Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2015, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 01:55 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Big Grin
(23-10-2015 07:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mark,

If Paul sought power, why did he limit his income, remain without a spouse or female companion, and not exercise power? If Paul was a Roman conspirator, why was he usually writing from inside a Roman jail, why was he martyred, in Rome, by Romans? Jews don’t behead their victims…

If Paul was about power in educating people to follow his ways, why wasn’t it okay for him to do so but it’s okay for you and TTA friends to constantly taunt me with “get an education, learn something about Christianity”?

If you attack Paul for pulling people away from Judaism to Christianity, why is it okay for you to try to pull people off Christianity and Judaism to atheism?

What is the proof you are not lying in your book? You take potshots at Paul’s writings and he cannot defend himself, how do we know you don’t play fast and loose with truth? I’m growing weary of having you say ALL my Bible quotations are lies and ALL yours are Paul telling the truth about Paul’s lies! That is not a level playing field.

Quote: There were no "Christians" (as we know them) in Paul's time. The gospels hadn't been written yet. Paul was preaching a watered down version of Judaism (not today's Christianity) ...to Jews and gentiles. It was only in the second century that Paul's ideas got mixed up with the gospels to form the spiel that we know today.

Read the above again and digest the possibility that I'm right.

Mark, I’m done digesting. I burped and I felt better. But seriously, I’ve pointed you to other sources, even longer sources than your many posts, indicating why this is not so, why the NT was completed before the close of the first century, and why in Paul’s day there were Christians.

Quote: You don't understand the historical significance of the point I'm making. I'm telling you that Paul was fundamentally opposed to Nazarenism... and Nazarenism was the Jewish religion of Jesus, Jesus's family and his followers. What became Christianity turned the Jewish beliefs of Jesus and his followers around 180°, mixed a false story about them with Paul's prattle, and thereby created something that was the very opposite of what Jesus's disciples and his followers believed. That is a fundamentally important concept which you just don't seem to understand. I rabbit on about it ad nauseum because I seriously want people like you to understand how inherently flawed the whole Christian story is.

Forget what is written in the gospels about Jesus embracing Gentiles. The gospels were written by propagandists to undermine Judaism. The real Jesus, and I do believe he probably did exist, was executed by the Romans because he was an insurgent and a trouble causer. The Romans, many years later, created propaganda about him ( the gospels) to undermine his legacy. You need to digest these facts as possibly true before you dismiss them.

I’d like you to know I’ve heard from modern-day Ebionites a similar “Jesus right, Paul wrong,” or “Jesus did one thing until Paul turned it on its head” many, many times. No. Now, a lot of the understanding comes once you understand that Paul wrote as early as 95% of scholars—liberal and conservative scholars, atheist and Christian scholars—say he did. Paul’s epistles were written about 100 years before you say he wrote (extreme minority view—even the Jesus Seminar dates them earlier than you do).

And yes, Jesus was executed as an insurgent, although you must admit as a peaceful one without a standing army or insurgency! But the Jewish people were also complicit and the NT details the conspiracies and machinations involved.

Quote:Some "cultural" "Jews" may be Christians....but they are not true Jews in the religious sense if they are. End of story.

Okay, so you’re NOT Jewish. I get it now. Because I’m not here to debate Judaism with you, but you don’t know the first thing about it, apparently. A Jew who becomes a Christian is entitled to fully participate in all religious and ceremonial aspects of Judaism from Bar Mitzvah to Jewish burial, and there are many Messianics, however discreet, in synagogues of all stripes today. Your NTS regarding “true Jews” is offensive to both traditional and Messianic Jews, as well as the rules of logic. Please stop!

Quote:Paul was accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes in Acts!

Yes, of course he was. Acts was written in the second century. It is propaganda. One of the primary purposes for its composition was to create the untrue impression that the Nazarenes and Paul were best mates. This had to be done to promote a fabricated link between the historical Jesus and Paul's Christ. In reality, Paul never was a Nazarene.

Read the above again, slowly.

I did. And both the first and second times, I noticed you are playing fast and loose with documentary evidence. When the NT says things you find strengthen your case, it speaks truth in your opinion. When it argues strongly against your case, you cite it as a lie or conspiratorial lie. I stated you would do this prior to entering our debate, but I wish you as the tiger would change your stripes! HOW DO YOU KNOW this particular statement is a LIE but other NT scriptures are TRUE? Please cite your evidence here and now.

Quote:That is the first mention of the Nazarenes in written documents that I know of!

Yes. It is very obvious to me, and I assume anyone else who is reading this, that you know next to nothing about the Nazarenes. You haven't read the Church fathers' writings about them, you haven't read James Tabor, or Hugh Schonfield, or any other literature about the Essenes. You have only read your babble. Hence you do not understand the socio political climate that Paul and Jesus and the others lived in. I have tried to educate you elsewhere, yet you haven't accepted the invitation.

Cut it out, please. You know I didn’t mean “first time I read the term” but rather, the earliest extant mention of them in a written document. Cut it out. Acts is older than your imaginary textual sources that Nazarenes were warring with… who is it? Paulines? There’s no such thing. There’s no name scholars have applied to groups of people who followed Paul in the first through third centuries, so your “Paul vs. the Nazarenes” doesn’t have a scholarly leg to stand upon, sir.

Quote:The Nazarenes... adhered to Paul’s writings, even as holy scripture.

This is just plain wrong and demonstrates your almost complete ignorance of the topic, and in fact your ignorance about Paul and early Christian history. There was no such thing as new Testament Scripture until at least the 140s CE, and even then numerous different groups had different ideas about what was scripture and what wasn't.

If a document was recognized as holy scripture after 140, and it was written in 130, guess what the church considers it to have been in 130? I will leave this debate if you continue to play semantics with me. THE NAZARENES ARE ALSO KNOWN TODAY AS BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS. PAUL WAS CALLED ERRONEOUSLY THEIR “RINGLEADER” BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE SAME DOCTRINES PUBLICLY AS OTHER APOSTLES--AND THE NAZARENES, LIKE ME, ADHERE TO HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Read the above again as slowly or as fast as you like! 

Quote:Of course "Jesus" said this, and things like it. The "Jesus" of the gospels is part of the whole show. "Jesus" in the gospels is a product of the Roman propaganda machine...which was aiming to dilute down the messianic dreams of rebellious Jews. Hence we get "the temple ain't important," "love your enemies," "blessed are the peacemakers," "behave like children," "don't worry about tomorrow" and "pay your taxes."

Mark, YOU said Jesus differed from Paul. I quoted Jesus where He agreed with Paul, and then YOU said “of course, this statement of Jesus’s is a fabricated statement also—so here are some more statements of Jesus that aren’t fabricated, because they prove my point about Paul. I call baloney. Pick from among the following:

ALL the NT is true.

