Should one really take the gospels as gospel?

Question

Considering they were written decades after jesus, by men who didnt meet him, and in places they contradict each other...is it right for christians to quote from the gospels to prove a point.

eg. john 3:16..is this not just the authors opinion?
same with john 1:1 and other such favourite christian quotes

serious answers please

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

The reliability of Scripture is an important question. There are many extra-biblical citations of the writings of the New Testament far earlier than most people realize though. The best reference chart I have seen is from a book called Introduction To The Bible (1968, Nix, Geisler ) which I'll cite below.

The gospel of Luke, and also the book of Acts (also written by Luke) are particularly early in the history of the New Testament.

Please see this excerpt from a site I found in searching called bethinking.org:

"Of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Irenaeus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236), and 3258 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca.339; Geisler, 431).
Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians, and 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive."

As you can see there are many extra-biblical references to New Testament writings (even as early as the 1st century) that can be obtained.

Answer 3

The New Testament text.
The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.



The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.



The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.



The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.



Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

Answer 4

the well-known standards became into which books have been study in the process the widespread public liturgy of the Church. you will possibly desire to undergo in thoughts, the Bible became into initially compiled as a liturgical e book. It wasn't meant to be a rule e book or a instruction manual to doctrine (consistent with se) - they made copies of all of the books that have been frequently study in the church homes and then disbursed them to the guy congregations. The Gnostic Gospels have been excluded for a number of reasons, which contain here: a million) The Gnostic Gospels have been written centuries after the canonical Gospels. by skill of the time the earliest Gnostic Gospels have been composed, the church homes already had a protracted-status lectionary (record of Scriptures study in the process the liturgy). 2) countless the Gnostic Gospels disregarded the historic Jesus in prefer of a Cosmic, otherworldy Christ. 3) countless the Gnostic Gospels endorsed specific factors of Hellenistic faith that have been rejected by skill of the Church, which contain cosmic and athropological dualism and doceticism. 4) most of the Gnostic Gospels endorsed abhorant doctrines. The Apocryphon of John, as an occasion, taught that the universe became right into a menstrual discharge emited from a distarught goddess, and that Eve became into gang-raped by skill of God (Jehovah) and his angels. Of the Gnostic Gospels, only 2 have been time-honored in the classic Church: the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of certainty. the two a sort of works have been truly inocuous, and taught doctrines that have been consistant with Christian custom. Neither ended up in the Bible because of the fact they have been very almost unknown exterior of Alexandria whilst the Bible became into compiled. some individuals might upload the Gospel of John to the record of Gnostic Gospels. It includes many Gnostic factors, and became into written on the daybreak of Christian Gnosticism. Oh, I forgot - there are a number of communities who advise Neo-Gnosticism at present. yet very few prepare or have self belief historical Gnosticism. What passes for Gnosticism recently is frequently New Age, and has greater in undemanding with previous due nineteenth century Theosophy than somewhat Gnosticism. The Gnostics did no longer have self belief in reincarnation, karma, samsara, or something like that. historical Gnostics in basic terms interpreted Semitic astrological geographical regions with on the instant Platonism. They observed the mystical passwords and seals of Judaism and Babylonian faith, and with the aid of in the Platonic Pleroma and Demiurge.

Answer 5

abdulaziiz,
Gospel:
G2098 euangelion -- pronounced: yoo-ang-ghel'-ee-on

from the same as 2097; a good message, i.e. the gospel: KJV -- gospel.

See Greek No. 2097

Often translated "Good News."

Should I take it as good news? I would. You don't have to. Jesus died for all the sins of man. I can have eternal life with God if I respond to that Good News. It sounds like good news to me.

If you mean; "Should one really take the Gospels as Truth?"
Yes. I think people should. But they don't have to if they don't want to. Neither John 1:1 or John 3:16 are only John's opinion. They can be John's opinion, but they are also inspired scripture.

The really cool thing is, is that you don't have to believe any of it. Nothing.

Christianity is not forced on people ( like the Roman Catholic Church used to do) . We don't come after you as an infidel.

You have the choice, it will be like that throughout your life.

Answer 6

I suppose that if you are going to believe in God in the first place, and that Jesus is that God, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that he divinely intervened to make sure that they gospel writers got the important parts of the story right. Sure, a few details might be different, but the details aren't important. They all tell the same story with the same message.

What amazes me about Christians is that they still give credence to the writings of that nutbag Paul. In the first place, it's highly doubtful that he actually wrote all the epistles that are attributed to him. In the second place, a huge amount of his advice was based on the premise that Christ's return was imminent, and he was wrong about that. In the third place, he's a nutbag.

Answer 7

First John and Matthew was both were disciples of JESUS. Mark was a young man who followed JESUS and was the one who ran away when the came to take JESUS in the Garden. As for Luke, he did not know JESUS but he talk to people who were eye-witness to JESUS. So the Gospel was either written with first hand knowable or second hand like news papers today.

Answer 8

Of COURSE they are the gospels. Unlike the quran that is a lie. And it goes in circles...
The bible was around many centuries before the quran. It is not up to the bible to disprove the quran, the Bible has proven itself. The quran needs to prove itself. But the only way you do this is by running in circles...
Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.

Round and round you go!!!

Look at you originator muhammad. We find no references to him as a prophet until 150 years after his death. No one has ever found even the smallest fragment of the Qur'an from the 7th century. Some Muslims have claimed that 7th century copies of the original Qur'an have been found in museums at Topkapi, Turkey and Tashkent, Russia. But when they were examined by manuscript scholars, they turned out to be 9th or 10th century manuscripts.
The Qur'an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus the Qur'an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.

http://planttel.net/~meharris1/mikescorner.html

Answer 9

Yes they were written after Jesus' years on earth, in my opinion they were probably too busy with him at the time to write about all of his teachings. But for all we know, they may have kept notes or whatever until the time came for them to sit down and write it all out.

But what makes the gospels the gospel, in Christianity, is not only do they contain details about Jesus' life on earth, but also they were written by 4 of his disciples, so we're talking men who shared daily life with him.

Where did you hear that they were written by those who did not know him?

Answer 10

The gospels are a self-serving rationalization to account for a messianic failure.

Answer 11

You are sadly mistaken ......
The Gospels were taken from men who WERE EYEWITNESSES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST> who lived with Christ daily.

Read John's gospel Chapter one for example.
and other's .
" That which we have heard, we have seen WITH OUR EYES, which WE LOOKED UPON, and our hands have handled..."