Are the Gospels reliable?

Are the Gospels reliable?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  2. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  3. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    define "reliable"

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Written by the people whose names they bear?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        No, and we have extant copies of the Gospels that are anonymous, and these are the oldest ones. Secondly, every named Gospel starts with the "cata" naming convention, indicating that they were titled by the same guy. Thirdly, the Gospels never claim themselves that they were written by the guy that theyre attributed to, and they dont say when or where they're written.
        Its likely that the whole idea was that they WERE unattributable, thus not being corrupted by human authorship. Later, the more pedigree-obsessed sect that became the Roman Orthodoxy, probably titled them.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Are they accurate to what Jesus said?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus didn't exist. The gospels are stories.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            As accurate as Socrates via Plato.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            The quotes and teachings are probably genuine words of Jesus or at least pretty close. The thing is though the Gospel writers are trying to take what information about Jesus the Peter/James camp memorized and frame it into the Christ of Paul.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            There's no evidence for that. Paul himself is in fact completely unaware that anyone knows about Jesus EXCEPT by vision and revelation in Scriptures. Now if Peter HAD known an Earthly Jesus, Paul would have certainly refrenced this, or even tried to refute it, to make himself and his own sort of brand of the cult look better.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing to suggest that Paul thought Jesus wasn't a real person. The Jesus myth theory is for morons.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            They dont even agree across themselves. Look at Matthew's Jesus versus Mark's Jesus. Or the parable of Lazarus in Luke versus Jesus raising Lazarus in John. They directly contradict eachother.
            Jesus either did not exist(most probable) or existed but is so distorted and unknown that he may as well not have.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Or the parable of Lazarus in Luke versus Jesus raising Lazarus in John. They directly contradict eachother.
            They don't do this at all.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            What? Those are two completely different people

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          >No, and we have extant copies of the Gospels that are anonymous, and these are the oldest ones.
          I don't think that's true, the earliest copies are fragments that don't include the beginning of the manuscript where a title would be. So we don't know how the earliest copies were titled. Every copy with a title has the traditional attribution. In the early second century there's a probable reference to the gospel of Mark by Papias, who possibly also references the gospel of Matthew but he might have meant a different document. In the mid second century Justin Martyr refers to the "memoirs of the apostles" and in the late second century Irenaeus explicitly names the authors of all four gospels.

          The hypothesis that they were anonymous is based on the early second century quotes and allusions to the gospels, which don't name the documents they come from (aside from Papias referring to Mark, but even that's disputed by some scholars). Original anonymity is possible but not settled based on the evidence.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Why does that matter?

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          Would mean they're written by eyewitnesses or people very close to eyewitnesses.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Why do they need to be eyewitnesses?

  4. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    About as reliable as any other ancient source.

  5. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    John is mostly fanfic to suit the paul agenda the other 3 are more or less trustworthy i guess

  6. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    They have been considered authentic for almost 2000 years. What do you think?

  7. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    no

  8. 6 days ago
    Radiochan

    They're the closest thing you're going to get from eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. Whether they're believable or not is another thing. People can and do attribute anything to cult leaders.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      It's not appropriate to call a first century preacher a cult leader like in the modern usage

  9. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the israelites or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the israelites of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *