Compositional anaylsis of the Gospel of Mark

[Undeceived]

There are two reasons I don't understand why atheists make the Nonspiritual Mark argument. First, they have been arguing all along that 30 years was much too long a gap to go without record of Jesus. Now some admit that an earlier record could easily have slipped through the cracks--and not only admit, but argue strongly. Second, atheists have liked the idea that a legend developed by hearsay. However, pMark would show that a stable account existed, making any distortions by word of mouth difficult to sell. Nero was already executing mass numbers of Christians in 64 A.D. Either the converts came from hearsay or the primal Mark-- and it couldn't have been the secular pMark described here. On top of all this, there's no positive evidence for the book, only subjective unbacked interpretation.

[Brian37]

There are two reasons I don't understand why atheists make the Nonspiritual Mark argument. First, they have been arguing all along that 30 years was much too long a gap to go without record of Jesus. Now some admit that an earlier record could easily have slipped through the cracks--and not only admit, but argue strongly. Second, atheists have liked the idea that a legend developed by hearsay. However, pMark would show that a stable account existed, making any distortions by word of mouth difficult to sell. Nero was already executing mass numbers of Christians in 64 A.D. Either the converts came from hearsay or the primal Mark-- and it couldn't have been the secular pMark described here. On top of all this, there's no positive evidence for the book, only subjective unbacked interpretation.

Please stop!

Does it matter what super hero or book any religion postulates? Or does it matter that ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION has no evidence for an invisible magical sky daddy?

When I read this it is like an an idiot at a wildlife park still insisting on feeding the bears.

[Undeceived]

ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION has no evidence

Can you tell me what you define as 'evidence'?

[Brian37]

ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION has no evidence

Can you tell me what you define as 'evidence'?

Why such an inane and stupid question?

You want "evidence". Funny how a Hindu and a Jew and an Atheist and Muslim type on computers like we are now and do not invent a computer deity to explain the existence of computers.

I don't care what a human, even an atheist, utters. We all have the ability to make sound waves and produce them with our vocal cords and mouths.

But computers, like fingerprints and DNA exist, no matter what god or superstition new age or old, humans invent.

Everyone has "evidence", to "justify" what their personal pet whims are.

But accuracy depends on "evidence" going beyond the mere ability to make a claim. The best evidence is based on that which goes beyond personal whims to the point where the claim can be handed over to independent sources and that testing third party ends up with the same conclusion.

Bottom line. God claims are a product of human wishful thinking. We have far more evidence of humans believing bullshit than we do of any god claim uttered in human history.

Popularity of a belief does not make it true, otherwise the earth would be flat because our species once believed as a majority, it was.

[Undeceived]

How does the third party "test" the claim? The scientific method?

[Brian37]

How does the third party "test" the claim? The scientific method?

No, the third party pulls shit out of their ass like Holocaust deniers and Ouija Board lovers.

If facts are independent of our personal whims, then we need an outsider with the same standards that have proven universal things to test what we hand over to them to verify what we are testing ourselves.

Otherwise we can simply make shit up because it sounds good, like Holocaust deniers and Ouija board lovers.

[Simon Moon]

How do you explain the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53?

It's not.

Funny how Christians always accuse atheists of taking passages out of context.

Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel as the 'Suffering Servant'. The preceding passages of Isaiah demonstrate this:

Isaiah 41:8, "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my friend"
Isaiah 44:1 "But hear, now, O Jacob My servant, Israel whom I have chosen!"
Isaiah 44:21 "Remember these things, O Jacob for you, O Israel, are My servant"
Isaiah 49:3 "And he said to me, "You are My servant, Israel in whom I glory.

Isaiah 52:14 states, “So marred was his appearance, unlike that of a man, his form, beyond human semblance”

When does the NT claim he was so marred that he was unrecognizable as a human?

Isaiah 53:3 contains, “A man of suffering, familiar with disease.”
Isaiah 53:10 states, “But the Lord chose to crush him by disease”

When does the NT say Jesus was diseased (the Bible only refers to Leprosy as disease)?

Isaiah 53:10 also states, “That, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life”

What passages in the NT mention any of the following: Jesus made a guilt offering, he had offspring, he had a long life?

[Minimalist]

Most xtians do not even seem to understand that this shit was only divided up into "chapters and verses" in the middle ages.

The original would have been one continuous block of text.

[Lion IRC]

How do you explain the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53?

It's not.

Funny how Christians always accuse atheists of taking passages out of context....

It wasnt Christians who saw Messianic prophecy in Isaiah - it was Jews.

[Simon Moon]

It's not.

Funny how Christians always accuse atheists of taking passages out of context....

It wasnt Christians who saw Messianic prophecy in Isaiah - it was Jews.

Then why are there still Jews? Any Rabbi will tell you all the reasons why Isaiah is not Messianic prophecy.

But the bottom line is, Isaiah is not a Messianic prophecy. The subject of Isaiah 53 is Israel, just like the passages leading up to 53 are.