(August 25, 2015 at 8:31 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Are professional historians able to rely on that type of direct evidence, Nestor?Occasionally, yes. Chemical analysis is, after all, how the once touted Shroud of Turin was exposed to be a medieval fraud. There's also archaeological evidence, which is quite direct. That's not too say that the past can't be reconstructed by the written record but it means that much greater substantiation is required than that which is contained in the Gospels - independent sources, with a variety of (conflicting) motives, helps, and even then anecdotal testimony is often called into question. Take Diogenes Laertius, for example.
If not, are they unable to learn anything about the past?
Quote:That sounds good. I assume this means that you'll be reading the NT books as first-century Christian sources.Yes.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza