Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 01:57 AM 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.

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.

Please notice you haven't said why it’s unlikely and ridiculous. You have just made an assertion. I can't respond to that because there's nothing to respond to.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 09:32 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
*Gays could not be rabbis.

Oh...really? Just like gays could not be priests?


I also wrote that most conservatives think Paul WAS married, a widower. Paul writes about marital intercourse in his letters.

Paul may have been married. That doesn't mean he wasn't gay. I have many female patients who find out their husbands are gay.

Of course anybody, including homosexuals, can write about marital intercourse.

Before you start badmouthing me by claiming I'm trying to put Paul down because he might have been gay, just stop.Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 01:22 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
If Paul was a Roman conspirator, why was he:

[i]*working with his hands, limited in income


Well...there's no evidence he did any tent making. Paul worked with his mouth, his pen and his legs. We don't know how much money he earned. Preachers always cry poor... its part and parcel of what they do.

*foregoing sleep and food to preach

"ladies and gentlemen I've suffered for my religion, and now it's your turn...":D

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

The guy was a fanatic. Just like I see Mormon boys walking or riding around the streets here. Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it true. Do you think Joseph Smith was a prophet just because these boys fervently do?

*spending half the NT era in Roman prisons

The whole prison thing has been exaggerated. He had pen and paper wherever he was. He was a Roman citizen. He did nothing that the Roman government could have considered unlawful, other than disturbing the peace. They kept him for two years in a palace at Caesaria... not a prison... for his own protection. He wrote letters from Rome sending greetings from the Imperial Palace... you don't do that if you're a prisoner.

*beaten multiple times for the cause of Christ

Yes. He managed to really piss some Jews off.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-11-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Why was Paul, if he was a conspirator designed to thwart the Jews, constantly opposed by Jews?

That would be because he was a conspirator designed to thwart the Jews.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2015, 10:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 12:04 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Why, as you claim, Mark, did he change Judaism entirely if he was supposed to be calming and placating the Jews?

Ok...this will be the 10th time I've explained this to you, with no sensible reply back. I'll keep trying...as you seem fairly impervious to new ideas....

It can be argued that Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. Paul hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. He had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.

Paul wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and pleaded they believe only his theology. Judging by the content of his letters, Paul was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.

“...that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

Most of the people Paul wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”) although he wrote to some Jews in the Diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. Paul thought he knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he probably imagined himself as one of the few God fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEsWX0YDB2Y
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2006/1...nd-of-the-
world-or-is-it-pauls-apocalyptic-worldview-nt-26/ )

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23, KJV)

Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. Paul knew that to appeal to his customers he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism. Traditional Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates, and was too anti-Roman. The Jews believed men had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. The Jews worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish Scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-Gentile God, and Jews would bow to no one but Him. The Jews had to eat kosher food, could marry only Jewish women, and were not allowed to work on the Sabbath. Jews regarded Jewish heritage and history as superior to others, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world, and they had chips on their shoulders that right now it was Rome, not they, who were in charge. Jewish Messianic dreams were a threat to Roman rule. Paul knew that the vast majority of Gentiles, including those in the Roman government, found all this inconvenient, irksome, subversive and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” Paul had to jettison the old Jewish rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the Gentile world’s liking.

According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was on the breakfast menu, with shellfish salad for lunch. Paul made the extraordinary claim that to obey the Roman government was to obey God. Paul downplayed the importance of the Jewish temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political Messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. Paul declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he had sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. Paul alleged Gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse,” and a type of “slavery.” All that was now required was faith in Paul’s claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.

It can be argued that Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were problematic or no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself.

Paul advocated the replacement of what he called the “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” It is evident that Paul was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams, and that he was bending over backwards to infiltrate the old religion with Gentiles and pro-Roman ideas. Paul had little idea that he was creating an almost entirely new faith, yet that is precisely what his writings helped to do many years later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
04-11-2015, 07:43 PM
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.

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

I'm in Australia. An on line debate would be good.

I'll have to insist you do some reading on whatever topic first. It is tedious for listeners if one party clearly knows bugger all about the topic...as has happened here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
06-11-2015, 03:22 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEqdgwgTxw
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-11-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLZl6vgT7HM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
07-11-2015, 10:35 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2015 10:55 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qvMQU0etw

It seems my opponent has left town.

I am amazed that people like him can pretend to be so confident, yet have no facts to back up their delusions.

Here is my summary of Paul.

“That Saint Paul...He’s the one who makes all the trouble.” (Ernest Hemingway)

It is hard to feel any warmth for Paul, or to like most of his messages.

