Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2016, 03:06 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(29-02-2016 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 02:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Here are a few prophecies re: Jesus. I hope you will elevate from biblical illiteracy and find them helpful:

Jesus hailed from Galilee: "...In Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who
walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of
the shadow of death, upon them a light has shined...For unto us a Child is
born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace."-Isaiah 9:2-6 (Isaiah is in the Jewish Tanakh, what
Christians call the Old Testament. Who is called today the Prince of Peace?
And so on...)
"

I'll let Rabbi Stuart Federow answer this one...

Christians see the above verses from Isaiah 9 to be speaking of Jesus, who came into the world as a child. However, after having read the above quotation, a few questions should come to mind.

When did Jesus ever run any government?

When was Jesus ever called a Wonderful Counselor, or a Mighty Gd, or an Everlasting Father, or a Prince of Peace? Jesus was never called by any of these names anywhere in the Christians' New Testament and not at all in his own lifetime.

Christians always seem to misunderstand this quotation. This is because they do not understand Hebrew, nor do they understand names, nor do they understand Hebrew names.

First, let us understand names. In most languages, every name has a meaning. The name 'Anthony' means 'priceless' and the name 'Alexander' means 'protector.' If we were to give a child the first and middle names of Anthony Alexander, would that mean that we are saying that this child is a 'priceless protector?' Would we call out to them, 'Hey, Priceless Protector, how are you?' Of course not.

Hebrew names sometimes say something about Gd. The name Michael means 'who is like Gd.' The name Elihu means 'my Gd is He,' or 'He is my Gd.' The name Immanuel means 'Gd is with us,' just to give a few examples. If someone has the name, Elihu, (again, meaning 'He is my Gd') would that mean that the human being known as Elihu is Gd? These names say something about Gd, even though they are the names of ordinary human beings. A better translation to the verse in question might be:

...and his name will be called, 'A wonderful counselor is the mighty Gd, an everlasting father is the ruler of peace.'

This means that there are really only two Hebrew names in the verse, which are given to a human being and not to a divine being, even though the names make a statement about Gd. Those names, like Anthony Alexander in our example above, would be 'Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom.' The way it is written in the original Hebrew, the names would be hyphenated as 'Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibor' and 'Avi-Ad-Sar-Shalom.' Lengthy names like these were not uncommon in the Bible, and in Isaiah specifically. For example, in Isaiah 8:3, we find the name, 'Maher-shalal-chash-baz,' which means 'the spoil speeds, the prey hastens.'

But let us suppose that this verse really did contain four names. How well would they apply to Jesus? Is this a case where at first the description of the person described in Isaiah 9:6-7 sounds like the story of Jesus, but, on closer examination, it isn't?

'Wonderful Counselor'

In the Christian's New Testament we find two stories about Jesus that certainly do not describe him as a Wonderful Counselor:

Another of the disciples said to him, 'Lord, let me first go and bury my father.' But Jesus said to him, 'Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.' [Matthew 8:21]

What kind of 'Wonderful Counselor' would tell a man who had recently lost his beloved father not to see to his father's funeral?

When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, 'Is that how you answer the high priest?' Jesus answered him, 'If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?' [John 18:22-23]

Everyone is familiar with the quotation from Jesus, 'Do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.' [Matthew 5:39] In the quotation above from John 18, Jesus does not turn his other cheek to the one who struck him, but rebukes him instead. One who says one thing but does another is called a hypocrite, and how can a hypocrite be a 'Wonderful Counselor?'

'Mighty Gd.'

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My Gd, My Gd, why hast thou forsaken me?' [Matthew 27:46]

If Jesus were the 'Mighty Gd,' why would he have to call upon another as Gd in order to save him? How can Gd forsake himself? This also denies the very idea of a trinity, and shows how Jesus does not fit the description of the Isaiah 9 quotation.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, Gd: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [Matthew 19:16-17]

In the above verses, Jesus distinguishes between himself and Gd. How could he have been the 'Mighty Gd,' if he himself made a distinction between himself and Gd? If Jesus knew that only Gd is good, and that he should not be called good, then Jesus knew that Jesus was not Gd.

