Proof How Your Religion Could Be Made Up

[sealybobo]

Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused.

 

[sealybobo]

To prove this point, Kahan tested Republicans and Democrats on their scientific knowledge of global warming. He found that an overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats know scientists believe CO2 causes global temperatures to rise. They also know that scientists believe that human-caused global warming leads to coastal flooding, rising temperatures and other ill effects.

And yet, when questioned outright, even highly educated Republicans underestimated the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

 

[sealybobo]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

That you Christians don't even know when your holy books were written or who wrote them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

That you Christians don't even know when your holy books were written or who wrote them.

That's more important to you than it is to me. Why is the authorship more important than what they're about?

 

[sealybobo]

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

That you Christians don't even know when your holy books were written or who wrote them.

That's more important to you than it is to me. Why is the authorship more important than what they're about?

Because I think religion is used to control people. And telling me I'll go to hell doesnt win me over or work on me.

The Mormon book seems very nice too. Why not follow that?

Don't worry its all made up. Just focus on the good stuff.

 

[westwall]

I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.

Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.

I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.

"Correlation does not equal causation". Ring a bell? Or, more to the point, the studies you reference were riddled with confirmation bias. In other words they were not done very well.

In another study it was found that sceptics of the theory of man caused global warming, who had a high number of religious believers, were more scientifically adept than the supporters of the theory.

And that study was by a Yale professor who was shocked by the result.

Actually, I read once how Christians who believe End Days are coming don't believe in Global Warming because it wasn't written in the bible. According to them, the bible is very clear about how the end of times will come and so in their minds, why bother worrying about global warming?

“The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” – Carl Sagan

When AGW theory was first promulgated I was a firm supporter. As the facts have come in.....and the evidence of widespread fraud has mounted, I have become a firm sceptic.

Trust me, that's because you lean right.

No, it's because I'm a scientist. Geology is a "hard" science. That means we actually gauge success based on measurements. Climatology is a "soft" science. That means there is a lot of subjectivity involved. It's like comparing ice dancing to speed skating. Ice dancing is "judged". Speed skating is measured. They don't care how pretty they are, they only care about who finishes first, and that is measured with very accurate tools.

Geology is the same way. We measure, climatologists talk. A lot. But they truly don't produce that much.

 

[westwall]

Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.

No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.

I'm a geologist.

I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.

I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.

Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.

I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.

"Correlation does not equal causation". Ring a bell? Or, more to the point, the studies you reference were riddled with confirmation bias. In other words they were not done very well.

In another study it was found that sceptics of the theory of man caused global warming, who had a high number of religious believers, were more scientifically adept than the supporters of the theory.

And that study was by a Yale professor who was shocked by the result.

The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming

Lately, the Skeptical Science researchers have been battling a rear guard attack from within the climate science community itself. Some social scientists, political scientists, climate change communicators—and Tol—question whether informing people of a scientific consensus serves any purpose.

To them, climate change is no longer a debate over science. The latest surveys show that 89 percent of Democrats, 79 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans already believe global warming is happening and is at least partly caused by human actions.

The implicit message is that the people who disagree with 97 percent of scientists must be very stupid

In other words, you deny global warming because of your politics, not the science.

How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Scientific American

When Rush and Fox tells you Global Warming is a hoax, you listen.

And you need to read up on how that particular "study" was summarily demolished upon review. You believe anything that MSNBC or Maddow tell you to believe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

That you Christians don't even know when your holy books were written or who wrote them.

What's your favorite book? Do you read it or do you read about the author

 

[westwall]

Cook, 42, began Skeptical Science (SkS) in 2007 as a database of peer-reviewed studies rebutting climate skeptics. Since then, SkS has grown into one of the most highly trafficked blogs on climate science. Its content is used in classrooms, textbooks, public lectures and documentaries.

Cook is a comic book editor. Not that that matters so long as he produces good work. the problem is his work is shit. Here is a wonderful example of Cooks perfidy....

"Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Popular Technology.net 97 Study Falsely Classifies Scientists Papers according to the scientists that published them


This is a "lie" in the classic sense of the word. Here is the actual scientist, discussing how Cook misrepresented his paper.

This is the sort of source material you think is good.

