Questions
So if a person today writes a book about WWII he is disqualified from being a reliable historian because he wasnt there? What if i interviewed vetrans that fought in the war? Are those eye witness accounts of the battles not true because i myself didnt participate? If i am 50 years old and write about the things i saw in my life when i was in my 20's then that book should be brought into question as to its reliability? I think not. Nor should the NT documents validity be brought into question.
Im sorry Nof60 but your burden of proof for historical documents renders alot of human history as suspect or irrellavant. When the same standard is applied to the NT documents as other historical documents it comes out looking pretty impressive.
|