ALL the NT is false.

SOME of the NT is true, SOME is false/conspiracy/lies—but you better have literary citations and PROOF of what isn’t true if you’re going to call EVERY scripture quotation I make a lie and everyone YOU use as true. Level playing field, please!

**

Regarding Galatians 2, I’m afraid I must change my stance. It is a mistaken insertion in the Bible, it is a lie promoted by those trying to denigrate Paul. You cannot use it in our debate… [that is my example of the kind of baloney you are pushing here.]

However, I will bother to address your (wrong) points about Galatians 2. Paul was conciliatory and laudatory to other apostles here and elsewhere. He is on record as publicly stating “I’m the least of all the apostles.” Give it a rest, please.

Quote:“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”

Clearly you don’t understand much about this (or many other) Bible verses. I’m determined to post to TTA to yield out of deference to atheists about the gospel! Paul was opposed to certain people not in a power grab, but because they were saying the good news was for Jews and not Gentiles and based on works and not faith. I know you’ve heard of the Reformation, for a similar example… (Q rolls his eyes, sighs.)

Quote:…It is surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, when that fact is denied elsewhere in the same publication by calling James Jesus’ cousin.

Astonishing. You don’t know there were many people named James (Ya’akov, Jacob) in that time and place? You didn’t know even Jesus had two apostles named James; the brother of John/son of Zebedee and James the “lesser”? And that James the Lord’s brother is a third James in the NT? No, why would you know that or bother to do the research. You’re an atheist.

Quote:James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. James does not mention Yeshua’s divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. If James thought his brother, or his close associate, was a miracle working Son of God, and he knew Yeshua had risen from the dead, there would not be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter is not, because James did not believe baloney about Yeshua.

You shared this all before, Dr. Fulton. What I’ve shared before is I’m tired of this argument from silence. What I will add today for this debate is that 1) James was likely the leader of the Jerusalem saints prior to his martyrdom. That plus 2) being the natural half-brother of GOD gave him a lot of authority and to his readers, he didn’t need to authenticate his credentials—and if he was you, you would want to write “your own thing” without having to say, “Yeah, I’m God’s brother!” if you know what I mean… anyway, PAUL did have to cite credentials since he was late to the party—and I’m sure you will comment on that fact. 

And yes, I know that Martin Luther thought James wasn’t canon—something every first year Religion major should know. He thought the same about Revelation, about which letter I’ve edited an entire book! I will apologize to Luther in Heaven. We both hope to have you there with us, Mark. 

Quote:Rome was smart. The Government knew a war was brewing… Rome was smart. The Government knew a war was brewing…

Listen, I know I’ve cut down mercilessly on your theory that Paul was a Roman conspirator sent to make the Jews pacifists to Rome, tax payers and etc. I apologize for being harsh in the past. It’s really a clever idea and I can see why you’d make it a staple in your book.

However, have you considered how:

1. If you insist Paul’s stuff to be a second century fabrication, Masada, the destruction of Jerusalem and the war against the Jews had ENDED, the Jews scattered in diaspora? Why go to huge expense to quell a rebellion that ended already, so successfully it took 2,000 years for the Jews to regain Israel? Consider!

2. If you insist Paul’s stuff is a late fabrication, how it was that countless Jews and Gentiles across Asia Minor, across what was left of Palestine and across the Empire became “Pauline” in doctrine? Wouldn’t they have all said, “Pish Posh! This stuff is recently made up. Our fathers knew nothing about this stuff and this perversion of the beloved Nazarene doctrines!” Consider!

Quote:Yeshua, if he ever existed, was almost certainly an Essene.

The Essenes and Qumran’ers were notorious for being withdrawn from Rome and Israel both. They were cave dwellers, monastic! The idea that Jesus came out from THEM to become an itinerant preacher is absurd. Worse is the idea that Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah if He was an Essene, who was one who lived in seclusion until the Messiah came down from above rather than being born in a manger to live among mere men! Jesus would have been repudiated by the Essenes for not ushering in Armageddon either in His day (or by the 2nd century when you think the gospels and epistles were redacted). No. No, no, no, no.

Re: Tertullian and Paul:

You indeed cited a text from Tertullian's Against Marcion. Tertullian is pushing Marcion to prove his VERSION of the apostle Paul. The text you are citing is attacking MARCION’s Paul.

If you read a bit further after this section of Book V you will read where Tertullian says:

"I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him to compel you to defend him. I deny him to convince you that he is mine... If you challenge us to your belief, tell us what things constitute its basis."

Tertullian is using somewhat legal argumentation and rhetorical style to push against the position of Marcion. This is why we have to be careful when reading the early fathers--their writing methods are usually very different from what we are used to. That is, what Bucky Ball famously reminds us is presentist in viewpoint.

Tertullian quotes from the apostle Paul in several writings, even in Against Marcion as mentioned above. He does so in positive ways that make it obvious that he:

1. Views Paul as a legitimate apostle...

2. Sees Paul's letters as inspired text...

"Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision." Against Marcion Volume 3!

The remainder of Book 5 is all about Tertullian proving Marcion wrong and showing how Paul agrees with the other apostles and with the message/gospel of Jesus!

I could cite many examples of Tertullian quoting Paul as inspired, but how about one clear example?

On Baptism (Chapter 15):

There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the Lord's gospel as according to the apostle's letters, inasmuch as he says, "One God, and one baptism," and one church in the heavens.

The most holy apostle has said, that "all things are lawful, but not all expedient." Chapter 17

Tertullian also cites Paul in On Monogamy and On Modesty.

Quote: What does invalidate Christianity is the fact that the alleged central figure of the religion, Jesus, was a fundamentalist Jew who knew nothing of the creator of Christian theology's (Paul's) ideas.

You have a minority view there—an Ebionite’s view. Obviously, most Christians (who have Bible knowledge) can show you where their ideas dovetail. Even TERTULLIAN wrote about their ideas being harmonious.

Quote:I challenge you to provide any good quality evidence that any of Jesus' family or disciples were fans of Paul. Sorry, quotes from the book of Acts will not do. I'm referring to quality evidence.

Paul did not do miracles. Nobody does miracles. Even if he thought he did, he would have undoubtedly told the world about them in his letters, and he doesn't. Get real and be honest about this. Imagine, for a second, YOU fucked with the rules of nature. You'd be shit pleased, and have your goddam camera taking shots. We get none of that in Paul's writings.

One, Paul didn’t have a camera. Smile

Two, Paul says in Romans 15, “Christ has accomplished through me the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, IN THE POWER OF SIGNS AND WONDERS...”

