[I saw just one line from one of the posts more recent than the last one I replied to, and that one line was something to the effect that all of the authors of the little books of lies contained in the Little Book of Lies, all of those authors were personally acquainted with the (supposedly) historical character, jesus. So I'm ignoring the rest of all the other lines in that and the other posts in this thread, to dispense with that one particular bit of disinformation. I don't know who the author of the following is, but it might be Hayyim ben Yehoshua. My apologies to the author if that turns out to be incorrect.]

Modern scholars now claim that the unknown author of Mark was a non-Palestinian non-disciple, which would make his story mere hearsay. What evidence do we have for this assertion? First of all, Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges. For example, in Mark 10:12, he has Jesus say that if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. As G. A. Wells, the author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus puts it,

"Such an utterance would have been meaningless in
Palestine, where only men could obtain divorce. It is
a ruling for the Gentile Christian readers... which the
evangelist put into Jesus' mouth to give it authority.
This tendency to anchor later customs and institutions
to Jesus' supposed lifetime played a considerable role
in the building up of his biography."

                One further evidence of the inauthenticity of Mark is the fact that in chapter 7, where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus is made to quote the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah in order to score his debate point.

                Unfortunately, the Hebrew version says something different from the Greek. Isaiah 29:13, in the Hebrew reads "their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote," whereas the Greek version--and the Gospel of Mark

Modern scholars now claim that the unknown author of Mark was a non-Palestinian non-disciple, which would make his story mere hearsay. What evidence do we have for this assertion? First of all, Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges.

 Since we are now in the habit of reading only the first sentence of a post, I will state that the author of the gospel of Mark, John Mark, was the son of a Jerusalem widow whose home became a meeting place for the early Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) At the time the events of the gospels were taking place, Mark was probably a minor and too young to have been one of the disciples, although not too young to have heard the accounts from the disciples themselves, (likely Peter). It may have been written as early as AD 50, but in any case before Peter's execution in AD 65.
 Luke, the author of the gospel bearing his name, was also not one of the twelve disciples, but a medical doctor and a companion of Paul the apostle.It is likely he wrote his accounts between AD 59 and 63.  Intending his book to be a general account, Luke wrote this gospel as a letter to someone he identifies as 'most excellent Theophilus'(Luke 1:3) Each gospel was written by a different person,at different times and places, for different people and for different reasons.Although they do support each other extremely well, it would be quite unreasonable to expect that the 4 gospels would turn out to be 'carbon copies' of one another.

[Thanks for your patience, all.]

8d82thebone says:

Have accounts of historical events not been written by people who were not there to actually witness those events?

Have these events been offered as "Divinely Inspired Word of God incapable of internal contradictions and unworthy of questioning" as the new testament is claimed to be?
If not, what's your point?

As I am a Canadian I will use an author such as Pierre Berton (an author who wrote about the Canadian history of everything from the building of the national railway to the First World War) Was he there? No. Are his accounts accurate? Yes. Would his accounts be identical to someone else's? Likely not...

Did he use actual accounts from eye-witnesses, or make stuff up, like the authors of the christian new testament did?
But I know whereof you speak. A Government of Our Own * is most probably a MUCH more accurate account of the formation and political position of the Confederate States of America than the usual textbooks used in schools, because the author of A Government of Our Own used the journals, newspapers, and letters of those who were there and written at the time of the events discussed and who were involved in the formation of the Confederacy and listed them for easy reference and to make checking up on his account easier, or even possible, (unlike the authors of the n.t.), whereas the textbooks tend to take the position of the winning side, as demanded by that side's government, which has a vested interest in promoting its own p.o.v. .

So lets go through your examples of 'mistakes' and I'll do my best to answer them.

Fodder for a whole thread. I don't remember the title of this one, and don't know yet if it's off-topic, but I will know as soon as I post this, won't I?

