Illiterate men.

[FallentoReason]

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

It would help your case a bit if this were actually true. Mark ends abruptly with the empty tomb, although, there is the young man making claims of a resurrected Jesus. Any further evidence of this from supposed witnesses like in Matthew and Luke? Nope. That is the stuff that was edited in. So Mark leaves us hanging with no resurrected Jesus, only mere hearsay from this young man that he is resurrected.

. 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.

Ah I see. I've always heard apologists are the 'defenders of the faith'. I thought it included every last detail of said faith.

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.

Make up you mind first you wanted me to answer with an apologetic now you want secular evidence

The problem with your apologetic is that you seem to stand alone with that viewpoint. Never have I heard it before. I'm not appealing to the masses, but I find it odd that none of my research has ever lead me to someone with this view, whether it's an 'apologetic' or secular evidence.

Ok, here's the start of your argument:

We know Luke's account was written well before John Mark's (the Apstole Peter's protege.) Because, As I said Mark's work was not penned down till after the death of Peter.(70 AD)

Baseless assertion. Show me how you know Mark's came after Peter. I have already told you that the general understanding is that Luke and Matthew were based on Mark according to the understanding of the three, which form the Synoptic Gospels. This is backed up by the similarities all 3 share, the reason why Mark is so short and omits huge chunks of M and L, the reason why Mark has so little unique content when compared with M and L. Above all, if Mark had access to M and L and not the other way around, then why omit the birth and resurrection? Did he forget that from every single point of view (theologically, historically..) it's rather important???

Luke's work was written much earlier for a very different reason. We know this because Luke was mentioned in Collossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon which were all written in the life time of Peter.( died around 70 AD) and Paul(who was acredited to writting those three books died in 67 AD)

Remeber Luke's Letters (The book of Luke and the Book of Acts) were written to his, at the time, Master (Theopolus.) Luke's efforts in the other three books written by Paul were after Luke had been released from the service of Theolopus, and was now acting as an understudy to Paul himself. (Well before 67 AD)

So the book/The letters of Luke were written first to Theolopus for his personal/family usage. However They were not considered to be apart of the conical gospels till late 2nd century (Some say 4th century) But either way the actual text of Luke was recorded before the work of Mark was even penned.

None of this resolves the problems I've stated above.

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.

Strawman. I didn't say we don't know what Luke wrote and that evidence of his letter is from hearsay. I said the content of his letter is hearsay. He admits it himself in the beginning. Are you going to go against his word? Hear say would go something like: I will write an orderly account of what information I've gathered, which is what he said exactly. He wasn't a witness, just merely forwarding information from Mark. That is called hearsay.

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

I think you might not understand what hearsay is. So if write a letter about some event and I send it to you it means my account is not hearsay because you have my letter?!

Hearsay - unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge (dictionary.com)

It has to do with where the (in this case) author of the letter got his information. Not the fact that you're holding it in your hands.

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

Maybe I didn't word it properly, but I watched the program myself because my dad had recorded it.

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

How is this a weak statement?! Had people not dug these manuscripts out of the ground then your 'religious views' as you've stated them on this forum might go something like this.. 'atheist'.

Archaeology gave you these manuscripts. Archaeology is also suggesting a very different story about these manuscripts. Wouldn't it be sensible to look into that?

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.

Ok, fair enough. If anything, that makes my argument so much easier, because my argument is that no word in the NT comes from a single eye witness.