How can the gospels be believed?

Question

In mathew; bystanders offer vinager and gall.
in mark; Wine and myrrh
In luke; it's the soldiers that offer vinager.
In john; nothing is offered, But jesus is stabbed with a spear which is not mentioned in other three gospels.Could this have been made up to ensure that nobody doubted that jesus actually died?
As you progress through the gospels Pilate becomes less willing and the jews more determined to cruxcify jesus.
Would a christian not see this as evidence that the romans corrupted the truth to show themselves in a more favourable light. And make all the gospels invalid?

when i say make the gospels invalid i didnt mean the romans intended this but has it had that effect.
(sorry my fault, should've read it through before submiting

david c
that is exactly along the lines i have been thinking. The romans saw the power of this cult and could not destroy it, so saught to control it and exagerate it to increase it's hold on people. Which is why 1600yrs after it's supposed collapse one 3rd of the worlds population live by it's rules and celebrate it's festivals.
As a christian may say " The devil's greatest trick was to convince us all that he does not exist".

Answer 1

The Gospels ( a word that now defines truth in the English language, ironic I know) were written during the 1st and 2nd C's, this means that the writers had the advantage of hind sight. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark ( not Matthew) the Gospels of Luke and Mathew are thought to have been copied from this first Gospel, but it is also thought that the Gospel writers had another source, the Q Gospel. there are countless contradictions within the NT, not just between the Gospels but also within Acts. The writer of Acts though is supposed to have been Luke. Luke was a contemporary of Paul, so it would be logical to conclude that Lukes work is bias. Mark also was a friend of Pauls traveling with him as he spread the word ( or his versionof the word) to the un beleivers. this to me puts the entire NT under scrutiny, for it is perceived as bias toward the Pauline theory or doctrine, this lead to the doctrine becoming orthodox at the Council of Nicea, a council made up of just 320 Bishops of whom voted on what went into the bible and what was destroyed, thats it, they didn't just not put it in, they destroyed all known copies. we are fortunate to have found the Dead Sea Scroll and other Gnstic scripture that was hidden from the orthodox church, for we now have several opposing views of Jesus thanx to, The Gospel of St Thomas, Barnabas and we also have writings of Judas in which it is told that Judas was acting on behalf of Jesus when he told the Romans of his whereabouts, this was, according to this scripture, Jesus' idea, for he knew by sacrificing homself he would fulfil the ancient Propheses. I t is quite interesting and I recommend you read these documents.

the four synoptic Gospels were chosen for their bias text, one that fit in with the doctrine voted in at Nicea.

the truth was voted on by 320 Bishops in 320ce, how can that make it the true word of God?

Answer 2

I think you question is very valid as it's one many people have. First we should consider why we have 4 accounts of the Gospel narrative. This in itself has the purpose of giving validity. Supposing 4 of us witnessed a series of events or infact the life of a person over a period of 3 years. 10-20 years later we wrote down all we remember which we believed to be relevant. Do you think they'd be word for word the same? If they were do you think people would think they were genuine or that 3 or us had copied the other one? Each witness was not an eye witness to every event. To really consider the relevance of these details if, for example it was gall and not myrrh or vice verse would it make a difference. Although the stabbing is not mentioned in the other gospels it is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Historically there is no evidence to suggest the Romans played any part in the formation of the scriptures. It is highly improbable due to the number of witnesses at the crucifixion and preceding events. If the Romans had tampered with the evidence, does this change the message. We the human population are responsible corporately for the death of Jesus, not just the Jews, or Romans or any other one people group. I don't think this could have any bearing on the validity of the Gospel message.

Answer 3

I am a Christian and I have studied the gospels in their original language for many years. In company with every other ancient work without exception, there have been changes and deletions made to the gospels, especially in the early period up to around AD 500. The gospels were transmitted during the early period in four ancient languages; originally in Aramaic then Latin, Greek and Coptic. By studying these ancient gospel traditions and the historical arguments which broke out at various times in the history of the faith, it is possible to come up with a better *estimate* of what the original text said and to track how it changed over time.

In the main, the gospels have suffered more from textual loss and translation difficulties than from other problems. The text has also been adapted in various places. For example, the gospel of Mark lost its original ending and we now only have fragmentary details of Christ's baptism and the life of John the Baptist where once these things were covered in much greater detail.

The gospels usually quoted are biased heavily towards the Greek versions. Much more work needs to be done to include the evidence from the ancient gospel traditions other than the Greek and to factor-in the quotation evidence from early authors. The Greek is not very helpful on its own, because Greek culture was foreign to the original Aramaic-speaking, oriental culture in which the gospels first appeared.

In answer to your question about the crucifixion, as an insult, Christ was offered vinegar mixed with myrrh and I am not surprised he refused to drink much of that.

In answer to your question about the Romans, yes there were some attempts made to show the Romans in a more favourable light in the gospel text, but it is often possible to identify these features, because Christianity spread very early outside the Roman empire.

The gospels are historical documents of enormous importance and significance. They deserve more careful attention and respect than they have received. Just because a castle is in ruins, this is no reason to say that its architect never existed. Just because a text needs more scholarly attention, this is no reason to say that there is no truth in it.

ST, there were 318 bishops with Constantine at Nicaea who signed the creed in June AD 325. An interesting rumour I read recently is that there were many other bishops present who could not be intimidated to sign. Also, Constantine the emperor was a follower of Arias who did not believe Jesus was God and his friend and fellow Arian Eusebius bishop of Caesarea revised the Greek NT.

Answer 4

Everyone pointed out different things about the events that touched them the most perhaps. Also, the combo of all of it makes a complete story, Also, could it be that the soldiers were idly standing by therefore were one in the same?Second, wine and vinegar ARE different but have the same source. Were they really the same? Also, what's definition of gall? I'm not absolutely certain. I think if one studies it out.They will find it all jives. Besides, like I tell my husband all the time. It is either all true or all false.

Answer 5

If you are really seeking a full answer, I hope you are open to reading the works of people far more qualified to answer than me, as they have studied and found out for themselves. I loved, 'who moved the stone,' by frank morrison, and I found ,' why trust the Bible?' by amy orr-ewing very insightful too. There's a guy called Lee Strobel who has done a serious of books, his first one,' the case for Christ' is apparantly fantastic, but I read, 'the case for the real Jesus,' and that is great too. Hope you pick one of these up and learn more about this fascinating historical document.

Answer 6

If the salt loses its saltiness...
Christians believe there is a special message from the Gospels, therefore this specialness in them means they do not see them as drab documents with simple contradictions...

Also, the Romans didn't get their hands on many of them till they became official texts. We can be fairly sure that a lot of the core stories were being told by the time we now call the turn of the firt century.

So I am afraid if the Gospels are inconsistent corrupt at all it was to be the fault of early people who were Christians or called themselves/ associated with Christians...

Answer 7

you're good to be truthful, idea isn't admitting a actuality even the demons acknoweledge Jesus changed into once the Christ. His paintings is existence remodeling and your life remains untransformed. Loving God isnt something you're waiting to do till eventually you purchased His love first You seem to have the frame of mind backwards by technique of attempting to love God first. make an attempt and browse by the gospel of John. Slowly study the claims Jesus makes. Then see how they have an result on you; my relationship with God changed into once more advantageous on a same line for years yet i changed into once a lot less truthful with myself; then quicker or later i changed into once damaged, the superb longing in my life changed into once to be loved and when I cried out to Jesus to take my existence i as switched over and my life has been packed with love desire braveness and self assurance. i remember Joel the position god says he will make up for the years that the locust had eaten away..And He has...God bless you...

Answer 8

As an unbeliever the Bible is oftentimes seemingly full of contradictions and inconsistencies because it is the Word of God living and active meant to be spiritually discerned by men and women filled with the Holy Spirit.

Again I say - the Bible is a parable for the saved; not a textbook for the damned.

Answer 9

Well incredible as it may seem a lot of sad gullible fools do believe them,

The church is just an extension of the Roman empire, most of the rubbish in the new testament was compiled by a lot of Greeks under roman rule, then edited by Constantine to get more support to invade the Eastern Empire.

Answer 10

I don't think the gospels can or should be believed.

However, eyewitness testimony does often vary and if you want to believe in the gospels as eyewitness accounts I don't see why you should be put off by these relatively minor anomalies.

If you want to think it's the word of god, of course, that becomes a lot harder