Debby wrote:
The Gospels are named after the authors who wrote them. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. They were Jesus’s disciples at that time.
Not true, they were named after the disciples, but the disciples were not the authors.
The Gospels aren't straight-forward historical records nor are they eyewitness accounts; and they were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years. They contain details of events that had no one else present to record them and from a historical basis, they do not concur on all details, making them historically suspect.
This is not to say that the Gospels are not documents that present an image of Christian truth, it is just to recognize the Bible for what it is, a book that recorded the religious experience of a much earlier and very special age in mankind's development. I understand that the men who wrote the Bible were not biographers, they were writing "Sacred History" from the passionate perspective of their own religious experience. When I read the Bible, I read about a devout people in whom the most profound truth was emerging, and I believe they understood that it was a truth that resonates from within, not one that is imposed from outside.
We must simply consider that someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.
Christianity is not a static movement, it's a timeless, living faith that speaks to individuals in whatever time, place, or context they are in. It is the truth that "is within" that the Bible speaks of and to. If we listen to that "voice within" we will know how to interpret it and we will be able to distinguish between what is permanent truth and what is cultural bias. The proper way to read it is with the heart rather than the intellect, and to do so we must change our focus from actively pondering the external events to passively opening to the internal, transcendent knowledge within.