Mainly, what I’m hearing nowadays is that St. Paul’s writings twisted Christianity away from Christ’s more humane, liberal vision & interjected his own narrow anti-women, anti-(fill in whatever vice is popular in modern culture)views.
So,it follows that if something in scripture clashes with your chosen lifestyle or philosophy, it was “invented.” If the scripture supports your viewpoints, it’s kosher.

Did the Gospel Writers Feel Free to Make Stuff Up?

Yes, there is evidence they did from time to time. Consider Matthew 2 for example:

“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’”

There is no such prophecy anywhere in the Bible. There are other examples of made up stuff…

Paul Williams,
    You may be interested in a very educated response to your example here:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt84.html

The writer concedes that the passage does not exist in the Bible:

I quote:

‘An abbreviated neo-Patristic interpretation of Matt 2:23. The literal sense.  The neo-Patristic method uses the framework of the Four Senses of Sacred Scripture. Since no text of the Old Testament says literally “He will be called a Nazorean (or Natsorean),” and since the name Nazareth does not appear at all in the Old Testament, it is reasonable to suppose that Matt 2:23 is appealing to a figurative relationship of one or more texts of the Old Testament to the root-meaning of the word Nazareth.’

This assertion is just unsubstantiated spin. It is reasonable to suppose that Matthew just made it up! Remember: “He will be called a Nazorean” is a supposed quote from the prophets. No such quote exists. 

Readers…..go beyond Paul Williams’ speed reading and read the above link in detail.

A simple question: where in the Bible does it say, as Matthew claims and QUOTES: ‘He will be called a Nazorean’?

A simple answer is all that is required…

Here’s another issue in response to your question “Did the Gospel Writers Feel Free to Make Stuff Up?”

There is a greater preponderance of ‘fiction’ in the Gospel of John.

John Drane is an Evangelical theologian who is probably best known for his two best-selling books on the Bible, Introducing the Old Testament and Introducing the New Testament (both published by Lion in the UK and Fortress Press in the US).

He is also an adjunct professor in New Testament and Practical theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, California as well as being a Visiting Scholar at Spurgeon’s College in London and a Visiting Fellow of St John’s College, Durham.

John Drane, a student of F. F. Bruce, concludes:

. . . they [New Testament gospels] are certainly carefully crafted narratives aiming to tell the story of Jesus’ life and teaching. As such, they are not to be judged by the standards of scientific enquiry, but according to the practises of story telling, in which the ‘truth’ of a narrative is to be judged as a whole on its own terms, rather than in relation to notions of truth and falsehood drawn from some other sphere of human endeavour. The early Christian communities clearly had no problem in accepting that within the gospel traditions there would be a subtle combination of factual and fictional elements. Had they not done so, they would certainly not have tolerated the existence of four gospels which, for all their similarities, are sufficiently different from one another as to defy all attempts at producing one harmonized, factual version of the life and teachings of Jesus from them. They knew that both artists and historians operate under similar constraints as they seek to balance fact with fictional elaboration, and that the telling of a good story . . . depends on the coherent combination of both these elements. While all four gospels contain factual and fictive elements, the fourth gospel appears to have a greater preponderance of the latter.

John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, Lion Publishing Plc. Revised Edition. 1999 pp. 210-211

Catholics, consult also St. Jerome’s view that only the Hebrew word netzer in Isaiah is relevant and the root of Nazorean…( does not occur in the Greek septuagint which Jerome did not like).

Hebrew Names Version of the Bible:
  Isaiah

Isa 11:1 There shall come forth a NETZER out of the stock of Yishai, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.

bb - don’t forget that the alleged QUOTE is ‘He will be called a Nazorean’

The NRSV translates Isaiah 11:1 thus:

‘A shoot shall come out from the stock of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.’

So clearly this was not the verse Matthew was ‘quoting’.

Paul Williams,
    That’s because you are fixated in English and in English there is no play on words between netzer and Natzri…whereas in Hebrew there is….trust Jerome….he translated the Bible.

Hebrew Names Version:
Isa 11:1 There shall come forth a NETZER out of the stock of Yishai, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit
Mat 2:23 and came and lived in a city called Natzeret; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: “He will be called a Natzri.”

    Goodbye Paul.  No tears, no scenes.

Sorry bb but your reconstruction still does not match the ‘quote’ in Matthew - don’t you see that?

Here is Matthew: ‘He will be called a Nazorean’

Here is your version: ‘There shall come forth a NETZER out of the stock of Yishai, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit’

Clearly this does not match Matthew’s words - which btw are in Greek not Hebrew. You have failed to prove your case.

*

Now, moving on to much more substantial fictions in the gospels…

The virtually unanimous view of contemporary New Testament scholarship (Catholic, Protestant and non-aligned) is that the teaching and christology of John’s gospel is largely a product of John himself (and his community) and not the words of Jesus. The quote above by professor Drane is representative of the views of NT scholars. Note his conclusion: ‘While all four gospels contain factual and fictive elements, the fourth gospel appears to have a greater preponderance of the latter.’

