Can the Gospels stand scrutiny?

Is there evidence to show that the gospels in the Christian Bible are in fact true and are reliable historical accounts?

Evidence being anything that could be used in court so that a judge and jury could rule for or against it, this would include other witness accounts, science, historical documents, mathematics, and others.

Thanks for asking brian
I know alot of the authorship stuff comes from other historical sources. For example, I know the evidence to show that the gospel of Mark was written by John Mark was found in sources from Irenaeus, Eusubius, Origen, Clements of Alexandria, and Papias. All these has references of this second gospel being written by Mark and actually preached by Peter in the city of Rome.

Your right about Mark writing what Peter preached, I guess i worded it wrong.As with the other comment, i already discussed that on the Paul of Tarsus thread.

You are right that Mark did not right it in any chronological order. The reason for this is that Mark wrote down messages preached by Peter while they were in Rome. These accounts can be found through various sources; Papias, Iranaeus, Eusubius, Origin, and Clement of Alexandria. They all speak of three main things; Mark writing a gospel account from Peters preaching, that Peter was there at the time, and that they were in Rome (one actually says Italy).
I find reason to believe that they are reliable since they all say the same things, basically, and for something such as that, I wouldn't see any motive for all of them to lie to an accountable(Christian) audience.

Many scholars agree that Matthew leaned heavily on Marks accounts, as did Luke, or vice versa, and that may be that both authors wanted to be accurate on their accounts and show that their apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided. There is also the thought that the gospels were not written for a chronological timeline of Jesus actions but to portray teachings and truths through the actions he did. This goes in line with the fact that Mark doesn't follow a chronological order but cares more about portraying the main teachings of Jesus instead of a timeline. This idea can also be found in many Old Testament writing were many of the writings don't follow a concise timeline but are based more on presenting a specific idea or relevant point.For on wether Mark wrote while Peter was alive, look at the arguements i presented in the thread 'Paul of Tarsus'.This message has been edited by Namesdan, 05-27-2005 02:23 PM

Exerpt from thread 'Paul of Tarsus''The date for which the gospel of Mark was written is uncertain at this point but more scholars agree that it was before the death of Peter (64 or 67 A.D.). The Paschal Chronicle assigns it to 40 A.D., the 'Chronicle' of Esubius says it was written in 'the third year of Cluadius' (43 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria pointed out that Peter was in Rome when Mark wrote the gospel. Some say it is clear it was written before 70 A.D. since there was no indication of the Temple in Jerusalem already being destroyed in the prediction noted in Mark 13:2. The gospel, to most scholars, find that it was written between the dates of 50 A.D. and 67 A.D.'

Ok
First of all, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter refers to John Mark, the same Mark described Acts 12:12, 12:25, 13:13, 15:36-41, Colossians 4:10, 1 Timothy 4:11, as a son. This is not referring to John Mark as an actual son, but a relationship such as one. So it is obvious that John Mark has a close tie with Peter.
In the other sources which i already reviewed, they say a man named Mark wrote a gospel of Jesus Christ from the teachings of Peter.
Another thing is that the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, say the gospel 'According to Mark' (KATA MARKON).
Coincidence? Hardly, since for a gospel about Jesus Christ to be widely accepted by the early church, it is probable to believe that it comes from a reliable source, and I find that John Mark, who had a close connection to Peter and held christian meetings at his residence, is the best possible candidate that we can have considering the evidence to date.

Acts 12:12 'John, also called Mark'
Acts 12:25 'John, also called Mark'
Acts 13:13 'John' Since no other John went on the missionary journey with them it would have to have been 'John, also called Mark'.
Acts 15:36-41 'John, also called Mark', 'Mark'
Colossians 4:10 'Mark, cousin of Barnabas'
It is hard to tell that the Mark in 2 Timothy 4:11 is actually John Mark but there is one clue. Paul says 'he is helpful to me in my ministry.' Since Paul went on his first missionary journey with John Mark (Acts 12, 13) and since he was in jail with John Mark when writing Colossians (4:10) also Philemon (1:24), then Paul would have known that John Mark was helpful, and since no other Mark was described in any of his missionary journies, it's safe to say that John Mark was the one which Paul spoke of in 2 Timothy 4:11.
When Paul wrote Colossians he was in the Roman jail, and it says Mark was with him. In 2 Timothy, Paul was in a Roman prisonment, in chains, and he asks for Timothy and Mark to go see him. It is a good guess as to say that Timothy and Mark both went there, this gives alot of evidence to the fact the Mark could have been in Rome. When Peter writes 1 Peter, he is in Rome, saying that his 'son' Mark sends his greetings. Coincidence again? Hardly.Clements of Alexandria, Papias, and Origen are not indirect sources and therefore is not hearsay.And finally, how is that not substancial evidence that the authors name was Mark?PS. Please read info given (ei. Biblical texts) before making a statement. I had to give you useless information the Acts qoutes as well as Colossians that you could have got yourself if you read them. Thank you.