'Everlasting Father'

In the trinity, Jesus is the son, and not the Father. He cannot be both at the same time. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself showed that he was not the Father, and claimed not to have the same will, or the same knowledge as the Father.

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.' [Matthew 26:39]

Jesus calls the One to whom he prayed his Father, so how can Jesus be 'the Everlasting Father,' if he called another his Father? How could Jesus be the Father if the will of Jesus is not the same as the will of the Father? This denies the very idea of the trinity.

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. [Mark 13:32]

In the above verse, Jesus claims there is something that he does not know, but that only the Father knows. So how can Jesus, 'the son,' also be the Father if their knowledge is not the same?

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my Gd, and your Gd. [John 20:17]

How can the Father ascend to Himself? In the above verse, Jesus not only distinguishes between himself and his Father, but he also makes it sound as though the relationship that he has with Gd, 'The Father,' is exactly the same relationship that all people have with Gd, who is, in fact, the Father of all.

'Prince of Peace'

First of all, this is a mistranslation. The words in the original Hebrew are, 'sar shalom.' The word 'sar' does not mean 'prince,' it means 'ruler.' Now, one might say that a 'prince' is a 'ruler.' However, the reason why the Christians choose the word 'prince' instead of the word 'ruler' in Christian translations is that the word 'prince' makes one think that the original verse is speaking of a 'son of the king,' which in the Christian mind alludes to Jesus whom they believe to have been the son of Gd, the King. However, the word is 'ruler,' and not 'prince.' 'Prince' in Hebrew is 'nasee' and not 'sar.' The Christian translators intentionally chose the English word 'prince' to lead the reader into thinking about Jesus.

In the Christian's New Testament, we also find a quotation which certainly does not show Jesus to have been a 'ruler' or even a 'prince of peace.'

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Matthew 10:34-36]

How could anyone who said such a thing be considered a prince or ruler of peace? How could anyone who said such a thing have been the Messiah? We know that the true Messiah will bring an everlasting peace and, along with Elijah the Prophet, will bring families closer to each other and not further apart (see Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:1-4, and Malachi 4:5).

I have already stated that Christians rarely include verse 7 when they quote Isaiah chapter 9. The reason is that in verse 7 it states, 'Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.' Perhaps they do not quote verse 7 because Jesus never brought peace to the world, nor did he ever intend to, as the above quotation from Matthew 10:34-36 shows.

Jesus was also a violent man, and neither a 'Prince of Peace,' nor even a 'Ruler of Peace.' There are other verses in the Christian's New Testament that indicate this. Here are two more:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. [Luke 19:27]

The verse above comes at the end of a parable that Jesus told, of a man that leaves his land to go to be anointed as the King. When he comes back to his land, he says the above verse. Every single Christian commentator claims that Jesus was referring to himself as the man who left his land to be anointed King, and so in his own parable, Jesus is saying the above, asking that those who do not wish to have him reign over them be murdered in front of him.

In the verse, below, Jesus tells his followers to go and buy a sword.

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Luke 22:35]

We have shown from quotations from the Christian's New Testament that Jesus was not a 'Wonderful Counselor, Jesus was not a 'Mighty Gd,' Jesus was not an 'Everlasting Father,' nor was Jesus a 'Prince of Peace' or even a 'Ruler of Peace,' in spite of how Christians wish to interpret the original verses from Isaiah 9:6-7.

So, according to the Jewish interpretation, who is Isaiah 9:6-7 speaking about?

According to Judaism, the answer is in the names chosen. The name 'Hezekiah' which in Hebrew is 'Chizkiyah' comes from the words 'chazak' and 'Ya.' 'Chazak' means 'strong' or 'mighty' and 'Ya' is the shortened name for Gd used as a suffix. Many might recognize the Ya' in the word, 'halleluyah' which means,'praise Gd.' Judaism believes that Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, who reigned for almost 30 years. The name Hezekiah, Chizkiyah, is the same name in meaning, as one finds in the verses from Isaiah 9:6-7, a 'Mighty Gd.' Thumbsup

Oops! No Jesus here!Big Grin

The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David. His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.

