I ran into J. Warner Wallace this past weekend at an apologetics conference. It was great to finally meet him in person after having him on the podcast twice now. Here is an article he wrote on the reliability of the Gospels. People claim not to trust the Gospel accounts because of “bias,” but such people wouldn’t know how to spot bias if it slapped them in the face. The authors were anything but biased, and the Gospels can reasonably be considered based on the reliable eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ disciples.
The Cumulative Case for the Reliability of the Gospels
Haden Clark 
Luke of all of them, being a follower and buddy of Paul and a gentile, would have bias to include stories that would mention gentiles or Samaritans. He does include a couple stories the other gospels don’t. The Prodigal son and the Good Samaritan, The rich man and Lazarus , the lost coin and a few more. Luke had his own bias and part of that was to find out everything he could know. it was a mission of his and you can tell that this bent or bias helped us. All of those stories do not leave a different view in our eyes as to what went on. there is a consistency and truthfulness you don’t find in books like the gospel of Mary and such written later to try and be writer while being a fraud with ill intent. Interestingly enough Peter didn’t get left out. they threw him under the bus showing his failure and if there was a bent to sweeten things, they would have scrubbed that story. And the stories others didn’t include but Luke did, show they didn’t leave them out to scrub them, they just didn’t include all that was said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And this is why Wallace holds no credibility with bible scholars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The apostles are mortal: hence there are 12 witnesses, and a few could write. It is amazing how well preserved these are contrary to the whole idea of “doctrine,” following Rome after 333 or so, eh? John is the eyewitness from beginning to end.
LikeLike
I believe the Gospels are 100 percent reliable. I also believe that even if there was twice as much evidence for the reliability of the Gospels saving faith in Christ would still be the work of the Holy Spirit entirely, not something based on evidence or rational thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you wish to claim veracity for something / anything, then what you believe should be backed to the hilt by evidence, surely?
The problem for Christians is there is no verifiable evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the gospel tales. Enter, ”Faith”.
In truth, most Christians realise this fact so they use the caveat regarding the Holy Spirit.
I like your phrasing, by the way: ”…. even if there was twice as much evidence …”, which could just as easily have read, ”…although there is no evidence …”
Regards.
LikeLike