Illiterate men.

[Drich]

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).

The oldest manuscripts and the most reliable validate Mark upto Verse 8. (which includes the resurrection of Christ)

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

. The term apologetic in the Christian sense of the words means to defend scripture. What you have left (via your link) is not a defense of scripture. It is a loose reflection of the traditional beliefs of when the books of the bible were adopted by the church.(For your source material places the authorship of John Mark's work before the death of Peter in which case if it has been written then, it would have been called the book of Peter, not Mark.)

An apologetic is exactly what I left you to answer for. I gave you a time line based on the scriptural accounts that denied your assertion as to when the book of Mark was written in comparison to the book of Luke. One I might add that you have failed to address satisfactorily.

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.

according to whom? wiki? What if Gave you three Christian links that show the book of john to be pivotal in the Christian life? The only thing that proves is that you can do a Google search as well as I can. I am asking you directly to explain to me (not by using the work of a smarter man) in your own words; how the book of John is different?

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?

Make up you mind first you wanted me to answer with an apologetic now you want secular evidence.. You know if you ask for Islamic evidence ALL of you bases would be better covered.. That s unless you miss the whole point of the conversation completely.

what Hearsay?

The author of Luke clearly states that he is merely passing on the information he has gathered.

How is that Hearsay? We have the letter. Hear say would be something like: I read a letter someone wrote and this is what it said.. Lest you suggest the whole of recorded history is Hearsay.

We have already discussed Matthew and it seems like it can't be traced back to any Apostle, therefore hearsay.

Again do you even know what that term means? We have the letter the content is not 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.

You misunderstood what your dad was watching (this would be a great example of hearsay)

For Mark (The Author of the Book) was a disciple of Peter, and was not among the twelve.

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 know as well as I do how weak this statement is.. and I will leave it at that.

You seem to live in this ideal bubble that assumes every last written word was from an eyewitness.

no I clearly said John and Mat were the only Eye witnesses. Rather, This is what you need my position to be inorder for your argument to work.

Why is it that this historically based religion can't even stand up to that claim?

Because you have denied all of the history and evidence leading up to the final conclusion.