Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2015, 12:36 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 03:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 06:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You keep bringing this up, so I keep having to repeat myself. Does anything I write ever sink into your thick skull? Here I go again...

No one is sure whether a character called Paul wrote the letters attributed to him. Most scholars think "he" wrote about half of them. Nearly all scholars admit the Pauline letters have been edited and interpolated. Anyone who comments on these letters is, therefore, guessing, to a degree, about their authenticity. I have a right to do that. I am offering an opinion. It has a similar value to your opinion that all the letters are Pauline and unaltered. If you wish to present a case for that opinion...feel free...if you don't then shut the fuck up about it.

Is this the language you would use in the formal debate in person I'd suggested? Would you use the STFO term in a formal debate? Again, I'd prefer strongly to debate with a gentleman who also knows the rules of gentlemanly debate.

Now, you are correct if you wish to speculate on the authorship of particular Pauline-attributed phrases or verses or even whole epistles--'tis the pastime of many an armchair academic. HOWEVER, as I pointed out you would do BEFORE the debate began, EVERY time you present scripture against Paul you are sure Paul wrote it, and EVERY time I refute your theories with scripture you INSIST that it IS ABSOLUTELY not Pauline. Be consistent.

"Is this the language you would use in the formal debate in person I'd suggested?"


So not only your ideas, but your language seems to be rooted in the 1950's ! Cool
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
21-11-2015, 03:13 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 05:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What arguments? Paul not being a charlatan involves Paul being sincere, humble, ministering, religious, kind--no matter what arguments I use atheists insist Paul and even the Lord Jesus Christ were none of these things. What facts would you like me to present?

"Paul not being a charlatan involves Paul being sincere, humble, ministering, religious, kind"

sincere |sɪnˈsɪə|
adjective (sincerer, sincerest)
free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings
• (of a person) saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical. she'd sounded sincere enough. a painfully sincere young actor.

Was Paul sincere? You gotta be joking! Consider the following...

“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.)

This was a lie!

“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)

He made it all up!

“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.)

He badmouthed his opposition.

“Nobody ever paid money to stay in the army, and nobody ever planted a vineyard and refused to eat the fruit of it. Who has there ever been that kept a flock and did not feed on the milk from his flock?” (1 Cor. 9:7, JB.)

Paul milked money from his fraternities.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-11-2015, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2015 05:24 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 03:31 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 03:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes, I'm an expert on the writings of Paul and Jesus.

"X" - the great unknown

"spirt" - a drip under pressure Big Grin

Q, even you know that Jesus never wrote anything. You cannot, therefore, be an expert on the writings of Jesus.

You claim to be an expert on the writings in the New Testament. What you mean by this is that you have assumed they are the truth, and have pored over them ad nauseam, privately and with others, and discussed what they may or may not mean.

What you haven't done is investigate whether they may be authentic, whether they contain the truth, and why they were written.

You haven't made any effort to understand ancient Jewish, Roman and Christian history in the very eras in which these ramblings were produced.

That is why when you read the writings of someone like myself, who has investigated the history, you are completely out of your depth. You cannot imagine there is anything truthful in what I write because that would undermine all your presumptions.

All you can do is pretend to be greatly offended, or dismayed, or bored, because you can't retort with any facts of your own, because you don't have any.

You are no expert Q, you are just someone who has rote learned nursery rhymes.

You can't possibly be this dense regarding Christian doctrine 101. Jesus is the Word of God -- He inspired/wrote the entire Bible, both testaments.

And you remain wholly incorrect--although you are again resorting to ad homs and not facts--I HAVE investigated the history, the ancient beliefs, the councils, the languages. I'm the one with the degree in this, remember?

I think you are a hypocrite.

Here is the dictionary definition of "ad hominem"...

ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A perusal of your last set of comments reveals you wrote...

"Wow, you are slower on the uptake then I thought."
"You can't possibly be this dense..."
"Is this the language you would use in the formal debate in person I'd suggested?"
"Are you that ignorant of NT scholarship? Why am I debating someone who doesn't know what I learned in my first week of college?"
"your silly 'Pauline' doctrines"
"Have a tea and lemonade, Dr. Fulton, and chill."

It is obvious to anyone reading this that you avoid discussing the topics in the debate by using ad hominems, whereas I talk about Paul.

You then somehow have the audacity to accuse me of using ad hominem arguments.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-11-2015, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2015 05:44 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
It is interesting that a lot of Christian leaders in today's churches have inherited Paul's narcissism.

I found this at http://www.recoveringalumni.com/2010/11/...ssism.html

"A surprisingly large number of narcissistic men and women lead major Christian ministries. Because their unique “Christianized personality disorder” is not easily recognized, these men and women routinely abuse those they have been called to serve. As part of their disorder, these leaders never recognize or acknowledge the true nature of their wrongs or the consequences of their behavior, which influence every aspect of their ministry.

They behave ruthlessly, while calling it God’s leading, misleading many in the process. Their egocentric worldview allows them to embrace a mind-set, which equates their will with God’s will. From their perspective, the two are one and the same. Because their calling is higher than others, they consider themselves to be more important, and act accordingly. To them, what they think and say carries more weight than others. Leaders like these actually feel contempt for people who don’t agree with every word that flows from their mouths.

