Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[DeistPaladin]

“Just so” claims aren’t strong arguments. Imagine you are in a court of law investigating a murder. You have four witnesses for the murder and none against. The prosecution—never present at the murder—claims that all four witnesses are liars. What will the verdict be?

Oh, so we've gone from "Gee whiz, so much information has been lost in ancient history and if we apply your rigorous standards we couldn't prove Alexander the Great. C'mon, whadya want from us?" to doubling down and entering your "evidence" into a court of law, as if it would stand up to cross examination and the burden of reasonable doubt?

Excellent! I get to do a "My Cousin Vinny" remake for Christian apologetics.

*Ahem*

Me: So, Mr. Mark, I understand you're some kinda witness to this Jesus guy?

Mark: You could say that.

Me: I'm not sayin that. Would YOU say that?

Mark: Well, uh, yes.

Me: So, that means you were there with Jesus when he performed all these miracles and did all that preaching?

Mark: Um, well, no, not exactly.

Me: Well, where did you hear about him then?

Mark: I jotted down all of Peter's Preachings and he said...

Me: You know that's called "hearsay" right?

Mark: Well, uh, you see Peter an upstanding...

Me: Yeah, yeah, I'm sure he is but did HE witness all the things in your story?

Mark: Well, uh, mostly.

Me: In fact, you testified in chapter 14 of your testimony... can we run the tape?

Mark 14:54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Me: So, in fact, here's one good example of how Peter didn't witness the important event of Jesus' trial at the hands of the priests. So, if Peter wasn't there, how did he know what Jesus and the priests said to each other?

Mark: Well, uh, he must have heard it from someone else.

Me: I'm sorry, I was all the way over here. It sounded like you actually said Peter, the hearsay account, heard some things from another hearsay account. You didn't just say that, right?

Mark: Um

Me: Well perhaps Jesus told Peter personally?

Judge: Mr. Gambini...

Me: Well, perhaps Jesus told Peter all about it while he was hanging on the cross!

Judge: Mr. Gambini!

Me: "Hey, Peter, I'm up here asphyxiating to death after having been beaten within an inch of my life, slowly bleeding on a cross but ya gotta hear about how I told that priest off."

Judge: *Banging his gavel*

Me: Sorry, your honor!

Me: So, Mr. Mark, what you've offered to the court is a hearsay account which includes at least a few incidents of 2nd hand and anonymous hearsay on top of hearsay in events written down 40 years after the events took place, am I right?

Mark: Well...

Me: Please tell me that your testimony wasn't changed at some point. Please tell me that at least all this hearsay on hearsay has remained consistent over the years.

Mark: Um...

Me: Like say, there weren't any alterations to the FREAKING RESURRECTION ACCOUNT IN CHAPTER 16! Please tell me that if this miraculous event on which Christianity hangs is true, that you all got it right the first time and didn't have to add every single frickin verse that follows 16:8!

Mark: But...

Me: Your honor, I'd like to submit evidence that it's not disputed among even Christian Bible scholars that Mark 16:8 was the original ending and that the 12 verses that followed were a later addition. So we've got hearsay on anonymous hearsay written 4 decades after the alleged events and that version was later changed in at least one significant way that we know of.

Mark: Well...

Me: I got no more use for dis witness!

***Tune in Next Time when I nail Matt's ass to the courtroom floor and have it dragged off to jail on perjury charges***