Uncovering the Markan Allegory II

[Undeceived]

[*]Jesus seems to be quoting Paul (an impossibility).

It's impossible to prove Jesus' words followed Paul's. It's also unlikely, given you'd have to eliminate all possibilities but one--that the Gospels are 100% fabricated lies. Perhaps Paul read the Gospel of Mark. After all, the churches to whom Paul wrote had to base their faith on someone or something. Every religion needs a physical catalyst--either a miraculous sign or conquered enemies. Rumors don't make people change their lives.

[*]From the first point, it follows that Paul (again) knew of no human Christ.

The evidence against this point puts your first in doubt. From http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/pauline/Jesus.htm#C2 :

Paul believes that Christ was and still is a human being, which would not be at all contested by Paul's Jewish contemporaries. To express the idea of Jesus Christ as a human being, Paul uses various anthropological terms in his description of him and his salvation-historical work. In Rom 5:15 and 1 Cor 15:21, he refers to Jesus Christ as a man (anthrôpos), in comparison and contrast to the first man, Adam. (Paul qualifies this by saying that Jesus Christ is the "man from heaven" as opposed to the "man from earth" [1 Cor 15:47-48].) Similarly, in 1 Tim 2:5, Paul calls Jesus a man (anthrôpos), the mediator between God and human beings.

Paul also uses the term "flesh" (sarx) to describe Jesus' humanity; the term refers to physical or bodily existence. Paul writes about how God sent his own son "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (en homoiômati sarkos hamartias) by which he means that Christ appeared in history as a human being, under the constraints imposed upon the human race by sin (Rom 8:3). Paul does not uses the phrase "in the likeness of" in order communicate that Christ only appeared to be flesh, in which case likeness would mean something like resemblance. Rather Paul's intention is using "in the likeness of sinful flesh rather than simply "in sinful flesh" is to imply that Christ was not only sinful flesh but was something else that was sent by God in order to take on sinful flesh, or fallen physical existence (Phil 2:7 "in the likeness of human beings"). In other words, it would be an error to conclude that, because he appeared to be a human, Christ was only a human being. Another possible interpretation is to take homoiôma (likeness) to mean form or nature without any suggestion that Christ merely appeared to be a human being. Likewise in 1 Tim 3:16, he quotes from a hymn whose first line is "He appeared in flesh" (ephanerothê en sarki), by which is meant that Christ appeared as a human being, with a physical body. Finally, in Eph 2:14-15, Paul speaks of Christ's "abolishing in his flesh (sarki)" the enmity between Jew and gentile; he is referring to Christ's soteriological work as a human being, or as having "flesh." Paul also refers to Jesus' body (sôma) in Rom 7:4 ("through the body of Christ"), by which he means Christ's physical existence, and in Col 1:21-22 he says that Christ reconciled "you" "by the body of his flesh" (en to sômati tês sarkos autou); the difficult phrase refers to Christ's body as composed of flesh, or his physical body. Paul also gives to God the salvation-historical designation of "the one who raised Jesus from the dead" (Rom 8:11; see 1 Cor 15:15 "He [God] raised Christ). This uniquely Christian title implies that Jesus had a human body.

Paul affirms that Jesus Christ as a human being was a Jew. In Rom 1:3, he writes that, "according to the flesh (kata sarka), i.e. with respect to his physical descent, Jesus Christ was from the "seed of David," by which he means that he was a descendent of David. Likewise in 2 Tim 2:8, Jesus Christ is described as "from the seed of David." In Rom 9:5 he says that he, according to the flesh (kata sarka), was from the Israelites: "Israelites...from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." In Gal 4:4, Paul says that "God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law," which implies that he was not only a human being but also a Jew. Finally, Paul makes reference to “James, the brother of the Lord”; to have James as a brother implies that Jesus Christ is both a human being and a Jew, since James was a Jew (Gal 1:19).

It should be noted, however, that Paul holds that Jesus Christ as a human being did not "know" sin in the sense that he did not experience sin and so was sinless: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf" (2 Cor 5:21).(1) (The Suffering Servant was sinless [Isa 53:9], and it was sometimes affirmed in Second-Temple texts that the Messiah would be without sin [Pss Sol. 17:40-41; T. Jud. 24:1; T. Levi 18:9].) He is also described as righteous and obedient to God: "Through one act of righteousness...through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous" Rom 5:18-19). His sinlessness and righteousness set him apart from the rest of humanity. (Jesus Christ is also said to have humility, unlike most other human beings [Phil 2:6-11].)

[*]Mark most likely believed Jesus was a spirit like Paul did (as these parallels suggest Mark followed closely the teachings of Paul).

Your premises are in doubt, and it's quite clear Mark intended his audience to see Jesus as a human being. Why should he lie?

[*]Mark was definitely not recording genuine history as these allegories/parallels leave no room for such thing.

Or Jesus really did say those things and fulfilled prophecies. Your conclusion relies on the assumption that Jesus is not God. It seems all you have are similarities between Paul's epistles, the Gospels and the Old Testament. I agree there are similarities. My interpretation of their concord, however, is divine inspiration--in which case there are expected fulfillments. Do you have any evidence unable to be attributed to divine inspiration?