If Satan wants us to Disobey God, and We end up in Hell...

the good news is that Jesus died for us so no one has to go to hell. Not a single human being. Accept or pay the price for your faults. Your right, the vast majoirty of the world is going to hell, but look around you. The majority of the world is not turning from their evil ways. they continue to disobey God's world, Lie, Cheat, Murder, Steal, Adulterate, Idolitrate, etc. YEAH WERE HUMAN YEA WE MAKE MISTAKES but guess what? We don't have to pay foir all of them. You honestly believe these people deserve to go to heaven? I'm trying to spread the word of God because of its hope and love and how it will just overall improve one's life. The real reason a person(s) going to hell is because your rejecting the single most loving thing anyone has EVER and WILL do for you. And that is Chirst's sacrafice on the cross

TheStarM4n

NO ONE deserves to go to heaven. That's the entire point. No one deserves to go to heaven, yet modern Christian doctrine holds that, solely due to circumstances beyond a person's control, one person will go to heaven while another person who deserves hell no more will go to hell. Modern Christian doctrine basically holds that heaven will be populated with the most selfish people on the planet who are perfectly content having something they didn't deserve while the rest of the world burns, not caring for one moment about their plight after going to heaven. No genuinely compassionate human being would ever accept something like that. That people genuinely believe this to be "good news" is staggering.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] A book, written by a man, who has never been to hell.

I've never been to Mars, but i can assure you there ARE aliens there. :roll:

Your "proof" is nothing but speculism.

by claiming you believe in hell, you claim you believe in the words of the bible.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="OmniGo0se"] My Purpose is also to be greater then God if he's real. I'll gain the power to destroy him and everything he has made (that is of course if he is real)OmniGo0se

There's nothing in the actual bible that contradicts science. It's the Churches who claim such non-sense, feeling they're more important because they believe in God.Nibroc420

I think there is a lot in the bible that conflict with science, the Ark and Flood for example.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

by claiming you believe in hell, you claim you believe in the words of the bible.

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Have you ever taken medieval humanities/middle ages course? alexside1

And more OT, the purgatory is discribed as a horrific thing, so i don't see hell being a relaxed place.

What part is speculation?
It's a well known fact that we don't know jezus his birthday and that we used 25 december to steal tunder....
Besides that i'm pretty sure that a great deal of people who abide by the bible see it as moral stories instead of really believing them

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I guess some people can't understand "IF" statements :|

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="lightleggy"] yes, IF, a hypotetical situation, its a hypotetical acceptance, because in order to make the statement that hell is heaven for sinners, then you are hypotetically accepting hell's existance, if you do that you are hypotetically accepting that the bible and that religion is real. seriously man, you try to look like some stephen hawkings and you cant even understand these kind of thingsBranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I dont understand? :? You're taking my hypothetical "IF" statements, and saying i believe them? Yeah ok. How about you focus on the actual problem with your bible, and that there's no proof that anything within it actually happened.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="lightleggy"] yes, IF, a hypotetical situation, its a hypotetical acceptance, because in order to make the statement that hell is heaven for sinners, then you are hypotetically accepting hell's existance, if you do that you are hypotetically accepting that the bible and that religion is real. seriously man, you try to look like some stephen hawkings and you cant even understand these kind of thingsBranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I dont understand? :? You're taking my hypothetical "IF" statements, and saying i believe them? Yeah ok. How about you focus on the actual problem with your bible, and that there's no proof that anything within it actually happened.OmniGo0se

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, etc. No detailed accounts came into written circulation or portraits made until hundreds of years later.

Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

[QUOTE="OmniGo0se"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]I already told you, there is proof. Historical proof. Learn about it.

BranKetra

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, no detailed accounts came into written circulation until hundreds of years later. Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="OmniGo0se"] It doesn't really prove anything in the bible... There may have been someone named jesus, but that doesn't make him the son of God nor does that make anything in the Bible true...Nibroc420

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, no detailed accounts came into written circulation until hundreds of years later. Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, etc. No detailed accounts came into written circulation or portraits made until hundreds of years later.

Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

BranKetra

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, etc. No detailed accounts came into written circulation or portraits made until hundreds of years later.

Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

tenaka2

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, etc. No detailed accounts came into written circulation or portraits made until hundreds of years later.

Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

BranKetra

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] What did you paste that from?BranKetra

A link would make or break both of your statements. Same goes for me. The difference here is that I know my sources are accredited...college level...

BranKetra

You havn't posted any facts or provided any links, the bit I posted came from here, but there are many many others if you want me to link http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Your "Sources" probably dont support your conclusion.
There has been no historical link that suggests Jesus Christ was ever real.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

A link would make or break both of your statements. Same goes for me. The difference here is that I know my sources are accredited...college level...

tenaka2

You havn't posted any facts or provided any links, the bit I posted came from here, but there are many many others if you want me to link http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

That's right. I won't, either.