Paul had an incessant self-righteous manner. His ideas were irritatingly convoluted and many of his ethics depraved. Paul deliberately distorted the Nazarenes’ beliefs with his own. He was a man intent on manipulating people and shoring up his own status, and all this is very unattractive.

To put Paul’s Christology in perspective, it is important to first consider his complete lack of credentials. Paul’s self-proclaimed legitimacy rested solely on his claim that God had revealed everything to him, an extremely weak argument. History’s pages are littered with charismatic cult leaders who have thought, or pretended, that God talked to them; Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and Jimmy Swaggart are examples. Men like these have usually studied scripture in their youth, and then got power hungry. They start their own sect, and try to lord over everyone in it, usually by promising people an exclusive ticket to heaven and bad-mouthing all outsiders, which is precisely what Paul did. It turned out Paul helped create a rather large cult.

Paul’s “good news” defines today’s Christianity. Paul claimed Christ was the Son of God crucified by the Jews as a sacrifice for humanity’s sins, and it was imperative to have faith in this scheme to get into heaven. These odd, unprecedented ideas were unknown to John the Baptist and Yeshua, and must have been repugnant to James, Peter, the other disciples, and to all true Jews. These novel notions were nothing more than a contrived spiel designed to be attractive and easy to sell to non-Jews.

Paul may have met James and Peter, but thought they had

...nothing to add to the good news I preach.”

That throws immediate doubt on Paul’s legitimacy, as they were Yeshua’s close associates. James and Peter were Messianic Jews who Paul knew opposed Roman rule, so Paul berated their beliefs and promoted his own.

Paul was cunning, opportunistic, and manipulative, and cleverly tailored all his innovative arguments to suit whichever community he was writing to. He invented long-winded waffling tales about his own credibility, God, heaven, Christ, Jews, and Gentiles, and these tales are inconsistent and usually do not make much sense.

Paul’s dictates are laden with appalling prejudices. He was overtly misogynistic, homophobic, and had a neurotic loathing of sexuality. Paul thought he was an authority on the status of women, what to wear, when to eat, sex, whom to keep company with, the role of government...and the list goes on. Today’s preachers promote these pathetic prejudices to justify their own.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. Paul never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Jesus by what he does not say than what he does. Paul’s writings, penned before the Gospels, indirectly prove that the Gospels are mainly mythical.

Paul’s Christ figure was probably something else, a son of God who has since been retrofitted into the Gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. The few passages that suggest Paul’s Christ was once a living person are probably interpolations. If that is right, that shoots another arrow straight through the heart of Christianity’s legitimacy.

Paul was heavily influenced by the Gentile world, and was probably a government agent employed to undermine and report on problematic Jews, a job he took very seriously. He was so preoccupied with plugging propaganda he probably believed his own spiel. Paul’s post gave him power, prestige, and a platform to preach his bigoted ethics, and that was attractive to a man who was probably otherwise a social misfit. He was too obsessive in promoting his prejudices, which must have been obvious to most who met him. If Paul had lived in modern times, he would be given a gold watch for his years in the public service, put on a pension, and the whole office would be glad to see his back.

Paul’s ideas became important when they were promoted by some second century Christians. These Christians had to jettison the archaic Judaic law to make the new religion popular with Gentiles, and Paul’s ideas justified just that. This was why the author of Acts invented stories about Paul to bolster his legitimacy.

There was no such thing as a New Testament in Paul’s time, so he could not possibly have presumed his own scribbling had the same status as Scripture, yet Paul’s awful ethics and bizarre theology are still promoted today as the God given truth to people in pews. Those people should be more critical of the self styled apostle to the Gentiles.

Sadly, the real, material issue surrounding Paul’s manipulation is that it was effective. Its inclusion into the New Testament, its impact on countless generations of individuals who have had their perceptions of nature and acceptance of their own humanity corrupted, is disturbing. What is just as unfortunate is that Churches have successfully used Paul’s messages in exactly the same way the Romans originally intended, and that was to create a docile, humbled, guilt ridden people.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-11-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Dr. Fulton,

My desire to leave the debate is regarding 1) boredom 2) your inability (as predicted) to make a case from contemporaneous historical sources. Mostly, you've presented Twisted Scripture (not to be confused with Twisted Sister) and the comments of armchair historians two millennia removed from the events.

And no, I don't agree. I agree with scholars who emphasize Markan priority and much of Paul coming after some of the gospels.

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
[+] 1 user Likes The Q Continuum's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: