(February 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Exactly. I don't know why Christians think they can pass off these urban legends as fact and expect us to believe it. Sorry, but an unnamed friend of a friend is not reliable eyewitness testimony. Not to mention the fact that we've heard these claims of prayer miracles many, many times but have not once ever seen a scrap of evidence.
Could it be because the very Gospel accounts, the only detailed sources we have on Jesus, are themselves urban legends that they think morph into "historical documents" just on their say-so?
Look at the Book of Mark, the first Gospel on which the others are based. It's by an anonymous witness, said to be John Mark, who never met Jesus personally. He's believed to have heard the story from Peter, a man who couldn't have even been present for many of the parts of Jesus' alleged life (the 40 days in the wilderness, the trial by Pilate, etc.). So essentially, Mark is anonymous hearsay of hearsay written down 40+ years after the events, the final product of which we know was significantly changed in at least one instance (Mark 16 was later expanded).
Anyone who can seriously call this a "reliable eye-witness account" has strange ideas of what constitutes "evidence".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