YOU might run through the streets talking about miracles if YOU saw one. Paul mostly talked about how awesome Jesus Christ is, but he did reference miracle signs, although on a seldom basis. Again, Paul wanted people to trust Christ, not the miracles of Paul, and so he kept his references limited there.

Thank you.

Q, you wrote

"There’s no name scholars have applied to groups of people who followed Paul in the first through third centuries, so your “Paul vs. the Nazarenes” doesn’t have a scholarly leg to stand upon, sir."

Well that's odd, coming from you. I could have sworn you have labelled Paul's followers as "Christians." Big Grin

In fact you have written
"and why in Paul’s day there were Christians." I can only assume that you think "Paul's followers" are Christians.

I know all true Jews would have regarded Paul's followers as heretics. The evidence is even in your own Bible. Paul upset Jews nearly everywhere he went, and ultimately was arrested in Jerusalem for doing just that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-10-2015, 04:55 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 04:25 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you wrote

"THE NAZARENES ARE ALSO KNOWN TODAY AS BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS. PAUL WAS CALLED ERRONEOUSLY THEIR “RINGLEADER” BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE SAME DOCTRINES PUBLICLY AS OTHER APOSTLES--AND THE NAZARENES, LIKE ME, ADHERE TO HOLY SCRIPTURE."

I have no doubt that somewhere amongst the 30,000 denominations of Christianity today there is a mob that calls themselves the Nazarenes. They have no relationship to the Jewish first century Nazarenes, a sect to which Jesus, his disciples and his brother James belonged to. You quite clearly know nothing about them. Please stop demonstrating your ignorance on this topic.

There may be new readers who are unfamiliar with them, so I will unapologetically repeat my spiel about the Nazarenes....

The Nazarenes

Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the Bible: Acts referred to

“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.)

Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene.” Yet Nazareth the village probably did not exist in Yeshua’s time.

The Bible made it clear that the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, not a place, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.

“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.)

An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village. Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations.

Hugh Schonfield, who devoted his life to studying Judaism and Yeshua, claims Nazarenism was an ancient version of Judaism. He thought that the original founder of the Nazarene sect might have been a Jewish-Arabian prophet named Essa in approximately 400 BCE. So, if Schonfield was right, the Nazarenes were already well established in Jesus’ time.

Many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essene sect at Qumran. One might consider the Nazarene sect a strongly developed messianic form of “Essenism.”

( http://www.essene.com/What is a Nazarene.htm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY
http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A “Hugh J.Schonfield” AND subject%3A “Nazarenes”.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/TrimmNazars.htm )

John the Baptist, Yeshua’s family, disciples and followers were all Nazarenes. The “pillars” Paul refers to (James, Peter, and John) in his second letter to the Galatians, were the leaders and key figures of this group after Yeshua’s death. They were Jews, not Christians. They practiced circumcision, believed in baptism, and were strict about the Sabbath. They were vegetarians who did not approve of the slaughter of animals, either for food or sacrifice. They developed their own “Halacha,” which was their interpretation of the Torah. The Nazarenes were true believers in the power and glory of Israel, saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and were vehemently opposed to the Romans. They were zealots, willing to take on the Romans, which was why the Roman world considered a Nazarene “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over.”

The Nazarenes considered the temple was the house of God, but were opposed to the Sadducees who they regarded as Roman collaborators. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. Many ordinary Jews and Pharisees would have considered the Nazarenes brothers in the struggle against Rome.

Yeshua became the Nazarene chief after John the Baptist’s death, and he remained in charge for (probably) a few years. Leadership was inherited from blood relations, which explains it passing from John the Baptist to Yeshua, and after Yeshua’s death, on to James, his brother.

James and the other Nazarenes did not think Yeshua was the Son of God, or that Yeshua needed to die to save anyone from their sins.69 The Nazarenes believed Yeshua was a (human) prophet who they hoped could be Israel’s messiah.

We read very little about this group in the pages of history because mainly Gentiles wrote that history, and the early Christians ignored the Nazarenes, or wrote them off as heretics, or tried to claim that some of the Nazarenes believed in the divinity of Christ.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-10-2015, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 11:04 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-10-2015 07:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mark,

If Paul sought power, why did he limit his income, remain without a spouse or female companion, and not exercise power? If Paul was a Roman conspirator, why was he usually writing from inside a Roman jail, why was he martyred, in Rome, by Romans? Jews don’t behead their victims…

If Paul was about power in educating people to follow his ways, why wasn’t it okay for him to do so but it’s okay for you and TTA friends to constantly taunt me with “get an education, learn something about Christianity”?

If you attack Paul for pulling people away from Judaism to Christianity, why is it okay for you to try to pull people off Christianity and Judaism to atheism?

What is the proof you are not lying in your book? You take potshots at Paul’s writings and he cannot defend himself, how do we know you don’t play fast and loose with truth? I’m growing weary of having you say ALL my Bible quotations are lies and ALL yours are Paul telling the truth about Paul’s lies! That is not a level playing field.

Quote: There were no "Christians" (as we know them) in Paul's time. The gospels hadn't been written yet. Paul was preaching a watered down version of Judaism (not today's Christianity) ...to Jews and gentiles. It was only in the second century that Paul's ideas got mixed up with the gospels to form the spiel that we know today.

Read the above again and digest the possibility that I'm right.

Mark, I’m done digesting. I burped and I felt better. But seriously, I’ve pointed you to other sources, even longer sources than your many posts, indicating why this is not so, why the NT was completed before the close of the first century, and why in Paul’s day there were Christians.

Quote: You don't understand the historical significance of the point I'm making. I'm telling you that Paul was fundamentally opposed to Nazarenism... and Nazarenism was the Jewish religion of Jesus, Jesus's family and his followers. What became Christianity turned the Jewish beliefs of Jesus and his followers around 180°, mixed a false story about them with Paul's prattle, and thereby created something that was the very opposite of what Jesus's disciples and his followers believed. That is a fundamentally important concept which you just don't seem to understand. I rabbit on about it ad nauseum because I seriously want people like you to understand how inherently flawed the whole Christian story is.

Forget what is written in the gospels about Jesus embracing Gentiles. The gospels were written by propagandists to undermine Judaism. The real Jesus, and I do believe he probably did exist, was executed by the Romans because he was an insurgent and a trouble causer. The Romans, many years later, created propaganda about him ( the gospels) to undermine his legacy. You need to digest these facts as possibly true before you dismiss them.

