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?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Bart Ehrman the atheist historian finds them trustworthy to some extent, so I would say they probably are at least somewhat trustworthy, but I trust in them very much, but there is need for exegesis.

[boatsnguitars]

They are completely trustworthy: We can trust them to be propaganda for a upstart cult in ancient Palestine that reflected the mish-mash of views surrounding mythical characters and religious ideas.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Bart Ehrman the atheist historian finds them trustworthy to some extent, so I would say they probably are at least somewhat trustworthy, but I trust in them very much, but there is need for exegesis.

You keep referring to Bart E, over and over again, as if he is the Godfather of truth. You do realize that he is an atheist, right? And I have listened to Bart E., and I have come to a completely different conclusion to you. Where these Gospels are most important, I doubt he finds them trustworthy at all.

[POI]

double post (delete).

[POI]

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

I trust them completely.

Why?

[POI]

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

That would depend upon the criteria we use to determine the trustworthiness of an ancient text. I think the Gospels would stack up fairly well against other similar texts from the era. At least, I don't think they would be much worse.

2. If so, are they completely trustworthy, or maybe only completely trustworthy where they really need to be?

I don't think it's necessary to argue for completely trustworthy. I'm not sure any text, let alone an ancient one, would meet that standard.

3. Do they even need to be trustworthy?

The general trustworthiness of an ancient text is an important criteriion in historical enquiries. So, yes, they should to be at least generally trustworthy.

Do they meet your criteria to believe a man rose from his grave?

[TRANSPONDER]

They are completely trustworthy: We can trust them to be propaganda for a upstart cult in ancient Palestine that reflected the mish-mash of views surrounding mythical characters and religious ideas.

I agree. I may be out on a limb here, but whatever Ehrman says - and I doubt if he trusts the gospels as much as you suggest - I am sure and will argue that they may be partially trusted for some of the things Jesus is said to have done, but pretty much nothing of what he is supposed to have said. And the parts where the gospels are not to be trusted at all include the most salient Dogma of all - the resurrection - accounts.

That may not be the Mainstream view, but I am sure it is correct and, like the Exodus, which was at one time accepted without question but is now very much being questioned, the reliability of the gospel accounts will increasingly come to be considered dubious and unreliable. There i stand.

[1213]

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

I trust them completely.

Why?

Because I have no good reason not to trust them.

[boatsnguitars]

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

I trust them completely.

Why?

Because I have no good reason not to trust them.

But you're not brainwashed. That's good.

[POI]

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

I trust them completely.

Why?

Because I have no good reason not to trust them.

That sounds like a bad reason to me. Do you apply this reasoning to all holy books, or just the Bible? And if so, WHY?