Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[DeistPaladin]

Thanks Undeceived. If you're done quoting blogs and forum posts to support your fantasy about Mark, I'll quote reputable published sources.

Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark, who is supposed to have composed it in Rome as a summary of Peter’s preaching. Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition. …Mark appears to have drawn upon a rich variety of oral traditions of Jesus’ actions and teachings… Mark ends abruptly at 16.8. …In some later manuscripts, Mark’s story was "completed".

-New Oxford Annotated Bible, NT, p57

This candid review of Mark comes to us from mainstream Christian scholarship, not from a skeptic essay. But hey, what do the folks at Oxford University know, right. I'm sure your bloggers, forum posters and fringy apologetic sources know more than they do.

Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:

MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!

[Colanth]

Judaism is the prophecy of Christianity

Only to Christians, and only about 1,600 years after the fact. The Hebrews who actually wrote the Bible weren't prophesying any new religion. IOW, this assertion is nothing more than a baseless assertion, belied by the facts.

Christianity crosses more barriers and people than any other religion has.

Argumentum ad numeram, and just as bankrupt as it's ever been. Even if every single person on the planet was, and always had been, Christian believers, that would say nothing about the validity of the belief.

Try something a little less fallacious.

Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:

MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!

In fact. we have absolutely nothing written about Jesus by an eye-witness. (Saul came on the scene after Jesus supposedly died, and he's the earliest writing we have.)

[Undeceived]

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.

He's 1830 years closer to the fact. He had contemporary writings we do not have. Are there any opposing accounts of Jesus or his disciples?

And still no contemporary writes about him. Odd.

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aready...efault.htm
There are some. They are dated later, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an earlier copy. Remember, the first copy on Alexander the Great showed up 400 years after his death.

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?

What leads you to believe he picked all his information from the OT? He has Jesus destroy the Law that everyone keeps--why? And why have the Law-keepers kill the hero at the end?
The destruction of Jerusalem may not have happened until after Mark's Gospel was written (since most scholars believe Acts in 62AD was written first).

I'll quote reputable published sources.

The one you posted fails to address the eyewitness. It only states that we're not positive who wrote Mark. Anonymous means there is no internal identification. The external identification “According to Mark” was affixed in the 2nd century. Named Mark or not, the book was written by a man who wrote like he was reporting events. 2nd century Christians knew better than us who wrote it. Your quote has one odd line: "Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition." Who are these modern scholars? And what does 'little evidence' mean? There is more evidence that Mark was the writer than the contrary. Could you post their reasoning?

---

In fact. we have absolutely nothing written about Jesus by an eye-witness.

John and Matthew are considered eyewitnesses. John even identifies himself as an eyewitness with his phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" describing himself, and then John 21:24. Early church tradition holds Matthew as writing his namesake Gospel--i.e. all the bishops attending the councils agreed.

[FallentoReason]

He's 1830 years closer to the fact.

And 140 years too late.

He had contemporary writings we do not have.

Any evidence for this claim?

Are there any opposing accounts of Jesus or his disciples?

What do you mean by 'opposing'?

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aready...efault.htm
There are some. They are dated later, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an earlier copy. Remember, the first copy on Alexander the Great showed up 400 years after his death.

None of these are contemporaries as they all wrote after the alleged death of Jesus.

What leads you to believe he picked all his information from the OT?

At times his account is almost word for word from the OT. We're talking trivial parts, NOT prophecy.

He has Jesus destroy the Law that everyone keeps--why? And why have the Law-keepers kill the hero at the end?
The destruction of Jerusalem may not have happened until after Mark's Gospel was written (since most scholars believe Acts in 62AD was written first).

These are good questions that I'm still trying to understand myself. All I know is that he most likely wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem because so far all the allegories I have found are linked to parts of the OT which talk about punishment from God for the Jews' sins in the form of destruction. To me, the Gospel of Mark seems to be a reaction to the tragedy the Jews went through.

[DeistPaladin]

Remember, the first copy on Alexander the Great showed up 400 years after his death.

