How well do you remember the events of twenty years ago? Imagine with me, if you will that we are all part of significant event tomorrow. Now imagine twenty years from now we all decide to write our accounts of the events. I doubt they wouldn't have many inaccuracies and would in many was contradict each other. The earliest canonical gospel was written twenty years after the death of Jesus. Does this affect the validity of the gospels? Are they historical accounts to be taken as factual truth or are they more memoirs filled with hazy memories? Did they evolve over years of retellings, like a fisherman's tale of the one that got away?

very good point.all i know is the times we live in now are not good.

good point. I think for the most part the gospels been preserved we can take it as factual.

I believe this casts doubts on the gospels as factual accounts and that the events are skewed by memory and time. I also believe that at best they can only reliably be viewed as memoirs and needed to viewed in the light of their author's bias.

Some other things to think about, if you have seen the documentary "The God That Wasn't There", some of the things that are brought up are the decades, between the death of Jesus, and the gospels being written. Also, the time that Jesus actually lived(if he did indeed live) has also been called into question.
Also, there are many gods from the Mediterranean Area, whose stories are very similar to the story of Jesus, and there are a few of those that almost perfectly mirror the story of Jesus.

I can clearly recall events from over 60 years ago... And, know several people who can do the same...

I can't recall them on a day-to-day basis, but I can put them in the correct chronological order...

I recalled one incident that happened, while talking to my Mother one day and she promptly quizzed me... "Who told you about that?"

I then correctly described the shirt my Uncle was wearing, as well as what I was wearing and the blanket I was wrapped in, as well as the geographical location where we were!

She then told me the incident happened in June, after my birth... I was only 6 MONTHS OLD!

I can still see, in my mind's eye, the incident today, just like it happened only a few minutes ago!

This discussion took place in 1986 and I still remember it well also.

So, yes, I believe The Gospels are factually accurate, no reason for me to doubt that.


Bro Clark

Often times you will find that even though you believe you have a clear memory, you really don't. I'm not suggesting the authors of the gospels lied, only that their memories were most likely not as clear as they seemed to believe. Jesus' ministry only lasted for a few years. Even if you are spot on about your recollection of the memory you use as an example, that is how much time of the few years surrounding that event in your life?
Furthermore Paul never even personally met Jesus.

I've come to the conclusion that the gospels that have become 'Scripture' were indeed fabricated with intent to support a given agenda.

I personally believe that Jesus had most likely traveled to India and learned the ways of Buddha. The Biblical account of Jesus leaves this possibility wide open because there is no biblical account of Jesus from the time he was 12 until he was 30. So there was over 15 year of his life unaccounted for in his home land.

Moreover, if we compare the things that Jesus supposedly taught with the things that Buddha taught we basically get 100% agreement. However, if we look at what Jesus was teaching with respect to what the Old Testament taught we see total disagreement. The Old Testament taught to judge your neighbors and stone them to death if you judge them to be sinners. In fact, people were supposedly still doing this in Jesus day. Jesus denounced that practice and taught not to judge others.

The Old Testament also taught us to seek revenge, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But Jesus denounced that and instead taught forgiveness and to turn the other cheek.

So based on the Scriptures themselves Jesus denounced the teaching of the Old Testament, and instead taught the very same moral philosophy as Buddha. It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus was a Buddhist who was trying to teach the ways of Buddha to a culture that was judging each other and seeking revenge in the name of God.

Now Jesus was publicly crucified for blaspheme, and his only crime was that he taught love and forgiveness. This was a true atrocity and was bound to set Jesus as a martyr with the common folk.

His teachings were popular, and the fact that he taught ideas that were in direct conflict with the Old Testament was also popular after his death as people would naturally talk about this among themselves.

And then there was the whole, "Messiah" thing. Was Jesus the messiah of the Old Testament or not? And if so, how would that work since he actually denied the teachings of the Old Testament?

There must have been many rumors and ideas of who Jesus was and what he stood for. And the churches were losing their grip on the masses. Something had to be done!

So it's makes perfect sense that the people in authority would write up THEIR VERSION of what they want people to believe Jesus stood for. And so they wrote up what we know of today as "The Gospels". And then they introduced these "Gospels" to the masses in print along with a decree that anyone who blasphemes these "Holy Scriptures" shall be excommunicated from the church and society or possible even be executed altogether!

That would quickly squelch all other rumors. No one would dare speak out against the "established Holy Scriptures" lest they be accused of Blaspheme! After all, these Holy Scriptures did indeed nail Jesus to the Old Testament even more firmly than he had been nailed to the cross.

So, I'm personally convinced that the gospels weren't just a product of haphazard poor memory but were indeed a very methodic and purposeful twisting of the story to fit a particular agenda.

These early Christians where well-known for their extremely methodical, and often times quite deceitful, proselytizing of their cause. Historically they are well known for incorporating Pagan Gods and rituals into their religion to attract and convert pagans. They had no morals at all. They would do anything to convert people to worship the authority of their Church. It was all about authority and power and keeping the masses under the thumb of the Church. Back in those days the Church was the seat of Power for any King. That's where the real power came from.

