I am so tired of hearing skeptics say that you can’t use the Bible to evidence Jesus because 1) it’s in the Bible and 2) it is not by a hostile audience.
1. What we call the Bible is a man-made term to describe 66 different ancient historical documents that are, by definition, evidence. Each of the 27 books of the New Testament that speak of Jesus are 27 separate documents that stand or fall on their own. Just because we call them “Bible” or “New Testament” does not mean that they are disqualified. Any historian worth his salt recognizes this. Only a biased charlatan￼ “scholar” would disqualify them because they belong to a theoretical creed-based canon.
2. While hostile witnesses are great to have, it would seem, in this case, more often than not, that if you were an eye-witness of Christ and what he did, you would change your viewpoint accordingly. It is as if a skeptic wants someone who witnessed Christ risen from the dead and remained antagonistic to him and Christianity. This we don’t have. Why? I suppose it’s because this truth is revolutionary!
Therefore, we have exactly what you would think we would have if the stories of the Bible are true.
*To some some degree, in Matt 28:17 the “but some doubted” could qualify as a hostile witness. But this actually strengthens the witness of Matthew as it is self-incriminating! Wait…it’s in the Bible, so it is disqualified! 😉