Is Early Christian Testimony Inadmissible? Should Testimony Be Rejected?

By Arthur Khachatryan

One of the criticisms of the Bible that has gained traction in recent decades is the notion that we cannot believe the biblical narratives because they were written entirely by the proponents of the faith expounded by the writers. In other words, what the biblical writers tell us is inadmissible as evidence insomuch as history and truth are concerned merely because they all had the same belief system, and were collectively writing about things that were broadly in agreement. Is it reasonable to be so cavalier in our disregard of early Christian testimony (or anything at all) on those grounds alone?

No one is devoid of a prior bias to any subject. Everyone has some position on any number of things, some more strongly than others. Don’t all writers have a belief system that in no small extent informs the kinds of things about which they write? Can’t all writers be labeled in some manner? To dispense the claims of a particular grouping of people based solely on the fact that they have a particular vantage point is ludicrous. Consider the fact that atheists are the ones who write all books arguing for Atheism.

Should we reject all atheistic materials solely on the basis that atheists wrote them? Of course not. That the writer of any material has a particular point of view is…
 

I'm with Clive!FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
Is Early Christian Testimony Inadmissible? Should Testimony Be Rejected?