By the message they preach, they would deny this but, by their actions, they validate it consistently. They rarely admit wrongdoing because they never believe they are wrong, which is integral to their disorder. They not only lack empathy for others; they don’t even understand what it is.

What makes people like these so difficult to recognize is that they have great empathy for “the lost”—for nameless, faceless people, who are idealized and not tangible. While loving the lost, however, they are quite willing to trample upon anyone who gets in their way to reach them. Narcissists love loosely defined groups rather than real people because they are incapable of dealing normal interpersonal relationships.

It’s the idea of helping people they love, not getting involved in the lives of ordinary human beings"

PS. An interesting article here...written by a Christian...
http://goodguyswearblack.org/2013/11/22/...-disorder/

Yet the article fails to mention that the babble itself engenders narcissism in Church.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
21-11-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
This is my discussion about narcissistic preachers...

People in Churches not only buy into Biblical belief, but bow down to those pushing it too. Christianity is, and always has been, a power game.

Priests, pastors, and other preachers, claiming to orate with God’s authority, often assume they are the arbiters of people’s lives. For no rational reason, but just tradition, people in Churches accept their authority. These Church leaders take on the role of life coaches, and they are usually gratified by the status that gives them. They are often egotists who revel in being admired and listened to, and are out to feather their own nests rather than really help people. Their first focus is usually not on furnishing happiness for others, but on procuring power, adulation and cash. They have bought into the Christian franchise, and that means they need to push a dubious product, the Bible, for their own and maybe their institution’s gain. The Bible is full of faults and nonsense, but it is too risky for them to preach too much that is novel. Most of the Bible can be ignored and all of it can be “interpreted,” so they make the most of the cards they have been dealt.

Many preachers are poorly qualified for the job of a “life coach.” Bible school, or whatever its equivalent may be, is hardly a solid platform from which to preach morality, ethics and coping skills. One could hardly start from a more unsound base! There is usually no knowledge of psychology, medicine, or counseling required to be a preacher, but that often does not matter too much.

A few unsatisfied punters in a congregation may leave, but for the typical preacher it is the money coming in that is the most important thing.

The typical Church service has a

“the answers everyone needs are right here”

perspective. This is a rigid, flawed approach, because it is a one-way dialogue that ignores a person’s individuality. When someone needs general advice or has personal problems, a good counselor must first listen and ask questions before suggesting possible solutions. That rarely happens in a Church.

There is no worthwhile advice a “man of God” can offer people that cannot be better given by an experienced, appropriately trained humanitarian. What is more, the advice given by preachers is often profoundly wrong. Almost invariably they suggest to pray, or to read the Bible, or to suppress worldly aspirations, or to take a long-term view, or to just hope. Some of them quote Jesus.

“If you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask what you will and you will get it.” (John 15:7, NJB.)

“Happy you who weep now; you shall laugh” (Luke 6:21, NJB.)

“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven…” (Matt. 5:12, NJB.)

This is not helpful advice, it is oppression! Preachers use Jesus’ words to focus on the promise of eternal salvation, a pot of gold at the end of life’s rainbow, granted only to those special people who have faith. It is easy, if you are a preacher, to make promises you are never obliged to make come true.

From a preacher’s perspective, those people who do not buy the faith spiel are trouble causers and not real Christians – it is probably best they go somewhere else.

Some of these preachers are hypocrites. The vaunted love said to be a Christian characteristic is often not a part of their repertoire when people are in real trouble. Too often preachers find it easier to tell a punter they will be prayed for than do something concrete, but true love, or real empathy, is always more that just words.

Some preachers even advise avoidance of help from the secular world, which derails the pursuit of pragmatic answers. They are worried about outsiders treading on their turf, because it may make their advice look ordinary.

Preachers often portray themselves as warm, caring people, and some of them are. Yet beneath the facade most Church leaders hope that people behave like sheep. Sheep are subservient, easily scared, do not ask questions, do not think for themselves and are easily fleeced. Churchmen profit most from wooing a congregation. The return is much higher than from counseling or otherwise helping individuals. They get the people groveling at the mute Jesus’ feet. Yet Jesus is just a priest’s sock puppet, so people are really bowing down to the priest, or the institution he represents. The master’s cold eyes stare down from the crucifix. The flock fails to figure out there is no point in pretending Jesus is their pal. A real friend talks, but Jesus has not uttered a word for nearly two thousand years. He cannot tell the people to stop wasting their time and being so servile, because he is dead.

Genuinely caring preachers often do not have the tools in their armory to help people in need, which must be a source of frustration for them. Their obsolete book is of no real help.

Sitting in a church, or asking for help from a preacher, or praying to Jesus, are usually surefire ways to not find real solutions to personal problems.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-11-2015, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2015 05:21 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 03:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 06:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I only rarely need to consult an online source to find a refutation of your silly "Pauline" doctrines.

