this is just a quick note after listening to a podcast from Tim Keller
three reasons speaking for the historical truth of the Bible
1. too early to be false (Luke, Paul have checked with eyewitnesses, 500 people have seen Jesus alive)
16.11.10
(Note: All the gospels have spoken and checked with people who have seen Jesus directly while he was alive and also after he arose). So the fact that the Bible is 2000 years old, does not matter at all. What matters is the time frame between the actual events and the time of the evidence being reported via the gospel writers. And this is not even more then one generation)
2. too counterproductive (may this cup pass from me)
3. women would never have been used as witnesses (Maria)
16.11.10
4. The style in which the bible was written could never have been legendary or fictionary styles.
After the resurrection, Jesus ate "broiled" fish. Why would any one write
the detail about broiled fish ? Simply because it was really what he had.
Otherwise this wouldnt make any sense at all.
Why is there no grave of jesus anymore ? In former times even today, tombs
of famous people were holy and would be kept as "holy places".
The answer is: simple because jesus was with them after resurrection
and the tomb did not matter at all anymore
