You just like the parts that you are able to use to bolster your position then?
Well, the atheist position is that some books of the NT may contain information about a real Jesus-like person, who said said something radical enough to start the movement, and that persons after that, deified him and reinterpreted his crucifixion (and everything else). They did this by adding new material and deleting books they didn't like. The church then endorsed all the material as a corpus, and then told Christians that it was all equally valid, no matter which anonymous author wrote it. Now, Christians can take an average view of it all, without worrying if a particular addendum has different weight.
What really shits atheists, is the way Christians skip to verses in Timothy and Hebrews without a thought of whether the quote could have been faked later, or whether Paul even knew what he was talking about.
When an atheist argues using Biblical text, he is put in the unenviable position of knowing that it's all rubbish, but trying to find those parts of it that are least rubbish, and arguing that other parts are not consistent with it, even though later writers may have "harmonised" it. (Interpolated, faked, fudged). Sure, if John is a real factual book, we should all bow down, now. If real, Christians would have the right to look at John as something which gives more information on the subject, and therefore changes the interpretation of the Matthean message.
But, if John is just a fiction, then it's not 'more information', but instead is something which is designed to pervert the interpretation of Matthew. It's not even subtle about this agenda.
Logically, we can see that Jesus could have been an apocalyptic preacher, who tried to make Jews revise Jewish interpretation of scripture towards (1) love thy neighbour (as a priority), (2) resurrection, afterlife, apocalypse. Mark and Matthew are most consistent with this position.
Incovenient quotes which bolster this are: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jesus denies being good, or a god, which is consistent with the Jewish teacher theme. It contrasts terribly against John. Nowhere in Matthew does Jesus state that you should worship him to enter heaven. He states instead that observance of Jewish law is what causes you to enter life, which contrasts against Paul, who says the law is dead.
The beginning of Matthew states: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
This is a statement that means something different if you have only read Matthew. If you add propaganda from Paul and John, then 'saving' means something different. In its Matthean context, Jesus is the teacher who preaches the new insights that will bring people to god. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
When you look through Matthew, the word 'savior' is missing (as well as any sense of it), even though Christians tend to use it a lot. In John, Jesus personally proclaims himself savior of the world, about 4 times.
Thus, John does not add information, he changes interpretation of previous information, and critically, we cannot hear the counterargument of those who wrote the original texts.
Practically all scholars (and Origenes) agree that Luke was written last, and you can see from the mere presence of Acts, that Luke's job has something to do with Paul.
Matt 11 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Luke The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Strangely, when Luke copies this quote from Matthew, he reverses 'prophets' and 'law'; perhaps to disguise the fact that he deliberately dropped the word "prophesied". Later Christians then inserted 'were', to complete the revision to Paul's perspective. What an amazing coincidence that Luke seems to screw up a critical quote, when he needs to support Paul.
As I said before, Luke suddenly knows what and where the Kingdom is, whereas previous writers never mention it.
Changes by addendum.
He introduces Jesus as The Messiah in Matt 1: 1.Coupled with the rest of the book I think they would have no trouble .Of course they would have to be saved by Grace...it's the only way.They knew The Messiah was to come and " save them from their sin".
You say it's the only way to be saved, because the church has told you that Paul says it's the only way, because Paul said the law was dead. His argument was that we are all 'cursed', But the Hebrew 'curses' in Duet 28 are all for this world, not to obstruct you entering heaven, because the Jews did not believe in one. Bait and switch con.
The way to get into heaven, presented by Jesus in Matthew, is to love your enemy, give all your money away, blah blah... be perfect as God is (5:48). Only Paul says the law is dead. Beware false Christs, Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus couldn't get the message out on the first attempt, so he needed Paul to channel him. Yeah, right. If Jesus screwed up so badly on the first attempt, then why didn't he come back again?
You don't seem to grasp what was said in Matthew judging by your earlier statements about it.
Probably because I'm looking at Matthew, and not addendums by Jesus 2.0
What's to think about? I see them as complementary.They wrote about different aspects of what they saw and learned as they were inspired to.Like Lazarus...obviously it was covered well enough for you to learn about him around 2000 years later.
Right, so Matthew knew that John would come along and cover it, so left out the most important miracle of Jesus.
Why would they have to know what laws to keep if "Jews didn't have to worry ......"?
Jews didn't fear sheol as Hell.
Job 14:13 O that thou wouldest hide me in sheol, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
Job 17:13 If the only home I hope for sheol
Job 21:13 They spend their years in prosperity and go down to sheol in peace.
2 Samuel 22:6 The cords of the grave coiled around me; the snares of death confronted me.
Psalm 6:4 Turn, O LORD, and deliver me; save me because of your unfailing love. 5 No one remembers you when he is dead. Who praises you from the grave?http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/149.htm
Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Fear of hell was an addendum, believed by certain sects. It is not present as a repetitious threat in the Torah, but only as crypto-quotes, requiring addendums (midrash) to 'clarify'.
I don't think it does.Are you referring to " The Rich Young Ruler"?