Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-11-2015 11:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

As usual, there is nothing scholarly about your reply...

"I'm bored"

"you're twisting scripture"

"I don't agree...."

No discussion of facts, no new evidence, no interesting observations. You're not bored, Q, you are BORING.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
13-11-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-11-2015 04:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 11:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

As usual, there is nothing scholarly about your reply...

"I'm bored"

"you're twisting scripture"

"I don't agree...."

No discussion of facts, no new evidence, no interesting observations. You're not bored, Q, you are BORING.

But YOU are the person without facts. AGAIN you bring up miracles and Paul's statements while never responding to my post from Romans where he says he has worked effectively among the Gentiles in SIGNS AND WONDERS.

Go home, read the Bible for a while, then let's return to the debate. Thanks!

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
13-11-2015, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2015 07:18 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(13-11-2015 08:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 04:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  As usual, there is nothing scholarly about your reply...

"I'm bored"

"you're twisting scripture"

"I don't agree...."

No discussion of facts, no new evidence, no interesting observations. You're not bored, Q, you are BORING.

But YOU are the person without facts. AGAIN you bring up miracles and Paul's statements while never responding to my post from Romans where he says he has worked effectively among the Gentiles in SIGNS AND WONDERS.

Go home, read the Bible for a while, then let's return to the debate. Thanks!

The only time Paul ever mentioned anything about his own miracles, is one pathetically weak sentence in Romans that is remarkable for its lack of detail.

"Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ".
(Romans 15;19)

It doesn't even sound like something Paul would've written, and may well have been an interpolation coming from the time when it was decided that Paul had, in fact, been a miracle worker.

Imagine for a second that Paul had, in fact, done miracles. We would never hear the end of it in his letters, yet all we get is this.

I can't believe you are credulous enough to imagine that this is good evidence that Paul performed miracles.

Please don't start quoting Acts to me about Paul's miracles. As I have already discussed, Acts is a work of fiction and it doesn't count.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
13-11-2015, 07:11 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-11-2015 11:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Please outline your argument that "much of Paul" was written after "some of the gospels."

As I've contributed maybe 90% of the words and 99% of the facts in this debate so far, I look forward to learning something from you. I await your balanced and fact filled reply.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
13-11-2015, 07:29 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(13-11-2015 08:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 04:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  As usual, there is nothing scholarly about your reply...

"I'm bored"

"you're twisting scripture"

"I don't agree...."

No discussion of facts, no new evidence, no interesting observations. You're not bored, Q, you are BORING.

But YOU are the person without facts. AGAIN you bring up miracles and Paul's statements while never responding to my post from Romans where he says he has worked effectively among the Gentiles in SIGNS AND WONDERS.

Go home, read the Bible for a while, then let's return to the debate. Thanks!

I found this on the web...

In his epistles, Paul never claimed to have performed any miracles, even though to have announced this would have assisted his missionary work enormously, especially when he faced many challenges to his authority. Of course, had he made any such claim himself, he might have been asked to provide evidence, or to have performed just one more deserving miracle.

After a safe interval of around fifty years, Acts of the Apostles claimed that Paul really had performed miracles, although each such miracle was matched by at least one even more awe-inspiring and worthy miracle performed by St. Peter. According to Acts, Paul's first miraculous cure was improbably similar to Peter's first cure. In both cases, a man who had been lame since birth was immediately cured by being commanded to stand and walk. Peter's first miracle cure was performed in the name of Jesus, at the Temple, where the faithful saw the healed beggar praising God, and was the opportunity for some outstanding proselytising. Paul's first cure was clumsy and without apparent purpose, given that Paul did not tell the man about Jesus and he was even mistaken for a pagan god.

Acts says that Paul also resuscitated a young man who foolishly fell asleep in an upper storey window and fell to the ground, although the story leaves some uncertainty as to whether the young man was really dead when Paul intervened to revive him.

In an apparent miracle of dubious morality, Paul blinded Elymas (Bar-jesus) the sorcerer, for trying to frustrate his attempts to convert Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:11).

On this evidence, it can be concluded that Paul did not perform any miracles at all.


Paul himself referred to the signs and wonders which he had been given power to perform in 2 Corinthians and Romans 15, but he did not specify what they were. Luke recorded Paul's miracles soon after they occurred:

Acts 13:6-11 - Paul blinds Elymas who was a false prophet.


Acts 14:8-10 - Paul heals a lame man in Lystra.


Acts 19:11-12 - Paul performed many miracles including healings and casting out demons.


Acts 20:9-12 - Paul raised Eutychus from the dead.


Acts 28:8-9 - Paul healed diseases
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
16-11-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(13-11-2015 06:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-11-2015 08:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But YOU are the person without facts. AGAIN you bring up miracles and Paul's statements while never responding to my post from Romans where he says he has worked effectively among the Gentiles in SIGNS AND WONDERS.

Go home, read the Bible for a while, then let's return to the debate. Thanks!

The only time Paul ever mentioned anything about his own miracles, is one pathetically weak sentence in Romans that is remarkable for its lack of detail.

"Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ".
(Romans 15;19)

It doesn't even sound like something Paul would've written, and may well have been an interpolation coming from the time when it was decided that Paul had, in fact, been a miracle worker.

Imagine for a second that Paul had, in fact, done miracles. We would never hear the end of it in his letters, yet all we get is this.

I can't believe you are credulous enough to imagine that this is good evidence that Paul performed miracles.

Please don't start quoting Acts to me about Paul's miracles. As I have already discussed, Acts is a work of fiction and it doesn't count.

Learn how to present facts in a debate because yet again we've followed this procedure:

1) You quote scripture to say Paul is a charlatan

2) I present scripture that refutes your position

3) You say "Someone else added the verse later" without any documentary, peer-reviewed, or any other kind of proof.

This is not a debate so much as you demonstrating reams of special knowledge "proving" which parts of the Bible are Pauline and which aren't.

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
16-11-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(13-11-2015 07:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 11:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Please outline your argument that "much of Paul" was written after "some of the gospels."

As I've contributed maybe 90% of the words and 99% of the facts in this debate so far, I look forward to learning something from you. I await your balanced and fact filled reply.

My argumentation here is irrelevant since both you and I will be appealing to scholars, not all of whom agree on the dating of NT manuscripts.

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
16-11-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(13-11-2015 07:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-11-2015 08:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But YOU are the person without facts. AGAIN you bring up miracles and Paul's statements while never responding to my post from Romans where he says he has worked effectively among the Gentiles in SIGNS AND WONDERS.

Go home, read the Bible for a while, then let's return to the debate. Thanks!

I found this on the web...

In his epistles, Paul never claimed to have performed any miracles, even though to have announced this would have assisted his missionary work enormously, especially when he faced many challenges to his authority. Of course, had he made any such claim himself, he might have been asked to provide evidence, or to have performed just one more deserving miracle.

After a safe interval of around fifty years, Acts of the Apostles claimed that Paul really had performed miracles, although each such miracle was matched by at least one even more awe-inspiring and worthy miracle performed by St. Peter. According to Acts, Paul's first miraculous cure was improbably similar to Peter's first cure. In both cases, a man who had been lame since birth was immediately cured by being commanded to stand and walk. Peter's first miracle cure was performed in the name of Jesus, at the Temple, where the faithful saw the healed beggar praising God, and was the opportunity for some outstanding proselytising. Paul's first cure was clumsy and without apparent purpose, given that Paul did not tell the man about Jesus and he was even mistaken for a pagan god.

Acts says that Paul also resuscitated a young man who foolishly fell asleep in an upper storey window and fell to the ground, although the story leaves some uncertainty as to whether the young man was really dead when Paul intervened to revive him.

In an apparent miracle of dubious morality, Paul blinded Elymas (Bar-jesus) the sorcerer, for trying to frustrate his attempts to convert Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:11).

On this evidence, it can be concluded that Paul did not perform any miracles at all.


Paul himself referred to the signs and wonders which he had been given power to perform in 2 Corinthians and Romans 15, but he did not specify what they were. Luke recorded Paul's miracles soon after they occurred:

Acts 13:6-11 - Paul blinds Elymas who was a false prophet.


Acts 14:8-10 - Paul heals a lame man in Lystra.


Acts 19:11-12 - Paul performed many miracles including healings and casting out demons.


Acts 20:9-12 - Paul raised Eutychus from the dead.


Acts 28:8-9 - Paul healed diseases

You have a logical fallacy (again). If Paul never claimed to perform miracles in his writings, as an empiricist you have undone one of your claims to Paul being a charlatan. And I say thank you.

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
16-11-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Dr. Fulton,

You're clearly not an expert--or even interested--in the words of Paul and Jesus as in the NT; Perhaps this debate should end. I can provide commentaries that all atheists are angry people in denial. Are those commentaries truth? All you have done is cite commentaries of persons who side with your liberal views. Do you have any smoking gun evidence that Paul was a charlatan besides your anti-Christian biases?

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
16-11-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(16-11-2015 11:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-11-2015 07:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please outline your argument that "much of Paul" was written after "some of the gospels."

As I've contributed maybe 90% of the words and 99% of the facts in this debate so far, I look forward to learning something from you. I await your balanced and fact filled reply.

My argumentation here is irrelevant since both you and I will be appealing to scholars, not all of whom agree on the dating of NT manuscripts.

You stated that "much of Paul" was written after "some of the gospels."

I disagree, and politely asked you to present reasons for your argument. You are either

- too lazy to do it, or

- you have checked your facts and realized that you are wrong

What is more, you are not honest enough to admit either.

You write "My argumentation here is irrelevant..." yet you haven't even presented your case.

You then have the audacity to claim I don't know how to conduct myself in a debate.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: