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]

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.

Actually, you do and have been given then but choose to ignore them. That's fine; I find very good reasons to at last be critical, and anyone not disposed to accept them on Faith will also see why they are not to be trusted. So often these discussions seem to be conducted along the lines of 'change my mind and if you can't do so, what I say is true'. That is not how it should work and we have to understand that. Whatever you do or do not see fit to trust, the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

[1213]

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

And because no atheist has managed to demonstrate it well, I trust to the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

And because no atheist has managed to demonstrate it well, I trust to the Bible.

You mean you will not admit or accept that any atheist has demonstrated it well. Let me say again, the win does not go to the one who refuses to admit that he lost. The decision lies not with you or me but the Authorities (who seem to have some work to do). The Jury (Bible commentators, assuming their minds are not closed) and Joe public, assuming they get to hear both sides, The Believer side doing their best to make sure they only hear One side.

To that end, I will continue to make the case and refute the counters, and invite anyone (as Eric Hovind says) 'To use our material' and trust the general public, as I must.

[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.

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

That's an entirely different question than the one in your OP. My criteria to believe a proposition is that I think there is sufficient reason to believe it.

[Goose]

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

And because no atheist has managed to demonstrate it well, I trust to the Bible.

You mean you will not admit or accept that any atheist has demonstrated it well.

Where exactly did you manage to demonstrate that? As far as I can see, all you did was point to some contradictions. How does that kind of argument demonstrate the Gospels are not trustworthy without also implying virtually every text from ancient history is also not trustworthy?

To that end, I will continue to make the case and refute the counters...

Is that so? Show me how your reasoning that contradictions amongst the Gospels demonstrate they are not trustworthy does not also imply Josephus and Tacitus are also untrustworthy since they contradict one another, thereby virtually obliterating ancient history. You basically ignored my arguments in this post hand waiving them aside as "a time - wasting distraction." You are of course free to ignore the arguments, but you are not free to ignore the arguments and then later claim, as you have done here, that you have refuted the arguments.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Goose in post #37]

So, where does "inspired by God" come into the picture?

In religion.

Where the rules are made up, and the points don't matter.

[TRANSPONDER]

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

And because no atheist has managed to demonstrate it well, I trust to the Bible.

You mean you will not admit or accept that any atheist has demonstrated it well.

Where exactly did you manage to demonstrate that? As far as I can see, all you did was point to some contradictions. How does that kind of argument demonstrate the Gospels are not trustworthy without also implying virtually every text from ancient history is also not trustworthy?

To that end, I will continue to make the case and refute the counters...

Is that so? Show me how your reasoning that contradictions amongst the Gospels demonstrate they are not trustworthy does not also imply Josephus and Tacitus are also untrustworthy since they contradict one another, thereby virtually obliterating ancient history. You basically ignored my arguments in this post hand waiving them aside as "a time - wasting distraction." You are of course free to ignore the arguments, but you are not free to ignore the arguments and then later claim, as you have done here, that you have refuted the arguments.

You overlook that I also argue that the gospels at times do have common points that inspire reliance, like the fact of the crucifixion and indeed the existence of Jesus, but the problems do undermine the reliability of the gospel message.

Your post was indeed a time -wasting distraction because the fact of the attack on Masada is validated by the evidence. You may argue with merit that Tacitus' information is not as good as Josephus because there are in fact three camps and Tacitus only mentions one. It doesn't alter the fact that the assault on Masada was a reality.

At most you may try to argue that we can't trust any historical records, it does not mean that we should trust the gospels where they contradict seriously, rather than wave it away as 'some contradictions' as though thy were neither here nor there. They are serious and pretty much each story debunks the other. If that wasn't valid, you might as well dismiss our judicial system too.

[Goose]

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

And because no atheist has managed to demonstrate it well, I trust to the Bible.

You mean you will not admit or accept that any atheist has demonstrated it well.

