Is the New Testament Reliable? A Quick Response To Believers of the New Testament.

Ehteshaam Gulam

Recently I was speaking to a Christian about the New Testament. I challenged him to give me reasons to believe in the New Testament. He gave me three which I will list below:

1.) The New Testament documents are early.

2.) It comes from eye witnesses

3.) It has multiple attestation to its events.

The only one of these claims that are true, is number 1. But Like Bassam Zawadi has said before, Just because something is early, doesn't mean its relaible.
So let me answer all three of these claims. Here I'll quickly debunk these three myths of the New Testament.

1) Just Because something is early doesn't mean its reliable. It has to be early and Reliable. It's possible that something is early and false. Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable. Yes Paul is early but he is not reliable. Read the Homer Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald, or Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms, the N.T. is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

2) The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts. For example see Luke 1:1-2.  Most Biblical Scholars agree, the N.T. Gospels are not eye witnesses accounts, rather they were written by second generation believers in the late 1st century. ... The Gospels are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses to Jesus minstry. They were Greek speaking Christiansliving 35-65 years after Jesus left the earth. The accounts they narrate are based on oral traditions of the time, which are not entirely reliable.

3) If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus, (which there are good reasons to do so) there is no outside evidence for Jesus death and resurrection.

So we can see that there is no solid evidence for the New Testament. To my Christian friends, if your willing to discuss the Quran (the Islamic Holy Scripture) and the evidence
for it, I would be more than happy to.

-Ehteshaam Gulam