I hold Jesus to a much higher standard than Alexander the Great, as has already been explained to you.

To repeat why, Alexander the Great was a mortal man. Jesus was supposedly a miracle working god incarnate. The more extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence.

The one you posted fails to address the eyewitness. It only states that we're not positive who wrote Mark.

Oh, it says far more than that. Read it again. Mark is:

1. An anonymous source
   
2. Attributed to Mark by tradition
   
3. "Draws upon a rich variety of oral traditions" (translation: collection of dubious hearsay accounts)
   
4. Ends abruptly at 16:8. Later versions added more to the story, indicating that the tale got better with the telling.
   

Anonymous means there is no internal identification. The external identification “According to Mark” was affixed in the 2nd century. Named Mark or not, the book was written by a man who wrote like he was reporting events. 2nd century Christians knew better than us who wrote it.

Fill in the blanks with your imagination as you like but reputable Christian scholars only claim that it was attributed to Mark by tradition and there's "little evidence to support that theory".

Your quote has one odd line: "Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition." Who are these modern scholars? And what does 'little evidence' mean? There is more evidence that Mark was the writer than the contrary. Could you post their reasoning?

Did I mention these are mainstream Christian scholars, not skeptics. When my opponent concedes, I usually am not in the habit of cross-examination of that concession.

Do your own research if you wish to discredit their own admissions and this time be ready to do better than "some guy on the web with a blog says..."

John and Matthew are considered eyewitnesses.

We've already established Matthew is a liar who's testimony should be summarily thrown out.

Stay tuned for my cross-examination of John.

John even identifies himself as an eyewitness with his phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" describing himself, and then John 21:24.

An odd way to describe oneself, wouldn't you agree? "God loves me best".

[Minimalist]

Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:

MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!

You'll need a mallet and a spike to get through the thick skull of that shithead, D-P.

[Undeceived]

Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:
MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!

Evidence?
Seriously though, ultimately the argument is whether the Gospels are reliable and trustworthy. If you believe Mark wasn't a witness because of lack of evidence, I have nothing else to say. If you're going to start quoting scholars questioning Mark's authorship at all (based on lack of evidence for his authorship), what can I say to that? I presented my case that Mark probably wrote the Gospel of Mark, and that, given textual clues and a chance line from Hippolytus, he probably was an eyewitness. If that’s not enough to convince you, fine. I set out to show how the Gospels were likely constructed, as well as how 2nd century Christians would have seen them, and you began demanding more “extraordinary evidence.”

"Draws upon a rich variety of oral traditions" (translation: collection of dubious hearsay accounts)

That’s your translation, and it as no backing. We have no evidence of any embellished oral accounts. The idea of the Jews being liars and turning truth into fiction is groundless. The OT has three thousand years of copies—and has never changed once. The NT two thousand. Are you saying that the extra opportunity to lie in oral tradition would have resulted in changes? First off, Mark has a mere thirty years to gather these distortions (during which witnesses were still alive). Second, I question how much “extra opportunity to lie” there really was. If multiple people telling the story each embellished their own way, which do we now have? And wouldn’t one have rebuked another, saying “that’s not how it happened!” Also consider this is part of a religion they follow to the letter. The Jews had an extremely legalistic mindset. They have 613 mitzvot, plus traditions to interpret them. They had official scribes and would destroy Torah copies if one word was missing in transcription.

At times his account is almost word for word from the OT. We're talking trivial parts, NOT prophecy.

Which parts, if you wouldn't mind?

[Anomalocaris]

Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:

MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!

You'll need a mallet and a spike to get through the thick skull of that shithead, D-P.

They don't have skulls, Min. Skulls would only evolve if there is a brain to protect.

[DeistPaladin]

You'll need a mallet and a spike to get through the thick skull of that shithead, D-P.

Plenty of paper towels and Clorox Wipes for all the shit that will likely splatter everywhere. He's really full of it.

---

Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:
MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!

Evidence?

Excuse me a moment...



...OK, I'm back. Re-read my previous posts where I've been patiently trying to correct your delusion that Mark was a witness. I'm done repeating myself.