Where exactly did you manage to demonstrate that? As far as I can see, all you did was point to some contradictions. How does that kind of argument demonstrate the Gospels are not trustworthy without also implying virtually every text from ancient history is also not trustworthy?

To that end, I will continue to make the case and refute the counters...

Is that so? Show me how your reasoning that contradictions amongst the Gospels demonstrate they are not trustworthy does not also imply Josephus and Tacitus are also untrustworthy since they contradict one another, thereby virtually obliterating ancient history. You basically ignored my arguments in this post hand waiving them aside as "a time - wasting distraction." You are of course free to ignore the arguments, but you are not free to ignore the arguments and then later claim, as you have done here, that you have refuted the arguments.

You overlook that I also argue that the gospels at times do have common points that inspire reliance, like the fact of the crucifixion and indeed the existence of Jesus, but the problems do undermine the reliability of the gospel message.

You are arguing by assertion here. You have yet to demonstrate that these “problems” undermine the reliability of the Gospels. You are merely claiming that they do. At best what you have is an argument that the Gospels may be unreliable in some of the secondary details because they disagree. Which seems quite trivial since that is the case for virtually all ancient texts.

Your post was indeed a time -wasting distraction because the fact of the attack on Masada is validated by the evidence.

More hand waiving of valid arguments. It’s not at all time wasting since it demonstrates that your own reasoning absurdly obliterates history and that you aren’t willing to consistently apply it. It’s suggestive that you assert here the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans is a “fact” and “was a reality” despite the evidence being wildly contradictory.

You may argue with merit that Tacitus' information is not as good as Josephus because there are in fact three camps and Tacitus only mentions one. It doesn't alter the fact that the assault on Masada was a reality.

If you are asserting the Siege of Jerusalem by the Romans was a reality you can’t be asserting it on the evidence from Josephus and Tacitus given your reasoning. The contradictions you continue to ignore are every bit as “serious” as the ones you point to in the Gospels. For instance, you continually ignore the contradiction between the number of Jews killed. The discrepancy between Josephus and Tacitus on that is one of hundreds – HUNDREDS - of thousands. Surely that is enough of a “problem” to undermine the reliability of Tacitus and Josephus if the discrepancies you have harped on for pages are enough to discredit the Gospels.

At most you may try to argue that we can't trust any historical records,...

I’m taking your reasoning and demonstrating that is the absurd implication of your argument. In other words, it is you who is implying that we can’t trust any historical records. You just don’t seem to realize it. And that’s what I’m trying to point out to you.

...it does not mean that we should trust the gospels where they contradict seriously, rather than wave it away as 'some contradictions' as though thy were neither here nor there.

So says the person who trusts Josephus and waves aside major contradictions between him and Tacitus as though they were neither here nor there.

They are serious and pretty much each story debunks the other.

We could say the same thing about Josephus and Tacitus.

[TRANSPONDER]

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

And because no atheist has managed to demonstrate it well, I trust to the Bible.

You mean you will not admit or accept that any atheist has demonstrated it well.

Where exactly did you manage to demonstrate that? As far as I can see, all you did was point to some contradictions. How does that kind of argument demonstrate the Gospels are not trustworthy without also implying virtually every text from ancient history is also not trustworthy?

To that end, I will continue to make the case and refute the counters...

Is that so? Show me how your reasoning that contradictions amongst the Gospels demonstrate they are not trustworthy does not also imply Josephus and Tacitus are also untrustworthy since they contradict one another, thereby virtually obliterating ancient history. You basically ignored my arguments in this post hand waiving them aside as "a time - wasting distraction." You are of course free to ignore the arguments, but you are not free to ignore the arguments and then later claim, as you have done here, that you have refuted the arguments.

You overlook that I also argue that the gospels at times do have common points that inspire reliance, like the fact of the crucifixion and indeed the existence of Jesus, but the problems do undermine the reliability of the gospel message.

You are arguing by assertion here. You have yet to demonstrate that these “problems” undermine the reliability of the Gospels. You are merely claiming that they do. At best what you have is an argument that the Gospels may be unreliable in some of the secondary details because they disagree. Which seems quite trivial since that is the case for virtually all ancient texts.

Your post was indeed a time -wasting distraction because the fact of the attack on Masada is validated by the evidence.

More hand waiving of valid arguments. It’s not at all time wasting since it demonstrates that your own reasoning absurdly obliterates history and that you aren’t willing to consistently apply it. It’s suggestive that you assert here the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans is a “fact” and “was a reality” despite the evidence being wildly contradictory.

You may argue with merit that Tacitus' information is not as good as Josephus because there are in fact three camps and Tacitus only mentions one. It doesn't alter the fact that the assault on Masada was a reality.

If you are asserting the Siege of Jerusalem by the Romans was a reality you can’t be asserting it on the evidence from Josephus and Tacitus given your reasoning. The contradictions you continue to ignore are every bit as “serious” as the ones you point to in the Gospels. For instance, you continually ignore the contradiction between the number of Jews killed. The discrepancy between Josephus and Tacitus on that is one of hundreds – HUNDREDS - of thousands. Surely that is enough of a “problem” to undermine the reliability of Tacitus and Josephus if the discrepancies you have harped on for pages are enough to discredit the Gospels.

At most you may try to argue that we can't trust any historical records,...

I’m taking your reasoning and demonstrating that is the absurd implication of your argument. In other words, it is you who is implying that we can’t trust any historical records. You just don’t seem to realize it. And that’s what I’m trying to point out to you.

...it does not mean that we should trust the gospels where they contradict seriously, rather than wave it away as 'some contradictions' as though thy were neither here nor there.

So says the person who trusts Josephus and waves aside major contradictions between him and Tacitus as though they were neither here nor there.

They are serious and pretty much each story debunks the other.

We could say the same thing about Josephus and Tacitus.

I wave nothing aside. If as you say Tacitus says a camp and Josephus says three camps and the remains of the three camps are still there, it does not debunk the history as the camps, ramps and remains at Masada show that the siege happened (1). The siege of Jerusalem is mentioned in history and is graphically depicted on the arch of Titus.

On the other hand for example does anyone deny that Constantine won the battle of Milvian bridge and Christianity was legitimised thereby? But there is evidence not only that Constantine was not converted before the Battle, but that he remained a pagan. There is evidence for this, though it still isn't widely accepted.

There is reason to think there was a real Jesus, but the details, you may say, raise questions. The nativities contradict each other and all 4 resurrections contradict. Further, history itself raises queries about the gospels. There is no Passover release custom known, the blasphemy charge and meaning of king of the Jews in the nativity make no sense other than within Christian Dogma. For that matter, Nazareth may not have even really existed at the time.

These are 'details' but ones that impact the dogmatic claim. They destroy the credibility of the gospel reliability as eyewitness even if the broad facts are accepted.

In the end, you may refuse to take the point and insist that all the time history has debating -points (as it always does) we ought to swallow the gospels, blatant nonsense and contradictions and all.

Sorry, no. I will maintain that it requires more criticism, and that you refuse to accept that is neither here nor there. It will not persuade me to drop the apologetic (not that I suppose you thought I would, and it was more about your denial and keeping Biblefaith) I will continue making the case, calling for a thinktank (we badly need one) to put these ideas out and make Historians turn a critical gaze on the gospels in a way that it really hasn't or not enough, so far.

(1) in this respect I am aware that Josephus and Philo both mention Pilate and even broadly agree on his character and doings (rather better than they agree with the gospels, in fact)) but there are bothersome differences. That Josephus has stood up well, as regards his own times tends to make Philo look a bit remote from events and Josephus has earned more credit. Of course 'well why not the same with (e.g) Mathew and Luke?' Because Matthew is demonstrably not eyewitness, so both are open to criticism.

[Goose]

I wave nothing aside. If as you say Tacitus says a camp and Josephus says three camps and the remains of the three camps are still there, it does not debunk the history as the camps, ramps and remains at Masada show that the siege happened (1).

