Are the Four Gospels Trustworthy?

[POI]

1. As the title implies, are the four Gospels trustworthy?
2. If so, are they completely trustworthy, or maybe only completely trustworthy where they really need to be?
3. Do they even need to be trustworthy?

[TRANSPONDER]

As well as Joseph came from Nazareth to look for a place to stay in Judea against Joseph lived in Bethlehem since he intended to return there but had to find a place to stay in Nazareth.

This is one that is unarguable. There is no way to reconcile this but total denial. The others...well, the excuses are ingenious, I'll give them that. But the resurrection discrepancies are almost as unanswerable as the nativities. Like John really denying an angelic message, despite the efforts to separate Mary out, when that is not what the Bible says, but then we have the 'Mary genealogy excuse when it says clearly it is the genealogy of Joseph. The only way to get over these contradictions is rewriting the Bible (what I call the 'Ghost Bible' which is the one where God doesn't condone slavery) or denying everything.

There are so many they have to deny anyway ...Jesus called his disciples at the Jordan or later in Galilee (excuse - he's already called them, he was just calling them again)
the rejection at Nazareth was at the start of the mission and had a messianic declaration and attempted murder/it happened later, and Jesus just couldn't do much there. (excuse, e.g, it was a different event).
The Temple cleansing happened at the start of Jesus' mission (excuse, it was a different event)
The Nativity was before Herod died in 4 BC/After the Romans took over 6/7 AD (excuse, well, let's say an effort at an explanation, there was an earlier census in the time of Herod)
The 'healing at a distance was in Cana/it was in Capernaum. (Excuse, they were different events)
The Lord's prayer was first taught at the sermon on the mount/ it was taught for the first time when they set out for Jerusalem (excuse ..the second time wasn't the first time)
The sermon was on a mountain/it was on a level place and a lot shorter (excuse, the same sermon was given twice)
Jairus' daughter was dead/she wasn't dead (excuse, a minor witness error)
The anointing was in Galilee/It was in Bethany (excuse: Well obviously a different event)
John has no transfiguration (excuse, it wasn't important enough to mention, just as Luke didn't bother to mention the walking on water, or the other feeding of 4,000)
Jesus goes to Gadara/Gerasa/Gergesa (excuse, misremembered the name)
Jesus goes to Jerusalem with his disciples/he goes alone, secretly. (Excuse, haven't you got more important things to worry about?)
Jesus heals the Paralytic at the pool of Slloam (take up your pallet and walk)/it was in Galilee (excuse - different events)
Went to Peraea from Galilee,/went there fro Galilee (excuse, ignore it)
Jesus rode to the Temple upon arrival/the next day. (excuse'he rode to the temple, that's all that matters)
The cursed figleaf fell off immediately, the same day. (excuse, minor details)
He overturned the tables when he arrived/the next day (excuse, minor details)
No Temple cleansing in John (excuse, minor details)
Anointing on the head or feet? (excuse, both, probably)

We are only partway through, but you can see the pattern, The contradictions make the story doubtful/the contradiction show the stories are reliable. Which is why the Biggies matter because you can't shrug them off so easily, though they try, like 'you are reading it wrongly; you need to read with the Spirit', which of course just means with faithbased denial, when you get down to it..

[1213]

...
Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16.
Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23.

Jacob had two names and was called Jacob Heli? Is it impossible for person to have 2 names, or were they all like Madonna back in the day?

...The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9

It is possible that same, or similar thing happened several times. That is why I don't think here is any problem.

...Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

Weird, these don't have even the word ministry in them:

And He was there in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts. And the angels ministered to Him. And after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mk.1:13,14

After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea. And He continued there with them and baptized. And John was also baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, for many waters were there. And they came and were being baptized. For John had not yet been thrown into the prison.
Jn.3:22-24

...Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58

I am not sure does Mk. 2:15 really mean he owned a house, but, it is possible that at Lu.9:58 time he had no place where "he may lay his head".

And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven nests, but the Son of man has nowhere He may lay His head.
Lu.9:58

...Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13.
Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3.
....

Is there some reason why both can't be true?

I think it is interesting, if best atheist can offer is these kind of weak attempts to prove Bible wrong.

[1213]

1. As the title implies, are the four Gospels trustworthy?
...

I trust them completely.

No doubt your Faith will save you from death unlike everyone else. But that does not contribute anything to the discussion. WHY do you trust them completely? ...

I don't think "my faith" saves me.

I trust them, for example because no atheist has managed to show any real meaningful error in them.

[TRANSPONDER]

1. As the title implies, are the four Gospels trustworthy?
...

I trust them completely.

No doubt your Faith will save you from death unlike everyone else. But that does not contribute anything to the discussion. WHY do you trust them completely? ...

I don't think "my faith" saves me.

I trust them, for example because no atheist has managed to show any real meaningful error in them.

They have, or I have, but you have simply denied everything. Just for a test, you show me why it is not an error that Matthew has Jesus born before Herod died in 4 BC but Luke has him born after the Roman takeover in 6/7 AD?

Hint, you cannot redate Herod's death, nor make the census of Quirinus anything but the one Acts calls'the days of the census' when Gamaliel revolted which Josephus tells us is when Rome took over after Herod's son was deposed. And finally there is no room anymore for a governorship of Quirinus before his only one in 6 - 12 AD.

Now you try to tell me that one of those nativity -stories is not in error in any credible explanation other than denial.

Of course you may say it is not a 'meaningful' error.But should you do so, that is just evasion, as an error in non -meaningful things means that we should be doubtful about claims of meaningful things, like the resurrection which is nearly as bad for contradictions.

[Athetotheist]

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ...."(John 20:31)

A question I ask is, "If this version of the resurrection story (John) was written to make me believe that it's true, why was it clearly not written to make me believe other accounts of the story (Mark, Matthew, Luke) which are also supposed to be true?"

[boatsnguitars]

1. As the title implies, are the four Gospels trustworthy?
...

I trust them completely.

No doubt your Faith will save you from death unlike everyone else. But that does not contribute anything to the discussion. WHY do you trust them completely? ...

I don't think "my faith" saves me.

I trust them, for example because no atheist has managed to show any real meaningful error in them.

And no theist has shown any real meaningful truth in them.

[Miles]

...
Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16.
Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23.

Jacob had two names and was called Jacob Heli? Is it impossible for person to have 2 names, or were they all like Madonna back in the day?

No.

People in Bible times did not really have last names like we think of last names today.
source

People in the Bible did not tend to have last names unless they were associates of others with the same first name. Even when surnames were given, they were not specifically family names. They were used to identify ethnicity (Doeg the Edomite of 1 Samuel 21:7), parentage (John and James, the sons of Zebedee in Matthew 10:2), or place of residence (Mary Magdalene in Matthew 27:56). Sometimes women were even identified by the names of their sons (also Matthew 27:56).
source

"Culturally, during Jesus' lifetime, the Jews didn't use formal surnames to distinguish people from each other."
source

Did people have Last Names in the Bible?
They actually did not have surnames, or what the western world calls last names.
source

...The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9

It is possible that same, or similar thing happened several times. That is why I don't think here is any problem.

Get real!

...Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

Weird, these don't have even the word ministry in them:

Quite right, but neither need use the word itself. As long as the two events took place, which both verses attest to.

...Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58

I am not sure does Mk. 2:15 really mean he owned a house, but, it is possible that at Lu.9:58 time he had no place where "he may lay his head".

And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven nests, but the Son of man has nowhere He may lay His head.
Lu.9:58

I take them as a contradiction.

...Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13.
Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3.
....

Is there some reason why both can't be true?

No, but I find it extremely unlikely that Jesus would be tempted twice by Satan, yet neither book bothering to mentioning such significant assaults.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

1213 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:04 am
....

Miles wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:49 am
...The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9
It is possible that same, or similar thing happened several times. That is why I don't think here is any problem.

That is really improbable.The two passages in Matthew 4 a Luke 4 (not in Mark, so we have Q material again) are clearly set at the same time (temptation in the wilderness) and are the same events in their wording. It is untenable to suggest that the same sequence of events were in fact different sequences of events, repeated when Jesus had already refused the first time. Add to this the old problem for 'different event' excuses for contradictions in the accounts of clearly the same event: neither of them give both the events - ever. only someone who will take any excuse rather than admit there are real contradictions could propose such an explanation. This is why the boast that 'no atheist has managed to show any real meaningful error in them' is just denial, not a valid argument.

[Goose]

The issue of alleged contradictions amongst the Gospels has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. Indeed, TRANSPONDER, in particular, has brought it up in one way or another in almost every single post in this thread.

If that is not to be trusted (and I say the evidence says it is to be rejected as totally contradictory stories that trash and idea of witness credibility,the as Paul put it (though in a rather different context) the Christian Faith is in vain.

Yet they contradict terminally. So I argue that, even after all the attempts to excuse and explain these contradictions, the only sound conclusion is that there was no resurrection - appearance (as Mark really shows) and three were separately invented and as one would expect, totally contradict each other.

We are only partway through, but you can see the pattern, The contradictions make the story doubtful/the contradiction show the stories are reliable.

Of course you may say it is not a 'meaningful' error.But should you do so, that is just evasion, as an error in non -meaningful things means that we should be doubtful about claims of meaningful things, like the resurrection which is nearly as bad for contradictions.

How about when they hand you contradictions? Which of each pair do you NOT trust as being the true one? (Ya can't trust them both.)

I’m trying to understand the argument and how it relates to the general reliability (I’m using the word reliability instead of trustworthiness) of the Gospels. It seems the gist of the contradictions argument is that the presence of contradictions between texts argues for the general unreliability of, presumably, at least one text. Is that basic gist of the argument? If it isn’t, I’m having difficulty understanding how it relates to the thread.

[Miles]

The issue of alleged contradictions amongst the Gospels has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. Indeed, TRANSPONDER, in particular, has brought it up in one way or another in almost every single post in this thread.

If that is not to be trusted (and I say the evidence says it is to be rejected as totally contradictory stories that trash and idea of witness credibility,the as Paul put it (though in a rather different context) the Christian Faith is in vain.

Yet they contradict terminally. So I argue that, even after all the attempts to excuse and explain these contradictions, the only sound conclusion is that there was no resurrection - appearance (as Mark really shows) and three were separately invented and as one would expect, totally contradict each other.

We are only partway through, but you can see the pattern, The contradictions make the story doubtful/the contradiction show the stories are reliable.

Of course you may say it is not a 'meaningful' error.But should you do so, that is just evasion, as an error in non -meaningful things means that we should be doubtful about claims of meaningful things, like the resurrection which is nearly as bad for contradictions.

How about when they hand you contradictions? Which of each pair do you NOT trust as being the true one? (Ya can't trust them both.)

I’m trying to understand the argument and how it relates to the general reliability (I’m using the word reliability instead of trustworthiness) of the Gospels. It seems the gist of the contradictions argument is that the presence of contradictions between texts argues for the general unreliability of, presumably, at least one text. Is that basic gist of the argument? If it isn’t, I’m having difficulty understanding how it relates to the thread.

As I see it, if any verse in the bible can be shown to be false, any other verse could be false as well. Maybe verse X is true, but there's also the chance it could be false. A person simply doesn't know. Want to trust something that could be false? Go right ahead. Considering the claimed omnipotence and omniscience of god one would think he'd insure that no such doubt would ever show up in his book. But it does.


.