Uncovering the Markan Allegory II

[FallentoReason]

It's impossible to prove Jesus' words followed Paul's.

Why doesn't Paul attribute these 3 examples to Jesus?

It's also unlikely, given you'd have to eliminate all possibilities but one--that the Gospels are 100% fabricated lies.

No one back then lied. It's your modern interpretation of what your own religion says that is a lie. How is Mark intentionally using the OT and epistles mean that he's a liar? All it means is that you don't know his intentions, but to outright lie isn't one of them.

Perhaps Paul read the Gospel of Mark.

Even though Mark was written after all of Paul's genuine epistles? Miraculous...

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.

Again, there's no 'rumours' or 'lies' here. Besides, every other cult of the time didn't need a human catalyst to function. Christianity is no different.

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

Thanks for this link. I've had a quick scan of it and there's a lot of good stuff in there. If this is your main 'argument' for a physical Christ, then I'll make sure to refute this website when I get the time.

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?

Your arguments were faulty in my opinion, which means my premises are intact. Where's your evidence that Mark intended us to see Christ as being human? My evidence shows that the very thing he wrote to supposedly prove an historical Christ (in your eyes) doesn't come from genuine history. Wriggle your way out of that one.

No one is lying here, just what the church tells you today.

Or Jesus really did say those things and fulfilled prophecies.

As I have shown, what Jesus said came from Paul's letters. As I have also shown many times, there's many parallels between trivial events in Jesus' life (not prophecies) and the OT, meaning that you can't call that 'prophecy fulfilled' because said events weren't prophecized to begin with. You have Mark to thank for for making Jesus' life out of the OT.

Your conclusion relies on the assumption that Jesus is not God.

Never once have I delved into that topic. First show me why Mark is writing true history before we can even speculate the nature of an 'earthly Jesus'.

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?

Like I have said, never have I touched verses that are 'true fulfilments' of prophecy. I've only touched the ones that are trivial like Jesus walking up to a fig tree. That's not prophecy but it seems like it came from the OT. This can't be called 'divine inspiration' because there's nothing divine about this event of his life coming from a non-prophecy verse in the OT. That's called copy + paste.

You can believe that there's divine inspiration all you want. That comes under faith, but what I'm showing here is that there's elements of Jesus' life that aren't prophecy being fulfilled because it wasn't prophecized in the first place. Why would you call that divine inspiration?