Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[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.