Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2015, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 09:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

Q, you wrote
"The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here."

Yes...Paul does say he is a servant of Jesus Christ. Yet it is not the Jesus Christ you think you know from the Gospels. It is a Christ revealed to him, by God, through scripture.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

"PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan."

Paul was a prude. Yet he was more than that, as he made out that basic, natural healthy sexual feelings upset his fictional God. He was trying to shore up the power his ideas had over people by hijacking a healthy human trait. That makes him a charlatan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

"I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote."

This is what you wrote.

"And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators, for Babylon, perhaps?"

I'm not sure, but maybe you were trying to imply I thought this. Perhaps you had better explain yourself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 09:13 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you wrote

"I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!
"

You haven't explained why you think I'm paranoid or why you think I have delusions. Please feel free to do that.

Perhaps you had better explain who you think the authors of the gospels were. Also who you think the author of "Peter" and who you think the author of "Acts" was.

I will be very interested to hear your evidence that

"Rome killed and persecuted all 7."

That is a big claim, so I'm hoping your sources are good. Please document for us where and when these men were killed. Please also explain why the Roman government killed them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 09:35 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties.

I'm not sure what you mean by "YOUR concept." Feel free to explain yourself.

I don't think you understand my ideas, and you haven't pointed out any "inherent logical difficulties"

Pause for a moment. You are proposing that a dead man, Jeebus, appeared to Paul, and taught him a gospel about Christ. Yet Paul never mentions this encounter, and barely mentions what this Christ said or did.

Then you have the gall to claim that my ideas have "inherent logical difficulties."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 10:29 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

"Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence."

I think you should reread my posts, and respond to them with some specifics if you disagree.

"As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel."

I'm not sure why you bought this up. Please tell all readers why Paul's gospel was not new, with evidence.

"you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul."

Yes.

The basis of your objection to this is, what, exactly?

The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays.

I said nothing of the sort, and this is the fourth time I've told you this. I wrote that Paul may have been gay because it was unusual for a pharisee to not be married.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

"Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends."

"I’m tired of your...rudeness..."

Well, Q, you have accused me of "ranting like a five-year-old, the "worst imaginable gay baiting" and being "a paranoid man with severe delusions"

This is all water off a duck's back to me. Nothing you've said upsets me.

It's ironic, and a bit pathetic, that you can't cope with some criticism.

Has it ever occurred to you that people make fun of you, and dislike you, simply because you can't string a good argument together? Your posts are full of assumptions and unwarranted expletives, and you too easily dismiss anyone who disagrees with your closeted, uninformed view of the world. If you were as clever as you think you are, you wouldn't be quite so sure of yourself.

Anyway, back to Paul. I have some more to say about him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 02:13 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
In my opinion no debate on Paul could be complete without considering the following. New readers to TTA forum may not have heard this before...

Was Christianity a Product of the Roman Government?

What drove Paul so ardently in his efforts? Did the Roman government employ Paul to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism? Was the Roman government trying to stop a war?

Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, who had already been and gone, maybe because Rome did not want hopeful Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic Messiah who would challenge Roman rule.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse.

All Jews felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews in the Diaspora did not assimilate well with Gentiles in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of the Jews’ Palestinian connections and the religion that inspired their obvious differences.

Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government could not pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. The government needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. The government was probably frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. Maybe the government thought that if it could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda, it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

In an effort to achieve this, it is conceivable that Rome had a network of covert agents engaged in suppression of Jewish extremists, and that Paul was one of them. If so, there might have been many “Pauls” working as government employees. Paul wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it is obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ, beliefs that they may have learned about from one of Paul’s co-workers.

The Roman government must have been worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role may have been to stop the spread of the subversive religion. If so, Paul tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their Messianic message. It could be that he passed information about the Nazarenes on to Roman authorities.

Paul’s “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his rather dubious, yet ardently promoted, modus operandi.

This could explain why Paul wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the Jewish ethnocentric antisocial practices. Paul’s (and the government’s) aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. They failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

What actual evidence is there that Paul was a funded insurgent? It is known that Paul was a Roman citizen, yet, if the account in the book of Acts is to be believed, Paul did not publicly reveal himself as such until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers, which indicates that Paul was trying to norm with the community, and simultaneously hide his true identity. Being a funded agent would help explain how Paul managed to support himself financially, and undertake his ministry without doing any tent making.

It might also be why Paul hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery.

Paul’s writings make it clear that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. Paul often insisted that the Torah was obsolete. He was, by anyone’s standards, over zealous in promoting his own theology, and too diligent in denigrating any Jewish beliefs that might be thought of as promoting Jewish exclusivity.

This idea makes clear why Paul not only promoted his new interpretation of Judaism, but also why Paul aligned himself with the non- religious administration of the Romans; the following is an extract from Paul’s letter to a Roman Jewish community:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV.)

One could argue that Paul sounds more like a pro administration lobbyist than an evangelist.

This theory would explain the way Paul finished off his letter to the Philippians:

“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.)

Paul had contact with the Emperor Nero’s (Roman Emperor from 54-68 CE) family, and even permitted himself to speak on their behalf!

Paul being a Roman associate fits with the fact the book of Acts states:

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.)

The earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

Paul being a government agent would explain why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by Jews, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. There is little doubt that fundamentalist Jews would have viewed Paul as a charlatan.

Paul’s so-called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem does not necessarily mean that he was not in league with Rome. Paul was, in fact, being protected. Things had got a little out of control and Paul became a source of civil unrest, a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, Paul incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome did not want.

The “arrest” was, in fact, for Paul’s own safety. If Paul had not been arrested, Jews, Jesus’ own people, might have killed him.

Reading between the lines, Paul was never treated by the Romans like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. Paul had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place for his own protection.

If Paul was a spy, he was a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan, and he knew that he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end. This would mean that Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist Messiah.

We do not hear from Paul after he is placed under so called “house arrest” in Rome in the early 60s. Palestine was nearly out of control. The anti-Jewish propaganda project had not worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be brought in. Paul had become redundant. The government no longer needed him. There is a Christian “tradition” that Paul was executed in Rome, but there is no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence that it did.

( http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...d-to-paul- of-tarsus-it-isnt-what-you-think.html )

Rome was not into controlling people’s minds or interfering with their belief systems unless they started impacting on Rome’s ability to garner supply of goods, services and money. Jewish messianic beliefs, such as those entertained by the Nazarenes, did just that.

If Paul’s project had been successful, the first (66-70 CE) and the second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. Yet it was doomed to failure. People who have been bought up in a strong religious faith rarely change their allegiances. A modern analogy might be Christian missionaries trying to promote Christianity in a strongly Islamic country such as Afghanistan.

Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” came to a similar conclusion about Paul. They postulated that Paul was:

“...supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other –worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary move- ments, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.

It is quite possible that Jewish and Gentile intellectuals, also working for the Roman government, after the first Jewish war, and after Paul’s failure, wrote the Gospels. The fact that belief in the divinity of Jesus arose in many diverse areas of the empire a number of decades after Jesus’ death suggests that it came from a central, well- coordinated source, and it most definitely was not Yeshua’s Jewish friends in Jerusalem. This would explain why the true identities of all four Gospel authors are unknown.

The Roman led spin-doctors, who could have been the original authors of the Gospels, knew that ideas could be just as effective as force. They tried to weaken Judaism by infiltrating and diluting it with Gentiles, just like Paul tried to do with his Christ story. They too told a tale that the Jewish Messiah had already been and gone, and he was not a political activist, but a benign religious preacher who was a spiritual intermediary between God and man.

If the idea caught on, there would be no more Messiahs and no more revolts.
It could be that Yeshua’s real story, that of a brave Nazarene martyr, was turned around 180 degrees to create an entity that was the very opposite of what the real man was. Jesus was made to say

“Blessed are the peacemakers,” “turn the other cheek,” “love your enemies” and “pay your taxes,”

which, if believed and followed, meant you did not cause trouble and you obeyed your Roman superiors. To promote this would have been a lot easier than having to use the army again.

In those times it was easier to push propaganda than it is today, because the public was less informed and less able to check out the facts. These publicists twisted the knife to wound Judaism by blaming Jesus’ death on the Jews and making Romans look like the innocent good guys. It was made out that Jesus’ own people had effectively killed their own Messiah.

The government hoped the story of the new idol would convince people that true spirituality and the promise of eternal life were synonymous with getting along with them. In those days it was always the winners who wrote the history.

Ever since ancient times, people in power have tried to control popular opinion, and have not hesitated to flagrantly manipulate the facts. The creation of Christianity by the Romans appears to be one such an example.

Creating a new religion, with a charismatic central hero figure, and embedding guilt and fear while castigating the enemy and promising believers an afterlife, is just brilliant! Consider how well it has lasted until now.

The Romans, who controlled most of the known world, wanted to keep control. They were smart. They saw how powerful the Jewish religion was amongst the Jews, so they used that knowledge to their own advantage. They would not have felt guilty about what they were doing. They just saw this as an effective strategy for delivering change and keeping the peace.

In modern times, the use of tactics like this is called propaganda, disinformation or psychological warfare, and it continues to this very day. Consider the scores of governments who have used a version of “God” to justify war.

It is fascinating to imagine these subversive tricks as part of the first-century Roman government machine, and jaw dropping to realize that the dogma has survived until today, without being exposed for what it really is. This propaganda is still coloring the way people, and in particular trusting Christians, look at the world.

It is ironic that the Gospels, purporting to be so truthful, were so manufactured, and that they became one of the most successful literary enterprises ever undertaken in world history.

The politically motivated spin may have been very clever, but it did not achieve its original aims. Just as Paul failed to stop the first war of 66-70 CE, the Gospel authors too failed in their original intention, as they did not prevent the second major war with the Jews in 132-6 CE.

The reader may be wondering why, if this is true, it is often claimed that the government persecuted Christians, particularly as there is a “tradition” that Domitian (Titus Flavius Dominatus Augustus, Roman Emperor from 81-96 CE) did just that, but the evidence for this is weak.

The fact is persecution of Christians was not a policy of the state until over a century later, when it did occur in isolated areas, and only for relatively short periods. Generally speaking, Rome was tolerant of all religions, including Christianity. In those days the ideas of one government (as controlled by one emperor) were often completely different to the next emperor. After the Flavian dynasty (the rule of Vespasian, Titus and then Domitian) ended with Domitian’s assassination in 96 CE, there was a brand new emperor. Persecution happened sporadically many years later, but usually only if Christians refused to worship the state’s gods. By this time the militaristic ambitions of peasant Jews had been finally and definitively crushed in the second Jewish war of 132-6 CE, and there were different agendas on the government’s mind. Moreover, some stories of persecutions of Christians by the Roman government are now recognized as exaggerations and fabrications.

The significance of this is enormous. If this is true, Christianity has been the most monumental fraud ever inflicted on humankind.

And yes...Paul was a charlatan.

http://bibleworld.com/domper.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecuti...Martyrdom/ dp/0062104527
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...cution.htm

References:

Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.

http://bibleworld.com/domper.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecuti...Martyrdom/ dp/0062104527
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...cution.htm

Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah”
http://www.amazon.com/Between-Rome-Jerusalem-Roman- Judaean-Relations/dp/0275971406
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/romned.html http://www.uhcg.org/HoI/James-Bro-of-Jesus.html
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/jesus-pacifist- shepherd-or-zealot-warrior/
http://bhairavah.blogspot.com.au/2009/11...jesus.html
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/libr...s-jews-by- josephus/id345414791
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLypbbijk2I
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 02:04 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-11-2015 02:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.

Not that I’m much interested in more of your Bible “interpretations” Mark, but you picked the wrong verses to make your point. 1) Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. 2) The other verse has Paul stating He is a servant of Jesus Christ rather than the Father! Your point is possible but not made with emphasis here.

Quote: "You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.

I see. You are changing the issue again? Can we get back to Paul? Because if the gospels say BOTH things about Jesus, you’ve just undone one of your own arguments about Paul’s lying doctrine, besides!

Quote: you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.

What a surprise (not)! You pulled my statement from its context. YOU are the person on the attack in the same post where YOU say the Christians weren’t peaceable or peacemakers. As I wrote, be the change you envision in the world.

And again, if you cannot control yourself to 1) stay on YOUR debate resolution 2) stay intelligent and factual rather than ranting like a five-year-old, I will exit the debate and you can have a (pyrrhic) victory. Choose.

Quote: My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.

No, you weren’t.

PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan. YOU need to stay on topic.

Quote: "You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written

I did not write the OT writers conspired against Judaism. You twisted what I wrote. I do also note that above you admit to the following conspirators:

Matthew’s author(s)

Mark’s “”

Luke’s “”

John’s “”

Peter

Acts’s author

Paul (or if you like, deutero-Paul)

That’s 7 different conspirators by YOUR count, each one with differing doctrines and agendas. I think perhaps at this point I should leave the debate since I’m apparently debating a paranoid man with severe delusions… do you have anything to say for yourself here? Were all 7 writers/teams of writers Roman conspirators? Is that why Rome killed and persecuted all 7? Give me a break, dude!

Anyway, Mark, I hope my restatement of YOUR concept illustrates that I not only understand it, but point out the inherent logical difficulties. I reject the Noble Qu’ran as uninspired, and it had one (oral) author, Muhammed. The Bible has dozens of authors—or as you believe—teams of authors and redactors, forcing you by design to make a silly statement—there were dozens of conspirators over many centuries. No.

Quote: Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

LAST TIME. Either speak to me like a gentleman or this (tiresome, ponderous) debate ends. Period.

Quote: For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.

Paul was a charlatan.

Thanks for presenting a Hume argument that miracles are unlikely and so must not happen. Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence. PS. As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel. And I’ve already refuted where you wrote Jesus had a different gospel—you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul.

Quote:To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

I was not raised in Christianity. You sound foolish.

Quote: The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted."

I was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.

Now, you didn’t. The more so since it is utterly untrue that ALMOST ANY BOOK ON PAUL says that. It is also a modern, even post-modern statement you are quoting.

Quote: "As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.

No, no, no. YOU wrote how the Bible didn’t “get” we couldn’t enter into a womb again. I wrote that Jesus and Nicodemus discussed the topic—that precise topic—and then you shifted the goal posts after butchering the normal understanding of John 3.

Quote:
You really have excelled yourself by writing stupid things in your last post. Christianity is not Judaism. The following sections of the new Testament prove why...

I’ve refuted these misstatements of yours on other threads. PS. The topic is Paul.

Quote: Ah, NO.

I won't stop criticizing Christianity. Here's why.

The debate topic is Paul, not Jesus, not Christianity in general. No.

Quote:”You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay..."

I did not say this, and this is the third time I've told you so. I said that Paul may have been gay. And I didn't intend it as a derogatory comment (either to Paul as a person, or to his intellectual integrity), I was just stating a possibility.

Not at all. The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays. You are gay baiting. Stop it. Also, it has nothing to do with Paul being a charlatan, unless you can prove he was gay. Facts or kindly stop.

Quote:Q, you wrote

"Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue..."

I agree.

Do you think Jesus was a Jew?

Do you think Jesus thought he was the messiah?

I dunno—do you think you can return to the debate topic of PAUL instead?

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online. I’m tired of your sophistry, rudeness and lack of facts—an utter lack of facts.

What I propose to you is that we do a debate in person and telecast it online.

Sure.

You name the time and place.

We will have to agree on a topic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: Q, you wrote

Paul being chosen or appointed by God to be an apostle does not preclude meeting Jesus on the Damascus road."

If I had met Jesus on the road to Damascus, I would tell the world about it. So would you. Please show us where Paul wrote that he met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Jeebus was dead. D E A D. You don't "meet" dead people unless you're mentally unwell or have been smoking something.

You know well the author of Acts 9 says Paul was on the way to Damascus. You know as well that Paul describes his encounter with Christ in Galatians 1. You also asked me because you know the Acts author gives three instances of the encounter with details. You also know the Acts author states he was diligent in giving an orderly, thorough account. You also know that Paul didn’t talk about his encounter as much as Acts had and that you are baiting me to walk into your “trap” that Paul couldn’t have seen Jesus because he didn’t talk about it every other verse. I call baloney! Paul is recorded in his letters and elsewhere as having performed miracles, been beaten and stranded for Christ, and as having planted hundreds of churches. He had “credentials” and your problem is YOU emphasize miracles more than Paul!

And the second tactic you employed above, “We know Paul was high because dead people don’t rise again,” is more than disrespectful to Christians—it’s just annoying. Present facts or end the debate, PLEASE. I’m tired of your endless speculations about the NT because it’s all they are—self-contradictory, also. And as promised by me before I entered the ring, when you quote scripture, you understand it. When I quote it, I’m called by you a mindless sheep. When you quote scripture, you magically can also parse it—this is Paul, deuteron-Paul, a later insertion. Stop.

Present some facts or get out of the ring.

Quote: "PS. Even if Paul thought “sex is dirty” as you wrote, that makes him a prude, not a charlatan."

