Which scholars agree that none of the apostles wrote the gospels? You keep saying that scholars don't agree with the Bible, but have provided no names, or statistics, or facts to base your arguments on - only vauge references that some scholars don't agree with a particular statement, which is true of every piece of history. 

 You were asking about the councils, and trying to say that that the councils avoided anything Pagan, I was pointing out that they did not, we were not talking about the Bible at that point.

Now as for the source of the argument the argument started when I showed you that there were no first hand accounts of Jeuss, only Dubious second hand accounts and no proof he existed, something you have failed to address

Now onto your question about the issue of Pagan myths in the bible, the whole issue of virgin birth, something very prevalent in Pagan myths, and possibly derived from the beliefs of Horus

 Where is your evidence that the Gospels were written by the apostles themselves?

Also if you want evidence just do a google search for "Dating of the gospels" and the "synoptic gospel problem", heck even Wikipedia will have the information if you're too lazy to go elsewhere, here i'll even give you the passages from wikipedia on the dates:

Beginning in the 18th century scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today most scholars agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.[4] Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century. [5] The consensus view of the contemporary New Testament scholars is that the Gospel was originally composed in Greek rather than being a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew.[6] It is nearly universally agreed among scholars that Matthew (and Luke) used Mark's narrative of Jesus' life and death, plus the hypothetical Q document's record of Jesus' sayings while the minority argue that Matthew was the first, Luke expanded on Matthew and Mark is the conflation of Matthew and Luke.[7][5]

 A wide range of recent critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

 Contemporary scholars conclude that Luke, like Matthew, relied on Mark for its chronology and on the sayings gospel Q for many of Jesus' teachings. Luke might also rely on independent written records.[7] It is probably the work of a Gentile Christian, writing c 85-90.[8]

Since "the higher criticism" of the 19th century, critical scholars have questioned the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[7][8][9]

 Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars. The writings of Justin Martyr use language very similar to that found in the gospel of John, which would also support that the Gospel was in existence by at least the middle of the second century,[25] and the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated between 125 and 160.[26]

I know that the book of Issiah doesn't predate Horus, but the virgin birth of Jesus was foretold via Old Testament passages 400+ years before the claim that Jesus was born of a virign.

As for accounts of Jesus' existance - a list:

Internal, Christian, and Gnostic Documents:

• Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. You can argue which ones weren't written by second-hand accounts, but the fact is that both Mark and John remain strong possiblities of being written by first-hand accounts. John has the strongest possibility of being authored by the Apostle John. In the case of Mark, he was a disciple of Peter - who was with Jesus during his ministry
  
• Gospel of Timothy (pseudopigrapha) - some scholars have dated it as early as 50AD, putting it well within the ability to be written by a first-hand account
• According to Papias and Quadratus, 2 of Jesus' apostles were still living late into the 1st century (such as the Apostle John). Quadratus' case, he stated that 'The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times' (which would be around 90-100ad).

External Authors & Works:

• Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews
• Tacitus' Annals
  
• Suetionious (ch 25 may contain a reference to Christ, but most certainly contains a reference to Christianity)
• Piliny the Younger - Book 10
  
• Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a - external source referencing Jesus' crucifiction near the Passover

Here's my line of logic in discussing Jesus, and Christianity:

It would seem that, through the sum of these given references, and their historical placement, that Christianity was a religion, practiced by people - by enough to be discussed - by 60AD. You can argue if Jesus existed, but that would cause you to have to provide a reasonable counterargument with reasonable proof (as much as the given dozen references I have concerning the existance of a man named Jesus, as well as the fact that Christianity was practiced by 60AD). Because of that, I would feel that in order to disprove Jesus, the burden of proof would be on you, not me, as I've provided multiple books, statements, and sources that say a religion called Christianity did indeed exist, and the figurehead of that religion is a man named Jesus, Yeshua, or something similar to that.

So Avinash, feel free to provide some documents around Jesus' time that refute his existance, or the existance of Christianity.

Mark was the first gospel written and John the lat, and most put mark after 60 AD, and really even after 70 AD, too late to be written by the Mark the Apostle

Yeah and others put the Gospel in the 2nd century well outside the ability of a first hand account

Arguing that people who knew Christ in 30 AD, and were old enough to be his followers, liked to 90-100 AD, is ridiculous in that era, that would make them in their 70's to 90's by the time, a time when medical science was no where near today's level and you expect them to be in command of their mental abilties, unlikely at best.

