Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[DeistPaladin]

Remember, the first copy on Alexander the Great showed up 400 years after his death.

I hold Jesus to a much higher standard than Alexander the Great, as has already been explained to you.

To repeat why, Alexander the Great was a mortal man. Jesus was supposedly a miracle working god incarnate. The more extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence.

The one you posted fails to address the eyewitness. It only states that we're not positive who wrote Mark.

Oh, it says far more than that. Read it again. Mark is:

1. An anonymous source
   
2. Attributed to Mark by tradition
   
3. "Draws upon a rich variety of oral traditions" (translation: collection of dubious hearsay accounts)
   
4. Ends abruptly at 16:8. Later versions added more to the story, indicating that the tale got better with the telling.
   

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.

Fill in the blanks with your imagination as you like but reputable Christian scholars only claim that it was attributed to Mark by tradition and there's "little evidence to support that theory".

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?

Did I mention these are mainstream Christian scholars, not skeptics. When my opponent concedes, I usually am not in the habit of cross-examination of that concession.

Do your own research if you wish to discredit their own admissions and this time be ready to do better than "some guy on the web with a blog says..."

John and Matthew are considered eyewitnesses.

We've already established Matthew is a liar who's testimony should be summarily thrown out.

Stay tuned for my cross-examination of John.

John even identifies himself as an eyewitness with his phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" describing himself, and then John 21:24.

An odd way to describe oneself, wouldn't you agree? "God loves me best".