So why disqualify sources that contain eyewitness accounts?
because he distrusts ‘believing’ eyewitness accounts. Even though the evidence of COMPLETEly changed lives means nothing to him. It certainly meant something to the Sanhedrin, who were in enmity with christianity. At any rate, if he is honest, the testimony of the ENEMies of Christ will mean something. It is a good test of honesty.
eye witness of what?
Babylonian Talmud “It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for 40 days (saying): ‘He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.” Sanhedrin 43a; df.t.Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9 (Another version of this text reads: “Yeshu the Nazarene.” Yeshu or Yehoshua is Hebrew (or Aramaic) for Jesus’in English this name is also translated “Joshua.” The Old Testament hero bore the same name as Jesus the Messiah. “Hanged” is another way of referring to a crucifixion; see Luke 23:39 and Galatians 3:13
So was he hanged, or stoned? What is the testimony? Where is Pilate? This account differs from the gospel, and can not be used as corroboration with the bible account.
Good question. Because there were eyewitnesses to what went on STILL alive when these writings were completed. So the eyewitness accounts had OTHER eyewitnesses around who could corroborate or discredit what was said by the eyewitnesses. I hardly think some anonymous writer could come out with a fictional rendition of Jesus' life and have it be accepted by the very same people who were THERE when the events happened. There were other "gospels" written than the four we have in the Bible but they were often from unknown writers or were written hundreds of years after the last living person of the time had died. That is one of the reasons why they aren't part of the Bible.
Because we can not evaluate the eye witness, except when they make egregious falsehoods, such as an eclipse during the full moon, a star that hovers over a particular place on the ground, or even a virgin birth.
Then we can reject such testimony out of hand. Certainly a reporter who includes such impossibilities deserves derision, not belief.
Why NOT???
They might have lied.
/devils_advocate_off