[net.religion] Historical or nonhistorical evidence

gregg (04/18/83)

Here's an interesting point for you all to consider. The Christian apologists 
claim that the New Testament books are valid historical documents about the 
life of Christ. The skeptics refute this position, since the documents were 
written by Christian partisans; indeed, this refutation extends to the 
secular documents that seem to support the Christian position.

Question: Is this situation similar to the following?

A defense attorney in a trial presents several witnesses that attest to the
defendant's innocence.  The prosecuting attorney objects, saying that the
witnesses' testimony must be ruled inadmissible, since the witnesses are
obviously biased in favor of the defendant.  The judge a) sustains b)
overrules the objection.

Go ahead and be a judge.

Greg Gadeholt
Tektronix MDP
...!tektronix!tekmdp!gregg