If you want to learn, take the course or find some recently accredited material. Just to be clear, I know there are times that information is suppressed. I don't believe your link is one of them, having so many sources. The problem I have with your link is that all of the sources are from 2004-back. That's seven years of information. Not only that, but there is no copyright or accredation. There is a "last updated," but they don't specify what was. I will read it anyway, but it's a lot more credible with these things.

On the other hand, colleges still support that there is historical evidence in favor of people told in the Bible, including Jesus. Not only that, but it's same evidence that they've been using. Government record.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I guess some people can't understand "IF" statements :|

Nibroc420

sorry If I didnt explained myself properly. my point is, when you make an "if" statement, you state that you believe in the statement base. for example, if you say "if there would be a world where I could put 2+2=5 and I would be correct..:" then you are accepting that in that hypotetical scenerio you would accept that 2+2 is not 4, but 5. if you say "if hell will be a heaven for sinners" you are stating you believe in hell in that hypotetical scenenario, thus you believe in all the details that has.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="lightleggy"] yes, IF, a hypotetical situation, its a hypotetical acceptance, because in order to make the statement that hell is heaven for sinners, then you are hypotetically accepting hell's existance, if you do that you are hypotetically accepting that the bible and that religion is real. seriously man, you try to look like some stephen hawkings and you cant even understand these kind of thingslightleggy

sorry If I didnt explained myself properly. my point is, when you make an "if" statement, you state that you believe in the statement base. for example, if you say "if there would be a world where I could put 2+2=5 and I would be correct..:" then you are accepting that in that hypotetical scenerio you would accept that 2+2 is not 4, but 5. if you say "if hell will be a heaven for sinners" you are stating you believe in hell in that hypotetical scenenario, thus you believe in all the details that has.

:roll: "IF penguins could fly, that would be epicly awesome."

That's statement by no means suggests that i believe penguins can fly.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I dont understand? :? You're taking my hypothetical "IF" statements, and saying i believe them? Yeah ok. How about you focus on the actual problem with your bible, and that there's no proof that anything within it actually happened.Nibroc420

sorry If I didnt explained myself properly. my point is, when you make an "if" statement, you state that you believe in the statement base. for example, if you say "if there would be a world where I could put 2+2=5 and I would be correct..:" then you are accepting that in that hypotetical scenerio you would accept that 2+2 is not 4, but 5. if you say "if hell will be a heaven for sinners" you are stating you believe in hell in that hypotetical scenenario, thus you believe in all the details that has.

:roll: "IF penguins could fly, that would be epicly awesome."

That's statement by no means suggests that i believe penguins can fly.

Wouldn't Satan view us as being on his side? Meaning Hell would just be Heaven, but for the Hedonistic adulterers?

Which would make Heaven their "hell" because they'd have to conform to "God's rule" rather than just doing what they want?

Opinions?

Nibroc420

Hell sucks for everyone, including Satan.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

sorry If I didnt explained myself properly. my point is, when you make an "if" statement, you state that you believe in the statement base. for example, if you say "if there would be a world where I could put 2+2=5 and I would be correct..:" then you are accepting that in that hypotetical scenerio you would accept that 2+2 is not 4, but 5. if you say "if hell will be a heaven for sinners" you are stating you believe in hell in that hypotetical scenenario, thus you believe in all the details that has.

lightleggy

:roll: "IF penguins could fly, that would be epicly awesome."

That's statement by no means suggests that i believe penguins can fly.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

sorry If I didnt explained myself properly. my point is, when you make an "if" statement, you state that you believe in the statement base. for example, if you say "if there would be a world where I could put 2+2=5 and I would be correct..:" then you are accepting that in that hypotetical scenerio you would accept that 2+2 is not 4, but 5. if you say "if hell will be a heaven for sinners" you are stating you believe in hell in that hypotetical scenenario, thus you believe in all the details that has.

lightleggy

:roll: "IF penguins could fly, that would be epicly awesome."

That's statement by no means suggests that i believe penguins can fly.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] hy·po·thet·i·cal
adjective/ˌhīpəˈTHetikəl/
Supposed but not necessarily real or true

:roll: "IF penguins could fly, that would be epicly awesome."

That's statement by no means suggests that i believe penguins can fly.

Nibroc420

ehm, yeah, thats exactly my point

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, etc. No detailed accounts came into written circulation or portraits made until hundreds of years later.

Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

tenaka2

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Incidentally, the same thing is true of Socrates and other well-known historical figures. Given that Jesus was a spiritual teacher who came from a common background with no permanent home and few earthly possessions, it's little wonder that there is no physical evidence that Jesus existed. Requiring such evidence is a bit odd, however; textual criticism shows that the Gospel accounts are a recording of at least five oral traditions surrounding Jesus, some surrounding his acts and other surrounding his words. It's extremely unlikely that five different oral traditions surrounding the same person would arise if this person did not even exist at all, and combining that with the fact that other non-Christian accounts also report that such a man existed, the notion that Jesus as a person did not even exist is a tiny minority view among scholars, one that can only be supported by arbitrarily and unreasonably holding Jesus' existence to a much higher standard of proof than other historical figures.