______
* the author's name escapes me, but I have a copy and can look it up, if desired.

My point in using the example of an author like Berton was that he did use eyewitness accounts in some of his books when possible. Obviously the older the topic, the less likely that this would be the case. Details of his historical accounts (dates,names etc.) are in line with details of other accounts, so they can generally be accepted as accurate.
 In the case of the gospels of Mark and Luke, eyewitness accounts were available to them. While some minor details in the gospels may differ slightly from one to the next, ie. Matthew 28 says that" Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" went to Jesus' tomb "at dawn", while John 20 only reports Mary Magdalene went there "while it was still dark". Mark's gospel states that the women were already on the way to the tomb as the sun was beginning to rise. Do these differences in details change the fact that all reported that the tomb was empty when they got there? Absolutely not. No matter which account you read, you get the same idea - early on the third day, women went to Jesus tomb and found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty.
 It is important to note that the gospel writers' accounts withstood the scrutiny of their peers, and also to note that no credible contemporary accounts refute these writings.
 You have made several charges that the New Testament is a lie; this would be the part where you give the supporting evidence.

NJC:
Really? The THIRD day?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all said that the crucifiction was the Ist day of Passover, the 15th day of Nissan. BUT John says the day before Passover, 14th day of Nissan. If you don't know which day to start counting from, how can we trust you to arrive at "the third day" for the alleged resurrection?

Tony's reply:
Please cite book, chapter and verse njc.

Mark 15:42-44:

njc wrote:
Of course all the gospels assert it was "the third day," but they disagree which day they should start counting from.
That means, they were not reliable as to what was the third day. If jesus was crucified on the 14th, the third day would be the 17th. If he was crucified on the 15th, the third would be the 18th.
Matt 26:18, Mark 14:12, 16-17, and Luke 22:13-15 all seem to agree that the zombie-god took part in the Passover meal with his disciples. John sharply contradicts this by saying the mean christians call "the last supper" was before the Passover. In John 13:1, he wrote, "Now before the meal of the feast of the Passover... (2) and the supper being ended..." He carried out this timeline, and says that jesus did not partake of the Passover. John 18:28 says, "Then led they jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement; and it was early, and they themselves went not into the hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. John 19:14, "And it was the preparation of the Passover and about the sixth hour, and he saith unto the Jews, 'Behold your king.' "
It makes a difference.

Tony's reply:
If you'd read John's account yourself you wouldn't make such strange statements.
Joh 13:1-4  Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus, being aware that His hour came that He may be proceeding out of this world to the Father, loving His own who are in the world, He loves them to the consummation."  (2)  And at the coming of dinner, the Adversary already having cast into the heart of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, that he may be giving Him up,  (3)  Jesus, being aware that the Father has given all into His hands, and that He came out from God and is going away to God,  (4) is rising from dinner and is laying down His garments, and, getting a cloth, He girds Himself."

They would lie down and eat their dinner around a table. After eating they would rise. So Jesus did eat the passover with his disciples that night.

Here is Matt.26:18 etc. you reference:
Mat 26:17-21  Now, on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where art Thou wanting we should be making ready for Thee to be eating the passover?  (18)  Now He said, "Go into the city to so and so, and say to him, 'The Teacher is saying, "My appointed time is near. With you am I holding the passover with My disciples."'"  (19)  And the disciples do as Jesus arranges with them, and they make ready the passover."  (20)  Now, evening coming on, He was lying back at table with the twelve disciples."  (21)  And at their eating, He said, "Verily, I am saying to you that one of you shall be giving Me up."

Here is Mark 14:12; 16-17 you referenced:
Mar 14:12 And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, His disciples are saying to Him, "Where dost Thou want us to come away that we should be making ready, that Thou mayest eat the passover?

Mar 14:16-18  And His disciples came out and came into the city, and they found it according as He said to them. And they make ready the passover."  (17)  And, evening coming on, He is coming with the twelve."  (18)  And, at their lying back at table and eating, Jesus said, "Verily, I am saying to you that one of you who is eating with Me shall give Me up."

Here is Luke 22:13-15 which you referenced:
Luk 22:13-15  Now, coming away, they found it according as He had declared to them. And they make ready the passover."  (14)  And when the hour came, He leans back at table, and the twelve apostles with Him."  (15)  And He said to them, "With yearning I yearn to be eating this passover with you before My suffering."

I see no contradiction. I see nothing where you say some of them said he was crucified on different days.

njc wrote:
So the new testament can't be trusted to be telling the truth.
In Matthew 12:38-40, the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees are said to have asked Jesus for a sign. Jesus said that the only sign they would receive would be the sign of Jonah: he would rise after being in the grave for 3 days (Mark 8:11-12). Strange isn