Originally posted by @whodeyMultiple sources all with the same purpose is pretty meaningless, especially when dozens and dozens of competing gospels were rejected in a stupendous bout of editing which intended to cultivate uniformity. The "either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses" thing is actually hearsay.
As for the Bible, you have multiple sources saying pretty much the same thing in the gospels. These are either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses.
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfSo I guess it gets down to which witness you believe, doesn't it.
Multiple sources all with the same purpose is pretty meaningless, especially when dozens and dozens of competing gospels were rejected in a stupendous bout of editing which intended to cultivate uniformity. The "either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses" thing is actually hearsay.
Nonetheless, it is evidence.
From what I have been able to determine, the gospels are the closest witness to the time of Christ that have been uncovered.
Now what account of someone would you tend to believe the most? Is it what a person writes about themselves or what others write about them?
Originally posted by @fmfPaul is perhaps the first to have a dramatic conversion. Although he did not meet Jesus before crucified, he claims to have met him on the road to Damascus.
I agree that this is a form of evidence albeit weakened by the fact you have to be a believer to believe it.
If the accounts of Paul are true, that he persecuted Christians and killed them, it would answer why he changed so.
Originally posted by @whodeyWell of course this is a false dilema erected in the service of propagating something you already believe.
Now what account of someone would you tend to believe the most? Is it what a person writes about themselves or what others write about them?