Well maybe that is why you can't you post something scholarly? Where are your arguments? Where are your facts? You barely mention what Paul said or did...you are too busy telling us how you are feeling, how smart you are and how wrong I am.

doctrine |ˈdɒktrɪn|
noun
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

I think it is glaringly obvious who believes in "silly Pauline doctrines," and it's not me.

What arguments? Paul not being a charlatan involves Paul being sincere, humble, ministering, religious, kind--no matter what arguments I use atheists insist Paul and even the Lord Jesus Christ were none of these things. What facts would you like me to present?

"Paul not being a charlatan involves Paul being sincere, humble, ministering, religious, kind"

Actually...NO.

I'll remind you of your own definition of "charlatan"...

"A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud."

So it is possible for a charlatan to be humble, ministering, religious and kind.

I grant you that a charlatan is, by definition, not sincere.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-11-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 04:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Funny--most normal people would say religion motivated a man to bring Jews and non-Jews together in peacemaking. Not a Roman conspiracy dating to AFTER the Romans had subjugated Israel!

If your Bible passage is evidence, I'm Arnold Palmer. Have a tea and lemonade, Dr. Fulton, and chill.

Oh well, at least I got an atheist to quote lots of scripture! Thanks!

Q, you wrote

"Not a Roman conspiracy dating to AFTER the Romans had subjugated Israel!"

When do you think Paul wrote his epistles?

Um, you have talked of TWO conspiracies. Paul's writings as a charlatan and then pseudo-Paul Roman work. You also have affirmed that you believe in a dozen different conspiracies authoring the NT! Drinking Beverage

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
23-11-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you really unaware of the prevailing scholarly opinion that held sway for millennia that Mark was written before any NT epistle? Don't most of you atheists believe that Matthew and Luke wrote from Markan prior writings? Are you that ignorant of NT scholarship? Why am I debating someone who doesn't know what I learned in my first week of college?

"Are you really unaware of the prevailing scholarly opinion that held sway for millennia that Mark was written before any NT epistle?"

Well this is interesting. You will find, if you use google, that most commentators place Paul's genuine epistles before the first gospels. I am rather amazed that you do the opposite. Please provide me with a link or two to anyone who backs you up on this.

http://jesuschristians.com/new-articles/...-or-gospel
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...-not-much/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-bor...=Australia
http://jerichobrisance.com/2013/10/13/in...ent-books/

Don't most of you atheists believe that Matthew and Luke wrote from Markan prior writings?

Atheists only have one belief in common...gods don't exist.
Yes, I and perhaps 99% of biblical scholars, believe that Matthew and Luke plagiarized from Mark. Your point is what, exactly?

"Are you that ignorant of NT scholarship? Why am I debating someone who doesn't know what I learned in my first week of college?"

If you use google or read some books on the authorship of the New Testament you will very quickly realise that you are the ignorant party. If you wish to present a case that Mark was written before the Pauline epistles, as per a small minority of scholars...please...do. It would be nice to hear something concrete from you.

It matters not, because EVERY time I quote Paul to refute you, you claim that those are of later authorship/redacted in. Each of these beliefs of yours are also conjectural, as you mentioned!

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
23-11-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(20-11-2015 05:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:31 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You can't possibly be this dense regarding Christian doctrine 101. Jesus is the Word of God -- He inspired/wrote the entire Bible, both testaments.

And you remain wholly incorrect--although you are again resorting to ad homs and not facts--I HAVE investigated the history, the ancient beliefs, the councils, the languages. I'm the one with the degree in this, remember?

"You can't possibly be this dense regarding Christian doctrine 101. Jesus is the Word of God -- He inspired/wrote the entire Bible, both testaments."

If I told you that Mickey Mouse wrote "Macbeth," "The Merchant of Venice," "Wuthering Heights," "Lord of the Rings " and "Harry Potter" you would quite rightly think I had lost my marbles. If I told you that you were "dense" because the Mickey Mouse fan club believes this to be true, you would be, shall we say, rather bemused.

A cartoon character, such as Jeebus, can't go back in time, and can't write.

Your short term memory is lacking. Instead of goal post shifting with yet another anti-divine bias, recall that I said Jesus wrote and you said Jesus didn't write and I said you clearly don't know Thing 1 about evangelical beliefs!

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
23-11-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(21-11-2015 12:36 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Is this the language you would use in the formal debate in person I'd suggested? Would you use the STFO term in a formal debate? Again, I'd prefer strongly to debate with a gentleman who also knows the rules of gentlemanly debate.

Now, you are correct if you wish to speculate on the authorship of particular Pauline-attributed phrases or verses or even whole epistles--'tis the pastime of many an armchair academic. HOWEVER, as I pointed out you would do BEFORE the debate began, EVERY time you present scripture against Paul you are sure Paul wrote it, and EVERY time I refute your theories with scripture you INSIST that it IS ABSOLUTELY not Pauline. Be consistent.

"Is this the language you would use in the formal debate in person I'd suggested?"


So not only your ideas, but your language seems to be rooted in the 1950's ! Cool

My language in a debate in an academic setting would not include belittling my opponent and cursing him. I guess that's why you hadn't followed up on my request to debate in person--because your manners date to the 1550's. Drinking Beverage

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: