Illiterate men.

[Drich]

Agreed. So not only do you need faith in Christ, but you need to have faith that it was a witness who wrote these things, which we can't know for sure. To me, that's a 'shaky foundation' to go from.

Actually Faith in God is enough. For if one has Faith in the God of the bible then it is up to said God to preserve that bible.

Are you sure about that? Mark is missing a birth story and resurrection story.

Yet Luke's nor Matthew's account does not. Funny how if they were a simple copy of the work of John Mark they confirm each other's account, and not the account in which they were supposedly copied from.

John is set apart from the synoptic Gospels because it's different enough in content and theology from the other 3.

can you elaborate? Or are you trying to dismiss what you can not account for?

Luke must an extrapolation (like Matthew) of Mark because according to scholars Mark was the first wrArcheologyaeology backs this up as well so far.

Perhaps just to the scholars and archaeologist you wish to quote, or perhaps they/you have not read the bible for yourself. How else do you explain the fatal flaw in your scholarly view? The flaw that neither you nor your difference to your source material accounts for. I pointed to a time line of biblically recorded events that directly contradicts what you have represented to be true, and it seems you are choosing to ignore, rather than discuss.

How so?

We can be suspicious of the other accounts because once you realize the infallible word of God contains hearsay in the form of the Gospel of Matthew, then that throws the doors wide open for the others. Who wrote them?

what Hearsay?

Luke was not speaking to the account of Mark.

Scholars and archeology are in agreement that Mark was already written. Luke had access to it just like Matthew did.. Hence the synoptic Gospels.

Then perhaps you or one of the Scholars you represent can explain the discrepancy in the time line I have presented.

What i have done here is not something new. Understand you and the Scholars you represent are working with the "official Catholic acceptance of the canonical scriptures, in the order they were received or accepted into the church. This does not mean to say the order in which they were written, adheres to the official church's Traditional acceptance into the cannon of scripture.

The account of Luke and his work with Paul, verses his charge from Theolopus (all contained with in the bible itself) points to his letters/Books being written long before the work of Mark.. If you or any of your scholars wish to address this then we can have a discussion. Otherwise know simply insisting that I take on FAITH that you and/or your scholars have the correct understanding of the bible, when it is apparent you have not even read it... Well lets just say if i have to take something on faith it will be from God, and not from some one who's knowledge of Him is based on what he understands of another's work.. ;P

---

Coincidentally ( or not ) they were first named by Irenaeus who also coincidentally along with Hegesippus introduced the concept of "apostolic succession" as some sort of bogus rationale for claiming that later bishops were direct descendants of the original crew of ficitional losers.

Actually no. We no not know who was ultimately responsible, but In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly compiled/Named. That is nearly a 75 year time span. Bottom line is we do not know for sure who named what, but it is agreed that between the four men that were in a position of authority during that time period the names of the books were ascribed.

---

I'd be satisfied if you could "verify" the document you yourself hold, the bible in your possession. In this regard both you and the Vatican are on even ground. Neither of you is prepared or willing to demonstrate that the works of literature in your possession are anything more than fantasy written over the fabric of reality.

You have your favorite fairy tales, they have theirs, I find both sets completely unconvincing.

So what? What does it matter what you find convincing? That is the point of this life. It is to choose your own path. If you choose God, then good for you. If you don't, then again good for you. You have full filled the meaning of life in your choice whatever that choice maybe.

The reason no one feels obligated to "prove" anything to you is because no one owes you an explanation, aside from God Himself (Via His own promises to us.) If you wish to get this proof/explanation from God then I can point the way. If you are afraid what you might find, or whatever have told yourself to hang on to your current mind set, then you are free to remain where you are and demand "proof" till it finds you.

Just understand that "we" are not here to provide you with anything you do not seek, and even then we are only obligated to provide you with what we can. Nothing more. "Proof" is in the Realm of God himself, and is out of our Hands. that said I can point you in the direction of God if you wish to challenge Him yourself.