If you're going to start quoting scholars questioning Mark's authorship at all (based on lack of evidence for his authorship), what can I say to that?

I know I didn't mention this before but these are Christian scholars, not skeptics. They acknowledge that Mark is of dubious authorship. I suggest you go buy a plane ticket to England and take it up with them. Present your evidence to Oxford that Mark was not only the author of his Gospel but that he was an eye-witness to the events in the alleged life of Jesus. I'm sure they'll be impressed by your presentation.

I'm not here to cross-examine a point that has been conceded by mainstream Christian scholarship.

I presented my case that Mark probably wrote the Gospel of Mark, and that, given textual clues and a chance line from Hippolytus, he probably was an eyewitness. If that’s not enough to convince you, fine. I set out to show how the Gospels were likely constructed, as well as how 2nd century Christians would have seen them, and you began demanding more “extraordinary evidence.”

What you presented were blogs and forum posts. I'm going to go with the good folks at Oxford University. I seem to have heard that name before. I assume they know better than some-guy-with-a-blog.

That’s your translation, and it as no backing.

So now you're disputing that oral history and folklore aren't as reliable as documented history?

We have no evidence of any embellished oral accounts. The idea of the Jews being liars and turning truth into fiction is groundless.

Actually, that's the way it works in ALL cultures, Jewish and otherwise. Oral history and folklore are by their very nature prone to embellishment. Further, it's a very simple matter for fiction to make its way into urban legend and then to "true story". This sort of thing happens today, even in our modern age where debunking an urban legend is just a Snopes check away.

The OT has three thousand years of copies—and has never changed once. The NT two thousand.

I know I haven't mentioned this before but MARK CHAPTER 16! Here we have a classic example of embellishment that we know about and is not disputed by Christian scholars.

First off, Mark has a mere thirty years to gather these distortions (during which witnesses were still alive).

Try at least 40 years according to mainstream Christian scholarship where the date of authorship is placed at 70 CE (in reality, more like a century but I'm taking Christian claims at face value).

Furthermore, how long was George Washington in the grave before that melodramatic folklore about the cherry tree was told? Did anyone cry "false"? Elvis was not long dead before supposed sightings and urban legends about his faking his death started to spread (and persist well into the 80s). And these are secular figures, not religious icons. And these are examples in the relatively enlightened era, not during a superstitious time when the ancient Jews were hungry for any sign of their messiah who would deliver them from Roman oppression.

Christians like to have it both ways. There's no contemporary evidence for Jesus because it was a primitive time, people outside Jesus' following didn't care about some rabbi that much, "whattaya want, more evidence than we have for Alexander the Great?", etc. etc. But when it comes to speculation on whether or not the Gospels might be true, that's when the ancient world was populated by fact checking commandos that would descend upon rabbis with military efficiency to cry "false" if they ever so much as uttered an exaggeration.

Second, I question how much “extra opportunity to lie” there really was. If multiple people telling the story each embellished their own way, which do we now have? And wouldn’t one have rebuked another, saying “that’s not how it happened!”

Which is precisely what happened!

Oh, I'm sorry, are you under the delusion that Christianity got started as a singular faith and spread rapidly despite persecution?

Go research "Marcionite", "Docetic", "Ebionite" and other early Christianities. There's a reason the Council of Nicaea was such a circus.

[Minimalist]

I presented my case that Mark probably wrote the Gospel of Mark,

And made yourself look like a complete fool doing it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...gence.html

In the earliest Christian movement, there were actually many different writings circulated, and many traditions about the sayings of Jesus. Some of the leaders were concerned to say, "Well, which of these writings can be read in church? Which are the right ones? Which are the best ones?" And Irenaeus, the leader of a church in France in about the year 170, declared that "The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers."

Now, today, scholars of the New Testament wouldn't agree with Irenaeus, because we don't know who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke andJohn, any more than we know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas. They're all attributed to disciples of Jesus, but we don't really know who wrote them. And we don't know whether they came as the earliest sources or not. In fact, chances are they didn't

You are a fundie....and you are self-deceived.