomas that makes twelve. Paul didn’t detail every single visit by Jesus in His post-resurrection visits. Neither did he say “then to the twelve at one time” as he did to the “over 500.” He didn’t need to. There is therefore no discrepancy.

POWELL:
Apparently, the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was no different than the appearances to the others. These "appearances" were some sort of vision or "seeing Jesus" revealed in the Old Testament or something like that.

TOPHET:
No. They were actual physical appearances, as reported by the eyewitnesses in the accounts I listed above.

POWELL:
Was Paul's experience a "physical appearance" of Jesus or some kind of personal experience? If it was physical why didn't the others see Jesus?

Jesus’ directive was apparently for Paul alone, but his companions did see the light from heaven, they witnessed Paul blinded by the light, and they heard the conversation. Yes, it was a physical encounter.

The fact remains Jesus Christ had a physical resurrection.

TOPHET:
Remember, that's more than 500 eyewitnesses on several occasions.

POWELL:
If that sounds so impressive to you, Tophet, then perhaps you should be impressed by the multitude of men, women, and children in the Americas who saw the resurrected Jesus in 3 Nephi 11. According to the BOM, they actually touched His body.

Whee, another red herring. Since you no longer believe in the Book of Mormon, then why don’t you explain why you don’t believe in the account?

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was in public circulation. The 500+ eyewitnesses he cites could be cross-examined as to the veracity of the resurrection. How can the same be claimed for the Book of Mormon?

TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:9-19
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:
2 Peter 1:16
16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Why would you ignore Peter's testimony?


POWELL:
I didn't.

When someone makes a big deal about them not lying or not being deceived then it's an indication that they are more likely lying or being deceived than if they hadn't made such a big deal about it.

Eyewitness testimony is a “big deal.” By your rationale, then, everyone who swears to tell the truth in a court of law “are more likely lying or being deceived.” Your assertion is nonsense.

How do you know, Tophet, that the Peter of the Gospel accounts penned the words in 2 Peter and not some one else?

Because those documents circulated in the Near East and were thus available to anyone with the means, motive, and opportunity for cross-examination, and to refute them if they were erroneous. Jude, for example, referenced 2 Peter.

For a more detailed answer, read the essay found here:

http://members.surfeu.fi/foragnostics/sgtestimony.htm

and the essays found here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter1.html

and

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter2.html

Because it's in the Bible so it must be true?

Because they are multiple trustworthy eyewitness accounts unrefuted by contemporaries with the means, motive, and opportunity to do so.