Of course you won't listen. Philosophy isn't for everyone. Just for the record, though, your personal attacks are arbitrary. You need to feel about your insulated worldview, by assuming that critics deserve to be punished forever since that's what your creed tells you to believe. So criticisms of Christianity must derive from wickedness, according to you. In logic, that's just a straight-up ad hominem fallacy. It's not respectable and it warrants a psychological diagnosis.

There's no cherry picking on my side. Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black since the inerrantist distorts the texts to pretend they have only one, divine author. I wasn't talking about the Gospel in the theological sense (which would include the whole New Testament, the Holy Spirit, etc), but about the four canonical gospel narratives. That's where the four decades come in. Paul's authentic epistles were indeed written earlier, but they're much less relevant to understanding the historical Jesus because Paul says he got his information only from scriptures and from a vision of the risen Christ. He focusses on the Christ of faith, not on the historical Jesus.