[Remole]

This discussion has to do with historical reliability. And one of the criteria for determing if set of data is reliable is the existnce of multiple and independent sources of information. IF Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were independent of one another as written texts, then yes one would agree with you. But it is much more likely--and this is a position held by 95% of all New Testament scholars--that Matthew and Luke have based their accounts on Mark. And thus, the 4 Gospels at this point really present 2 independent sources.

[Taliesan]

a position held by 95% of all New Testament scholars

Only if you don't count the others.

[KriegerGeist]

"This discussion has to do with historical reliability. And one of the criteria for determing if set of data is reliable is the existnce of multiple and independent sources of information. IF Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were independent of one another as written texts, then yes one would agree with you. But it is much more likely--and this is a position held by 95% of all New Testament scholars--that Matthew and Luke have based their accounts on Mark. And thus, the 4 Gospels at this point really present 2 independent sources."

Matthew and John were Jesus disciples [companions, friends]. [John] Mark was historically a close companion of the disciple Peter, so got his informattion from Peter. And Luke was a close companion of the Appostle of Paul and also wrote Acts, so, got his information from Paul and the disciples and his own experiences journeying with Paul. All four gospels were written within the first 70 to 100 years of Jesus' life.