But WHERE does it say so? And why THESE four Gospels? What about the other forty? Who had the authority to determine the canon of the New Testament and why?
Am I a fool for believing that John wrote John and Luke wrote Luke?
No, you're not a fool, just uninformed. In fact, you'll probably lose your lunch if you do a little scholarly research and realize that Matthew is a composite of Mark and the "un-inspired" Gospel of "Q", and written not by Matthew, but his disciples. The Gospel of Matthew, in its entirety is infallibly inspired. "Q" by itself is not. And God obviously inspired "Matthew" to use elements from "Q" to round out his work. But it's an attributed work of Matthew, not an evident one.
OK, so I think you are saying that I am foolish for believing the bible is inspired and not knowing what group of people picked what books are really inspired. And/or I'm also foolish for not giving them credit for picking which books are inspired since I obviously so totally believe in the inspiration and value of what they selected.
"Matthew is a composite of Mark and the "un-inspired" Gospel of "Q""
I'd be careful about hanging my hat on Q. There is no evidence for its existence. AT ALL! NONE! Yet, we are supposed to take a theory that is substantially based on its existence. This totally disregards the fact that Matthew was written first, according to universal tradition, and that Mark is a composite of Luke and Matthew read side by side and put together. I have never understood why supposed "scholars" totally discount the external evidence that Matthew was written first.
Here is a link to a very good "bookette" on the subject of the Clementine Tradition (Matt, Luke, Mark order). I think you will enjoy it, and you will see why some in the 1800's pushed Mark first despite NO evidence for Q. (hint, it was an anti-Catholic push - go figure).
http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
Regards