I have something that speaks to the historical record of Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection. Its a little lengthy but its by one of the greatest legal minds in American history and thats no exageration:
"The evidence for our Lord's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of evidence of those who have written about them. and I know of no one fact in the hiostoris of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, that the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice)
This man wrote, 'A Treatise on the Law of Evidence', published in 1842, it is considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.
The sad fact is that modern skeptics put an excessive burden of proof on the Bible. Whether or not you accept the testimony of the NT with regards to Jesus Christ on a personal level there are definatly tangible proofs that the record is indeed accurate:
"Sir Willian Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid-19th century. He was firmly convinced of this belief. In his research to make a popographical study of Asia Minor, he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said: 'I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it. For the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject munutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations." (St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, Ramsey; adapted from Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, The Archaelolgy of the New Testamnet)
There is no proof that will satisfy the prejudice of the skeptic but the discerning mind must concede one important point, The NT is firmly rooted and grounded in tangible history.
and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.
