Imitator:

Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.

They were written after the fact.

You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.
It's true on one hand that they're fallible men, but on the other hand if it's God's word then he would exert control over it's being written and make sure it came out right.

You have to understand that back then people have much better memories then we do now. They trained themselves to memories long genialogies and stoies and such. There must have also been at least some scribes who wrote it down, and not to mention thousands upon thousands of people who heard him speak.

If 7 thousand people stood in front of the twin towers and specifically saw bombs going off inside both buildings wouldn't that be credible? He preached out in the open. He performed miracles out in the open, where everyone could see him. He spoke and taught in the temple, and I think most likely his words were taken down by scribes more than once. He preached throughout the whole land of Israel. And after the gospels were finished, many of the people who were alive with Jesus were alive also, and not to mention their children. That's what people don't think of. They think it's only a few people who wrote all this. But they only recorded his sayings from numerous testimonies. And in the end, if we look at his word, we find it to be consistant and not with any sign of fabrication.

Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.
Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts. And no doubt, these gospels were circulated and read throughout the churches as well, making it hard to teach error because of those living who had witnesses Jesus with there own eyes, this very thing also would help to cross anylize the word for any mistakes if the authors of the gospels hadn't gotten it right the first time.

The gospel was most definitely more widely circulated by mouth than by writing, at least in the beginning for sure. This wide circulation made it possible for errors to be corrected.

Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?
Just look at the history of scripture manuscripts! Over hundreds and hundreds of years, and of all the manuscripts we have they almost all match up exactly, only having certain spelling errors for the most part. Hows that for a testimony to man's ability to transcribe events.