I’d like you to know I’ve heard from modern-day Ebionites a similar “Jesus right, Paul wrong,” or “Jesus did one thing until Paul turned it on its head” many, many times. No. Now, a lot of the understanding comes once you understand that Paul wrote as early as 95% of scholars—liberal and conservative scholars, atheist and Christian scholars—say he did. Paul’s epistles were written about 100 years before you say he wrote (extreme minority view—even the Jesus Seminar dates them earlier than you do).

And yes, Jesus was executed as an insurgent, although you must admit as a peaceful one without a standing army or insurgency! But the Jewish people were also complicit and the NT details the conspiracies and machinations involved.

Quote:Some "cultural" "Jews" may be Christians....but they are not true Jews in the religious sense if they are. End of story.

Okay, so you’re NOT Jewish. I get it now. Because I’m not here to debate Judaism with you, but you don’t know the first thing about it, apparently. A Jew who becomes a Christian is entitled to fully participate in all religious and ceremonial aspects of Judaism from Bar Mitzvah to Jewish burial, and there are many Messianics, however discreet, in synagogues of all stripes today. Your NTS regarding “true Jews” is offensive to both traditional and Messianic Jews, as well as the rules of logic. Please stop!

Quote:Paul was accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes in Acts!

Yes, of course he was. Acts was written in the second century. It is propaganda. One of the primary purposes for its composition was to create the untrue impression that the Nazarenes and Paul were best mates. This had to be done to promote a fabricated link between the historical Jesus and Paul's Christ. In reality, Paul never was a Nazarene.

Read the above again, slowly.

I did. And both the first and second times, I noticed you are playing fast and loose with documentary evidence. When the NT says things you find strengthen your case, it speaks truth in your opinion. When it argues strongly against your case, you cite it as a lie or conspiratorial lie. I stated you would do this prior to entering our debate, but I wish you as the tiger would change your stripes! HOW DO YOU KNOW this particular statement is a LIE but other NT scriptures are TRUE? Please cite your evidence here and now.

Quote:That is the first mention of the Nazarenes in written documents that I know of!

Yes. It is very obvious to me, and I assume anyone else who is reading this, that you know next to nothing about the Nazarenes. You haven't read the Church fathers' writings about them, you haven't read James Tabor, or Hugh Schonfield, or any other literature about the Essenes. You have only read your babble. Hence you do not understand the socio political climate that Paul and Jesus and the others lived in. I have tried to educate you elsewhere, yet you haven't accepted the invitation.

Cut it out, please. You know I didn’t mean “first time I read the term” but rather, the earliest extant mention of them in a written document. Cut it out. Acts is older than your imaginary textual sources that Nazarenes were warring with… who is it? Paulines? There’s no such thing. There’s no name scholars have applied to groups of people who followed Paul in the first through third centuries, so your “Paul vs. the Nazarenes” doesn’t have a scholarly leg to stand upon, sir.

Quote:The Nazarenes... adhered to Paul’s writings, even as holy scripture.

This is just plain wrong and demonstrates your almost complete ignorance of the topic, and in fact your ignorance about Paul and early Christian history. There was no such thing as new Testament Scripture until at least the 140s CE, and even then numerous different groups had different ideas about what was scripture and what wasn't.

If a document was recognized as holy scripture after 140, and it was written in 130, guess what the church considers it to have been in 130? I will leave this debate if you continue to play semantics with me. THE NAZARENES ARE ALSO KNOWN TODAY AS BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS. PAUL WAS CALLED ERRONEOUSLY THEIR “RINGLEADER” BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE SAME DOCTRINES PUBLICLY AS OTHER APOSTLES--AND THE NAZARENES, LIKE ME, ADHERE TO HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Read the above again as slowly or as fast as you like! 

Quote:Of course "Jesus" said this, and things like it. The "Jesus" of the gospels is part of the whole show. "Jesus" in the gospels is a product of the Roman propaganda machine...which was aiming to dilute down the messianic dreams of rebellious Jews. Hence we get "the temple ain't important," "love your enemies," "blessed are the peacemakers," "behave like children," "don't worry about tomorrow" and "pay your taxes."

Mark, YOU said Jesus differed from Paul. I quoted Jesus where He agreed with Paul, and then YOU said “of course, this statement of Jesus’s is a fabricated statement also—so here are some more statements of Jesus that aren’t fabricated, because they prove my point about Paul. I call baloney. Pick from among the following:

ALL the NT is true.

ALL the NT is false.

SOME of the NT is true, SOME is false/conspiracy/lies—but you better have literary citations and PROOF of what isn’t true if you’re going to call EVERY scripture quotation I make a lie and everyone YOU use as true. Level playing field, please!

**

Regarding Galatians 2, I’m afraid I must change my stance. It is a mistaken insertion in the Bible, it is a lie promoted by those trying to denigrate Paul. You cannot use it in our debate… [that is my example of the kind of baloney you are pushing here.]

However, I will bother to address your (wrong) points about Galatians 2. Paul was conciliatory and laudatory to other apostles here and elsewhere. He is on record as publicly stating “I’m the least of all the apostles.” Give it a rest, please.

Quote:“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”

Clearly you don’t understand much about this (or many other) Bible verses. I’m determined to post to TTA to yield out of deference to atheists about the gospel! Paul was opposed to certain people not in a power grab, but because they were saying the good news was for Jews and not Gentiles and based on works and not faith. I know you’ve heard of the Reformation, for a similar example… (Q rolls his eyes, sighs.)

Quote:…It is surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, when that fact is denied elsewhere in the same publication by calling James Jesus’ cousin.

Astonishing. You don’t know there were many people named James (Ya’akov, Jacob) in that time and place? You didn’t know even Jesus had two apostles named James; the brother of John/son of Zebedee and James the “lesser”? And that James the Lord’s brother is a third James in the NT? No, why would you know that or bother to do the research. You’re an atheist.

Quote:James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. James does not mention Yeshua’s divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. If James thought his brother, or his close associate, was a miracle working Son of God, and he knew Yeshua had risen from the dead, there would not be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter is not, because James did not believe baloney about Yeshua.

You shared this all before, Dr. Fulton. What I’ve shared before is I’m tired of this argument from silence. What I will add today for this debate is that 1) James was likely the leader of the Jerusalem saints prior to his martyrdom. That plus 2) being the natural half-brother of GOD gave him a lot of authority and to his readers, he didn’t need to authenticate his credentials—and if he was you, you would want to write “your own thing” without having to say, “Yeah, I’m God’s brother!” if you know what I mean… anyway, PAUL did have to cite credentials since he was late to the party—and I’m sure you will comment on that fact. 

And yes, I know that Martin Luther thought James wasn’t canon—something every first year Religion major should know. He thought the same about Revelation, about which letter I’ve edited an entire book! I will apologize to Luther in Heaven. We both hope to have you there with us, Mark. 

Quote:Rome was smart. The Government knew a war was brewing… Rome was smart. The Government knew a war was brewing…

Listen, I know I’ve cut down mercilessly on your theory that Paul was a Roman conspirator sent to make the Jews pacifists to Rome, tax payers and etc. I apologize for being harsh in the past. It’s really a clever idea and I can see why you’d make it a staple in your book.

However, have you considered how:

1. If you insist Paul’s stuff to be a second century fabrication, Masada, the destruction of Jerusalem and the war against the Jews had ENDED, the Jews scattered in diaspora? Why go to huge expense to quell a rebellion that ended already, so successfully it took 2,000 years for the Jews to regain Israel? Consider!

2. If you insist Paul’s stuff is a late fabrication, how it was that countless Jews and Gentiles across Asia Minor, across what was left of Palestine and across the Empire became “Pauline” in doctrine? Wouldn’t they have all said, “Pish Posh! This stuff is recently made up. Our fathers knew nothing about this stuff and this perversion of the beloved Nazarene doctrines!” Consider!

Quote:Yeshua, if he ever existed, was almost certainly an Essene.

The Essenes and Qumran’ers were notorious for being withdrawn from Rome and Israel both. They were cave dwellers, monastic! The idea that Jesus came out from THEM to become an itinerant preacher is absurd. Worse is the idea that Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah if He was an Essene, who was one who lived in seclusion until the Messiah came down from above rather than being born in a manger to live among mere men! Jesus would have been repudiated by the Essenes for not ushering in Armageddon either in His day (or by the 2nd century when you think the gospels and epistles were redacted). No. No, no, no, no.

Re: Tertullian and Paul:

You indeed cited a text from Tertullian's Against Marcion. Tertullian is pushing Marcion to prove his VERSION of the apostle Paul. The text you are citing is attacking MARCION’s Paul.

If you read a bit further after this section of Book V you will read where Tertullian says:

"I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him to compel you to defend him. I deny him to convince you that he is mine... If you challenge us to your belief, tell us what things constitute its basis."

Tertullian is using somewhat legal argumentation and rhetorical style to push against the position of Marcion. This is why we have to be careful when reading the early fathers--their writing methods are usually very different from what we are used to. That is, what Bucky Ball famously reminds us is presentist in viewpoint.

Tertullian quotes from the apostle Paul in several writings, even in Against Marcion as mentioned above. He does so in positive ways that make it obvious that he:

1. Views Paul as a legitimate apostle...

2. Sees Paul's letters as inspired text...

"Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision." Against Marcion Volume 3!

The remainder of Book 5 is all about Tertullian proving Marcion wrong and showing how Paul agrees with the other apostles and with the message/gospel of Jesus!

I could cite many examples of Tertullian quoting Paul as inspired, but how about one clear example?

On Baptism (Chapter 15):

There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the Lord's gospel as according to the apostle's letters, inasmuch as he says, "One God, and one baptism," and one church in the heavens.

The most holy apostle has said, that "all things are lawful, but not all expedient." Chapter 17

Tertullian also cites Paul in On Monogamy and On Modesty.

Quote: What does invalidate Christianity is the fact that the alleged central figure of the religion, Jesus, was a fundamentalist Jew who knew nothing of the creator of Christian theology's (Paul's) ideas.

You have a minority view there—an Ebionite’s view. Obviously, most Christians (who have Bible knowledge) can show you where their ideas dovetail. Even TERTULLIAN wrote about their ideas being harmonious.

Quote:I challenge you to provide any good quality evidence that any of Jesus' family or disciples were fans of Paul. Sorry, quotes from the book of Acts will not do. I'm referring to quality evidence.

Paul did not do miracles. Nobody does miracles. Even if he thought he did, he would have undoubtedly told the world about them in his letters, and he doesn't. Get real and be honest about this. Imagine, for a second, YOU fucked with the rules of nature. You'd be shit pleased, and have your goddam camera taking shots. We get none of that in Paul's writings.

One, Paul didn’t have a camera. Smile

Two, Paul says in Romans 15, “Christ has accomplished through me the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, IN THE POWER OF SIGNS AND WONDERS...”

YOU might run through the streets talking about miracles if YOU saw one. Paul mostly talked about how awesome Jesus Christ is, but he did reference miracle signs, although on a seldom basis. Again, Paul wanted people to trust Christ, not the miracles of Paul, and so he kept his references limited there.

Thank you.

Q, you wrote

"If a document was recognized as holy scripture after 140, and it was written in 130, guess what the church considers it to have been in 130? I will leave this debate if you continue to play semantics with me.

This assertion is littered with assumptions, which only serves to demonstrate that you know very little about Christian history in the second century.

Please define "the church," in the year 130. Where was "it?" Who was in charge? Are you referring to Roman catholics? Marcionites? The gnostics? The Manicheans?

Also, please explain who decided what was "scripture" and when.

Also, please explain what happened to the scores of other gospels that were around in the 130's but were later discarded as part of the new testament in the 4th century. Did they "used to be scripture" but now no longer are?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-10-2015, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 10:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you wrote

"However, I will bother to address your (wrong) points about Galatians 2. Paul was conciliatory and laudatory to other apostles here and elsewhere. He is on record as publicly stating “I’m the least of all the apostles.” "

This was false modesty. Paul very clearly was a legend in his own lunchbox and his own biggest fan. It is very very obvious he did not think much of the family and followers of Jesus. His almost complete silence about them undermines the whole account of Jeebus given in the gospels. He says not much about James, or Peter, who he argues with, and he definitely says nothing about Mary the mother of god.

Imagine you were Paul, and found yourself in Jerusalem in the 50s, and you were a Christian. Surely you would be in awe of the family and original disciples of Jesus! Surely you would be asking them questions. What did Christ look like? What did he do for those 30 years before he started preaching? What happened to ol' Joe? Where is Jesus' house? Where is the empty tomb? What did he tell you on those nights around the campfire? Tell me about all the miracles! Where's ol' Lazarus? Show me the lepers he cured. Did he get pissed at the wedding? Did he ever have a girlfriend? Can I see his sandals? Any bits of the cross left for me to keep as a momento? Where's his mum? I really want to talk to Mary the mother of god! Strike me pink... I seem to be the only one who can speak and write Greek around here, as none of these Jewish people can, so I'd better document all this!

Instead we get a stunning silence about all this. Not a skerrick about any of it from Paul. Just Paul's own bullshit about his god / man Christ.

This is how Paul justified himself...

“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.)

“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.)

“Brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, the gospel that you received and in which you are firmly established; because the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you - believing anything else will not lead to anything” (1 Cor. 15:1–3, NJB.)

This self proclaimed and unsubstantiated righteousness of Paul's is a serious problem for your religion's legitimacy. You need to pause and think hard about this. Paul was a charlatan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-10-2015, 05:46 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 06:59 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-10-2015 07:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mark,

If Paul sought power, why did he limit his income, remain without a spouse or female companion, and not exercise power? If Paul was a Roman conspirator, why was he usually writing from inside a Roman jail, why was he martyred, in Rome, by Romans? Jews don’t behead their victims…

If Paul was about power in educating people to follow his ways, why wasn’t it okay for him to do so but it’s okay for you and TTA friends to constantly taunt me with “get an education, learn something about Christianity”?

If you attack Paul for pulling people away from Judaism to Christianity, why is it okay for you to try to pull people off Christianity and Judaism to atheism?

What is the proof you are not lying in your book? You take potshots at Paul’s writings and he cannot defend himself, how do we know you don’t play fast and loose with truth? I’m growing weary of having you say ALL my Bible quotations are lies and ALL yours are Paul telling the truth about Paul’s lies! That is not a level playing field.

Quote: There were no "Christians" (as we know them) in Paul's time. The gospels hadn't been written yet. Paul was preaching a watered down version of Judaism (not today's Christianity) ...to Jews and gentiles. It was only in the second century that Paul's ideas got mixed up with the gospels to form the spiel that we know today.

Read the above again and digest the possibility that I'm right.

Mark, I’m done digesting. I burped and I felt better. But seriously, I’ve pointed you to other sources, even longer sources than your many posts, indicating why this is not so, why the NT was completed before the close of the first century, and why in Paul’s day there were Christians.

Quote: You don't understand the historical significance of the point I'm making. I'm telling you that Paul was fundamentally opposed to Nazarenism... and Nazarenism was the Jewish religion of Jesus, Jesus's family and his followers. What became Christianity turned the Jewish beliefs of Jesus and his followers around 180°, mixed a false story about them with Paul's prattle, and thereby created something that was the very opposite of what Jesus's disciples and his followers believed. That is a fundamentally important concept which you just don't seem to understand. I rabbit on about it ad nauseum because I seriously want people like you to understand how inherently flawed the whole Christian story is.

Forget what is written in the gospels about Jesus embracing Gentiles. The gospels were written by propagandists to undermine Judaism. The real Jesus, and I do believe he probably did exist, was executed by the Romans because he was an insurgent and a trouble causer. The Romans, many years later, created propaganda about him ( the gospels) to undermine his legacy. You need to digest these facts as possibly true before you dismiss them.

I’d like you to know I’ve heard from modern-day Ebionites a similar “Jesus right, Paul wrong,” or “Jesus did one thing until Paul turned it on its head” many, many times. No. Now, a lot of the understanding comes once you understand that Paul wrote as early as 95% of scholars—liberal and conservative scholars, atheist and Christian scholars—say he did. Paul’s epistles were written about 100 years before you say he wrote (extreme minority view—even the Jesus Seminar dates them earlier than you do).

And yes, Jesus was executed as an insurgent, although you must admit as a peaceful one without a standing army or insurgency! But the Jewish people were also complicit and the NT details the conspiracies and machinations involved.

Quote:Some "cultural" "Jews" may be Christians....but they are not true Jews in the religious sense if they are. End of story.

Okay, so you’re NOT Jewish. I get it now. Because I’m not here to debate Judaism with you, but you don’t know the first thing about it, apparently. A Jew who becomes a Christian is entitled to fully participate in all religious and ceremonial aspects of Judaism from Bar Mitzvah to Jewish burial, and there are many Messianics, however discreet, in synagogues of all stripes today. Your NTS regarding “true Jews” is offensive to both traditional and Messianic Jews, as well as the rules of logic. Please stop!

Quote:Paul was accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes in Acts!

Yes, of course he was. Acts was written in the second century. It is propaganda. One of the primary purposes for its composition was to create the untrue impression that the Nazarenes and Paul were best mates. This had to be done to promote a fabricated link between the historical Jesus and Paul's Christ. In reality, Paul never was a Nazarene.

Read the above again, slowly.

I did. And both the first and second times, I noticed you are playing fast and loose with documentary evidence. When the NT says things you find strengthen your case, it speaks truth in your opinion. When it argues strongly against your case, you cite it as a lie or conspiratorial lie. I stated you would do this prior to entering our debate, but I wish you as the tiger would change your stripes! HOW DO YOU KNOW this particular statement is a LIE but other NT scriptures are TRUE? Please cite your evidence here and now.

Quote:That is the first mention of the Nazarenes in written documents that I know of!

Yes. It is very obvious to me, and I assume anyone else who is reading this, that you know next to nothing about the Nazarenes. You haven't read the Church fathers' writings about them, you haven't read James Tabor, or Hugh Schonfield, or any other literature about the Essenes. You have only read your babble. Hence you do not understand the socio political climate that Paul and Jesus and the others lived in. I have tried to educate you elsewhere, yet you haven't accepted the invitation.

Cut it out, please. You know I didn’t mean “first time I read the term” but rather, the earliest extant mention of them in a written document. Cut it out. Acts is older than your imaginary textual sources that Nazarenes were warring with… who is it? Paulines? There’s no such thing. There’s no name scholars have applied to groups of people who followed Paul in the first through third centuries, so your “Paul vs. the Nazarenes” doesn’t have a scholarly leg to stand upon, sir.

Quote:The Nazarenes... adhered to Paul’s writings, even as holy scripture.

This is just plain wrong and demonstrates your almost complete ignorance of the topic, and in fact your ignorance about Paul and early Christian history. There was no such thing as new Testament Scripture until at least the 140s CE, and even then numerous different groups had different ideas about what was scripture and what wasn't.

If a document was recognized as holy scripture after 140, and it was written in 130, guess what the church considers it to have been in 130? I will leave this debate if you continue to play semantics with me. THE NAZARENES ARE ALSO KNOWN TODAY AS BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS. PAUL WAS CALLED ERRONEOUSLY THEIR “RINGLEADER” BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE SAME DOCTRINES PUBLICLY AS OTHER APOSTLES--AND THE NAZARENES, LIKE ME, ADHERE TO HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Read the above again as slowly or as fast as you like! 

Quote:Of course "Jesus" said this, and things like it. The "Jesus" of the gospels is part of the whole show. "Jesus" in the gospels is a product of the Roman propaganda machine...which was aiming to dilute down the messianic dreams of rebellious Jews. Hence we get "the temple ain't important," "love your enemies," "blessed are the peacemakers," "behave like children," "don't worry about tomorrow" and "pay your taxes."

