Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics

[goodwithoutgod]

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.

Yes. I'll accept that. I agree that it appears that Mark, Matthew and Luke drew from the same sources. That doesn't show that they were not written by the traditional authors. It could mean that those authors are ratifying the source and it made the task easier. You seem to place no value in oral tradition though, which was really almost the complete basis for the doctrines of the first and second century church. As for Papias who was probably most influential in identifying the gospel writers, here's how he described his method for gathering information:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

You missed the point again, lets re-review.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Thus these writings were not written by those whose names they are written under (pseudepigrapha) and not by actual witnesses, as the people whose names they are written under were long dead by then...get the distinction?