Should we trust the NT?

Claim: The New Testament Gospels are historically reliable and the eyewitnesses can be trusted because they were written in their lifetime.

Starting point

Engaging in apologetic conversations with unbelievers can at times be frightening, we focus on gathering all the necessary evidence while forgetting to actually access the unbelievers understanding of the Gospels.

Many skeptics will focus on the argument that the New Testament was written way after the events that took place. negative critical scholars separate the actual events from the writings to further strengthen their views by arguing that they were written late first century and possibly second century. Arguing that by these dates the documents contain mythology. Assuming that the writers created the events rather than reported them.

Which is a good argument if they see the text as a historical document in some shape or form, however if they dont than we need to build that foundation.

My claim is that the New Testament is historically reliable and that the eyewitnesses can be trusted given the fact that the text was written during their lifetime.

When we engage in this topic we must use the textual criticism method which is utilized for all ancient text to validate their reliability and potential forgery.

Just because the authors claim to be eyewitness or near enough doesnt mean its a fact but we should however evaluate the accounts in those terms the same way we would if it was the opposite way. The fact that the authors identify themselves as eyewitness suggest that the accounts would've been received better if they were. Further supporting this point, as it would be a bold claim given that eyewitnesses were still around.

If the NT is not reliable we dont have an objective historical way to know the things Jesus did or said.

When we analyze the reliability of these documents there are two steps we must take. Show that the manuscripts are in fact written early enough and with enough attention to detail to be faithful records. Secondly, know if the sources and witnesses used by the authors were reliable.

In apologetic conversations skeptics like to utilize the argument that the New Testament manuscripts were written at the beginning of the first century or late first century, and you might ask yourself why is this relevant? This tactic is to used to support the claim of pontential mythological additions to said manuscripts. My argument is that this is just not true, and Christians as well as Skeptics can affirm this. My main focus is going to be equipping you with the necessary tools to have a historical and sound argument for defending your faith, because if we cant validate the authenticity of said manuscripts than our faith is based in an unverifiable document, but guess what? That is not the case with the New Testament. I will start with laying out the historical aspects