I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic, but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic. Jesus warned about the blind leading the blind. Think for yourself, Dr. Fulton!

"The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David."

Jesus, if he even existed, never was a king of the Jews, and is not thought of as a (dead) king now by the Jewish people. He was a failed insurrectionist.


"His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews."


Please correct your grammar so I can understand your point.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.


Another example of what? Please quote where "Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament."

"I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic,"

I doubt that.

"...but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic."

Please explain why you have the bravado to claim that an interpretation of the original hebrew made by someone intimately familiar with the language and the history of the times, written by a Jew discussing Jewish scripture, is "biased," whereas your pro Christian, overimaginative and ridiculously tenuous assertions are based on nothing scholarly and are illogical.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-03-2016, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2016 09:47 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(29-02-2016 01:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 02:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "...There shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious." -Isaiah 11:10

?????? No Christ or Jeebus here. Could be anyone.

PS...or, perhaps, a Jewish rabbi might best explain his own scripture...

"And a shoot shall spring forth from the stem of Jesse: And if you say, ‘Here are consolations for Hezekiah and his people, that they shall not fall into his hands. Now what will be with the exile that was exiled to Halah and Habor, is their hope lost?’ It is not lost! Eventually, the King Messiah shall come and redeem them.

a shoot: [This is symbolic of] the royal scepter.

and a twig: an expression of a sapling.

and a twig shall sprout from its roots: and the entire section, and at the end (v. 11), "And it shall come to pass, that on that day, the Lord shall apply His hand again…[from Assyria]… Hence, [it is obvious] that this prophecy was said to console those exiled to Assyria."


"Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles."-Isaiah 42:6

?????? No Christ or Jeebus here. Could be anyone.

In fact, a Jewish translation of Isaiah 42;6 reads...

"I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations."

Sorry Q, but it's just ol' Yahweh mouthing off again. No Christ. No Jeebus.

Root and branch also apply to literal branch and tree--it is the cross of Christ.

Ibid for the rest.

Root and branch also apply to literal branch and tree--it is the cross of Christ. Facepalm

Oh no no no. Q, think for yourself! Use logic! The prophet is literally referring to Harley Davidson motorcycles. What else has enough torque to pull up roots and branches? And what do they do at night is...yes...that's right....headlights....

"for a light to nations."

Think about it. People put petrol in their motorbikes, so we have

"I have put My Spirit upon Him..."

Big Grin Ibid for the rest. I hope you will elevate from biblical illiteracy and find this helpful.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
01-03-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(29-02-2016 01:55 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 02:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your
rising." ... The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you. -Isaiah 60:3

Sounds like Yahweh....not Jeebus

"For from the rising of the sun,
even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every
place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name
shall be great among the nations," says the Lord of hosts."-Malachi 1:11

Oops...it is ol' Yahweh...not Jeebus! Big Grin

The Messiah is the Lord of hosts who comes with multitudes attending Him in both testaments. You just don't like prophecies.

Nope. You're wrong. The "Lord of Hosts" is ol' Yahweh. Google it.

Please show us where the "lord of Hosts" "comes with multitudes" in the New Testament. (this is not a rhetorical question)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-03-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(01-03-2016 03:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 01:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Root and branch also apply to literal branch and tree--it is the cross of Christ.

Ibid for the rest.

Root and branch also apply to literal branch and tree--it is the cross of Christ. Facepalm

Oh no no no. Q, think for yourself! Use logic! The prophet is literally referring to Harley Davidson motorcycles. What else has enough torque to pull up roots and branches? And what do they do at night is...yes...that's right....headlights....

"for a light to nations."

Think about it. People put petrol in their motorbikes, so we have

"I have put My Spirit upon Him..."

Big Grin Ibid for the rest. I hope you will elevate from biblical illiteracy and find this helpful.

We've already discussed the righteous branch prophecy of Messiah elsewhere. Nat-zeret - Natz-eret in Hebrew... I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

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
02-03-2016, 08:18 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(01-03-2016 04:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 01:55 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Messiah is the Lord of hosts who comes with multitudes attending Him in both testaments. You just don't like prophecies.

Nope. You're wrong. The "Lord of Hosts" is ol' Yahweh. Google it.

Please show us where the "lord of Hosts" "comes with multitudes" in the New Testament. (this is not a rhetorical question)

Jude--"He is coming with thousands upon thousands to judge all the ungodly of all the ungodly things they've done..." and this is also Jesus, not the Father. Confer with the rest of Jude and you will also find similar statements in Revelation.

I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

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
02-03-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(01-03-2016 03:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David. His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.

I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic, but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic. Jesus warned about the blind leading the blind. Think for yourself, Dr. Fulton!

"The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David."

Jesus, if he even existed, never was a king of the Jews, and is not thought of as a (dead) king now by the Jewish people. He was a failed insurrectionist.


"His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews."


Please correct your grammar so I can understand your point.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.


Another example of what? Please quote where "Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament."

"I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic,"

I doubt that.

"...but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic."

Please explain why you have the bravado to claim that an interpretation of the original hebrew made by someone intimately familiar with the language and the history of the times, written by a Jew discussing Jewish scripture, is "biased," whereas your pro Christian, overimaginative and ridiculously tenuous assertions are based on nothing scholarly and are illogical.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Jewish apologists make impassioned statements against Christian interpretations of both testaments, though both testaments were written by Jews.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Pilate and Jesus had a discussion re: the popular notion passed to Pilate that Jesus was the King of the Jews, and that every cross had nailed to it the perpetrator's crime, and that Jesus's crime was "Here is the King of the Jews!"

I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

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
03-03-2016, 03:16 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-03-2016 08:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-03-2016 03:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Root and branch also apply to literal branch and tree--it is the cross of Christ. Facepalm

Oh no no no. Q, think for yourself! Use logic! The prophet is literally referring to Harley Davidson motorcycles. What else has enough torque to pull up roots and branches? And what do they do at night is...yes...that's right....headlights....

"for a light to nations."

Think about it. People put petrol in their motorbikes, so we have

"I have put My Spirit upon Him..."

Big Grin Ibid for the rest. I hope you will elevate from biblical illiteracy and find this helpful.

We've already discussed the righteous branch prophecy of Messiah elsewhere. Nat-zeret - Natz-eret in Hebrew... I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

Q, you have made a big issue about me ignoring one of your posts...here is the post so all readers know what you are referring to...

"Or again, if you prefer--and you will probably duck this point and not even respond, LOOK at verse 5. "And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant..." is a metaphor for a nation of people or one single individual? What does Occam's razor tell you? And in verse 5, "to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength."

So we have either:

Jesus will bring Jacob (Israel) back again to Him, though Israel be not (yet) gathered, yet shall Jesus be glorious and God His strength OR

Israel will bring Jacob (Israel) back again to Israel, though Israel be not (yet) gathered, yet shall Israel be glorious and God HIS (singular, not national) strength.

As usual, when atheists actually bring context verses in for study, they strengthen the evangelical doctrinal case."


The reason I haven't responded to this post is that I can't make head nor tail of it. I have almost no idea what you are trying to say. What, exactly, is "the evangelical doctrinal case"?

If you are genuinely interested in explaining your ideas to the forum, please rephrase your argument, as I suspect I'm not the only one who cannot understand you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-03-2016, 03:46 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2016 10:03 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-03-2016 08:20 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-03-2016 03:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David."

Jesus, if he even existed, never was a king of the Jews, and is not thought of as a (dead) king now by the Jewish people. He was a failed insurrectionist.


"His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews."


Please correct your grammar so I can understand your point.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.