Mark, YOU said Jesus differed from Paul. I quoted Jesus where He agreed with Paul, and then YOU said “of course, this statement of Jesus’s is a fabricated statement also—so here are some more statements of Jesus that aren’t fabricated, because they prove my point about Paul. I call baloney. Pick from among the following:

ALL the NT is true.

ALL the NT is false.

SOME of the NT is true, SOME is false/conspiracy/lies—but you better have literary citations and PROOF of what isn’t true if you’re going to call EVERY scripture quotation I make a lie and everyone YOU use as true. Level playing field, please!

**

Regarding Galatians 2, I’m afraid I must change my stance. It is a mistaken insertion in the Bible, it is a lie promoted by those trying to denigrate Paul. You cannot use it in our debate… [that is my example of the kind of baloney you are pushing here.]

However, I will bother to address your (wrong) points about Galatians 2. Paul was conciliatory and laudatory to other apostles here and elsewhere. He is on record as publicly stating “I’m the least of all the apostles.” Give it a rest, please.

Quote:“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”

Clearly you don’t understand much about this (or many other) Bible verses. I’m determined to post to TTA to yield out of deference to atheists about the gospel! Paul was opposed to certain people not in a power grab, but because they were saying the good news was for Jews and not Gentiles and based on works and not faith. I know you’ve heard of the Reformation, for a similar example… (Q rolls his eyes, sighs.)

Quote:…It is surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, when that fact is denied elsewhere in the same publication by calling James Jesus’ cousin.

Astonishing. You don’t know there were many people named James (Ya’akov, Jacob) in that time and place? You didn’t know even Jesus had two apostles named James; the brother of John/son of Zebedee and James the “lesser”? And that James the Lord’s brother is a third James in the NT? No, why would you know that or bother to do the research. You’re an atheist.

Quote:James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. James does not mention Yeshua’s divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. If James thought his brother, or his close associate, was a miracle working Son of God, and he knew Yeshua had risen from the dead, there would not be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter is not, because James did not believe baloney about Yeshua.

You shared this all before, Dr. Fulton. What I’ve shared before is I’m tired of this argument from silence. What I will add today for this debate is that 1) James was likely the leader of the Jerusalem saints prior to his martyrdom. That plus 2) being the natural half-brother of GOD gave him a lot of authority and to his readers, he didn’t need to authenticate his credentials—and if he was you, you would want to write “your own thing” without having to say, “Yeah, I’m God’s brother!” if you know what I mean… anyway, PAUL did have to cite credentials since he was late to the party—and I’m sure you will comment on that fact. 

And yes, I know that Martin Luther thought James wasn’t canon—something every first year Religion major should know. He thought the same about Revelation, about which letter I’ve edited an entire book! I will apologize to Luther in Heaven. We both hope to have you there with us, Mark. 

Quote:Rome was smart. The Government knew a war was brewing… Rome was smart. The Government knew a war was brewing…

Listen, I know I’ve cut down mercilessly on your theory that Paul was a Roman conspirator sent to make the Jews pacifists to Rome, tax payers and etc. I apologize for being harsh in the past. It’s really a clever idea and I can see why you’d make it a staple in your book.

However, have you considered how:

1. If you insist Paul’s stuff to be a second century fabrication, Masada, the destruction of Jerusalem and the war against the Jews had ENDED, the Jews scattered in diaspora? Why go to huge expense to quell a rebellion that ended already, so successfully it took 2,000 years for the Jews to regain Israel? Consider!

2. If you insist Paul’s stuff is a late fabrication, how it was that countless Jews and Gentiles across Asia Minor, across what was left of Palestine and across the Empire became “Pauline” in doctrine? Wouldn’t they have all said, “Pish Posh! This stuff is recently made up. Our fathers knew nothing about this stuff and this perversion of the beloved Nazarene doctrines!” Consider!

Quote:Yeshua, if he ever existed, was almost certainly an Essene.

The Essenes and Qumran’ers were notorious for being withdrawn from Rome and Israel both. They were cave dwellers, monastic! The idea that Jesus came out from THEM to become an itinerant preacher is absurd. Worse is the idea that Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah if He was an Essene, who was one who lived in seclusion until the Messiah came down from above rather than being born in a manger to live among mere men! Jesus would have been repudiated by the Essenes for not ushering in Armageddon either in His day (or by the 2nd century when you think the gospels and epistles were redacted). No. No, no, no, no.

Re: Tertullian and Paul:

You indeed cited a text from Tertullian's Against Marcion. Tertullian is pushing Marcion to prove his VERSION of the apostle Paul. The text you are citing is attacking MARCION’s Paul.

If you read a bit further after this section of Book V you will read where Tertullian says:

"I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him to compel you to defend him. I deny him to convince you that he is mine... If you challenge us to your belief, tell us what things constitute its basis."

Tertullian is using somewhat legal argumentation and rhetorical style to push against the position of Marcion. This is why we have to be careful when reading the early fathers--their writing methods are usually very different from what we are used to. That is, what Bucky Ball famously reminds us is presentist in viewpoint.

Tertullian quotes from the apostle Paul in several writings, even in Against Marcion as mentioned above. He does so in positive ways that make it obvious that he:

1. Views Paul as a legitimate apostle...

2. Sees Paul's letters as inspired text...

"Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision." Against Marcion Volume 3!

The remainder of Book 5 is all about Tertullian proving Marcion wrong and showing how Paul agrees with the other apostles and with the message/gospel of Jesus!

I could cite many examples of Tertullian quoting Paul as inspired, but how about one clear example?

On Baptism (Chapter 15):

There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the Lord's gospel as according to the apostle's letters, inasmuch as he says, "One God, and one baptism," and one church in the heavens.

The most holy apostle has said, that "all things are lawful, but not all expedient." Chapter 17

Tertullian also cites Paul in On Monogamy and On Modesty.

Quote: What does invalidate Christianity is the fact that the alleged central figure of the religion, Jesus, was a fundamentalist Jew who knew nothing of the creator of Christian theology's (Paul's) ideas.

You have a minority view there—an Ebionite’s view. Obviously, most Christians (who have Bible knowledge) can show you where their ideas dovetail. Even TERTULLIAN wrote about their ideas being harmonious.

Quote:I challenge you to provide any good quality evidence that any of Jesus' family or disciples were fans of Paul. Sorry, quotes from the book of Acts will not do. I'm referring to quality evidence.

Paul did not do miracles. Nobody does miracles. Even if he thought he did, he would have undoubtedly told the world about them in his letters, and he doesn't. Get real and be honest about this. Imagine, for a second, YOU fucked with the rules of nature. You'd be shit pleased, and have your goddam camera taking shots. We get none of that in Paul's writings.

