How reliable is the scriptures we have?

[polonius]

Before we examine any religious belief system, lets consider it's writings.

Lets start with the Gospel of Matthew.

From Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Catholic) US Catholic Conference of Bishops.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."

What we call the Gospel of Matthew is unsigned and didn't have a name until the second century when if that named by Papius, not the brightest Church Father.

“Eusebius of Caesarea - On Papias - original Greek Text with English translation�
From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.
13. For he (Papius) appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

It would seem Matthew is no more reliable than Mark, and the "Q" sayings Gospel which he and Luke seemed to have included in their accounts. Certainly not "eyewitness" reliable.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV

What's good for the goose is goo for their gander.

You have described what both believers and their critics often do.

Each has what they consider their truth, and is seldom moved even an inch from it.

What they hold dear is radically different.

It is a clash of kingdoms and their values that has always been and always will be.

May God bless you!

[brianbbs67]

I would say the bible NT, is a guide and historically somewhat reliable. What I don't like is how all churches present it as the truth in and of itself. None of the authorship and timeline is ever presented. Neither is the fact that many verses were added or changed. Knowing what I now know, organized religion seems to be organized deception at the worst or delusion at the best. Man's word about God should not be exalted as God's word. We know there are errors or discrepetiecies. We know there are additions. This begs another big question.

What were the subtractions or omissions?

Seems we choose what tickles our ears and forget to look for what can be defined as truth.

[polonius]

Jesus is quoted in Matthew's gospel, (written in 80 AD) as prophesizing that the temple would be destroyed which it was in 70 AD.

That's history, not prophecy!

[William]

[Replying to post 5 ]

brianbbs67: What were the subtractions or omissions?

William: Practically everything Jesus said regarding The Knowledge of the Mysteries of The Kingdom of God.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV

What's good for the goose is goo for their gander.

You have described what both believers and their critics often do.

Each has what they consider their truth, and is seldom moved even an inch from it.

What they hold dear is radically different.

It is a clash of kingdoms and their values that has always been and always will be.

May God bless you!

On the fringes of both camps I would agree. But, in my experience, believers in most God based religions tend to be more like this as they perceive they have more to loose if they're wrong.

[Smythe]

Though they contain some history and some biography, they are certainly not entirely reliable as history or biography.

Then again, from a 21st century perspective, neither are Josephus or Suetonius or Tacitus entirely reliable.

The Gospels, though, as the writings of first century Christians, are reliable as portrayals of what 1st century Christians thought about Jesus, and their own ideas about God and their relationship with him. In this, if you are a Christian, they have value; but that value must be understood within the context of the 1st century. You cannot take a person or their work out of their context without making the necessary allowances.

[Checkpoint]

I would say the bible NT, is a guide and historically somewhat reliable. What I don't like is how all churches present it as the truth in and of itself. None of the authorship and timeline is ever presented. Neither is the fact that many verses were added or changed. Knowing what I now know, organized religion seems to be organized deception at the worst or delusion at the best. Man's word about God should not be exalted as God's word. We know there are errors or discrepetiecies. We know there are additions. This begs another big question.

What were the subtractions or omissions?

Seems we choose what tickles our ears and forget to look for what can be defined as truth.

Organised religion does not shy away from authorship or timelines.
Plenty of these are presented on the internet, which may also cover the other problems you mention.

We; that is, believers and their critics, define truth differently. Thus it should come as no surprise that we may clash on whether this or that is deception or delusion, and/or whether the deduction made is valid or invalid.