Another example of what? Please quote where "Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament."

"I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic,"

I doubt that.

"...but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic."

Please explain why you have the bravado to claim that an interpretation of the original hebrew made by someone intimately familiar with the language and the history of the times, written by a Jew discussing Jewish scripture, is "biased," whereas your pro Christian, overimaginative and ridiculously tenuous assertions are based on nothing scholarly and are illogical.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Jewish apologists make impassioned statements against Christian interpretations of both testaments, though both testaments were written by Jews.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Pilate and Jesus had a discussion re: the popular notion passed to Pilate that Jesus was the King of the Jews, and that every cross had nailed to it the perpetrator's crime, and that Jesus's crime was "Here is the King of the Jews!"

I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

"...Jewish apologists make impassioned statements against Christian interpretations of both testaments..."

Well...I think many Jews resent some Christian apologists asserting erroneous interpretations about their scripture.

As to the New Testament writings, I think most Jews don't bother commenting...to them the new testament is not scripture, so they ignore it. How often do you read the Koran?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-03-2016, 04:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2016 10:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-03-2016 08:20 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-03-2016 03:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David."

Jesus, if he even existed, never was a king of the Jews, and is not thought of as a (dead) king now by the Jewish people. He was a failed insurrectionist.


"His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews."


Please correct your grammar so I can understand your point.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.


Another example of what? Please quote where "Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament."

"I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic,"

I doubt that.

"...but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic."

Please explain why you have the bravado to claim that an interpretation of the original hebrew made by someone intimately familiar with the language and the history of the times, written by a Jew discussing Jewish scripture, is "biased," whereas your pro Christian, overimaginative and ridiculously tenuous assertions are based on nothing scholarly and are illogical.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Jewish apologists make impassioned statements against Christian interpretations of both testaments, though both testaments were written by Jews.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Pilate and Jesus had a discussion re: the popular notion passed to Pilate that Jesus was the King of the Jews, and that every cross had nailed to it the perpetrator's crime, and that Jesus's crime was "Here is the King of the Jews!"

I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".


"You can't be so dense as to not realize that Pilate and Jesus had a discussion..."


Herein lies the essence of part of the chasm between you and me. You think all of the babble is real history...I don't. I look beyond what is written to try to understand what the authors were trying to push...you swallow the spiel without question, and assume I am "dense" because I don't agree with you. You also assume I haven't read your babble...whereas in fact I have an intimate knowledge of the gospels, and of the history of the era in which they were written.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-03-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(02-03-2016 08:20 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-03-2016 03:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "The government upon His shoulder refers to the title being passed to Him from King David."

Jesus, if he even existed, never was a king of the Jews, and is not thought of as a (dead) king now by the Jewish people. He was a failed insurrectionist.


"His very cross said as his "crime", King of the Jews."


Please correct your grammar so I can understand your point.

For another example, Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament.


Another example of what? Please quote where "Jesus is called mighty God and etc. in the New Testament."

"I'm conversant with the Jewish anti-Christian apologetic,"

I doubt that.

"...but thank you for posting the most biased source you could find rather than addressing this prophecy using logic."

Please explain why you have the bravado to claim that an interpretation of the original hebrew made by someone intimately familiar with the language and the history of the times, written by a Jew discussing Jewish scripture, is "biased," whereas your pro Christian, overimaginative and ridiculously tenuous assertions are based on nothing scholarly and are illogical.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Jewish apologists make impassioned statements against Christian interpretations of both testaments, though both testaments were written by Jews.

You can't be so dense as to not realize that Pilate and Jesus had a discussion re: the popular notion passed to Pilate that Jesus was the King of the Jews, and that every cross had nailed to it the perpetrator's crime, and that Jesus's crime was "Here is the King of the Jews!"

I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

I think this debate is over since you ignored the post where I wrote, "You will probably ignore this post".

How ironic that you, of all people, have the audacity to write this. Anyone who has followed this debate knows that you have ignored over a hundred of my questions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: