hrotha said:
Of course the gospels are a historical source. That doesn't mean they're historically accurate, but they're still valuable texts to shed light on 1st century AD Judaea.
Eh, no. That's how the Christian tradition goes, but there's nothing in the Bible indicating this is the case, and indeed there are many textual and chronological problems. Most scholars reject the traditional authorship for these gospels.
There's nothing in the Bible indicating this? Well sir next time, before you say something like this, check your bible. In Matthew 10:2-4 it says,
"2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him."
There it is, John and Matthew were disciples of Jesus. In John 21:24 it says,
"24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is
true.(bold added)
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. "
Could you please mention some specific chronological and textual problems. Don't google it, look it up in a Bible, and show me some. Often times people like to say, "oh there's all these contradictions," when in fact they just haven't studied the scriptures enough to really learn what they are saying.
People often reject the Bible because it confronts them with their sin. The Bible has a great way of calling things out as they are....people don't always like this. For people who know and understand that they are sinners, there is great hope....the Gospel. We can run to the True and Living God our Savior.