There are different opinions on when and by whom the gospels were written. The early church passed on the information and traditions verbally and it wasn't untill around 300AD that the church made the decision about what writings to include in the new testament. So it was a matter of the church deciding which books were inspired based on the already accepted doctrine handed down through the generations. Another criterian was who was determined to be the author. According to my understanding, a necessary factor was whether the person had known Christ directly or had direct access to those persons. What was written in those books was already accepted as prevailing belief and was taught before it was included in the canon of scripture.
Mathew and Luke did rely heavily on Mark for their gospels or they all relied on some othe common source. Obviously, they agreed with Mark and capitalized on his work or went to the same source Mark used. They were presenting the gospel to different audiences than Mark's and were relaying already written information.
As for the question in one post about how they could know what Jesus said in his moments alone -they're probably not word for renditions. Jesus could have told them during the 40 days he was with them after the resurrection.
As for the comment concerning my formatting - yes, it does suck.
Mathew and Luke did rely heavily on Mark for their gospels or they all relied on some othe common source. Obviously, they agreed with Mark and capitalized on his work or went to the same source Mark used. They were presenting the gospel to different audiences than Mark's and were relaying already written information.
As for the question in one post about how they could know what Jesus said in his moments alone -they're probably not word for renditions. Jesus could have told them during the 40 days he was with them after the resurrection.
As for the comment concerning my formatting - yes, it does suck.
