Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[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).