Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[The Grand Nudger]

Buddhism and Atheism are both older than Christianity. Judaism continues to await it's Messiah. Poverty and illiteracy remain widespread worldwide regardless of the relative level of Christianity in any given area. Closer to home, the most "Christian" states also happen to be the most impoverished and illiterate. The barrier that Christianity has been able to most consistently cross is the ribcage, you know, the thing preventing someone from piercing your internal organs.

[Ace Otana]

I've heard Christians claim that, shortly after Jesus was crucified, there were 500 people who saw him and that this proves the resurrection took place.

Respond by saying "Name one".
That argument is fallacious, I could say that a pink rabbit climbed out of the ground and flew into the air, just ask the hundred witnesses that were there. Who are these hundred witnesses?
Appealing to witnesses that were never there or simply didn't exist.
Show me an honest preacher, prophet or priest and I'll show you a liar.

[Rev. Rye]

I've heard Christians claim that, shortly after Jesus was crucified, there were 500 people who saw him and that this proves the resurrection took place.

Respond by saying "Name one".
That argument is fallacious, I could say that a pink rabbit climbed out of the ground and flew into the air, just ask the hundred witnesses that were there. Who are these hundred witnesses?
Appealing to witnesses that were never there or simply didn't exist.
Show me an honest preacher, prophet or priest and I'll show you a liar.

Hell, there must have been over a thousand sightings of Elvis in the past 35 years. Does that mean Elvis didn't die in August 1977?

[Godscreated]

How can you guys be so sure that Jesus fulfilled any prophecy if no NT writer saw Jesus for themselves?

You can't prove you assertion. All you care about is trying to show Mark is an allegory, which it is not, listening to unbelieving people did not help you.

[Undeceived]

How can you guys be so sure that Jesus fulfilled any prophecy if no NT writer saw Jesus for themselves?

Mark, Matthew and John were eyewitness followers of Jesus. We can reasonably conclude this because of the detail of their separate writings and because other 1st and 2nd century writers mention them and/or quote their book, as well as internal agreement (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6187). Jews were not known for their myths--they didn't have any (apart from what naysayers allege) and they considered such pagan works blasphemous. Can you write a book in which your character fulfills several hundred predictions? And sell it to a rigid, skeptical audience as history from within their lifetime?
FallentoReason, do you believe Jesus was a real man? Why or why not?

[Thor]

Mark, Matthew and John were eyewitness followers of Jesus.

Bullshit. No one knows who wrote these gospels. Plus, we don't have the original writings. All we have is copies of copies. Additionally, none of these writers claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Hence, they could not have been "eyewitness followers".

We can reasonably conclude this because of the detail of their separate writings

Then explain why the Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

and because other 1st and 2nd century writers mention them and/or quote their book.

This means nothing. I could quote "The Lord of the Rings". Doesn't mean the events really happened.

Jews were not known for their myths--they didn't have any

Oh, you're killing me! That whole bit where "God" sends plagues upon Egypt, Moses parts the Red Sea, receives the Ten Commandments, etc...?

Can you write a book in which your character fulfills several hundred predictions?

Several hundred "predictions" that are vague, nonspecific and probably inserted after the events happened? Sure.

And sell it to a rigid, skeptical audience as history from within their lifetime?

Are you kidding me? Like you guys are even the least bit skeptical?

FallentoReason, do you believe Jesus was a real man? Why or why not?

Speaking for myself, I think there probably was a guy named Jesus who was an itinerant preacher and he met an untimely demise. Then stories about his life became ridiculously embellished and were swallowed up by dimwits and perpetuated to the present day. As for the "Jesus" spoken about in the Babble? No, he didn't exist. And I say so because there is zero evidence to support any of the stories about him.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can't prove you assertion. All you care about is trying to show Mark is an allegory, which it is not, listening to unbelieving people did not help you.

(ital and bold mine)

So,.......where do we go from here?

[Minimalist]

Mark, Matthew and John were eyewitness followers of Jesus.

You do understand, I hope, that none of your fucking gospels even CLAIM to be written by eye-witnesses. If you don't get this I suggest you go read the fucking things and try to do it without the holy blinders which are obviously interfering with your vision.

For the record, "Mark" (Marcus) and "Luke" (Lucius) were Roman names. I suspect there would have been few Galilean peasants running around with those names in the early first century!

[Undeceived]

Additionally, none of these writers claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Hence, they could not have been "eyewitness followers".

Luke 1:3, "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you."
John 21:24, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Just before the verse, he is referring to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" which is the writer's third-person reference to himself (John).
In additions to their claims of knowing an earthly Jesus, Peter in 2 Peter 1:16 adds, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Mark followed Peter, so it is longstanding tradition that he obtained much of his information from him.

Then explain why the Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

What part?

This means nothing. I could quote "The Lord of the Rings". Doesn't mean the events really happened.

It means the quoter believed they happened. You don't use fiction to support the point you're making in an essay.

Oh, you're killing me! That whole bit where "God" sends plagues upon Egypt, Moses parts the Red Sea, receives the Ten Commandments, etc...?

That is the issue before the court. The verdict can't be presumed; it must be proved by evidence. There are no proved myths in Jewish lore.

Like you guys are even the least bit skeptical?

The 1st century Jews were. That's why they tried to kill Jesus.

No, he didn't exist. And I say so because there is zero evidence to support any of the stories about him.

The earliest histories of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death. Two writers. Four hundred years later. This is typical. Other examples, first date is time written and second is earliest copy:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD

All of these people are considered to have existed. Whereas the earliest mentions of Jesus are in 65AD, a mere three decades after his death. By your logic, 99.9% of people in history did not exist. The scientific method does not work on history, but multiple concurring accounts do. Jesus has four.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

How can you guys be so sure that Jesus fulfilled any prophecy if no NT writer saw Jesus for themselves?

Mark, Matthew and John were eyewitness followers of Jesus. We can reasonably conclude this because of the detail of their separate writings and because other 1st and 2nd century writers mention them and/or quote their book, as well as internal agreement (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6187). Jews were not known for their myths--they didn't have any (apart from what naysayers allege) and they considered such pagan works blasphemous. Can you write a book in which your character fulfills several hundred predictions? And sell it to a rigid, skeptical audience as history from within their lifetime?
FallentoReason, do you believe Jesus was a real man? Why or why not?

Thor basically replied what I was going to say to you. I would add too Christianity was tiny tiny tiny movement in its first 200 years so it's not like they were very successful at "selling" Christianity in the first place to the jews. You make it sound like there was a big explosion of Christianity that took a sizable chunk of jews against all odds. Christianity eventually opened up to gentiles too which helped its growth. Judaism was already attractive to many gentiles before Christianity came along and Christianity provided what they liked about Judaism without all the food laws and the nasty circumcision (this depended of course on which sect of Christianity you went to though).

I'd recommend reading Richard Carrier's "Not the Impossible Faith" where he spends over 500 pages demolishing the argument that Christianity couldn't have been successful without a supernatural cause. I've seen every argument you used refuted in that book.