>>As for the New Testament agreeing with the gospel do we know if one influenced the other? If the writers were reviewing others documents could we have cross contamination of ideas?
The NT epistles (books other than gospels) were written chiefly by Paul. The others were written by disciples/apostles Peter, John, James. So the letters of Peter and John would definitely be influenced since they are gospel authors (presuming Peter dictated Mark's gospel). Paul was a Jew who persecuted the early followers of Christ. He was converted later and saw that Jesus was real. He then followed Christ himself. He received his information directly from God via revelation. He says he did not consult with the disciples for 3 years. Here's his account in his letter to the Galatians (Cephas is another name for Peter):
Galatians 1:13-2:2
1:13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
1:18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they were glorifying God because of me.
2:1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
---
So he could be lying and making this up, but assuming he's truthful - he was not influenced by the written gospels as he developed his own understanding. After receiving so much heat for the truth he taught, he himself was unsure of the accuracy and second-guessed it. The disciples in Jerusalem confirmed that his teaching (see remainder of chapter 2)
>>But you might consider that these writers were also marketeers trying to put the best foot forward for their hero. Do you think if another person, who may have been a disinterested person, recalled the same things happening?
It's possible they had "selective memory" to enhance Jesus' reputation. However, recall that Jesus' reputation (as reported) got Him killed and all the disciples disowned him and fled for their lives. Later, holding to the gospel teaching brought nothing but trouble to the disciples and early church. They were persecuted and martyred. They ran for their lives. Paul's life went from respected Jewish teacher in society to hated renegade. Here's some of his troubles as he reports in 2 Corinthians 11:23-31
23 Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as if insane) I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure upon me of concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern? If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
---
So while he and the disciples could have embellished their writing, they had no incentive to do so. I'm sure they asked themselves often if they had it right. The way was hard and there would be reason to turn back and recant the difficult parts. But they were assured they were teaching the truth and kept that committment to the death. Again - people may be willing to die for a firmly held belief - even if that belief turns out to be false - because they believe it to be true. However, they would not be willing to suffer for a belief that they knew deep inside was really a self-made lie or a distortion of reality.
>>The answers to these question come under "faith." However, unless one possesses "faith" then it becomes problematic about the believability of certain events happening.
I disagree here. With today's document evidence and archaelogical evidence, it is more reasonable to believe the bible is what it claims to be than that it is a distorted collection of lies, half-truths, and myths. Of course, it takes some measure of "faith" to come to agreement with any truth. If takes some faith to believe that George Washington was the first president. We don't have living eyewitnesses. We could presume all the documents we have are part of a conspiracy, etc. Even if we had eyewitnesses, we could convince ourselves they were lying, etc. However, a reasonable assessment of the evidence leads to the conclusion that he was the first president.
>>Today we have many interpretations of the Bible. Which one is the true interpretation?
We have accurate, reliable copies of the original Greek manuscripts. From these come various translations into English. Scholars debate the "best" translation. The common view is that the New American Standard is the most accurate translation (this is what I used in the passages above). Another accurate translations are the New International Version. Interpretation of a translation is another matter. There are various generally accepted principles of interpretation.
---
Let me know if you made it this far. We can discuss any of this further. I've gone on long enough for one post. Thanks.
AI
