RE: Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims
July 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm
(July 16, 2012 at 1:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Seriously though, I hope I've successfully pounded this point into your skull:Evidence?
MARK...
WAS...
NOT...
AN...
EYE-...
WITNESS!
Seriously though, ultimately the argument is whether the Gospels are reliable and trustworthy. If you believe Mark wasn't a witness because of lack of evidence, I have nothing else to say. If you're going to start quoting scholars questioning Mark's authorship at all (based on lack of evidence for his authorship), what can I say to that? I presented my case that Mark probably wrote the Gospel of Mark, and that, given textual clues and a chance line from Hippolytus, he probably was an eyewitness. If that’s not enough to convince you, fine. I set out to show how the Gospels were likely constructed, as well as how 2nd century Christians would have seen them, and you began demanding more “extraordinary evidence.”
Quote:"Draws upon a rich variety of oral traditions" (translation: collection of dubious hearsay accounts)That’s your translation, and it as no backing. We have no evidence of any embellished oral accounts. The idea of the Jews being liars and turning truth into fiction is groundless. The OT has three thousand years of copies—and has never changed once. The NT two thousand. Are you saying that the extra opportunity to lie in oral tradition would have resulted in changes? First off, Mark has a mere thirty years to gather these distortions (during which witnesses were still alive). Second, I question how much “extra opportunity to lie” there really was. If multiple people telling the story each embellished their own way, which do we now have? And wouldn’t one have rebuked another, saying “that’s not how it happened!” Also consider this is part of a religion they follow to the letter. The Jews had an extremely legalistic mindset. They have 613 mitzvot, plus traditions to interpret them. They had official scribes and would destroy Torah copies if one word was missing in transcription.
(July 17, 2012 at 4:05 am)FallentoReason Wrote: At times his account is almost word for word from the OT. We're talking trivial parts, NOT prophecy.Which parts, if you wouldn't mind?