Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2016, 05:30 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(05-02-2016 03:00 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 05:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, at least then you're having an intelligent conversation.

Thanks.

It's nice to know there are some people still following the "debate" despite the lack of intellectual discussion from the Q side. If it continues, I'll try to make it interesting.

Your posts are very interesting but it seems you are talking with yourself. You are already raped Q in the debate. That debate thread is now another the last person to post wins thread. I like reading your posts in the Paul thread and I laugh reading the Q same pathetic replies.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
05-02-2016, 08:25 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(05-02-2016 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 06:21 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Wtf, Q? He has a boner for one question that he doesn't think Mark answered (which I am pretty sure he did answer already) and yet Mark repeatedly has pointed out numerous questions that have gone unaddressed by Q. And Q thinks he is winning this? Wow.

If he asks me one more time why Paul was beaten up by Romans we can pretty much make the diagnosis of Altzheimers...and then perhaps I (we?) should let him be. It's up to his wife , or his carer, or the staff, to look after him. Discussion is pointless.

Discussion is a two-way street. This is almost like reading a transcript from a debate with Sye. He just keeps on going back to the same nonsense.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
There was a show called Conspiracy Road Trip. In the show they take different conspiracy theorists around to different locations to show them contradictions to their theories and the evidence that supported it. In one they take a bunch of Creationist to meet scientist face to face. They show them the skulls of our evolutionary family tree, how erosion of the grand canyon worked. And many of them towards the end if not convinced questioned their thought processes. All but one. A fire and brim stone Christian named Phil. He jumped ship half way threw the tour because he blamed the director for trying to kill God.

When I think of Q I think of Phil. A person so set in his ways, that any evidence presented that contradicts his position is immediately crap to him.

Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
05-02-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Now he's back to denigrating Mark while evading a response. He's asking for sources and even credits "secular" scholars (but only ones that agree with him) for knowing things.

He cherry picks everything, from scriptures to science to scholars. He is one of the most delusional wing nuts I've seen.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
05-02-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
At least Q is staying within that one thread. I don't have to see him.

Was Paul a charlatan? Of course.

End of story.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
05-02-2016, 06:49 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(05-02-2016 09:30 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  There was a show called Conspiracy Road Trip. In the show they take different conspiracy theorists around to different locations to show them contradictions to their theories and the evidence that supported it. In one they take a bunch of Creationist to meet scientist face to face. They show them the skulls of our evolutionary family tree, how erosion of the grand canyon worked. And many of them towards the end if not convinced questioned their thought processes. All but one. A fire and brim stone Christian named Phil. He jumped ship half way threw the tour because he blamed the director for trying to kill God.

When I think of Q I think of Phil. A person so set in his ways, that any evidence presented that contradicts his position is immediately crap to him.

Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug

When I think of Q I think of Phil. A person so set in his ways, that any evidence presented that contradicts his position is immediately crap to him.

Yep. That sums him up. There is no evidence in this debate that he has even considered any of the multiple issues I've bought up about Paul.

A long time ago, prior to this debate, he once posted a slight interest in the possibility that Paul was working for the Roman government, but he must have prayed about that idea and decided it couldn't be true.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2016, 08:39 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2016 08:44 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
All of this discussion about early Christianity has led me to read various things about it. I believe Philo has a key role to play, he was one of the most prominent Jews of his time and he lived during Jesus' supposed life.

He is also quite an embarrassment for Christians as he lived during the time of Jesus and would have been completely aware of Jesus' existence and should have mentioned him, but never did.

I went charging down this rabbit trail:


The meaning of 'Logos' in the prologue of John's gospel


Quote:In order to unite this absolute activity of God in the world with his absolute transcendence Philo had recourse to the assumption which was familiar to other thinkers of that time (cf. pp. 200, 269, 307), but which no one before Plotinus worked out so systematically as he. This was the assumption of intermediate beings.

Philo developed the concept of an intermediate being, Paul really didn't add to this idea, but when the gospels were authored later, the concept of this intermediary was extended to become an actual person that lived.

Philo was in effect Jesus, or the creator of the intermediary being concept that would later be called Jesus by Philo's philosophical progeny, the apostles.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2016, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2016 09:40 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(06-02-2016 08:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  All of this discussion about early Christianity has led me to read various things about it. I believe Philo has a key role to play, he was one of the most prominent Jews of his time and he lived during Jesus' supposed life.

He is also quite an embarrassment for Christians as he lived during the time of Jesus and would have been completely aware of Jesus' existence and should have mentioned him, but never did.

I went charging down this rabbit trail:


The meaning of 'Logos' in the prologue of John's gospel


Quote:In order to unite this absolute activity of God in the world with his absolute transcendence Philo had recourse to the assumption which was familiar to other thinkers of that time (cf. pp. 200, 269, 307), but which no one before Plotinus worked out so systematically as he. This was the assumption of intermediate beings.

Philo developed the concept of an intermediate being, Paul really didn't add to this idea, but when the gospels were authored later, the concept of this intermediary was extended to become an actual person that lived.

Philo was in effect Jesus, or the creator of the intermediary being concept that would later be called Jesus by Philo's philosophical progeny, the apostles.

Interesting. Thanks.

I agree that it is very likely that only when the gospels were created did Paul's Christ become the once living Jesus.

PS. Wish I had known about this before my book was published. Oh well.Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
06-02-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(06-02-2016 04:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-02-2016 08:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  All of this discussion about early Christianity has led me to read various things about it. I believe Philo has a key role to play, he was one of the most prominent Jews of his time and he lived during Jesus' supposed life.

He is also quite an embarrassment for Christians as he lived during the time of Jesus and would have been completely aware of Jesus' existence and should have mentioned him, but never did.

I went charging down this rabbit trail:


The meaning of 'Logos' in the prologue of John's gospel



Philo developed the concept of an intermediate being, Paul really didn't add to this idea, but when the gospels were authored later, the concept of this intermediary was extended to become an actual person that lived.

Philo was in effect Jesus, or the creator of the intermediary being concept that would later be called Jesus by Philo's philosophical progeny, the apostles.

Interesting. Thanks.

I agree that it is very likely that only when the gospels were created did Paul's Christ become the once living Jesus.


Agreed. I read Philo years ago.

If only my mind still worked I could contribute.

I had the Loebs.

[Image: 41yMLfBDozL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2016, 09:47 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(05-02-2016 03:10 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Now he's back to denigrating Mark while evading a response. He's asking for sources and even credits "secular" scholars (but only ones that agree with him) for knowing things.

He cherry picks everything, from scriptures to science to scholars. He is one of the most delusional wing nuts I've seen.

Wing Nut
1. Ideological extremist from either side of the political spectrum who unquestioningly repeats any and all propaganda and/or conspiracy theories propagated by their side of the political spectrum, no matter how unlikely.

2. An eccentric driven by religious fervor to take on unusual or irrational social or political opinions without care that other members of society consider them off balance. The extremism of these people's faith is proof to them that they are right.

3. A person who was unfortunate in the allotment of his or her genetics, causing his or her ears to be abnormally large and protruding. Originating in Australia where it is rarely used derogatively it became an insult when the word migrated to America


You think the Q has big ears?Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: