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]

No. Next question.

Well, I credit the basics of the gospels more than a number of skeptics. I have never bought the Total Mythology argument. Jesus is really not based on the old Mythologies of Tammuz, Osiris and Mithras - that's a claim 'We think atheists ought not to make' even though I'msure that the 'Stella Maris' (madonna and Child) is derived from Isis and Horus from a Hellenized version of Isis -worship, which became quite popular in Rome.

I am sure that there was a real Paul, and he knew real disciples of Jesus, who told him about a real crucifixion. Possibly even a belief in the resurrection (though of the spirit, not of the body, even though Phariseeism did believe in an eventual reanimation of all the dead for judgement). I am convinced that Jesus was reallyt a Galilean and that would not have been 'invented' - it was a problematical fact the writers had to gloss over, just as the did the crucifixion by Rome, so they had to find a way to blame it on the Jews.

That said, while I am not as convinced as much as I was (I now think the raising of Lazarus is total invention) Jesus could have actually done a number of things in the Gospels.In fact the whole trial and Barrabbas thing still makes me think the donkey ride and fracas in the Temple was real, and planned, but it also could look that way through coincidence. But I believe the writers knew the significance of the Temple dust up because they tried to whitewash, disguise and cover it up in various ways.

But as to 'Jesus said', No.Not a word.Not a single word do I believe he actually said. The contempt for the law, the poor in understanding of Judaism, in fact his ignorance of it, his partiality towards gentiles, preferrably a Roman but a Samaritan would do at a pinch, tells me this is the work of Greek Christians, even without the evidence of misquotes and misunderstandings from using the Greek translation.

And finally,yes - if we do not trust them, especially the key claim 'Jesus rose from the dead' (and the disciples died rather than say he didn't).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. Other than how it can be exploited for wealth, power, votes and controlling vulnerable victims.

[boatsnguitars]

No, the gospels aren't trustworthy any more than a stopped clock is trustworthy.

[1213]

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

I trust them completely.

[boatsnguitars]

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

I trust them completely.

Yes, but I don't, therefore, they are - by definition - untrustworthy.

[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? We know why - the usual reason it seems; the faithful ignore all the problems and deny them to anyone that points them out. Like i say, hope it saves you, but to those still with their minds open, the evidence is there and the discussion ongoing as to whether the gospels can be trusted. At all and if at all, how much?

[Goose]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. That's a point. After all when we compare Philo and Josephus on Pilate, there are bothersome differences. Yet broadly the Pilate we find there has a basis and a character rather unlike the gospels, too.

Similarly, histories like on the Jugurthine war or Alexander, contain plainly mythical elements. That doesn't mean we have to throw out the whole thing. And there are the problems of old inscriptions that clearly have polemical spin, like the battles fought by the Ramessids or the Campaign of Sennacherib (recorded on the stone prisms).

We have to make evaluations , not just swallow the whole thing or chuck it all out. And yet there is the problem or question already. The mythical (or magical) element. We take Sallust seriously on the Numidian war but (surely) we reject the successful prayer to the rain -god as Myth. Because....


...."Miracles don't happen".

This is why comparing Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem, spin aside, I believe the Assyrian account rather than the Biblical one with a miracle especially since the king's army appears to have marched away to continue the campaign. Furthermore it makes no sense for the king to besiege Jerusalem after Hezekiah submitted. It makes perfect sense that Hezekiah defied Sennacherib but eventually gave in at the end, as the Assyrian record says,not the star as the Bible claims. And Folks it is coming to something when you can trust the Assyrians more than you can trust the Bible.

This is even more striking when we get to the NT. Take Gamaliel's speech in Acts. He puts the revolt of Judas (which he relates to the census of Quirinus) after the revolt of Theudas. This must be a mistake, as the revolt of Theudas was later. Notwithstanding apologetics attempt to postulate a revolt of Theudas before the Roman takeover, the best guess is that Josephus in (on evidence) right and Acts is mistaken.

So it's even better when we get to the resurrections, because even with the example of Philo and Josephus telling dissimilar stories about Pilate, the resurrection accounts are supposed to be based on eyewitness accounts. 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.

Sure they have basic common story of the women at the tomb, and an angel involved, or not (John says not) and the basic claim of a resurrection, which of course is not evidence for the claim. I think, applying methods of reason let alone historical analysis, the resurrection has to go, and I just wonder why so many Experts still seem to be taking it seriously.

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

I submit that no book is trustworthy that starts off with "In the beginning..."

We simply do not know the how, what, where, when, or why of this claim.

[Miles]

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

I trust them completely.

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.)

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

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

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

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

.