 

[westwall]

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

That you Christians don't even know when your holy books were written or who wrote them.

That's more important to you than it is to me. Why is the authorship more important than what they're about?

Because I think religion is used to control people. And telling me I'll go to hell doesnt win me over or work on me.

The Mormon book seems very nice too. Why not follow that?

Don't worry its all made up. Just focus on the good stuff.

You mean like the politicians are using the religion of AGW to control people?

 

[sealybobo]

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

It's as old as Nag Hammadi...what's your point

That you Christians don't even know when your holy books were written or who wrote them.

What's your favorite book? Do you read it or do you read about the author

My favorite book is a sci fi book called the bible.

 

[PostmodernProph]

And yet I could use that source for 99.9% of the arguments you theists make. Being bias of course you didnt like any of their responses. That is clear from the replies I got on usmb.

actually no.....that source only covered arguments the author WISHED theists would make.....you never bothered to read what we were saying, you just tossed out the website as if we had actually made those argument.....besides, the responses the author gave were never documented.....they were nothing more than his opinions.....

 

[sealybobo]

And yet I could use that source for 99.9% of the arguments you theists make. Being bias of course you didnt like any of their responses. That is clear from the replies I got on usmb.

actually no.....that source only covered arguments the author WISHED theists would make.....you never bothered to read what we were saying, you just tossed out the website as if we had actually made those argument.....besides, the responses the author gave were never documented.....they were nothing more than his opinions.....

So is your belief in god.

 

[PostmodernProph]

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

If you really investigate it you'll see the bibles are hearsay. All of it. Do you know what hearsay is? I hope you refute 1 & 2 on whynogod. Read it. Or would that be blasphemous?

I am afraid you have lost your bible.....

Oh no! This blog’s domain whynogod.com expired 36 days ago!

Somehow I got in yesterday? I saw that a couple days ago too.

Thanks for making the effort to go look though.

I've read your bullshit source before....it contained nothing but some idiot atheist's complaints about what he imagined Christians were arguing.....to call his lame-brained arguments "evidence" just shows how far from reality you atheists roam.......

Funny I'm getting in???

Why there is no god

1. There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
   
   The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
   
   The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] andcontradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and ispoorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
   
   See also: Visualisation of Bible Contradictions (must read), Argument from the Bible,Criticisms of the Bible, Consistency of the Bible, A Compendium of Disbelief,Deconversion: The Bible and A History of God (both must watch), BBC The History of God.
   
   Origins of the Bible: PBS Buried Secrets, CH4 Who wrote the Bible? (a must watch).
   
   “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov
   
   
2. Biblical Jesus was real.
   There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
   
   All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
   
   The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and isfactually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
   
   The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
   
   Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

I'm still getting the "dead" page....but in any event the above demonstrates what I just posted....no facts, just the author's unsupported opinion or outright lies.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

If you really investigate it you'll see the bibles are hearsay. All of it. Do you know what hearsay is? I hope you refute 1 & 2 on whynogod. Read it. Or would that be blasphemous?

I am afraid you have lost your bible.....

Oh no! This blog’s domain whynogod.com expired 36 days ago!

Somehow I got in yesterday? I saw that a couple days ago too.

Thanks for making the effort to go look though.

I've read your bullshit source before....it contained nothing but some idiot atheist's complaints about what he imagined Christians were arguing.....to call his lame-brained arguments "evidence" just shows how far from reality you atheists roam.......

Zero contemporary evidence of Jesus. All hearsay.

all the Bible's authors were his contemporaries.....as were the church members who preserved the original texts, copied and shared them, until the Bible was canonized.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

the only "scholars" why deny it are the atheist scholars......

 

[sealybobo]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

the only "scholars" why deny it are the atheist scholars......

Not true look it up. You think Luke wrote Luke? A Greek gentile wrote the bible dummy.

 

[sealybobo]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

the only "scholars" why deny it are the atheist scholars......

You need to update wiki then

 

[PostmodernProph]

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

what idiot thinks a generation occurred between Matthew and Mark....both were written within thirty years after Jesus resurrection......according to everyone Randal Helms stands at least a hundredth remove from anyone who knows anything about Biblical scholarship......