Astynax27 :

If you are going to make these unsubstantiated claims about the Bible, I would challenge you to follow this link and watch this 40 minute talk by Voddie Baucham titled, "Why I Choose To Believe The Bible." He addresses all of the claims you have made here and shows that frankly, those claims don't hold any water. After watching, I would be interested to hear your response. If you take the time to do so, I thank you very much. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZNXMJGYNG8

play4fun : The Gospel of Luke may very well have been written by a Pauline follower named Luke but the point I was trying to make was that the majority of the NT (and OT) was written anonymously like Asytnax originally stated. Figuring out who wrote something using a variety of clues does not change the fact that the author was originally anonymous.

Since this thread is about comparing wikipedia to the Bible I will use this analogy. If we somehow figured out who entered any given wikipedia article it would not change the fact that the author was anonymous.

smotpoker86 : How can you say "majority of the NT" when nearly half of the NT are already Pauline letters, written in letter form, with Paul's greeting in the beginning of all of those letters?

Also, you were the one who asked about how one can figure out Luke was the author for the Gospel of Luke and that is what I showed. Like I said, we know that they don't have their names on them and obviously they didn't give a title for them. You gotta also remember that they used scrolls during that time. They don't put titles on their scrolls, or chapters, or verses, or anything like that. They just have multiple scrolls to become the equivalent of a book. So for us modern readers, to make it easier for us to find certain passages and combine 66 books together into one book, you give them a title and chapters and verses. If you look at older versions of the Bible, the names of the books are longer and more complete. For example, Luke is called The Gospel According to Luke. It is written as Luke now because it is shorter for people to remember, but Luke has always been The Gospel According to Luke.

All of this can be said the same with the other books in the Bible. I think the one book that is really in heavy dispute on who the author is would be the Book of Hebrews. There is a range of possible authors for this book, from Paul to Apollos to Barnabas to Luke.

play4fun : I can say the majority of the NT is anonymous because most of it is.  Paul's letters make up a large portion of the NT but half of "his" letters are debatable in regards to their authorship.

There isn't much of a dispute about the Book of Hebrews, as it makes no internal claims about the author , or in other words it was written anonymously. Although Paul's letters do make internal claims of being written by him, half of them are considered to be fraudulent and not actually written by him. Half of his letters are considered to be undoubtedly Paul's so scholars use these letters to compare content and style against the claimed to be falsely authored letters like 1 & 2 Timothy.

Many other books are also either anonymous like Mark or are debatable not written by the proposed author like the Johannine sections of the Bible.

Perhaps I shouldn't use the word "anonymous" for works such as Luke. I mean even if at the time it wasn't common knowledge who wrote the letters to Theophilus it is likely that at least Theophilus himself would have known who sent the letters. It is too bad the author doesn't describe who Theophilus was to any depth as that is the key to dating the authorship and help determine exactly who the author is.

I mostly agree with your statements about scrolls and titles. All of these books are independent of each other, they weren't intended to all be part of a collection or canon. They also weren't intended to be sitting on every one's bedside table. I mean Paul didn't send out letters to  all these different churches telling them how to run the show just so they could all be compiled into one body of work. This, in my opinion, is a large reason why there are so many discrepancies and contradictions through out the different biblical accounts.

smotpoker86 : Paul's letters make up a large portion of the NT but half of "his" letters are debatable in regards to their authorship.
Just because someone around the recent time You need to look at the reason to why they would think that. What you should know about Jewish penmanship is that they are very serious against works that seem to be from them, but are writing against what they said. Which is not the case here, because 1 and 2 Timothy is consistent with what was talked about from other of Paul's letters.

I did a little lookup on the reasons of why they think Paul didn't write the pastoral sections (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) is not because they think they are fraudulent, but because they think that the descriptions of a church hierarchy didn't exist when Paul was alive, which I would have to disagree on that because Timothy himself became a bishop and he was alive when Paul was alive (Paul mentions him in other letters), but it has nothing to do with it being fraudulent.

There isn't much of a dispute about the Book of Hebrews, as it makes no internal claims about the author , or in other words it was written anonymously.
I wasn't saying that was the debate on whether if it is anonymous or not, the debate is on who actually wrote the book.

Many other books are also either anonymous like Mark or are debatable not written by the proposed author like the Johannine sections of the Bible.
The Johannine section dispute is rather new to me, but when I looked up the dispute, and the discrepancy is whether John the Apostle and John the Presbyter are the same person or different, which I don't see how the author for the Gospel of John is different to 1 John- 3 John, because what is emphasized in these books and the content are related to each other. (A huge emphasis on what love is)

It is too bad the author doesn't describe who Theophilus was to any depth as that is the key to dating the authorship and help determine exactly who the author is.
Why would he? Luke was writing the Gospel to him. Describing Theophilus isn't important in that.

"I mean Paul didn't send out letters to all these different churches telling them how to run the show just so they could all be compiled into one body of work."
This is partially true. I can't say for sure what their intentions were to what to do with the letters, but they do take the letters to be authoritative and that is worth keeping and sharing to the other churches. For example, in Colossians 4:16, it was even commanded to share the letter not just to the Colossi Church, but also to the church of Laodicea.

"And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea." (Colossians 4:16)

Also you see the Apostle Peter referencing Paul's writing as scripture, and talked about the people who are ignorant and unstable would twist his words just like how they do it to other scriptures.

"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

This, in my opinion, is a large reason why there are so many discrepancies and contradictions through out the different biblical accounts.

Again with this blank claim that there are discrepancies and contradictions. People can say this all they want, but they don't have the crucial examples to back it up. When they did, they were answered. It's just a matter of looking for those answers. The gospel accounts don't contradict each other.