RE: Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics
January 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2015 at 4:37 pm by goodwithoutgod.)
Well I tried providing cited sources that say this same information, maybe he will believe it if it is on wiki 
Lets review
First gospel was mark, in which matthew and luke used as a base for their musings..
The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.
Composition
The two-source hypothesis: Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels.
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[5] A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 CE) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.[6] The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[7] The author used a variety of sources derived from accounts predating the gospel's composition, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[8]
Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms), although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternatives.[9] The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions.[10] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[11]
The synoptic problem and the historicity of Mark
The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. Their close relationship is termed the synoptic problem, and has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence. The oldest hypothesis, based on Church tradition, is that Matthew was written first, then Luke, and that Mark was a summary based on both Matthew and Luke. The most widely accepted hypothesis today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material. The strongest argument for this is the fact that Matthew and Luke only agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events when they also agree with Mark. It was once thought that this area of agreement represented the historical course of events, but early in the 20th century William Wrede argued that Mark's sequence is in fact an artificial and theological construct bearing little relationship to the actual ministry of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
gee, this all sounds familiar...almost like I said it...
lets move on
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE;[2] a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[3] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle.[4] According to the majority of modern scholars, the author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source..
wow, that sounds familiar too...interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
lets move on..
Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.
you don't say, lets read some more..
Anonymous non-eyewitness: the view that both works (Luke and Acts) were written by an anonymous writer who was not an eyewitness of any of the events he described, and who had no eyewitness sources. Or Redaction authorship: the view that Acts in particular was written (either by an anonymous writer or the traditional Luke), using existing written sources such as a travelogue by an eyewitness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...%80%93Acts
is that easier for you? I offered you cited work, recommended multiple christian sourced scholarly books that say the SAME thing. I don't use wiki, unless it puts into short layman terms a point I am trying to make, rather than regurgitating and typing up an exhaustive book review, or the hundreds of pages of notes I have on this subject. Point is, they were not written when or by whom people think, and very few scholars say otherwise...are there naysayers? of course, Ken Ham is one, people blindly believe in all sorts of nonsense, but that doesn't discredit the forensic analysis of the historicity of the bible, or the copious amount of holes within the story, the book itself, and the plethora of anonymous after the fact hearsay based authors.
Lets reviewFirst gospel was mark, in which matthew and luke used as a base for their musings..
The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.
Composition
The two-source hypothesis: Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels.
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[5] A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 CE) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.[6] The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[7] The author used a variety of sources derived from accounts predating the gospel's composition, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[8]
Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms), although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternatives.[9] The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions.[10] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[11]
The synoptic problem and the historicity of Mark
The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. Their close relationship is termed the synoptic problem, and has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence. The oldest hypothesis, based on Church tradition, is that Matthew was written first, then Luke, and that Mark was a summary based on both Matthew and Luke. The most widely accepted hypothesis today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material. The strongest argument for this is the fact that Matthew and Luke only agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events when they also agree with Mark. It was once thought that this area of agreement represented the historical course of events, but early in the 20th century William Wrede argued that Mark's sequence is in fact an artificial and theological construct bearing little relationship to the actual ministry of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
gee, this all sounds familiar...almost like I said it...
lets move on
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE;[2] a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[3] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle.[4] According to the majority of modern scholars, the author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source..
wow, that sounds familiar too...interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
lets move on..
Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.
you don't say, lets read some more..
Anonymous non-eyewitness: the view that both works (Luke and Acts) were written by an anonymous writer who was not an eyewitness of any of the events he described, and who had no eyewitness sources. Or Redaction authorship: the view that Acts in particular was written (either by an anonymous writer or the traditional Luke), using existing written sources such as a travelogue by an eyewitness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...%80%93Acts
is that easier for you? I offered you cited work, recommended multiple christian sourced scholarly books that say the SAME thing. I don't use wiki, unless it puts into short layman terms a point I am trying to make, rather than regurgitating and typing up an exhaustive book review, or the hundreds of pages of notes I have on this subject. Point is, they were not written when or by whom people think, and very few scholars say otherwise...are there naysayers? of course, Ken Ham is one, people blindly believe in all sorts of nonsense, but that doesn't discredit the forensic analysis of the historicity of the bible, or the copious amount of holes within the story, the book itself, and the plethora of anonymous after the fact hearsay based authors.
You, not a mythical god, are the author of your book of life, make it one worth reading..and living.