Paul was a prude. Yet he was more than that, as he made out that basic, natural healthy sexual feelings upset his fictional God. He was trying to shore up the power his ideas had over people by hijacking a healthy human trait. That makes him a charlatan.

Now you’re just making stuff up of whole cloth. Paul tells people in the Timothys that one key sign of a false cult is to control human sexual relations! Paul encouraged men and women who were married Christians to have sex to KEEP the temptations outside marriage limited. (Paul gets me laid is the street way to say it.) Paul agrees with the Bible where it says to have sex with my wife—and I love obeying God’s commands! You are just making up stuff, Mark. Cut it out.

Quote: "Rome killed and persecuted all 7."

That is a big claim, so I'm hoping your sources are good. Please document for us where and when these men were killed. Please also explain why the Roman government killed them.

*If you’re going to stray from our resolution (Paul), please don’t.

*If you’re going to stray from our resolution, bite on the actual question I asked. What evidence do YOU have that all seven were different conspirators writing at different times? Because that’s the outrageous claim I want to address, and it’s not worth citing ancient sources here re: martyrdom just because you try to go off topic every time you get called out on making up wild theories. I could believe in one conspiracy and deconvert. But dozens of different conspirators across centuries of writing? I call baloney.

Quote: Pause for a moment. You are proposing that a dead man, Jeebus, appeared to Paul, and taught him a gospel about Christ. Yet Paul never mentions this encounter, and barely mentions what this Christ said or did.

Then you have the gall to claim that my ideas have "inherent logical difficulties."

Number one, the dead man was Jesus of Nazareth, not Jeebus. We’re DONE the next time you print JEEBUS. Done. Period. End. Don’t you dare call yourself a scholar or gentleman if you cannot confine yourself to facts and respect for those you oppose in debate.

Number two, YOUR bizarre idea that multiple conspirators wrote the NT over multiple centuries is more unlikely than that if God exists He can raise the dead.

Quote: "Again, however, you STATE Paul was a charlatan without providing evidence."

I think you should reread my posts, and respond to them with some specifics if you disagree.

"As Paul makes the case, it wasn’t a NEW gospel."

I'm not sure why you bought this up. Please tell all readers why Paul's gospel was not new, with evidence.

"you said the quotations I made attributed to Jesus were “later insertions” to back up Paul’s case. So you have even MORE conspirators than 7 different writers doing different things that “became scripture hundreds of years later”! You have conspirators adding statements to the conspirators who wrote Jesus’s words to verify the conspirators who wrote Paul and deutero-Paul."

Yes.

The basis of your objection to this is, what, exactly?

The evidence you cited that Paul was gay was that he bashed gays.

I said nothing of the sort, and this is the fourth time I've told you this. I wrote that Paul may have been gay because it was unusual for a pharisee to not be married.

*I’ve requested evidence from you outside the scriptures, since you simply are interpreting scripture to make your case, something you refuse to let me do elsewhere at TTA. How about facts, since you say the scriptures are made up, anyway? How can you call Paul a charlatan unless you can first prove he existed? Consider.

*Paul’s gospel—trust Jesus Christ for Heaven. Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father but by me.” This is only difficult when you are an atheist!

*The basis of my objection to 4 sets of conspirators—gospel writers changed by Paul changed by gospel redactors changed by deutero-Paul, which is only 4 of at least 7 conspirators you believe wrote the NT, is that it’s unlikely and ridiculous on its face. Occam’s razor says the writers believed in something. At least have the good taste to use the atheist argument that they were deluded, and not merely all conspirators.

*Gays could not be rabbis. No. I also wrote that most conservatives think Paul WAS married, a widower. Paul writes about marital intercourse in his letters.

This debate is over, looks like. You come back to ranting about Paul, “proving he was a Roman conspirator” without answering my questions. If Paul was a Roman conspirator, why was he:

*working with his hands, limited in income

*foregoing sleep and food to preach

*traveling 13,000 miles by foot without aid or guard

*spending half the NT era in Roman prisons

*beaten multiple times for the cause of Christ

Why was Paul, if he was a conspirator designed to thwart the Jews, constantly opposed by Jews? Why, as you claim, Mark, did he change Judaism entirely if he was supposed to be calming and placating the Jews?

Where are you based? A public debate might just be feasible for me—sounds good.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: