joelr
Well-Known Member
That isn't the point at all? scholarship has demonstrated that one of Mark's sources for material was Paul's letters. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
You think? The scholarship I've seen doesn't agree. In 15:39 they all record the centurion as saying, “Certainly this was God’s Son.”
Does Mark 1:1 Call Jesus 'God’s Son’? A Brief Text-Critical Note | Bible.org
No, it actually continues to look like he sourced Paul?
It's still evidence that Mark was sourcing Paul. This objection is unintelligable?
Again, unintelligable? Carrier is pointing out that at the same point both Mark and Paul mention manual labor. More evidence Mark is using Paul as a guide? And they do both mention manual labor....so......?
Really? Is this that hard? Both mention marriage indirectly.
Let me check......yup, they both do.
Wow, it's almost like Mark was using Paul's writings as a guide for what to write next?
Wow, Mark is really using Paul in a serious way. The basic message is the same. Nitpicking about how it's not exactly literal is incredibly apologeticy. Although I see no reference to tax collectors of this time being "most likely Levites"? It's so obvious that Mark was like "hmmm, what's next....ah, a passage about hanging out with someone of lower status". You are really quibbling over nothing and haven't debunked any single example.
Oh my God? You are actually putting forth an argument that Mark isn't sourcing Paul because "of course Jesus should be angry"???
Do you even understand what you are arguing about? Mark is making up a fictional story. To guide him he is using Paul's letters to create imaginary events. The more I go over these the more it's so obvious. You can't debunk it at all either. Saying "of course he would be angry" isn't even an argument against that. Are you in the wrong debate?
Deeper truths my foot! Jesus's message needed to be clear as day and even then he wasn't gaining enough support. He may well have waxed in to strange stories if known spies rolled up, but all the parable and spin was within the early church....... Again, I reckon that early clerics played with this gospel. If you read through a few versions you can get a feeling for the 'run' of the account and the 'kingdom of God' bits and 'Son of God' even mentions of 'Christ' just begin to look dodgy.
Deep in the heart of the gospel, none of which Paul ever bothered to learn about (it seems) all is sound deposition.
It's just like a Statement that you could write after being tail-ended by a drunk driver has been doctored later on.
You "reckon" clerics changed this gospel? Uh huh. Meanwhile yeah, it looks like Mark used Paul as a source.
Cool, when you have some proof let me know. Until then, Jesus is a fictional character inside Marks story, so yes, Mark imagined. You say it like you were actually there. What you did is read Mark and imagine it was a real story. That doesn't make it real.
No he doesn't say stuff em and move on?
"And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. "
So you are wrong and Carrier was correct, Jesus does say people will help them.
Yes Paul's "living in the gospels" is his message. Mark's passage is basically the same - go out and preach and the gospel will support you through the help of people.
Mark is clearly using Paul. You are actually making it clearer.
You think it's evidence that because Mark didn't use "drunkenness" it shows he didn't source Paul? As if when one uses a source you cannot create your own version? Which he obviously did by adding all sorts of other myths. Point is they both go into a rant about sins. It's so obviously taken from Paul. It's a common fallacy to think something wasn't copied unless it uses literally every word. Somehow this fallacy only happens with religious apologetics. If I made a movie about a Luke Skyhopper and he had an android 3pco you wouldn't say "oh that isn't like Star Wars because there is no R2D2 character". You have not debunked any of these even a little.
Probably, you reckon? Proof? None. Evidence? Yes, the evidence is Jesus would have taught in Aramaic in an area that had a 3% literacy rate. 40 years later Mark was written in a different language. 38 years is a lifetime then. Mark not only clearly sourced Paul but he sources several OT narratives line by line as well as other fiction. He uses expert level mythic literary devices like ring structure that never happen in real life and give almost 100% probability that he is writing fiction.
So there is no need for "probably". We already have more than enough evidence to conclude Mark is creating myth. You were not able to counter any of these examples nor offer any evidence except for "probably" and "I reckon".
