Symmetry:
This entire post is going to sound like a cop out, I will confess to throwing the word manuscript about too freely. I like to be precise, and in my rush to post and get out the door, I failed to reread and edit.
I'm going to guess that you've got the Peter von Minn article. Note on his sources that nothing is newer than '87. There has been a lot of debate since, and we certainly have fragments of Matthew from the 1st century,(contested, of course, but everything is) as well as the mentioned ones of John from 125. (also contested) The Manuscripts you mentioned are later than 300, but the attestation to those books canonicity by the church fathers is concreted much earlier, by 200. If your debate is here, I can only say that the discrepancies which are found tend to be spelling errors, inconsequential word substitutions, and word order changes which don't change the meaning. These are clerical errors, not, as has been previously suggested, rewrites. Keep in mind also that you've got, simultaneous to the remaining written record, the oral tradition. John the elder lived into his late 90's, probably putting his death sometime after 100. His students would then still be alive through the early dates of the Muratorian canon.
I don't care to debate what is considered non-canon, I will not, cannot defend it. The canon lists varied early on, but once the criteria were established, they became consistent. Certainly there is some schism here between the Catholics and Protestants, on the cannon, but that occurred much later, so I'm not exactly sure what 2 books your referring to.
The ending of Mark is in debate, certainly. But the "addition" does not contain anything not attested elsewhere. If you choose to view Mark as the source for Matthew and Luke, than it may be a problem. However, Luke states that he did original research, so we would expect him to verify any of Marks material prior to using it.
I find your last statement very troubling. You go from "There are some books which were not included in the canon, and some additions to mark, and the dates aren't as close as I would like" to "We don't have the original intent of the authors" which seems to be a leap of faith colored by a previous commitment unbelief.
comic boy:
Belief in God is innate. Feel free to argue with me, the fact is, people tend to believe in God, even if they don't have any allegiance to a particular expression.
Christianity is the most logical and internally consistent belief system about God. Again, feel free to argue with me, but the system as a whole works better and is more satisfying than any other.
I find your accusation of arrogance a tad hypocritical, if only because you are insisting you are more valid than I, which would, by your argument, be arrogant as well. I don't find studying the evidence and asserting a truth claim about it arrogant, I find it prudent.
As for agnosticism, I find that agnostics tend to be those who (in the words of a philosophy professor) punt on first down. Don't just throw up your hands and say "We can't know" - study it, work with it, figure it out.
I think agnostics should make a decision, but to each his own, I suppose.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
, so I think I should have apologized to you if my post earlier was overly critical, or if it read as an attack on the intentions of Christianity. I'm pretty much agnostic, but I can feel Christmas spirit too. PM me if you'd like to discuss textual evidence further, but I can't claim any ground on what the original authors did or didn't intend.
This is what actualy brought gnostisism into the world, a man (I believe a
Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well 
