Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[Angrboda]

"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a 'this year's fact'. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. Their reputation for 'truth and veracity' in the neighborhood where they resided is wholly unknown to us. Give us a new miracle, and substantiate it by witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of living this world. Do not send us to Jericho to hear the winding horns, nor put us in the fire with Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego. Do not compel us to navigate the sea with Captain Jonah, nor dine with Mr. Ezekiel. There is no sort of use in sending us fox-hunting with Samson. We have positively lost all interest in that little speech so eloquently delivered by Balaam's inspired donkey. It is worse than useless to show us fishes with money in their mouths, and call our attention to vast multitudes stuffing themselves with five crackers and two sardines. We demand a new miracle, and we demand it now. Let the church furnish at least one, or forever hold her peace."

Robert G. Ingersoll

[DeistPaladin]

I believe Mark was an eyewitness, since he was one of the "Seventy Disciples."

I don't think you understand what the word "eyewitness" means. If he were an eye-witness, he wouldn't base his Gospels on the preaching of another.

Even so, the witnesses I referred to were Matthew, John and Peter. You called the wrong man up to the stand.

Mark was the first Gospel. The ones that followed were clearly based on Mark. He's your "star witness". Any cross-examination of so-called "witnesses" needs to start with Mark.

One insignificant moment of "hearsay" (which is just reporting the words of another, like a journalist) is not going to kill the verdict.

Oh, you think just because I only asked about one example that this was the only one? Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness ring a bell? His prayers at the Garden of Gethsemane?

At the time, the inquisition of Jesus would have been public and recorded by official scribes.

Yet strangely these records, along with any 1st-2nd century Jewish records, are lost to history. How about that?

Also, you didn't call up the other witnesses, who are vital for fact-checking in a court case.

One at a time.

---

***Continuing with the so-called "eye-witness" cross-examination***

Me: Now, Luke, why are you here?

Luke: I'm one of the reliable "eye-witness accounts"

Me: But you're not an eye-witness and admit as much in your opening to your testimony.

Luke: Correct.

Me: I'm through with this guy!

[Minimalist]

At the time, the inquisition of Jesus would have been public and recorded by official scribes.

Pass the toilet paper, please, because you pulled that one right out of your ass.

[downbeatplumb]

At the time, the inquisition of Jesus would have been public and recorded by official scribes.

Pass the toilet paper, please, because you pulled that one right out of your ass.

Min I love your cormudgeonly turn of phrase.

[Undeceived]

I don't think you understand what the word "eyewitness" means. If he were an eye-witness, he wouldn't base his Gospels on the preaching of another.

Who said Mark based everything on the preaching of another? He may have been eyewitness to certain things, like Jesus' interrogation, death and resurrection. They were, after all, very public. And he could have gotten more private information from Peter.

Mark was the first Gospel. The ones that followed were clearly based on Mark. He's your "star witness". Any cross-examination of so-called "witnesses" needs to start with Mark.

Clearly? You are striking a verdict before the trial. Matthew and John have their own POVs on the resurrection story. Are you saying that since Mark wrote a similar version first they should be disqualified from the testifying stand? The accounts match, and yet not word for word. What else would a jury look for?

Oh, you think just because I only asked about one example that this was the only one?

Let's stick to one trial--the resurrection.

Yet strangely these records, along with any 1st-2nd century Jewish records, are lost to history. How about that?

Look into the "Dead Sea Scrolls". The Jews recorded nearly everything. And we have the parchment because it was preserved in airtight pots hidden in caves. They were hidden in caves because the Romans would soon come and burn all of Jerusalem (70AD).

[FallentoReason]

Let's stick to one trial--the resurrection.

Why did you go with the resurrection? Mark doesn't have any...

[DeistPaladin]

Who said Mark based everything on the preaching of another?

Christian scholars. Mark is the identity of a companion of Paul, who in turn saw Jesus in a vision. Church tradition states that Mark's Gospel is based on the preaching of Peter. My cross-examination is based on taking Christian claims about the Gospels at face value.

