Uncovering the Markan Allegory II

[Undeceived]

No one back then lied. It's your modern interpretation of what your own religion says that is a lie.

If Mark writes that Jesus lived, preached, died and resurrected and Jesus didn't exist then Mark is a liar. If you think a realistic allegory (to the point of being mistaken for truth) is a common style in 1st century Israel, give me an example of another.

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

Mark's earliest partial copy is dated after Paul's earliest partial copy. Both are dated before these copies. Most of Paul's epistles have a ceiling of 51-59AD while Mark's Gospel has a ceiling of 70AD. That does not mean Mark was written after. To put this in perspective, the earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date to the 900s AD. Yet scholars have no problem alleging they were written during the man's lifetime. In short, date of earliest copy ≠ date written.

Besides, every other cult of the time didn't need a human catalyst to function.

You have information on other cults of the time? I'm interested. Which do you believe had no human catalyst? Did they get very far?

Where's your evidence that Mark intended us to see Christ as being human?

Of the Gospel writers, Mark writes most like the Roman chronicling style. Give me an example of a Jewish 1st century allegory close to this style. Show me people wrote fiction that looked like fact, even going to the extent of 'fulfilling' Jewish prophecies. Then explain why the author would put himself in danger in mocking Judaism and how he could not possibly consider one Jew would take his work seriously.

As I have shown, what Jesus said came from Paul's letters.

You showed a similarity in theme. Every book has concepts that come up now and again, developed a little differently each time. If what Jesus said is important, you can bet it will be introduced in the OT and elaborated in Paul's following commentaries. Your three examples are universal truths. The fact Paul writes of them is a testament to what they are.

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

I don't believe they are quotes to begin with. They are truths. Paul has read and heard a lot about Jesus so it's only natural their material should be fall in line.

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?

Divine inspiration carries out God's plan for his message to mankind, how He wants the Bible to turn out. It does not need a prophecy. We were talking about similarities, not prophecies. I'm not convinced the fig tree similarity was anything more than incidental, but other similarities might have a purpose and are divinely inspired to make sure their point gets across. One such similarity is Satan being compared to a serpent.