quote:
"very similar" is not proof of rehearsed witnesses. On the contrary, it is proof of persons witnessing same events.
Well they're more than just "very similar", and not one of the authors of the three Synoptics can be reliably idenified as a witness of the events.
quote:
As to the copying, it is proof of existence of formal records at that time.
No, it isn't. There's no evidence of any other documents except, possibly one containing the material found in both Matthew and Luke and not in Mark ("Q"). And even that is disputed.
quote:
Matthew can trace Jesus geneology coz of these records.
Except he doesn't mention using any records and Luke comes up with a quite different genealogy (and spare me the fiction that Luke was giving Mary's genealogy - it's not what the book says).
quote:
How would you critic the gospel if they were not "synoptics" and varied greatly, say, name of the messiah wa Jesus (by John, Joel (by Matthew), Abraham by (Luke)? Would you believe them?
What does that have to do with what I said ? In case you've forgotten the similarities go well beyond those expected from people recounting the same events.
quote:
I'm no apologist
You're not a professional apologist, but you certainly are an apologist and showing all the faults associated with apologetics.
quote:
I disagree that co-rulerships are invented as an excuse
I've seen it done. On this forum. I don't say that there are no co-rulerships ever. I do say that they are often invented. If you disagree, why don't you find an example where there is a definite co-rulership (it must be explicitly mentioned) and one book dates the reign from the start of the co-rulership and another from the start of the sole reign. That's what you said happened. So how about just one case where we know that it happened ?
Use the "peek" function to see how I produce quotes. Or follow the
link