Why would a rational person think that the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him?

This is a piss-poor argument, even by Christian standards.

Therefore, Christian institutions should prioritize the words of Jesus (and the Gospels) over other scripture. — James Moore

If you read the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17, it says:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus clearly expected his followers to keep the Law and the Prophets, i.e. the commandments in the Torah, i.e. full Jewish Law.

Many Christian theologians will come up with all kinds of excuses why there would be no need to keep the Law and the Prophets. For example, the Law forbids eating pork. Do you know of one Christian who does not eat pork? I don't. Still, we know that Jewish Law strictly forbids it. Did Jesus eat pork? No, because then the gospels would certainly have mentioned him breaking the Law. So, you can see followers of Jesus eating pork, while Jesus did not do that, and while the Law even forbids it, and while Jesus insists that his followers must keep the Law. Muslims do follow the Law and the Prophets, and also avoid eating pork. No excuses. In that sense, Muslims seem to be better followers of Jesus than Christians are.

I’d like to object to premise 1 of your argument. In the final paragraph of your argument, you say that emphasizing Jesus’ words “doesn’t mean we should ignore the other parts, it simply means to put an emphasis on these words and to merely use the other parts of the Bible as context that buttresses the Gospels.”

A problem arises when you look at instances where Jesus’ (“red-ink”) words contradict other scriptures, like the law. In that case, the other parts of the Bible can’t really be used as context or buttresses / support for Jesus’ words, because there are conflicting ideas being presented. Which side do you trust more? Is there one side that is more important, or more “right” than the other? If so, how can we distinguish that difference between what we can trust and what we should take with a grain of salt?

Examples of these contradictions are largely found when comparing the New Testament to the Old Testament. Deuteronomy, considered to be one of the Law books of the Bible, says in verse 19:21, “Show no pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” But Jesus contradicts this directly in Matthew: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (5:38-39). “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (5:43-48).

Other examples of contradictions between Jesus and the law include condemnation of adulterers (Leviticus 20:10 vs. John 8:3-11), working on the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:14 vs. John 5:8-10), and treatment of the righteous vs. the unrighteous (Deuteronomy 28:1-24 vs. Matthew 5:45).

Considering your argument, what do these contradictions mean in terms of the inerrancy of scripture? Do you believe that scripture is infallible, or does it contain flaws? If so, how do we reconcile these flaws to the degree that we can still trust the Bible?

Curious to hear your thoughts.