Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[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.