So to believe that the gospels were written by innocent people who were trying to covey a genuine story as it actually happened it truly ludicrous. The New Testament was written by people in authority who had very ambitious agendas to reestablish the authority of the Old Testament that could be used to put the fear of damnation into anyone, and also could be used to execute blasphemies, etc.

Just look at the history of the actual religion. Did they do what Jesus preached? Or did they just use Jesus as a patsy to continue to use their Old Testament as an excuse to murder their enemies?

I think their historical actions speak far louder than their 'Holy Gospels" which they themselves totally ignored!

So no, I don't think it had anything to do with memory. I think the gospels were written with a specific agenda in mind to use Jesus to prop up the very dogma that Jesus himself clearly denounced.

If you've ever spoken to your siblings about events that happened when you were children you will realize that nothing is perceived the same by two people who were there to witness an event. You may have a perfect memory of an event. But, that doesn't mean you have the truth of the of the event.

Exactly. And time doesn't even need to be a factor. People often disagree on an event immediately after it has happened.

In fact, this seems to be precisely what happened with Jesus. In time immediately after his death there was much disagreement over who he was and what he stood for.

This is precisely why the authoritarians stepped in and wrote their version and called it the 'Holy Scriptures'.

They claimed that their version is the only true version and everyone else had better shut up or off with their heads!

That's precisely what happened! How could it not be? Just look at how hostile people were in those days. They were still stoning each other to death! That certainly didn't stop just because Jesus said to stop it.

His message would have taken a while to get around, and then people would also need to accept his message as having authority over the God of Abraham, etc.

Those times were very violent, and the Chruch wasn't beyond violence. In fact, the Chruch was often behind the excution and mass murdering of anyone who gave it a hard time.

Abra...here is a suggestion:

Instead of always giving YOUR

Interpretation of the Scriptures.....

how about ASKING GOD to Give You

HIS Interpretation of the Scriptures.

JUST ASK....BE STILL...THEN LISTEN.

What have You got to Lose?

Think about it...

Maybe he already has. And, if God gives him an interpretation different from the one you believe, you will never believe it was from God. So, it doesn't really matter what he says or does until he agrees with Christianity.

I know, I for one, have often prayed to God to help me understand the scriptures. And, the more I prayed the more I received a clear understanding of them. And, I am not Christian. I am not hostile towards Christianity at all. But, I am not what anyone would call a Christian.

God is Not Done With Any of Us

So, are you saying that I am not a Christian simply because God is not done with me yet?

See, this is what I don't get about Christians. I understand and completely accept that you believe what you believe. But, why do you insist upon telling others that they must believe it also? There are many paths to heaven, MorningSong.

Who is to say one piece of writing is scripture and another is not? I have heard it said that holy ghost guides people in writing scripture, but how can that be proven to be anything but the belief of the writer and whomever he is clever enough make believe him. David Koresh thought he was lead by the holy ghost. Did you know that were over a hundred gospels(accounts of Jesus) written? Why do so few end up in the bible? Who decided some were worthy and other were not? If we take all the gospels as a whole not just the canonical ones, we get quite a different picture of Jesus. I guess this just goes back to faith thing, you can prove it, you just have to believe it. Charles Manson has claimed to be the returned Jesus, if enough people believe he is, does that make it so?

Where do you think I got my interpretations MorningSong?

You have no faith in God at all.

You believe that God can't even save innocent people. You believe that it's up to YOU to do God's work for him because you don't trust God at all.

I have far more faith in God than you do MorningSong. I believe that God will give everyone precisely what they deserve, and not base that on what they may or may not believe.

The Bible was written by egotistical jerks who were out to demand that all their enemies convert to their bigotry or off with their heads in the name of GOD!

God doesn't work like that MorningSong.

You can trust that God is not an arrogant egotistical jealous pig who's anxious to cast people into hell for not becoming bigots.

Trust in God MorningSong and don't be fooled by the dastardly egotists who wrote the Bible. They do not speak for God.

I think that you're missing a key fact in your assumption. Asking if someon remembers events of 20 years ago is not the same as wondering if the Apostles - who spent the 20 years after Jesus' death talking about what he said and did EVERY DAY. Think about that. From the time thy got up until they went to sleep - for 20 years (thats 7300 days - which would translate into about 115,800 waking hours) they told of their experience with Jesus. Now - you'd like to talk about "foggy recollections"? There isn't a teacher or expert alive who's spent that much time on the topic thy are considered "experts" in - who's text books measure the intelligence of others and who's idea's are unquestion - yet their "opinions" are given more validity than the authors of the gospels.

Hope this helps put some perspective on the memories of the disciples.

And how do you know Paul never met Jesus? As I recall - he was confronted by Him on the Demascus road.

Yes, in Acts 9.

There were also many witnesses of the events alive at the time the Gospels were written. If there were discrepancies we would of known about it.

Right, and I met Jesus just this morning on the road to work and he told me it's all a lie.
There are discrepancies all over the place.