And the outside documents you provide were all second hand accounts

Now on to your question of Christ's exitence, by 60 AD there may have been some religion, but whether it was based on an actual person Christ or just an amalgamation of myths and rumors is unknown, I am not refuting Christ's existence as you believe, I am merely showing that it is uncertain, nothing you have shown proves Christ exists, as I have maintained since the beginning it is uncertain, that an actual person Christ ever walked the earth. I do not need to show evidence that Christ did not exist, for one thing you can't just like you can't prove that pink Unicorns don't exist, you can only show that there is no evidence they exist outside stories, well I have shown that there is no evidence that Christ exists outside stories. My point was never to disprove christ, only to show that his existence is not certain and therefore is considered myth, a sacred story with mutliple interpretations.

What's interesting is that little mention is given about John, other than that 'higher criticism' argues that John is a reliable source of info about the historical Jesus, and not the fact that he existed - Even if they argue how John discribes Jesus, it doesn't take away the fact that John was still a firsthand account.

As for evidence supporting the gospels being written by the apostles:

Matthew is argued as being legitimate based on the writings of Papias, from the late first century CE. There is a bit of modern criticism based on it, but it still remains in question. Mark was a very close secondhand account, since Mark was a disciple of Peter (who was an eyewitness of everything, according to the Bible).

Furthermore, I think that it's important we view the argument of Jesus in light of all other history - How many documents exist that discribe, firsthand, other people in the 1st century? In the case of the Emperor Nero, the 3 main authors of his life are Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. None of which were born during Nero's reign. So do we throw out the legitimacy of Nero's existance? The Roman Empire's? What's the litmus test for ancient history? Most of what we know about history, 2000 years ago, is from bits & pieces of information, yet we accept the majority of it - but with reasonable scrutiny. Just because you refuse to believe in Jesus doesn't mean that every single scholar (or even the majority) doubt his existance.

Not really as it was written between 90 and 100 AD at the earliest, meaning that a John who knew Christ in 30 AD would have been in his late 70's or 80's if it was him, very unlikely.

Also we aren't arguing about Nero or others whose existence is dubious, perhpas the stories of them are wrong as well, who knows, but here wae are discussing the fact that Christ's existence is uncertain

You are correct, John did live in his 70's or 80's. According to most scholars, he has been cited to of lived over 90 years. Well outside of normal lifespans of that age, but still possible, especially given the fact that Christian writers such as Polycarp, Papias, and Quadratus mentioned that there were still a few living people that had firsthand accounts of Jesus' life as late as 90-100CE. Very old, yes, impossible, no, given the sheer number of people that were supposedly witness (as citing the Bible) to the ministry of Jesus. 

And I understand your scepticism of Jesus' existance. But I look at it this way:

In order to believe that Jesus did not exist, you must believe that 100% of all accounts given about him are false. But in order to believe that Jesus did exist, you must believe that 1% are true. To me, those are pretty reasonable odds to believe that he existed.

Now, like Rocketpig and others - the question is to believe if Christianity paints an accurate portrayl of Jesus the Christ, which is a totally different argument altogether.

Yes I know that he is supposed to have lived that long, but to be writing the gosple at that age, is unlikely, the mind starts to go in the old age, in addition memeory is lost in that age, in addition even Scholars question based on the internal evidence of the text that it was written by John , first off the Gospel was originally cited as anoymous, it wasn't until the second century that the gospel was attributed to John, in additon there are shifts in the language, which question whether there was one person who wrote it.  Finally the fact that it was written over half a century after the death of Christ is telling, why would an Apostle wait so long to write about his "savior", especially since it was anonymous writing?

I'm not saying that Jesus did not exist, I do not make those statements, I however do question those who believe that he existed with certainty, because it is not certain, all I am sayin is there is no certainty that he existed and no evidence to verify his existence, only theories.

I guess it depends on what the definition of myth is, since your first thread said that Jesus was mythological:

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable , allegory
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone ; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b: an unfounded or false notion
3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4: the whole body of myths