Hypothesis:
If the writer of a first or second century document testifies that he learned a certain teaching from an Apostle, or one of the seventy, or others who had seen the LORD, then we must accept the teaching as true.

Unless it can be proven that:

1. The document is not real or genuine.
   • Did it really exist in the first two centuries? Did writers of the second and third century quote the documents?
   • Have there been identical copies found in different places around the world? Has there been a different work that claims to be the real document of the writer?
2. The writer is lying or was confused by a heretic.
   • Does anyone before or during his time teach something different?
   • Does anyone in his time period attack his teaching as heretical?
   • How many others in his time or before him teach the same thing?

Questions

1. If the testimony comes in part from a later source, like Eusebius, does that nullify the testimony?
   • No. Only an older source saying something different would nullify the testimony.
2. Would the actual dates of the death of the Apostles or these writers make any difference in this hypothesis?
   • No. Because the testimony of the writers is still the same. They learned from the Apostles.
3. Could have the Medieval Church destroyed the real writings and replaced them with false information?
   • If that were possible we would not have all the church fathers that are strongly anti-Roman Catholic and we would not have the Gnostic library. Not to mention all the other things modern archeology has unearthed.