One, Paul didn’t have a camera. Smile

Two, Paul says in Romans 15, “Christ has accomplished through me the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, IN THE POWER OF SIGNS AND WONDERS...”

YOU might run through the streets talking about miracles if YOU saw one. Paul mostly talked about how awesome Jesus Christ is, but he did reference miracle signs, although on a seldom basis. Again, Paul wanted people to trust Christ, not the miracles of Paul, and so he kept his references limited there.


Thank you.

Q, you wrote the following in response to my statement that the Catholic Enyclopedia could not make up it's mind whether James was Jesus's brother or not.

"Astonishing. You don’t know there were many people named James (Ya’akov, Jacob) in that time and place? You didn’t know even Jesus had two apostles named James; the brother of John/son of Zebedee and James the “lesser”? And that James the Lord’s brother is a third James in the NT? No, why would you know that or bother to do the research. You’re an atheist."

Here are the two quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and they clearly contradict each other.

1.

"James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. .....The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins."
( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm )

2.

"Internal evidence (contents of the Epistle, its style, address, date, and place of composition) points unmistakably to James, the Lord's brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the author; "
( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08275b.htm )

It is I, in fact, who have done the research and have bothered to post the evidence. You have lazily assumed I am getting my James's mixed up...and I clearly am not. Astonishing.

You need to be reminded what an atheist is.

atheist |ˈeɪθɪɪst|
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Being an atheist has no bearing on intellectual capacity or willingness to do research. Shy
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-10-2015, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 10:21 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you wrote

"What I’ve shared before is I’m tired of this argument from silence. What I will add today for this debate is that 1) James was likely the leader of the Jerusalem saints prior to his martyrdom. That plus 2) being the natural half-brother of GOD gave him a lot of authority and to his readers, he didn’t need to authenticate his credentials—and if he was you, you would want to write “your own thing” without having to say, “Yeah, I’m God’s brother!” if you know what I mean…"

Just beautiful!Facepalm

You're saying that because James didn't mention the fact his brother was God, and that he (James) was therefore the half brother of God, that means that Jesus was God and James was the half-brother of God!Weeping

I wonder what you would've said about James if he had written that Jesus was God and that he was God's half brother?Huh
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-10-2015, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 10:11 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Paul never specifically gave any details about any miracles he supposedly performed because he didn't do any. He had ample opportunity to do so in the numerous letters he wrote, and you claim the reason for his silence about this is that he wanted people to know how awesome Christ was. Pathetic.Facepalm

What would you have said about Paul if he had documented his miracles?

What is more, if Paul wanted people to know how awesome Christ was, why didn't Paul mention a single miracle that Jesus performed? Huh I'll tell you why. The miracle performing Jesus of the gospels hadn't been invented yet at the time that Paul wrote.

Q, you really really need to get a grip on reality, and stop believing bullshit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-10-2015, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 04:29 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you wrote

The Essenes and Qumran’ers were notorious for being withdrawn from Rome and Israel both. They were cave dwellers, monastic! The idea that Jesus came out from THEM to become an itinerant preacher is absurd. Worse is the idea that Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah if He was an Essene, who was one who lived in seclusion until the Messiah came down from above rather than being born in a manger to live among mere men!

Your ignorance about this is just too much. Let me educate you about the Essenes.

The Essenes

The third important group (after the Pharisees and the Saducees) in Jewish society was the Essenes. Historians know a fair bit about them, not only from Flavius Josephus, who may himself have been an Essene, but also from Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, and from the (probably) Essene Qumran community who hid the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Essenes were a heterogeneous group, but some generalizations can be made about them. They were well respected amongst most Jews. Josephus numbered them at about four thousand, and wrote that they had a strong affection for each other, and lived in groups scattered throughout Judea. The Essenes preferred to wear white and were particular about certain bathing rituals, including baptism. Many were celibate, which was quite unusual, as most Jews considered being celibate as living an incomplete life. The Essenes rejected the pursuit of pleasure, preached poverty, humility, chastity, loving one’s neighbor, and penitence. They believed in a war between the forces of good and evil, and in the need for God’s grace. They strove to speak gently and quietly, to never swear, and were strong believers in justice and that all Jews were equal. They rejected the accumulation of wealth, and shared all their possessions. They claimed to love the truth and to never steal. Unlike the other Jewish sects, they spurned animal sacrifice. They thought of themselves as healers, to be able to cast out demons and restore the dead to life. They were said to foretell the future and to have little fear of death. They were convinced that after death their souls were destined for paradise, provided they had been righteous.

The Essenes deeply resented the Sadducees, so set up their own priesthood separate to the temple. They also mistrusted most of the Pharisees, regarding them as corrupt or hypocritical.

Josephus leaves out one important fact about the Essenes; that many of them were intensely anti-Roman. We know this from the Dead Sea scrolls. Many authors have unknowingly misled modern readers by stating that Essenes were pacifists, which is true, yet once they had decided that God justified a war —a holy war—they would fight. Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, and was trying to present his countrymen in the best possible light, so this omission is understandable.

Yeshua the Essene

There is evidence that Yeshua was an Essene. The Essenes had many beliefs in common with those credited to Jesus. Some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (yet his existence is never mentioned in them.) Jesus and his disciples pooled their funds, which were administered by a treasurer, a feature of Essene communities. Many scholars believe that John the Baptist, who could have been Yeshua’s cousin, was an Essene. John baptized Yeshua, so Yeshua clearly had the same beliefs as he.

The Gospel’s writers and editors did not mention the existence of the Essenes, not even once. If it was suggested or implied

( http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/josep...W_essenes.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/jlgi/jlgi05.htm
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/018...Essene.php )

that Yeshua and the disciples were Essenes, it would have meant they were too fundamentally Jewish and too anti Roman for their readers.

There was a particular group of Essenes known as Nazarenes. John, Yeshua, his family, and his disciples are believed to have been Nazarenes. Obviously, then, they were an important group.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-10-2015, 06:46 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you wrote

"And yes, I know that Martin Luther thought James wasn’t canon—something every first year Religion major should know. He thought the same about Revelation, about which letter I’ve edited an entire book! I will apologize to Luther in Heaven. We both hope to have you there with us, Mark."

Q, I'll share another truth with you.

There is no heaven. Get over it. Enjoy your life now... it's the only one you will ever have.

If I'm wrong, and there is such a thing as heaven, I won't be there. I'll be burning. Evil_monster
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
23-10-2015, 06:49 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"Listen, I know I’ve cut down mercilessly on your theory that Paul was a Roman conspirator sent to make the Jews pacifists to Rome, tax payers and etc."

Have you? I didn't notice.

Please feel free to keep going at it. I like it when people critique my ideas. It makes me think.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: