Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2016, 09:48 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(19-02-2016 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 12:47 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You asked no such thing. Now that you're asking, I will address it.

I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament, which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God. I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc. and I can hardly blame you for that! But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

"You asked no such thing."

The following is a cut and paste from my question to you in post 314...

"...please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?"

So I have asked you, and as usual, you ignored my question, and now you are calling black white despite the evidence for everyone to read.

You asked no such thing because you made a false syllogism and wrongly inferred that I implied something I had not implied.

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
23-02-2016, 09:51 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(19-02-2016 03:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 12:47 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You asked no such thing. Now that you're asking, I will address it.

I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament, which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God. I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc. and I can hardly blame you for that! But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

"Now that you're asking, I will address it."

Hurrah! This will be your first attempt to actually say something about Paul in the last 20 pages....drum roll please....

"I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament,"

Bollocks! Paul invented his own nonsense. There is no Christ in the OT. Paul undermined the basic tenets of Judaism. He was a heretic, and is considered as such by all true Jews today.

"...which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God."

Bollocks! There is no "fulfilled prophecy" in the OT. Show me some.

"I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc."


Irrelevant.

But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

Bollocks! Paul tried to pinch the odd idea from the OT, yet most of what he wrote sprang from the fertile imagination of his own mind and from what he pinched from other cults such as Mithraism. He convinced no true Jew of his ramblings. You are claiming he was interpreting scripture, yet he was inventing his own ideas... ideas that suited his political agenda.

Even if he was a good Jew just interpreting Scripture, that adds no weight to his validity today. Old Testament Scripture is nonsense...a fact any rational person with an objective view knows.

Thanks for at least attempting a cursory answer to one of my questions, but you only get an epic fail for this one.

Thanks for asking. The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry, that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles. And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles.

Are you sure there is not fulfilled prophecy from the OT you may readily assess?

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
23-02-2016, 03:31 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-02-2016 09:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "You asked no such thing."

The following is a cut and paste from my question to you in post 314...

"...please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?"

So I have asked you, and as usual, you ignored my question, and now you are calling black white despite the evidence for everyone to read.

You asked no such thing because you made a false syllogism and wrongly inferred that I implied something I had not implied.

"You asked no such thing"

Well...yes I did...and you have just admitted I did.

You are now changing your stance to

"I didn't like the question because...."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-02-2016, 09:39 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-02-2016 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Now that you're asking, I will address it."

Hurrah! This will be your first attempt to actually say something about Paul in the last 20 pages....drum roll please....

"I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament,"

Bollocks! Paul invented his own nonsense. There is no Christ in the OT. Paul undermined the basic tenets of Judaism. He was a heretic, and is considered as such by all true Jews today.

"...which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God."

Bollocks! There is no "fulfilled prophecy" in the OT. Show me some.

"I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc."


Irrelevant.

But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

Bollocks! Paul tried to pinch the odd idea from the OT, yet most of what he wrote sprang from the fertile imagination of his own mind and from what he pinched from other cults such as Mithraism. He convinced no true Jew of his ramblings. You are claiming he was interpreting scripture, yet he was inventing his own ideas... ideas that suited his political agenda.

Even if he was a good Jew just interpreting Scripture, that adds no weight to his validity today. Old Testament Scripture is nonsense...a fact any rational person with an objective view knows.

Thanks for at least attempting a cursory answer to one of my questions, but you only get an epic fail for this one.

Thanks for asking. The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry, that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles. And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles.

Are you sure there is not fulfilled prophecy from the OT you may readily assess?

"The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry..."

Does "it?" Where does it say this? Does this phrase make sense to you?

"...that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles."


Really. Where does "it" say this?

"And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles."

Where does "it" say this?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-02-2016, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2016 01:24 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-02-2016 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Now that you're asking, I will address it."

Hurrah! This will be your first attempt to actually say something about Paul in the last 20 pages....drum roll please....

"I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament,"

Bollocks! Paul invented his own nonsense. There is no Christ in the OT. Paul undermined the basic tenets of Judaism. He was a heretic, and is considered as such by all true Jews today.

"...which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God."

Bollocks! There is no "fulfilled prophecy" in the OT. Show me some.

"I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc."


Irrelevant.

But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

Bollocks! Paul tried to pinch the odd idea from the OT, yet most of what he wrote sprang from the fertile imagination of his own mind and from what he pinched from other cults such as Mithraism. He convinced no true Jew of his ramblings. You are claiming he was interpreting scripture, yet he was inventing his own ideas... ideas that suited his political agenda.

Even if he was a good Jew just interpreting Scripture, that adds no weight to his validity today. Old Testament Scripture is nonsense...a fact any rational person with an objective view knows.

Thanks for at least attempting a cursory answer to one of my questions, but you only get an epic fail for this one.

Thanks for asking. The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry, that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles. And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles.

Are you sure there is not fulfilled prophecy from the OT you may readily assess?

So ...big breath...your point....I think...is that Paul got "95%" of his ideas from the OT, and the OT predicted something about ? Jeebus ? Woody Allen, ? Albert Einstein, so therefore we must believe Paul that Christ sacrificed himself to himself so we could have faith in him and get into heaven? Huh

Well that makes sense!Facepalm Paul must have been telling the truth!

Your reasoning is so deluded and contrived and plain wrong I'm afraid you must be barking mad.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
24-02-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-02-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You asked no such thing because you made a false syllogism and wrongly inferred that I implied something I had not implied.

"You asked no such thing"

Well...yes I did...and you have just admitted I did.

You are now changing your stance to

"I didn't like the question because...."

As I wrote, I took your question as rhetorical, which many of your questions are--you are not at all interested in my answers.

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
24-02-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-02-2016 09:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thanks for asking. The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry, that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles. And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles.

Are you sure there is not fulfilled prophecy from the OT you may readily assess?

"The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry..."

Does "it?" Where does it say this? Does this phrase make sense to you?

"...that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles."


Really. Where does "it" say this?

"And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles."

Where does "it" say this?

You asked me about fulfilled prophecy. The OT lists all these prophecies, here rolled into a paragraph or two by me for your convenience. You are certainly aware that all these things have come to pass, in spades.

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
24-02-2016, 02:29 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-02-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thanks for asking. The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry, that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles. And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles.

Are you sure there is not fulfilled prophecy from the OT you may readily assess?

So ...big breath...your point....I think...is that Paul got "95%" of his ideas from the OT, and the OT predicted something about ? Jeebus ? Woody Allen, ? Albert Einstein, so therefore we must believe Paul that Christ sacrificed himself to himself so we could have faith in him and get into heaven? Huh

Well that makes sense!Facepalm Paul must have been telling the truth!

Your reasoning is so deluded and contrived and plain wrong I'm afraid you must be barking mad.

Sorry, what? The OT also predicted the coming of Jesus and the rise of Christianity. You personally have made the point a number of times, even within this Boxing Ring debate, that you feel that Paul brought about Christianity even more than Christ--a point I can well understand.

The OT has fulfilled prophecy showing its divine nature. Paul brought about the saving religion in mass promulgation. Be logical:

1. The OT has fulfilled prophecy, and was written by the divine.
2. The OT promises the NT and its scope and influence.
3. Paul is clearly recognized by all, supporters and detractors, as a central NT figure.

PS. Even though you are clearly not experienced in debate formats, I just have to ask, do you speak to your patients they way you speak to me? You write horrible, nasty things about me and mine--and I've come back to you for many more "visits" than your sickest patients. If you are trying to help me, that's one thing. If you're trying to promote your anti-Christianity cause, you should probably read my current avatar signature.

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
24-02-2016, 02:36 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(24-02-2016 02:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "You asked no such thing"

Well...yes I did...and you have just admitted I did.

You are now changing your stance to

"I didn't like the question because...."

As I wrote, I took your question as rhetorical, which many of your questions are--you are not at all interested in my answers.

First you said I didn't ask the question, then you implied you didn't like the question, now you are saying you thought the question was rhetorical and that I am not interested in your answers!

The question was not rhetorical and I am interested in your answers...particularly if they make some sense. Your convoluted description of Paul's validity simply doesn't make any coherent sense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
24-02-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(24-02-2016 02:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "The OT explains that after the rejection of a particular prophet like Moses in his scope and ministry..."

Does "it?" Where does it say this? Does this phrase make sense to you?

"...that the Jewish people would be scattered in diaspora, be a blessing and a reproach in the lands to which they were driven, and return to their land, after a lengthy scattering, to be surrounded by enemies, and return to a city that would eventually be a divided capital between Jews and Gentiles."


Really. Where does "it" say this?

"And that the prophet they rejected would be a Jewish preacher, one who was to become worshipped worldwide by communities of Gentiles."

Where does "it" say this?

You asked me about fulfilled prophecy. The OT lists all these prophecies, here rolled into a paragraph or two by me for your convenience. You are certainly aware that all these things have come to pass, in spades.

"You asked me about fulfilled prophecy. The OT lists all these prophecies,"

I have asked you to show me, and our readers where. We are still waiting.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: