Think about it!
Christians tell us that the “new testament” is inspired by God, God-breathed, of equal, if not more, authority to their “old testament,” or in other words, the Jewish Bible. But the question has to be asked: did the writers of the 4 gospels have the same opinion?
Just look at the book of Luke. Its introduction does not at all convey the idea that his book was anything more than a letter to a friend. Basically it says that many people had had a go at writing the events of Jesus’ life, so he would have a go as well.
Seeing that many have attempted to compose a narrative of those things which are fully believed among us, even as the original eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word delivered them to us; it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were orally taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
There is no “thus saith the Lord,” no overt declaration that Luke has the spirit of God and had to convey a divine message. It is his own perspective, his own recounting of what he thinks happened. Now how on earth does that make it infallible?
And there is something that makes it much worse. Think about it again! If there were totally infallible gospels before the time of Luke and John, such as the gospels of Mark and Matthew, then what was the purpose of Luke and John, unless there was something lacking in the previous gospels? If the previous gospels were God-breathed, on the level of prophecy, why would anyone add to it? And remember, there is nothing in any of the four gospels that says God moved the writers to write their stories (another problem for adherents of sola scriptura, thinking the text of the Bible is the ultimate authority). There is nothing that overtly says that four witnesses were needed to make the account complete. It is only the minds of men – not the words of the original writers or a certain tradition that comes from them – that says that one gospel was to emphasize their messiah candidate was a king and the other gospel to show him as a servant, another gospel to have him as a son of man, and the last to have him as “son of God” (the idolatrous notion of either God becoming a man or God getting a woman pregnant). If the first account was the infallible word of God, the others weren’t needed.
The five books of Moses were written by a man who had the most direct revelation of God as attested and maintained by a whole nation that witnessed a great revelation at Sinai. It’s quite easy to see why those books have divine authority based on that. But the gospels were written anonymously, with no sign that any of them were written by prophets or by people that had God’s prophetic or infallible influence. The gospel attributed to Luke makes no such claim. So how can these books have the same foundational authority as the books of Moses or Jeremiah or Isaiah? They can’t and they don’t!
Luke’s method shows a weakness in the so-called gospels that can become oh-so apparent when you try reading thru the whole thing. The gospels are no more God-breathed than a shopping list. They are just a fallible person’s perspective on what they believe.
Food for thought?