es, I say non-biblical so we can break the circularity of the argument. If we have a dozen contemporary Roman sources documenting the event, I can no longer say SEE, IT'S JUST MORE OF THE BIBLE CONFIRMING THE BIBLE. This is the type of evidence that could alter the nature of the discussion. Unfortunately, the two or three independent sources we thought we had, have all turned out to frauds and hoaxes.
If you with to convince a skeptic trained in logic, these are the kind of sources and arguments you will need.
Maybe you didn't know it before, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts were not part of the Bible. They were documents written by eye witnesses in the case of the first three. Luke and Acts were written by someone who, similar to a modern newspaper man or magazine writer interviewed eye witnesses.
The fact that later they were canonized into the New Testament should have noting to do with their credibility as legitimate history.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
