(July 3, 2018 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: Dripshit the very moment you start with bible mythology you lose all credibility. Xtians as a general rule are full of shit. You are merely their standard bearer.
No one ever heard of any "gospel of mark" until the late 2d century when the names were attached to give them some sort of credibility - credibility if one is a gullible shit like you, that is. So the moment you start talking about "mark" in 47 AD you are just an asshole. But then, you've been an asshole since Day #1 so nothing new.
what a weak willed single minded thing to say or do. If someone opens with something you do not like to you that person looses all credibility. no wonder your side of the election lost if your peers think as poorly as you do.
You are so intolerant you can not be bother to look at a simple paragraph as a whole and determine what is good or is bad. you look for things that allow to dismiss everything as a whole. how is that advanced thinking?
To me this is closed minded thinking as you will not allow yourself to be exposed to anything you do not already accept. how does that not raise an alarm in your mind? oh that's right you stopped reading 3 words in.
Addressing the content of your message:
Jesus you are either willfully the dumbest person on this website or this is simply the result of shutting down anything you don't want to hear for decades you just absorbe things that fit your narrative despite little things called evidence and provenance.
Because in truth the gospel of mark has been traced to 47 AD
- Perkins, Pheme (1998). "The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story". In Barton, John. The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 241–58. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
What would your typical response be? to cuss and disparage and lead with a loud "nut-huh, cause I said so." like it or not your wild draws by pulling dates out of the air go largely unchallenged because no one takes you seriously. example "bla bla bla mark was not even known till the second century." who says? you do.. I even goggled it and came up with nothing that says marks work was a second century finding. but that's ok because you don't actually need evidence to support what you say or believe it is only the christians that must provide three different colabritivate sources when asked.
Why don't you go back to your waldorf/muppet style commentaries and leave the heavy subjects to the people willing to actively be apart of the subject.
