19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
Faith comes to mind.
They are the truth as when you follow their teachings in your life they set you free to know and experience Jesus and our Father.
When the map leads you to the treasure it is the truth.
Well, those writings have led thousands and thousands to a knowledge of the Truth: that one particular Jew known as Jesus The Christ is The Lord and Most Graceful Savior of households who believe in Him from the deserved consequences of eternal condemnation in Hell.). That’s got to carry some “historical” weight.
They’re not. They’re pseudepigraphic and they’re not history — they’re inspirational works pitched to specific audiences.
They’re based on the oral tradition, which tends to be a long game of telephone, as it gets distorted through being passed along from one source to another.
And they have scribal errors, some accidental and often incidental, but some both deliberate and significant.
Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?
Dr. Hoselton shows historical data that is less than a generation old that affirms the reliability of the first hand accounts of the life of Jesus.
http://columbia-mo.ucg.org/sermon/are-new-testament-gospels-reliable
The Apostle Luke would disagree with regard to his Gospel. He specifically states that his book is a meticulously researched historical account.
There's no doubt.
Everything more than a second old is now 'historical'.
What the question SHOULD be; is;
"Do the gospels ACCURATELY report historical events?"
Ask the Catholics...
If the Church that wrote, copied, preserved and canonized the Bible was fallible, then the Bible could be errant.
R.C. Sproul had the integrity to admit as much, calling the Bible a “fallible collection of infallible books.”
It’s not a coherent position, but at least he was intellectually honest.
Jesus’ disciples witnessed His death. They also witnessed Him after the resurrection. They were willing to undergo the most severe torture and deaths. Would they do that if they did not believe Christ was raised from the dead?
I am a person of faith, but my faith is also informed by the accounts in the New Testament (including fulfilled prophesy from the Old Testament).
Now, if there was no historical Jesus (does anyone assert this?) and if the Gospels were simply made up out of whole cloth my faith would certainly be shaken. It is hard to believe that a myth could survive intact for thousands of years, but I will listen to the evidence of that...if there is any.
The argument is circular.
1. The Bible says it is the Word of God.
2. We know what the Bible says is true because it’s the Word of God.
IOW, it is because it says it is and it says so because it is. This is standard evangelical theology, but it’s horrible logic.