(07-13-2015 08:37 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 04:48 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Just because the catholic church says so doesn't make it so. You my friend are a true catholic as you are really indoctrinated. Since when does Jesus need Mary's help in speaking for us.

My goodness, bro. THINK.

By this same logic, I hope you NEVER ask any of your friends and family to pray for you because "Jesus doesn't need their help in speaking for us."

If you have absolutely no understanding of the relationship of Mary and the Church, then don't comment on it. You are speaking out of pure ignorance.

I hope that others pray for me versus pray to me. How can a church make saints and then give them the power to bring prayers to God? One doesn't have to be canonized in order to be regarded as one of the saints. How can an organization proclaim a mortal a saint and then state that the person can be prayed to. God created the world, He doesn't need a mortals help to intercede for us. He will listen Himself.

27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:27

Of whom is this passage talking about? It's talking about disciples of God, His followers, you and I and everyone who loves the Lord. And who makes that determination? God himself as He stated that just because we call out for him but live sinful lives does not make us followers of God, it's in the Bible.

Look, I can't make you not be a catholic and you can't make me remain one either. You can believe in anything your church tells you, that's fine. But that's you. Hopefully, in the end we'll see if our faith will prove suitable for us to enter the Kingdom of God. I'm thinking that my love for the Lord according to the Bible will be my ticket to Him. He promised it in the Bible as God does not lie.

What does a fake non-believer believe in?

Huh? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

That definitely went over my head.

You tell me.

(07-13-2015 01:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 08:37 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 04:48 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Just because the catholic church says so doesn't make it so. You my friend are a true catholic as you are really indoctrinated. Since when does Jesus need Mary's help in speaking for us.

My goodness, bro. THINK.

By this same logic, I hope you NEVER ask any of your friends and family to pray for you because "Jesus doesn't need their help in speaking for us."

If you have absolutely no understanding of the relationship of Mary and the Church, then don't comment on it. You are speaking out of pure ignorance.

I hope that others pray for me versus pray to me. How can a church make saints and then give them the power to bring prayers to God? One doesn't have to be canonized in order to be regarded as one of the saints. How can an organization proclaim a mortal a saint and then state that the person can be prayed to. God created the world, He doesn't need a mortals help to intercede for us. He will listen Himself.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire concept.

1) As Catholics, we don't believe life ends at death. Jesus conquered death.

2) We ask for saints to pray for us. Of course. But indeed anyone in Heaven is a saint. Is everyone formally canonized? No. Because as Catholics, we don't claim to be sure who all goes to Heaven unless they lived an exemplary life of faith worthy of being canonized or died as a martyr of the faith (because there is no simplistic assurance of salvation like most Protestants claim). Can you still ask for the prayers of the non-canonized? Absolutely. You can ask for the prayers of anyone. God will do what he chooses with prayers, no matter the source. In fact, one cannot be canonized without first being intercessory to the prayers of the faithful.

3) This IS biblical, if you read the book of Revelation. Specifically chapters 5 and 8 you can see that the saints are offering up the prayers of the Church in Heaven itself.

Revelation 5: "And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes,[b] which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; 7 and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; 9 and they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10
and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on earth.”

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” 14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.


Revelation 8: "When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. 2 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. 5 Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth;[a] and there were peals of thunder, loud noises, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake."

(07-13-2015 01:53 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Huh? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

That definitely went over my head.

You tell me.

Just trying to be funny. So I failed. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

If it helps, both forms of Christianity are fake and if you were born in another nation, you'd just feel the same way about the religion of that region.

Are we really distinguishing between real and fake Christians OR are we trying to distinguishing between good and not so good Christians?

More along the lines of distinguishing between 'genuine, good people' and 'manipulative, self-serving people' as best I can tell.

(07-11-2015 08:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 07:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  What I think is interesting is a lot of those "real" Christians in this country couldn't care less about anyone but themselves.

True Christians are the only people on earth this who truly love everyone, even those who hate them and belittle them at every turn. Even those who would kill them and their families simply for loving Christ.

As Jesus said on the cross, "Forgive them Lord, the know not what they do". As Stephen was stoned to death for preaching the Truth, he said, Lord forgive them, "do not charge them with this sin".

THAT is a love those living without Christ can never really understand. The ability to love someone as they brutally murder you. The whole world saw this love on display recently in SC when the families of those slain one after anther stepped forward and told the shooter they they forgive him, without hesitation.

Only one who truly loves Christ or Savior can understand that, and those who do not never will without Him.

