Illiterate men.

[FallentoReason]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

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.

Funny how Mark didn't deem the birth and resurrection to be of any importance. But more to the point, funny how it had to be edited in so that it would better align with the other two (in terms of the resurrection).

Mark was written before the other two which can only mean the author(s) involved believed in a spiritual Jesus. Then comes Luke and Matthew who turn everything Mark says into supernatural events (specially with Matthew. He loves his earthquakes that no other apostle seemed to notice). They had Mark to work with hence the similarity and the 3 being called the synoptic Gospels. Except, surprise surprise, the later 2 feel like they should add a little more content like birth and resurrection narratives. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same people that then added the extended ending to Mark.

You have the burden of proof on the claim that Mark came after Matthew and Luke.
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testame...index.html
Even apologetic sites disagree with you.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_J...c_elements
It's not as straight forward as you would like it to be. The Gospel of John is definitely different in many ways.

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.

I can easily dismiss it because your argument depends on the claim that Luke was written before Mark. Where is the secular evidence for this?

what Hearsay?

The author of Luke clearly states that he is merely passing on the information he has gathered. We have already discussed Matthew and it seems like it can't be traced back to any Apostle, therefore hearsay.

My dad recorded a series on the Bible that was on tv. One of the episodes they interviewed a Catholic Father that was explaining the context in which Paul was living in. Anyways, I forgot why, but he mentioned that out of the NT authors MAYBE Mark was a witness. This Drich, is the balanced view that he has when faced with the raw evidence. The very same evidence that you should be thanking because without this evidence, archaeology, you wouldn't have a translated Bible that you can read in english.

You seem to live in this ideal bubble that assumes every last written word was from an eyewitness. Why is it that this historically based religion can't even stand up to that claim?