For anyone who actually read the Bible....

[intaglio]

75. OK, so you are admitting to a closed mind

Fact - Matthew and Luke quote from Mark therefore have to be later than Mark.

Fact - The earliest versions of Mark (Codices Siniaticus and Alexandrinus) do not include the final verses regarding the Resurrection.

Fact - Only tradition assigns the name Mark to the gospel of that name, it is not mentioned in any of the other books or epistles in the New Testament. Eusebius (who probably falsified the Testamentum Flavianum) cites an older Church father who says he heard from another unconnected 3rd party that the author was called John Mark who was mentioned in Acts. The problems with this identity are many fold. Firstly and obviously Acts does not identify this Mark with the author of a Gospel; secondly John Mark was a Palestinian Jew yet the author of Mark makes simple errors regarding Palestinian geography and custom as well as not comprehending the traditions and laws of the area.

Fact - Only tradition assigns the name of Matthew to the Gospel of that name. That name is not assigned in the text of that book nor in any other part of the Bible. Papias of Hierapolis in a work that survives does assign the name to the author but provides no detail of this claim. It is not until more than a century after the completion of this book that the elders assign it to Matthew the Tax Collector. A few elements of Matthew may be from about 50 or 60 CE but the bulk was re-written at a later date using several sources including Mark.

Fact - Luke is not named in the Gospel or Acts as author of those works. He is certainly not the Lucius mentioned in the Acts as Luke was an uncircumcised Gentile and stylistically writes as a Greek; the Catholic Encyclopedia claims the name is derived from Lucanus. The dubious Eusebius claims he was from Antioch.

Fact - John is not described in the book of that name as the author. The only indication (aside from tradition) that it is the Apostle John wrote this book is that he does not specify the Apostle of that name on stories that involve that Apostle. What is pretty certain is that it was the same person or persons who wrote the Apocalypse and the Johannine letters. The one problem comes with the theology, because the Gospel and its accompanying texts are Gnostic in character - i.e. Jesus only appeared to be a man and was not really there. The other problem is that only a few elements in the book seem to be old the rest being written or edited after the other Gospels.

I could go on at great length but I will turn to St Issa

Unless you are a Theosophist you should give no credence to the fantasy of "St Issa" because it was the invention of Madam Blavatsky and her cronies. The text has never been found by honest researchers in the area. Oh, and before you go off about how it was actually discovered by a Russian officer prior to the Blavatsky's visit please recall that the said officer knew dear Helena and much evidence says he never went anywhere near the monastery where he claimed to have been.