True Christians have nothing but love for you, Rob. And Christ loves you more than you will ever know. All you have to do is accept his free gift of grace and love Him back.

I have nothing but love for you Rob, and I pray they you will one day seek our Lord and ask Him for forgiveness. He can take away all your sin, all your anger, bitterness and hate... all those things we all hold inside. He can wash it all away and fill your heart with more love than you could ever imagine.

Eric and I may have a lot of differences (even for both being on the right of the spectrum) but he's hit the nail on the head. This is how a Christian is supposed to live, by example, it is not our job to judge, hate, or curse our neighbors regardless of what they do to us. None of us are sin free.

(07-13-2015 10:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If it helps, both forms of Christianity are fake and if you were born in another nation, you'd just feel the same way about the religion of that region.

It doesn't help.

Both forms are real. They both exist.

I think what you meant to say is that the beliefs they preach are fake.

Which, again, is another meaningless derp commentary from you. Which is quickly becoming your modus operandi.

weeeeeeeee

titus 3:9-11
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

I would say that the answer to the question in the OP is that it depends. If you are a member of any one particular Christian sect, then anybody who belongs to a different sect is a fake Christian, pretty much by definition. Therefore, since every Christian sect is "fake" to every other sect, then all Christians are considered fake Christians by a majority of other Christians.

Now, if you would infer from this that no one religion - Christian or otherwise - has all of the "truth" it would be hard to argue the point.

The fact few Christians ever talk about is that the only things we think Jesus may have said or done are things that were written long after his death by people engaged in an internal ideological struggle for leadership of an institution that they started. If those closest to Jesus couldn't agree on what a "true" Christian was, why would we expect that we can do so two thousand years later?

(07-14-2015 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would say that the answer to the question in the OP is that it depends. If you are a member of any one particular Christian sect, then anybody who belongs to a different sect is a fake Christian, pretty much by definition. Therefore, since every Christian sect is "fake" to every other sect, then all Christians are considered fake Christians by a majority of other Christians.

Now, if you would infer from this that no one religion - Christian or otherwise - has all of the "truth" it would be hard to argue the point.

The fact few Christians ever talk about is that the only things we think Jesus may have said or done are things that were written long after his death by people engaged in an internal ideological struggle for leadership of an institution that they started. If those closest to Jesus couldn't agree on what a "true" Christian was, why would we expect that we can do so two thousand years later?

There is such a void of logic and fact to this statement that I really don't know where to begin.

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and is patently untrue.

"Written long after his death"

Jesus died around 33-34 AD.

The Gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD.
Matthew, Luke, and John were written in the 80s (Matthew and Luke's sources were assembled in the 40s)
The letters of St. Paul were written in the 40s-60s.
Epistles of Peter, James, Hebrews were written in the 30s-60s
Epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation in the 60s-90s

(07-14-2015 09:40 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would say that the answer to the question in the OP is that it depends. If you are a member of any one particular Christian sect, then anybody who belongs to a different sect is a fake Christian, pretty much by definition. Therefore, since every Christian sect is "fake" to every other sect, then all Christians are considered fake Christians by a majority of other Christians.

Now, if you would infer from this that no one religion - Christian or otherwise - has all of the "truth" it would be hard to argue the point.

The fact few Christians ever talk about is that the only things we think Jesus may have said or done are things that were written long after his death by people engaged in an internal ideological struggle for leadership of an institution that they started. If those closest to Jesus couldn't agree on what a "true" Christian was, why would we expect that we can do so two thousand years later?

There is such a void of logic and fact to this statement that I really don't know where to begin.

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and is patently untrue.

"Written long after his death"

Jesus died around 33-34 AD.

The Gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD.
Matthew, Luke, and John were written in the 80s (Matthew and Luke's sources were assembled in the 40s)
The letters of St. Paul were written in the 40s-60s.
Epistles of Peter, James, Hebrews were written in the 30s-60s
Epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation in the 60s-90s

The chronology you suggest (which is by no means commonly accepted either by early Christians or modern scholars) certainly supports my statement that words attributed to Jesus were only written "long after his death". But that isn't really the point. Those words were attributed to Jesus by writers who had an agenda. Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

(07-14-2015 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:40 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would say that the answer to the question in the OP is that it depends. If you are a member of any one particular Christian sect, then anybody who belongs to a different sect is a fake Christian, pretty much by definition. Therefore, since every Christian sect is "fake" to every other sect, then all Christians are considered fake Christians by a majority of other Christians.