I think I had read somewhere Jesus is a title, waesnt his real name Emanuel? (God with us) lightleggy

You're probably thinking of "Christ", which is indeed a title (hence why some people refer to him as "Christ Jesus"). "Jesus" is just his name.

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

tenaka2

Unless of course, none of the Books were written by Jesus' disciples.

BranKetra

That's pretty much what the prevailing scholarly view on them are. All of them are anonymous books whose authorship was only "established" long after they entered into circulation (which was decades after Jesus' death). Their similarities and differences make them almost certainly oral traditions about Jesus put down into writing, not firsthand accounts.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]I think I had read somewhere Jesus is a title, waesnt his real name Emanuel? (God with us) GabuEx

You're probably thinking of "Christ", which is indeed a title (hence why some people refer to him as "Christ Jesus"). "Jesus" is just his name.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Not necessarily. The way I look at is similar to scientific theory. It hasn't been disproved.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at that time and died at the command of a Roman official. Both in the Bible and in Roman record. There are other people who were in the Bible that were actual kings and the apostles who were written into historical records. Like I said, as far as miracles go, that's up for debate. After all, I wasn't there. I doubt you were there, either. No photographs, etc. No detailed accounts came into written circulation or portraits made until hundreds of years later.

Personally, I have experienced some odd things that I can't explain. Was it God? I don't know, but it wasn't normal.

GabuEx

There is no evidence of Jesus having existed.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not asinglecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came wellafterthe life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Incidentally, the same thing is true of Socrates and other well-known historical figures. Given that Jesus was a spiritual teacher who came from a common background with no permanent home and few earthly possessions, it's little wonder that there is no physical evidence that Jesus existed. Requiring such evidence is a bit odd, however; textual criticism shows that the Gospel accounts are a recording of at least five oral traditions surrounding Jesus, some surrounding his acts and other surrounding his words. It's extremely unlikely that five different oral traditions surrounding the same person would arise if this person did not even exist at all, and combining that with the fact that other non-Christian accounts also report that such a man existed, the notion that Jesus as a person did not even exist is a tiny minority view among scholars, one that can only be supported by arbitrarily and unreasonably holding Jesus' existence to a much higher standard of proof than other historical figures.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Unless of course, none of the Books were written by Jesus' disciples.

GabuEx

That's pretty much what the prevailing scholarly view on them are. All of them are anonymous books whose authorship was only "established" long after they entered into circulation (which was decades after Jesus' death). Their similarities and differences make them almost certainly oral traditions about Jesus put down into writing, not firsthand accounts.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]I think I had read somewhere Jesus is a title, waesnt his real name Emanuel? (God with us) lightleggy

You're probably thinking of "Christ", which is indeed a title (hence why some people refer to him as "Christ Jesus"). "Jesus" is just his name.

The actual verse is as follows:

"The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel." (Matthew 1:23)

"Call him" does not necessarily mean "name him". His name was Jesus.

I can understand. After all, he claimed to be the Son of God. BranKetra

Well, maybe. The Gospels show ample signs of alterations and insertions on the part of the writer, especially in the second-generation Gospels Matthew and Luke (which both used Mark in part for their basis). Scholarly opinion is much more fragmented on what precisely the real Jesus said, although there are a number of things that pretty much everyone agrees he definitely did sa and other things that pretty much everyone agrees he definitely didn't say.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I can understand. After all, he claimed to be the Son of God. GabuEx

Well, maybe. The Gospels show ample signs of alterations and insertions on the part of the writer, especially in the second-generation Gospels Matthew and Luke (which both used Mark in part for their basis). Scholarly opinion is much more fragmented on what precisely the real Jesus said, although there are a number of things that pretty much everyone agrees he definitely did sa and other things that pretty much everyone agrees he definitely didn't say.

An imaginary friend would want us to disobey another imaginary friend?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Unless of course, none of the Books were written by Jesus' disciples.

BranKetra

That's pretty much what the prevailing scholarly view on them are. All of them are anonymous books whose authorship was only "established" long after they entered into circulation (which was decades after Jesus' death). Their similarities and differences make them almost certainly oral traditions about Jesus put down into writing, not firsthand accounts.

The earliest gospel was Mark, which most date at around 60-70 AD. The next earliest were Matthew and Luke, which are dated around 70-80 AD (and must have come after Mark, given the way in which they obviously rely on it in part). John was the latest, and was probably from around 90-100 AD. Of course, their being written does not mean that they would have entered into wide circulation immediately after that; there wasn't the internet back then. :P

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That's pretty much what the prevailing scholarly view on them are. All of them are anonymous books whose authorship was only "established" long after they entered into circulation (which was decades after Jesus' death). Their similarities and differences make them almost certainly oral traditions about Jesus put down into writing, not firsthand accounts.

GabuEx

The earliest gospel was Mark, which most date at around 60-70 AD. The next earliest were Matthew and Luke, which are dated around 70-80 AD (and must have come after Mark, given the way in which they obviously rely on it in part). John was the latest, and was probably from around 90-100 AD. Of course, their being written does not mean that they would have entered into wide circulation immediately after that; there wasn't the internet back then. :P