He may have been eyewitness to certain things, like Jesus' interrogation, death and resurrection.

Stop claiming Mark was an eye-witness account! Christian scholars make no such claims.

If you wish to turn Mark into an eye-witness instead of what he is claimed to be by the Christians themselves, a collector of hearsay testimony, you need to back up your claims with evidence more substantial than imagination and speculation.

They were, after all, very public. And he could have gotten more private information from Peter.

Sure and while we're at it, why not speculate that he could have been visited by angels, taken up to the third layer of Heaven and taken personal dictation from the Holy Spirit?

Sorry, I know Christians defending their holy scriptures love their ad hoc hypothesis generator but in a rational conversation, we need to see evidence to back up raw assertions.

Clearly?

Yes. That's the consensus among Bible scholars. I know you don't like to discuss scholarly consensus relying instead on your imagination, but there you go.

This is based not merely on subjective impressions but on statistical evidence. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers but it's something along the lines of Matthew including 90% of Mark, an oddity since Matt corrects so many of Marks theological mistakes. Why would an eye-witness rely on a non-witness who got so many important things wrong?

What else would a jury look for?

Something stronger than hearsay and perjurious testimony. But I'm getting ahead of myself. You'll need to wait for me to conclude my cross examination and closing arguments.

Let's stick to one trial--the resurrection.

Oh, sorry, you wish to focus on the "historicity of the resurrection"?

How about we begin that discussion by you telling me the story of the resurrection. Be sure to tell one that is consistent with all four Gospel accounts and the details related elsewhere in the NT. Do get back to me.

Look into the "Dead Sea Scrolls". The Jews recorded nearly everything. And we have the parchment because it was preserved in airtight pots hidden in caves. They were hidden in caves because the Romans would soon come and burn all of Jerusalem (70AD).

Ah, yes, the old "dog ate my homework" defense. An oldy but a goody.

[Angrboda]

I don't think you understand what the word "eyewitness" means. If he were an eye-witness, he wouldn't base his Gospels on the preaching of another.

Who said Mark based everything on the preaching of another? He may have been eyewitness to certain things, like Jesus' interrogation, death and resurrection. They were, after all, very public. And he could have gotten more private information from Peter.

[Undeceived]

Stop claiming Mark was an eye-witness account! Christian scholars make no such claims.

They do. The common consensus is that Peter and Mark were both eyewitnesses. Mark was one of the "Seventy Disciples" (Hippolytus records it), meaning he followed Jesus for a great deal of time. The question is simply which events he saw and which Peter saw. First three hits on google:
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread...r-and-John
http://bible.org/seriespage/eyewitness-t...99s-gospel
http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html
All confirm Mark as his own eyewitness. Mark never claims not to be an eyewitness, and he portrays nearly all of Israel as seeing Jesus at some point (all Jews went to Jerusalem for the Passover, during which Jesus preached). He leads his reader to believe he was an eyewitness. His willingness to pass Peter's experiences as his own shows his complete confidence in their truth--that is the culture of 1st century Israel, and that's what his readers also would have assumed.

How about we begin that discussion by you telling me the story of the resurrection.

http://www.jesuswalk.com/resurrection/2_...ospels.htm
http://www.bethinking.org/resources/q.-h...surrection-

[FallentoReason]

They do. The common consensus is that Peter and Mark were both eyewitnesses. Mark was one of the "Seventy Disciples" (Hippolytus records it),

Hippolytus was born in 170 A.D. i.e. his guess is as good as anyone's guess.

Mark never claims not to be an eyewitness

Mark never claims not to have seen aliens, therefore he encountered aliens. Yeah, that's not how it works.

and he portrays nearly all of Israel as seeing Jesus at some point

And still no contemporary writes about him. Odd.

He leads his reader to believe he was an eyewitness. His willingness to pass Peter's experiences as his own shows his complete confidence in their truth--that is the culture of 1st century Israel, and that's what his readers also would have assumed.

He has lead me to believe that he hand picked all his information from the OT and made it to suit the times that he lived in, mainly reflecting the destruction of Jerusalem. How do you explain this?