Now, if you would infer from this that no one religion - Christian or otherwise - has all of the "truth" it would be hard to argue the point.

The fact few Christians ever talk about is that the only things we think Jesus may have said or done are things that were written long after his death by people engaged in an internal ideological struggle for leadership of an institution that they started. If those closest to Jesus couldn't agree on what a "true" Christian was, why would we expect that we can do so two thousand years later?

There is such a void of logic and fact to this statement that I really don't know where to begin.

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and is patently untrue.

"Written long after his death"

Jesus died around 33-34 AD.

The Gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD.
Matthew, Luke, and John were written in the 80s (Matthew and Luke's sources were assembled in the 40s)
The letters of St. Paul were written in the 40s-60s.
Epistles of Peter, James, Hebrews were written in the 30s-60s
Epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation in the 60s-90s

The chronology you suggest (which is by no means commonly accepted either by early Christians or modern scholars) certainly supports my statement that words attributed to Jesus were only written "long after his death". But that isn't really the point. Those words were attributed to Jesus by writers who had an agenda. Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Within a few decades of his death is "long after his death?" Welp. I guess I'll apologize that the Gospels didn't fall from the sky in 34 AD to suit your desire for punctuality.

Actually it is commonly accepted unless you're one of those ridiculous-conspiracy-Jesus-was-married-to-Mary-Magdalene nutjobs (agenda?)

Scholars generally agree that:
Mark was written around 65-70 AD.
Matthew between 70 and 100 AD (majority opine closer to the former than the latter)
Luke between 60-80 AD.
John between 80-95 AD.

(07-14-2015 10:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:40 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would say that the answer to the question in the OP is that it depends. If you are a member of any one particular Christian sect, then anybody who belongs to a different sect is a fake Christian, pretty much by definition. Therefore, since every Christian sect is "fake" to every other sect, then all Christians are considered fake Christians by a majority of other Christians.

Now, if you would infer from this that no one religion - Christian or otherwise - has all of the "truth" it would be hard to argue the point.

The fact few Christians ever talk about is that the only things we think Jesus may have said or done are things that were written long after his death by people engaged in an internal ideological struggle for leadership of an institution that they started. If those closest to Jesus couldn't agree on what a "true" Christian was, why would we expect that we can do so two thousand years later?

There is such a void of logic and fact to this statement that I really don't know where to begin.

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and is patently untrue.

"Written long after his death"

Jesus died around 33-34 AD.

The Gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD.
Matthew, Luke, and John were written in the 80s (Matthew and Luke's sources were assembled in the 40s)
The letters of St. Paul were written in the 40s-60s.
Epistles of Peter, James, Hebrews were written in the 30s-60s
Epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation in the 60s-90s

The chronology you suggest (which is by no means commonly accepted either by early Christians or modern scholars) certainly supports my statement that words attributed to Jesus were only written "long after his death". But that isn't really the point. Those words were attributed to Jesus by writers who had an agenda. Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Within a few decades of his death is "long after his death?" Welp. I guess I'll apologize that the Gospels didn't fall from the sky in 34 AD to suit your desire for punctuality.

Of course it is, your snarky comments notwithstanding. Especially when many of these things were no doubt written by people who had not witnessed them, and in some cases by people who had never even met the historic Jesus. But you keep avoiding my point. The people who claimed to be reporting (or at least paraphrasing) what Jesus may or may not have said all had agendas, and often conflicting ones at that. Nobody has any way of knowing what Jesus said or intended with respect to the founding of a new religion or church. We only know the version of orthodoxy as agreed upon centuries later by those who won the ideological struggle.

(07-14-2015 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:40 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would say that the answer to the question in the OP is that it depends. If you are a member of any one particular Christian sect, then anybody who belongs to a different sect is a fake Christian, pretty much by definition. Therefore, since every Christian sect is "fake" to every other sect, then all Christians are considered fake Christians by a majority of other Christians.

Now, if you would infer from this that no one religion - Christian or otherwise - has all of the "truth" it would be hard to argue the point.

The fact few Christians ever talk about is that the only things we think Jesus may have said or done are things that were written long after his death by people engaged in an internal ideological struggle for leadership of an institution that they started. If those closest to Jesus couldn't agree on what a "true" Christian was, why would we expect that we can do so two thousand years later?

There is such a void of logic and fact to this statement that I really don't know where to begin.

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and is patently untrue.

"Written long after his death"

Jesus died around 33-34 AD.

The Gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD.
Matthew, Luke, and John were written in the 80s (Matthew and Luke's sources were assembled in the 40s)
The letters of St. Paul were written in the 40s-60s.
Epistles of Peter, James, Hebrews were written in the 30s-60s
Epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation in the 60s-90s

The chronology you suggest (which is by no means commonly accepted either by early Christians or modern scholars) certainly supports my statement that words attributed to Jesus were only written "long after his death". But that isn't really the point. Those words were attributed to Jesus by writers who had an agenda. Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Within a few decades of his death is "long after his death?" Welp. I guess I'll apologize that the Gospels didn't fall from the sky in 34 AD to suit your desire for punctuality.

Of course it is, your snarky comments notwithstanding. Especially when many of these things were no doubt written by people who had not witnessed them, and in some cases by people who had never even met the historic Jesus. But you keep avoiding my point.

No, I'm not. You said there wasn't general scholastic agreement on when the Gospels were written. That isn't true. I cited the generally accepted dates.

As far as some of the writers "who had never even met the historic Jesus," we can go through the books of the New Testament if you'd like. General consensus is also that all three synoptic Gospels pulled information from previously written "Q" sources which dated even closer to the crucifixion of Christ (around 40 AD).

St. Matthew: Apostle of Jesus.
St. Mark: Right-hand man of St. Peter, the leading Apostle of Jesus.
St. Luke: Physician of St. Paul, one of the "Seventy" disciples of Jesus (Luke 10:1-24)
St. John: Apostle of Jesus. "The Disciple whom Jesus loved."
Acts (Luke-Acts, Acts of the Apostles): St. Luke as described above

New Testament authors of books that do not directly quote Jesus:
St. Paul: lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry, persecuted Christians immediately following His death
St. James: Apostle of Jesus
St. Jude: Apostle of Jesus
Revelation and St. John's Epistles: St. John the Apostle of Jesus
St. Peter: Head Apostle of Jesus

(07-14-2015 11:18 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 09:40 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There is such a void of logic and fact to this statement that I really don't know where to begin.

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and is patently untrue.

"Written long after his death"

Jesus died around 33-34 AD.

The Gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD.
Matthew, Luke, and John were written in the 80s (Matthew and Luke's sources were assembled in the 40s)
The letters of St. Paul were written in the 40s-60s.
Epistles of Peter, James, Hebrews were written in the 30s-60s
Epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation in the 60s-90s

The chronology you suggest (which is by no means commonly accepted either by early Christians or modern scholars) certainly supports my statement that words attributed to Jesus were only written "long after his death". But that isn't really the point. Those words were attributed to Jesus by writers who had an agenda. Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Within a few decades of his death is "long after his death?" Welp. I guess I'll apologize that the Gospels didn't fall from the sky in 34 AD to suit your desire for punctuality.

Of course it is, your snarky comments notwithstanding. Especially when many of these things were no doubt written by people who had not witnessed them, and in some cases by people who had never even met the historic Jesus. But you keep avoiding my point.

No, I'm not. You said there wasn't general scholastic agreement on when the Gospels were written. That isn't true. I cited the generally accepted dates.

As far as some of the writers "who had never even met the historic Jesus," we can go through the books of the New Testament if you'd like. General consensus is also that all three synoptic Gospels pulled information from previously written "Q" sources which dated even closer to the crucifixion of Christ (around 40 AD).

St. Matthew: Apostle of Jesus.
St. Mark: Right-hand man of St. Peter, the leading Apostle of Jesus.
St. Luke: Physician of St. Paul, one of the "Seventy" disciples of Jesus (Luke 10:1-24)
St. John: Apostle of Jesus. "The Disciple whom Jesus loved."
Acts (Luke-Acts, Acts of the Apostles): St. Luke as described above

New Testament authors of books that do not directly quote Jesus:
St. Paul: lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry, persecuted Christians immediately following His death
St. James: Apostle of Jesus
St. Jude: Apostle of Jesus
Revelation and St. John's Epistles: St. John the Apostle of Jesus
St. Peter: Head Apostle of Jesus

I'm not sure why you seem so hung up on dates. Even if I were to accept everything you have said, that still does not address my one and only point. That is, the people who claimed to be reporting what Jesus said all had agendas, and they didn't all agree with each other. All we know, and can know, is how they characterized what Jesus said or believed. In orthodoxy, as in war, the "history" gets to be written by the victors. Rarely is that history "truth" as most people would define it.

(07-14-2015 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:18 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  The chronology you suggest (which is by no means commonly accepted either by early Christians or modern scholars) certainly supports my statement that words attributed to Jesus were only written "long after his death". But that isn't really the point. Those words were attributed to Jesus by writers who had an agenda. Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Within a few decades of his death is "long after his death?" Welp. I guess I'll apologize that the Gospels didn't fall from the sky in 34 AD to suit your desire for punctuality.

Of course it is, your snarky comments notwithstanding. Especially when many of these things were no doubt written by people who had not witnessed them, and in some cases by people who had never even met the historic Jesus. But you keep avoiding my point.

No, I'm not. You said there wasn't general scholastic agreement on when the Gospels were written. That isn't true. I cited the generally accepted dates.

As far as some of the writers "who had never even met the historic Jesus," we can go through the books of the New Testament if you'd like. General consensus is also that all three synoptic Gospels pulled information from previously written "Q" sources which dated even closer to the crucifixion of Christ (around 40 AD).

St. Matthew: Apostle of Jesus.
St. Mark: Right-hand man of St. Peter, the leading Apostle of Jesus.
St. Luke: Physician of St. Paul, one of the "Seventy" disciples of Jesus (Luke 10:1-24)
St. John: Apostle of Jesus. "The Disciple whom Jesus loved."
Acts (Luke-Acts, Acts of the Apostles): St. Luke as described above

New Testament authors of books that do not directly quote Jesus:
St. Paul: lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry, persecuted Christians immediately following His death
St. James: Apostle of Jesus
St. Jude: Apostle of Jesus
Revelation and St. John's Epistles: St. John the Apostle of Jesus
St. Peter: Head Apostle of Jesus

I'm not sure why you seem so hung up on dates. Even if I were to accept everything you have said, that still does not address my one and only point. That is, the people who claimed to be reporting what Jesus said all had agendas, and they didn't all agree with each other. All we know, and can know, is how they characterized what Jesus said or believed. In orthodoxy, as in war, the "history" gets to be written by the victors. Rarely is that history "truth" as most people would define it.

Most of the authors cited witnessed the ministry of Christ first hand so the "characterization" of Jesus was result of witness. Not speculation.

Saying that they "claimed to be reporting what Jesus said all had agendas" is ironic because such a baseless statement is simply YOUR agenda.

(07-14-2015 11:51 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:18 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 10:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Within a few decades of his death is "long after his death?" Welp. I guess I'll apologize that the Gospels didn't fall from the sky in 34 AD to suit your desire for punctuality.

Of course it is, your snarky comments notwithstanding. Especially when many of these things were no doubt written by people who had not witnessed them, and in some cases by people who had never even met the historic Jesus. But you keep avoiding my point.

No, I'm not. You said there wasn't general scholastic agreement on when the Gospels were written. That isn't true. I cited the generally accepted dates.

As far as some of the writers "who had never even met the historic Jesus," we can go through the books of the New Testament if you'd like. General consensus is also that all three synoptic Gospels pulled information from previously written "Q" sources which dated even closer to the crucifixion of Christ (around 40 AD).

St. Matthew: Apostle of Jesus.
St. Mark: Right-hand man of St. Peter, the leading Apostle of Jesus.
St. Luke: Physician of St. Paul, one of the "Seventy" disciples of Jesus (Luke 10:1-24)
St. John: Apostle of Jesus. "The Disciple whom Jesus loved."
Acts (Luke-Acts, Acts of the Apostles): St. Luke as described above

New Testament authors of books that do not directly quote Jesus:
St. Paul: lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry, persecuted Christians immediately following His death
St. James: Apostle of Jesus
St. Jude: Apostle of Jesus
Revelation and St. John's Epistles: St. John the Apostle of Jesus
St. Peter: Head Apostle of Jesus

I'm not sure why you seem so hung up on dates. Even if I were to accept everything you have said, that still does not address my one and only point. That is, the people who claimed to be reporting what Jesus said all had agendas, and they didn't all agree with each other. All we know, and can know, is how they characterized what Jesus said or believed. In orthodoxy, as in war, the "history" gets to be written by the victors. Rarely is that history "truth" as most people would define it.

Most of the authors cited witnessed the ministry of Christ first hand so the "characterization" of Jesus was result of witness. Not speculation.

Saying that they "claimed to be reporting what Jesus said all had agendas" is ironic because such a baseless statement is simply YOUR agenda.

It's not at all a baseless statement, for instance did any apostles question jesus as the son of god at the time they wrote the Gospels? It's absolutely fair and within reason to question the accounts of people writing about a supposed messiah if they believe in that messiah.