Firstly, you have been confusing the Siege of Jerusalem with the Siege at Masada. I have been referencing the Siege of Jerusalem this entire time. Secondly, in regards to Masada, you’ve doubled-down on the reality of the siege of Masada despite the evidence coming from what is, by your reasoning, an unreliable source in Josephus.

As for the interpretation of the archaeological evidence at Masada, it has been hotly debated among archaeologists. The remains of a wall, camps, and some arrow heads show Romans were there. But without the written account of Josephus how would you know this was a siege? How would you know when it happened or have any idea of what happened? For instance, was there really a mass suicide by the Jews? Archaeological discoveries support or dispute the historical record, they don’t in-and-of-themselves form the historical record. In the above article Eric Cline says:

Yet the dispute goes on. The story of Masada is more than just a story of the archae¬ological excavations. It is an example of how archaeologists use histori¬cal information to supplement what they find during their excavations and to flesh out the bare details provided by the archaeological discov¬eries. Yadin made particular use of the writings of Flavius Josephus – the Jewish general turned Roman historian who wrote two books about the Jews in the first century CE and who is the primary source for what might have taken place on top of Masada nearly 2,000 years ago. And Masada shows how the relationship between archaeology and the historical record cuts both ways; since we cannot be certain that Josephus’s discussions are 100 per cent accurate, we can use archaeology to corroborate – or to challenge – the ancient text.

The siege of Jerusalem is mentioned in history and is graphically depicted on the arch of Titus.

How are you getting the Siege of Jerusalem from that image? Remember you can’t use Josephus and Tacitus because they contradict each other on the siege of Jerusalem. How is that image carved out by some anonymous Romans any better than Tacitus writing about the siege?

You are waiving aside the arguments without addressing them. You’re waiving aside major contradictions between Josephus and Tacitus. The point you are missing is that your reasoning implies we cannot trust either writer. Whether or not either siege actually happened is irrelevant to that argument.

There is reason to think there was a real Jesus, but the details, you may say, raise questions. The nativities contradict each other and all 4 resurrections contradict.

Well so what? If they contradict, it’s in the secondary details. You’ve already argued that contradictions in the secondary details do not prove the event was not historical. In fact, you’ve argued, probably unknowingly, that events from ancient history are often “facts” and “a reality” despite the accounts being wildly contradictory.

Further, history itself raises queries about the gospels. There is no Passover release custom known, the blasphemy charge and meaning of king of the Jews in the nativity make no sense other than within Christian Dogma. For that matter, Nazareth may not have even really existed at the time.

You’re repeating yourself. I’ve already provided plenty of examples that would likewise cause us to discard Josephus and Tacitus if the above is sufficient to discredit the Gospels. And yet you’ve argued that despite these kinds of problems the core events are a “fact” and “a reality.”

These are 'details' but ones that impact the dogmatic claim. They destroy the credibility of the gospel reliability as eyewitness even if the broad facts are accepted.

None of the details you listed above necessarily preclude the Gospels from being based on eyewitness sources. Moreover, they don’t need to be eyewitness accounts to be reliable anyway. Besides, I’ve already given you reasons to think Josephus was not an eyewitness of the siege of Jerusalem, but you ignored those too.

Sorry, no. I will maintain that it requires more criticism, and that you refuse to accept that is neither here nor there. It will not persuade me to drop the apologetic (not that I suppose you thought I would, and it was more about your denial and keeping Biblefaith) I will continue making the case, calling for a thinktank (we badly need one) to put these ideas out and make Historians turn a critical gaze on the gospels in a way that it really hasn't or not enough, so far.

You are free to continue to hold your current reasoning. But do so with the knowledge that it’s irrational and leads to absurd outcomes. Moreover, you’ve nicely demonstrated that you don’t even apply your own reasoning consistently insisting that certain historical events are “facts” and “a reality” despite the evidence being wildly contradictory. In light of that, it’s hard to take much of what you say seriously.