Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 02:50 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(03-11-2015 01:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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.

Another disappointing post from you Q.

I've already answered nearly all of your questions on previous posts. You showed little evidence of even having considered my positions, and you just restate your unsubstantiated assertions. It's a shame you can't come forward with me by moving the conversation on a little.

So I run the risk of boring everyone by repeating myself again.

"You know well the author of Acts 9 says Paul was on the way to Damascus."

Yes. We also know that if Paul had had a road to Damascus experience he would tell us about it and he doesn't. The author of Acts was trying to marry Paul's theology with an historical Jesus. He failed. End of argument.

"You know as well that Paul describes his encounter with Christ in Galatians 1."

Ok, let's consider Galatians 1King James Version (KJV)...

"1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24 And they glorified God in me.


Sorry Q, this is not a road to Damascus experience. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

Q, there is no "trap." This isn't about you or me. It's about history. It's about truth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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!"

Paul doesn't record any miracles, and you know it.

The author of the book of Acts claims Paul did miracles. Once again, this author was trying to shore up Paul's status. There were no miracles.

Paul may have been beaten and stranded for Christ... He upsets Jews nearly everywhere he went. He was a heretic. Jews were odd people. They thought that if one member of the community upset their god the whole community would be punished.

You say Paul planted hundreds of churches. I'd like to see your evidence for that. If he did, he was rather a good propagandist, wouldn't you say?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

What could be more factual than

"dead people don’t rise again?”

I'm stating the obvious.

What is the difference between this and

"Mohammed didn't fly on a horse to Jerusalem?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul 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 didn't write the Timothys.

Whoever did was making my very point about Paul.Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 08:07 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"*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,"


I don't think you know whether you want me to stray from our resolution or not.

I'll presume you do.

We know Paul wrote before the gospels. I assume you agree. I think there was a government plan to promote Paul's ideas about Christ. This was before the first Jewish War of 66 to 70. Some of the other authors in the new Testament, namely Peter and John, also wrote about a Christ, but like Paul, never once mentioned a flesh and blood Jesus. So these authors were probably loosely associated with Paul.

The gospels are a very much dependent on each other. Obviously one was written first, probably Mark, and the others were written based on that. John was probably written last, perhaps in the second century, and it was most closely aligned to the Pauline epistles.

James, and possibly Jude, probably originated from the Jews ie the Nazarenes.

So in my theory there are two broad camps. One was the pre-war government propaganda effort which included the Pauline epistles, Peter and John. The second camp was the post war government effort and included the gospels and probably the deutero Paulines. The agenda was the same in the two camps... to water down the messianic dreams of the Jews and dilute the Jewish religion with less militant Gentiles.

To completely appreciate how important it was for the government to control the Jews you need to have a good understanding of Roman history, something that you do not possess, Q. I can forgive you for that, yet you are clearly not interested in expanding your knowledge. That is a cardinal sin.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 06:45 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"and it’s not worth citing ancient sources here re: martyrdom"

As I thought.

You are too lazy to back up your assertions with some facts.

At least I do that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

Why do you find this idea "bizarre?" Please try to include some facts in your reply. I'm genuinely interested.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"How can you call Paul a charlatan unless you can first prove he existed? Consider."

Somebody wrote the Pauline epistles.

I can't prove for sure "he" existed. Can you?

Do you think he didn't exist?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 02:05 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
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.

Ha ha! The last card of the desperate player... threatening to leave the ring because his opponent says something he doesn't like. Why are you so "done" big fella? You need to work on your fitness. I've barely raised a sweat.

I can call him anything I want. The fact that you can't cope with a little play on names only demonstrates your irrational emotional attachment to your imaginary friend. If you used your intellect rather than let yourself be driven by your emotions, you would see the world a lot more clearly.

You remind me of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: