Are the gospels really historically creditable?

[polonius]

“The Bible's New Testament, which includes these four Gospels, was originally written entirely in Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean lands in Roman times. The first of the Gospels was probably Mark, written around 70 A.D., about 40 years after Jesus was crucified. Matthew and Luke were written between 80 and 90 A.D. Finally, The Gospel of John appeared around 95 A.D.�

NOTE: Thus the gospels were written anonymously about 40 to 60 years after Jesus death (and not by apostles).

“Hear of Israel. The Lord is One.� The fundamental Hebrew commandment.

Following Jesus’ crucifixion in 30-33 AD, his followers remained observant Jews and worshipperd at the Jewish Temple. They did not form a new church.
It was approximately 82 AD, that Christians began to believe that Jesus himself was divine. This resulted in their expulsion (as heretics) from the Jewish synagogues. ( John’s gospel, c. 95 AD.)

So gospel evidence was evidently written 40 to 60 years after the fact by non-witnesses. From the point of view of histography, what credibility should be assigned to such writings?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum.

Would not a discussion as to the historical accuracy of the gospels be better suited in Christianity and Apologetics ?

[brianbbs67]

I agree the godpels other than Luke are Psuedograghical. We don't know who wrote them. We should really treat them as such information.

[Checkpoint]

I agree the godpels other than Luke are Psuedograghical. We don't know who wrote them. We should really treat them as such information.

You don't include Luke. Why not?

What is it about Luke that makes it more credible(if that is what you intended)?