Principles of Finding Evidence

Did you know that all we have to go on to prove the resurrection of Christ or other matters are archaeological finds, documents, and eyewitness accounts?

So in determining whether something happened or didn't happen, it is important to realize that there is a limited number of means in which to prove the facts.

If we can come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can be reasonably confident it happened. The finding of historicity is essentially a default position; thus, we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of the story of the text.

What the external historical certainty of Jesus' resurrection does is reinforce that God's Spirit has indeed spoken to us and gives assurance we experience really from God's Spirit.

Jesus predicted His resurrection so many times and was multiply attested. If you want evidence for this, please ask.

We observe the principle of dissimilarity in the term "the Son of Man" that Jesus used for His resurrection. We also notice the principle of embarrassment in how the disciples did not seem to have a clue what Jesus was talking about regarding His resurrection.

The effectiveness of Jesus' prediction about His resurrection stands if the resurrection is true.

The five historical principles that we find in the Bible regarding the resurrection are all found:

1) Multiple, independent sources supporting the claim.
2) Attestation by an enemy supports historical claim.
3) Embarrassing admissions support historical claim.
4) Eyewitness testimony supports historical claim.
5) Early testimony supports historical claim.

This is the best we can do and it has been accomplished. Nothing in antiquity is more well proven!

You say (or rather, imply) that we have verifiable historical documents that fulfill all five of the above listed principles. What are they? To my knowledge, there is no extra-Biblical evidence that supports the existance 2000 years ago of the man we call Jesus (let alone to support his divine origin, his resurrection, his miracles, etc).

So I ask you, just what are these documents?

PS: first post ^_^

EDIT: I realise the OP was made last year. I just felt it needed commenting. That is all.

Extra-Biblical evidence is not required since scholars agree Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 are authentic, that Paul really believed what he wrote. Limit yourself to the Minimal Facts Approach of what scholars agree on. That is not to say there is no extra-Biblical evidence like the Talmud, Tacitus and others about Jesus who comment on His miracles, deity and resurrection. Of 45 earliest ancient documents 17 are non-Christian of which 7 of those 17 speak on his resurrection, and 7 speak of His deity. 24 of the 45 speak of His resurrection. 12 of the 17 non-Christian refer to His death. And several refer to miracles of sorts.

The reason extra-Biblical evidence is still unimportant though is because the secular world could care less about the Savior of the world and only refer to Him in passing. To give you an analogy that is like asking a hockey fan to make a comment about the teams in the NFL when he could care less about football. Therefore, we can only cite the multiple eyewitness testimonies at the time when it happened, and if you can not account for their claims, then know it must be true. Modern psychology says there is no such thing as group hallucinations, that is, multiple people seeing something that is not there. It's impossible. So if you can't account for the resurrection of Jesus otherwise, then give your life to Christ.