Christian- 90% of us suck

[dennyg]

Are you aware that the first account (from which other gospels were copied) of the ressurection is widely considered to be a forgery?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Mark wasn't even an eye witness in the first place, his whole gospel is entirely hearsay. (As are the rest of the gospels.) And the ressurection quite possibly didn't even make it into that, but was added on later to "help" the story.

Just thought you'd be interested

I've mentioned it to christians before on here, but forgeries don't seem to bother them at all.

As for accuracy, the only way we know any of it is true is by confirming it ourselves. It's an error to assume any other part of the book is also true by association, especially when so much of it is clearly false.

According to THAT source the resurrection is in there. But I can give you all sorts of evidence for the authenticity of the NT if you'd like, though no doubt there are some minor additions here and there.
There are so many gospels though. The Council of Nicaea and a few other church meetings picked the four in the NT because they were the most consistent, not overly fantastical or secularized (Ex: one omitted gospel had Jesus flying, one hinted at a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene), and were not just words or only a portion of Jesus' life.
No gospel was put to paper until 20 years after Jesus' death at the earliest and only two can be accurately said to be authored by a disciple. But what gets lost is that oral storytelling was the norm then. Some people memorized the whole Bible/Quran. It's pretty crazy. So I think the story undoubtedly changed slightly before its transcription but not enough to make it largely inaccurate.
The two sources NOT in the NT considered very reliable by modern scholars are Q and the Gospel of Thomas.

Always interested