    Errrrr….Matthew’s Greek uses the Greek for Nazarene which one can check in Blueletter Bible site looks like Nazarene….in other words it’s not a case of one language having an entirely different word for another language’s word….like Latin having “mulier” for English’s “woman”.  Then too Matthew’s audience was largely Jews who would be translating Matthew mentally into Hebrew and Aramaic as they read.
    Catholics….as Paul continues with John, keep in mind that one Catholic John specialist maintained that John died before finishing his gospel and therefore it was finished by a redactor who would not have known chronology for example, only incidents.  Therefore Christ driving out the money changers is placed in the beginning of the ministry whereas Matthew has it near the end.  Also a group had left John ( see his Epistles) and sought to win over John’s followers.  That explains why the redactor not John…bragged about John…which John would not have done ( John beats Peter to the tomb/ John is the one who knows the maid at Caiphas’s house/ John is “beloved” by Christ etc.)....all true but John would not have included them…a redactor fighting the slanders if a schismatic group would have.
    Catholics….you’re on your own now.  Learn to see through the Pauls of the internet.  They are many.  There are
binders full of them.  Protestant forums find them boring but they startle Catholics who are less conversant with their schtick.  God be with you… and with Paul.

fighting the slanders OF ( not “if”) a schismatic group.

PP said: ‘Catholics….you’re on your own now.’

But my comments on John’s gospel refer to a consensus shared by Roman Catholic scholars too!

PP you cannot abandon your readers just when the challenge gets too hot for you! They will need to deal with their own Catholic NT scholars sooner or later. James D. G. Dunn, one of the leading moderate New Testament scholars around and no “anti-supernatural liberal,” who writes about John:

‘Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics. It is worth noting briefly the factors which have been considered of enduring significance on this point. One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking (much more discursive and theological, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptics).  As Strauss had already pointed out, this style is consistent, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of the Baptist, as indeed of 1 John. The inference is inescapable that the style is that of the Evangelist rather than that of Jesus.130 Probably most important of all, in the Synoptics Jesus’ principal theme is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom hardly features and the discourses are largely vehicles for expressing Jesus’ self-consciousness and self-proclamation. Had the striking ‘I am’ self-assertions of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any Evangelist have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics do?131 On the whole, then, the position is unchanged: John’s Gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics. (James D. G. Dunn, Christianity In The Making Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered, 2003, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 165-166.)

Other conservative Christian scholars who have similar types of verdicts to offer regarding the historicity of the gospel of John include: Bruce Stein, Craig A Evans and Martin Hengel, to name a few.

PP will you assist your good readers with these issues or just brush them dismissively aside?

To assist your readers further I recommend they survey the evidence of reputable conservative scholars in my article here:

‘Conservative scholars agree that John fabricated Jesus’ words’

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/5893/

@Paul Williams
From your quoted author:
.
“they [New Testament gospels] are certainly carefully crafted narratives aiming to tell the story of Jesus’ life and teaching. As such, they are not to be judged by the standards of scientific enquiry, but according to the practises of story telling, in which the ‘truth’ of a narrative is to be judged as a whole on its own terms, rather than in relation to notions of truth and falsehood drawn from some other sphere of human endeavour.”
.
“Had they not done so, they would certainly not have tolerated the existence of four gospels which, for all their similarities, are sufficiently different from one another as to defy all attempts at producing one harmonized, factual version of the life and teachings of Jesus from them.”
.
I find both of these quotes complete nonsense.
1) The modernist pattern of blurring the definition of truth or creating subjective truth can be dismissed out of hand.
2) Have you read Pat Buchanan’s history of Churchill, Stalin and the world wars? It most certainly does not align with the famous narrative of Winston Churchill’s own account of the wars.  Why would four authors each writing to different audience and each writing decades after the fact and decades apart have identical narratives.
.
Regardless, the church and bible have explained the life of Christ quite clearly and certainly to my satisfaction.
.
Finally your comment “Conservative scholars agree that John fabricated Jesus’ words” is clear indication that they do not know what they are talking about. 
John’s gospel was written in ~90-100AD.  The words of Christ were told in verbal form for many years.  So the supposition that John’s gospel would contain word for word replication of Christ’s words without divine inspiration is ridiculous. 
Therefore either the Spirit inspired John to write a word for word translation of Christ’s words, or the Spirit inspired John to write Christ’s Message in a form clear for the audience.
.
Using words like forgery, fabricated or fictions indicates not only ignorance of the intent of the author but also hostility toward him and Christianity.
.
I’m sorry Paul, but you have no credibility nor do your references.

@Jimmy
Great video. 
I appreciate the simple step by step logic.
The topic, examples and evidence were very clear and informative.

Jimmy, your arrogance is quite breath taking! You are clearly rabidly anti-intellectual and have retreated into a long discredited fundamentalism. As an “apologist” you are clearly an abject failure. To follow your brand of Catholic fundamentalism one would need to leave one’s brain at the church door.

I feel sorry for you. There is obviously no point in further discussion with such a willfully ignorant man!

Paul Williams you are just proving how ignorant, closed-minded and stupid you are. You should read Eugenio Zolli, former chief rabbi of Rome and catholic convert exegesis of Matthew 2:23 in his book “the Nazarene”.
You are a disaster.

Antony thank you for your charming reply. As I do not possess the rabbi’s book i will not be reading it….But the rabbi’s reply was effectively blown out of the water by a book i have (cant recall them name).

Sorry you wasted your time…