Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2016, 04:12 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(07-03-2016 11:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.

5 And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, 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.

ME=ISRAEL.

And now we’re back to verse 6 again, which by now, you’ve forgotten was under discussion:

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

So, we have either:

Israel is God’s servant to restore the tribes of Israel and bring back those of Israel God has kept and be a light to Gentiles…

OR

A child is born, formed specially in the womb, to be more than a servant and bring back Israel while being salvation to the ends of the Earth for Gentiles…

Quote: You are in general claiming special (unique! psychic!) Bible knowledge, when you constantly claim inane ideas that are repudiated in the Bible, over and again. THAT is the point.

Your comment proves my point that you always simply accept that everything you read in the babble is the truth. I don't. So there is no point in you stating that I disagree with the babble...everyone reading this already knows that...the concept that the babble is flawed has yet to sink into your thick skull, which is why you call my ideas "inane."

I think you have conflated the above with my challenge to you that you specially seem to know that any verse I mention is either Paul lying or someone redacting Paul, and every verse you mention, you know whether or not Paul is being truthful or lying, which is… insane.

Quote: Only if went goes on six bentleys race.

Sorry, I don’t get this last comment of yours. Are you asking me something?

Quote: "If the NT is pro-Gentile (Roman) propaganda, why does it continue the OT lines of thought that there is only One God… only Jews are clean… only Israel is chosen, etc. etc.?"

Because it is pro-Gentile (Roman) propaganda. The Roman government was a lot smarter than you, and a lot more subtle and nuanced.

Again, this is your psychic discernment here, and not reality. The Pax Romana had subdued all troublemakers but Israel, and here come Paul’s statements against idolatry and for monotheism and that Jesus is King and God and every Roman idol is demonic! Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans.

The sole thing “subtle and nuanced” is your ability to hold onto falsehoods by making up ridiculous assertions. Shame on any TTA member who doesn’t ask you to renounce the Roman conspiracy garbage.

Quote: "I already wrote that you could confer with Revelation..."

Yet you were too lazy to help me and the readers out by telling us which part of Revelations you expected us to read...

and here, you are attempting to undo this by saying Revelation is a drug trip.

Well...I have read Revelations. It's weird. It was written by an unknown person "John," maybe in a cave on the island of Patmos. Patmos is well known for its magic mushrooms, even today. The imagery in Revelations is quite psychedelic, and (serious) scholars have suggested John may have been a little high. Many people are aware of this...apparently you were not.

No, my point stands, so I guess this debate wasn’t totally a waste of my time or yours. You challenged me that there was nothing else in the NT to prove my point. When I said there was, “that letter is weird.” Great defense! Can I pay you to debate me in college campuses nationwide?

Quote:Once again, you have missed the main point of my reply. Your Jeebus never did return with an army. The fact John rambled about it does not mean it happened. You are therefore claiming a prophecy about a triumphant Jeebus in the OT was predicting a prophecy about a triumphant Jeebus in the NT, yet no one has even seen a triumphant Jeebus.[\quote]

You know you are talking to Q, and not someone who got saved last week, I hope. There are dozens and dozens of yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies, all of which are tied to Messiah’s return. The question is, are you and TTA readers aware of the dozens and dozens of fulfilled prophecies that authenticate Jesus and promise this same return?

For example, people have been talking about self-fulfilled prophecies on other threads. How in the heck did Israel, in dozens of other nations, self-fulfill prophecies to become the intelligentsia and cream of nations in diaspora and ALSO hated and persecuted in each of these nations?

Deconversion comes up often at TTA. Any time I think of it, I also think, “No, there are too many fulfilled prophecies to walk away from Bible truth.”

[quote] I mean, you stray off topic so often, you post 8 or 9 responses to one of my own questions as separate posts!

It's called debating...answering the opponent's assertions...one at a time.

You don't respond to 95% of my questions because my arguments go right over your head. We're not even in the same ball park. Then you pretend you think my questions are rhetorical.

No, I’m sorry. As I wrote, you keep straying off our debate topic resolution, often with ranting anger against perceived ghosts, so…

Quote: I'll try this from another angle, just in case there is a remote possibility that the penny drops for you.

You write
"the narrative reproves your claim."

Well… no it doesn't. The narrative is the narrative... it is not necessarily the truth. For example, the Koran "narrative" writes that Mohammed flew on a winged horse... the babble narrative relates that Jesus rose from the dead. Both stories are bullshit, but you will only admit that one is.

If you would put aside your prejudices about biblical infallibility you would be able to examine Scripture objectively. Quite clearly at this stage in your development you are incapable of doing that.

Or you can address my actual concerns, how the narrative of the text, IF taken at face value, shows most of your anti-Paul arguments are empty. And so, what you do to “counter” my arguments is say “No, Paul is lying there, and telling the truth here.” If you would just admit to having psychic powers, we can kill two birds when I both win the debate and you quit TTA as a non-atheist again.

Quote:Flight of ideas is one of the symptoms of bipolar mania as well as schizophrenia and ADHD.

You’re really reaching at this point, particularly since a key sign of “flight of ideas” would be your absolute inability to:

1. Answer questions when posed.

2. Keep more than 10% of your posts on the actual debate resolution.

3. Stop pretending you understand things about the Bible scholars are still debating, as if by some magic/psychic power.

So, since a couple of people have liked a couple of posts you’ve written that, as you wrote, “10,000 people are reading” shall we call it quits?

"No, my point stands, so I guess this debate wasn’t totally a waste of my time or yours. You challenged me that there was nothing else in the NT to prove my point. When I said there was, “that letter is weird.” Great defense! Can I pay you to debate me in college campuses nationwide?"

What, exactly, is your point that "stands?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
09-03-2016, 10:29 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: You're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

No, I’m certainly not. So, you have someone you can debate on your own intellectual level.

Quote: "you specially seem to know that any verse I mention is either Paul lying or someone redacting Paul,"

I apologise to all readers that you have to read this, again, from Q, despite me already addressing it many times. It is not true on many levels. I don't automatically disagree with any of the quotes Q posts. I pass commentary on ancient writings. We all do. It is our right and our obligation to read them with a critical eye. My opponent does not know how to do that.

"and every verse you mention, you know whether or not Paul is being truthful or lying, which is… insane."

No. I am passing commentary...giving an opinion...my explanation of what was written, and why. This is what rational people do. We comment on the written word.

You, however, assume everything Paul wrote was the Word of God. To do that is irrational. (Just like a Muslim might erroneously believe an angel literally visited Mohammed.) As the Inquisition so eloquently wrote elsewhere...

"In Q's world, bible proves bible is the ultimate standard of truth."

Now you are either lying or high, not sure which. Doctors ought to keep out of the prescriptions till, Dr. Fulton!

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying.

Quote: Yes, I asked you to prove that Jesus returned triumphant with an army, as you claim was predicted to happen in the old Testament. You can't, because it never happened. Quoting Jude (who was actually talking about Yahweh, not Jesus) or Revelations doesn't cut the mustard, because they too were just ramblings... not records of history. Surely even you can understand that point.

Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus, then proactively said, “Don’t bring Revelation into it” showing you already knew those quotations existed. Next, you are saying Jude is “rambling”. REALLY OUTSTANDING DEBATE ARGUMENT.

Quote: Ha ha. That's really ironic coming from someone like you. Don't people like you spend literally hours wanking to each other about every little imagined hidden meaning in the babble? And then shoving your "interpretations" down innocent people's throats? Isn't there a whole industry built around this called "hermeneutics"...which is nothing more than the art of pretending the babble says something it usually doesn't?

You are overcomplicating, I think. I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

For example, you cite a Paul verse (Remember him? Remember the debate resolution you opined?) in an effort to show Paul as a charlatan, and I cite a Paul verse. Then you say, ignoring my hermeneutic, “Buh… buh… but, Paul was lying when he wrote that [that which obviously undercuts my point!]…” ANOTHER OUTSTANDING DEBATE TACTIC from you.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
09-03-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(07-03-2016 11:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.

5 And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, 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.

ME=ISRAEL.

And now we’re back to verse 6 again, which by now, you’ve forgotten was under discussion:

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

So, we have either:

Israel is God’s servant to restore the tribes of Israel and bring back those of Israel God has kept and be a light to Gentiles…

OR

A child is born, formed specially in the womb, to be more than a servant and bring back Israel while being salvation to the ends of the Earth for Gentiles…

Quote: You are in general claiming special (unique! psychic!) Bible knowledge, when you constantly claim inane ideas that are repudiated in the Bible, over and again. THAT is the point.

Your comment proves my point that you always simply accept that everything you read in the babble is the truth. I don't. So there is no point in you stating that I disagree with the babble...everyone reading this already knows that...the concept that the babble is flawed has yet to sink into your thick skull, which is why you call my ideas "inane."

I think you have conflated the above with my challenge to you that you specially seem to know that any verse I mention is either Paul lying or someone redacting Paul, and every verse you mention, you know whether or not Paul is being truthful or lying, which is… insane.

Quote: Only if went goes on six bentleys race.

Sorry, I don’t get this last comment of yours. Are you asking me something?

Quote: "If the NT is pro-Gentile (Roman) propaganda, why does it continue the OT lines of thought that there is only One God… only Jews are clean… only Israel is chosen, etc. etc.?"

Because it is pro-Gentile (Roman) propaganda. The Roman government was a lot smarter than you, and a lot more subtle and nuanced.

Again, this is your psychic discernment here, and not reality. The Pax Romana had subdued all troublemakers but Israel, and here come Paul’s statements against idolatry and for monotheism and that Jesus is King and God and every Roman idol is demonic! Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans.

The sole thing “subtle and nuanced” is your ability to hold onto falsehoods by making up ridiculous assertions. Shame on any TTA member who doesn’t ask you to renounce the Roman conspiracy garbage.

Quote: "I already wrote that you could confer with Revelation..."

Yet you were too lazy to help me and the readers out by telling us which part of Revelations you expected us to read...

and here, you are attempting to undo this by saying Revelation is a drug trip.

Well...I have read Revelations. It's weird. It was written by an unknown person "John," maybe in a cave on the island of Patmos. Patmos is well known for its magic mushrooms, even today. The imagery in Revelations is quite psychedelic, and (serious) scholars have suggested John may have been a little high. Many people are aware of this...apparently you were not.

No, my point stands, so I guess this debate wasn’t totally a waste of my time or yours. You challenged me that there was nothing else in the NT to prove my point. When I said there was, “that letter is weird.” Great defense! Can I pay you to debate me in college campuses nationwide?

Quote:Once again, you have missed the main point of my reply. Your Jeebus never did return with an army. The fact John rambled about it does not mean it happened. You are therefore claiming a prophecy about a triumphant Jeebus in the OT was predicting a prophecy about a triumphant Jeebus in the NT, yet no one has even seen a triumphant Jeebus.[\quote]

You know you are talking to Q, and not someone who got saved last week, I hope. There are dozens and dozens of yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies, all of which are tied to Messiah’s return. The question is, are you and TTA readers aware of the dozens and dozens of fulfilled prophecies that authenticate Jesus and promise this same return?

For example, people have been talking about self-fulfilled prophecies on other threads. How in the heck did Israel, in dozens of other nations, self-fulfill prophecies to become the intelligentsia and cream of nations in diaspora and ALSO hated and persecuted in each of these nations?

Deconversion comes up often at TTA. Any time I think of it, I also think, “No, there are too many fulfilled prophecies to walk away from Bible truth.”

[quote] I mean, you stray off topic so often, you post 8 or 9 responses to one of my own questions as separate posts!

It's called debating...answering the opponent's assertions...one at a time.

You don't respond to 95% of my questions because my arguments go right over your head. We're not even in the same ball park. Then you pretend you think my questions are rhetorical.

No, I’m sorry. As I wrote, you keep straying off our debate topic resolution, often with ranting anger against perceived ghosts, so…

Quote: I'll try this from another angle, just in case there is a remote possibility that the penny drops for you.

You write
"the narrative reproves your claim."

Well… no it doesn't. The narrative is the narrative... it is not necessarily the truth. For example, the Koran "narrative" writes that Mohammed flew on a winged horse... the babble narrative relates that Jesus rose from the dead. Both stories are bullshit, but you will only admit that one is.

If you would put aside your prejudices about biblical infallibility you would be able to examine Scripture objectively. Quite clearly at this stage in your development you are incapable of doing that.

Or you can address my actual concerns, how the narrative of the text, IF taken at face value, shows most of your anti-Paul arguments are empty. And so, what you do to “counter” my arguments is say “No, Paul is lying there, and telling the truth here.” If you would just admit to having psychic powers, we can kill two birds when I both win the debate and you quit TTA as a non-atheist again.

Quote:Flight of ideas is one of the symptoms of bipolar mania as well as schizophrenia and ADHD.

You’re really reaching at this point, particularly since a key sign of “flight of ideas” would be your absolute inability to:

1. Answer questions when posed.

2. Keep more than 10% of your posts on the actual debate resolution.

3. Stop pretending you understand things about the Bible scholars are still debating, as if by some magic/psychic power.

So, since a couple of people have liked a couple of posts you’ve written that, as you wrote, “10,000 people are reading” shall we call it quits?

"Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans."

I'm not sure why you make this point, as it seems to be arguing my case, not yours.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
09-03-2016, 10:06 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(09-03-2016 10:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: You're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

No, I’m certainly not. So, you have someone you can debate on your own intellectual level.

Quote: "you specially seem to know that any verse I mention is either Paul lying or someone redacting Paul,"

I apologise to all readers that you have to read this, again, from Q, despite me already addressing it many times. It is not true on many levels. I don't automatically disagree with any of the quotes Q posts. I pass commentary on ancient writings. We all do. It is our right and our obligation to read them with a critical eye. My opponent does not know how to do that.

"and every verse you mention, you know whether or not Paul is being truthful or lying, which is… insane."

No. I am passing commentary...giving an opinion...my explanation of what was written, and why. This is what rational people do. We comment on the written word.

You, however, assume everything Paul wrote was the Word of God. To do that is irrational. (Just like a Muslim might erroneously believe an angel literally visited Mohammed.) As the Inquisition so eloquently wrote elsewhere...

"In Q's world, bible proves bible is the ultimate standard of truth."

Now you are either lying or high, not sure which. Doctors ought to keep out of the prescriptions till, Dr. Fulton!

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying.

Quote: Yes, I asked you to prove that Jesus returned triumphant with an army, as you claim was predicted to happen in the old Testament. You can't, because it never happened. Quoting Jude (who was actually talking about Yahweh, not Jesus) or Revelations doesn't cut the mustard, because they too were just ramblings... not records of history. Surely even you can understand that point.

Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus, then proactively said, “Don’t bring Revelation into it” showing you already knew those quotations existed. Next, you are saying Jude is “rambling”. REALLY OUTSTANDING DEBATE ARGUMENT.

Quote: Ha ha. That's really ironic coming from someone like you. Don't people like you spend literally hours wanking to each other about every little imagined hidden meaning in the babble? And then shoving your "interpretations" down innocent people's throats? Isn't there a whole industry built around this called "hermeneutics"...which is nothing more than the art of pretending the babble says something it usually doesn't?

You are overcomplicating, I think. I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

For example, you cite a Paul verse (Remember him? Remember the debate resolution you opined?) in an effort to show Paul as a charlatan, and I cite a Paul verse. Then you say, ignoring my hermeneutic, “Buh… buh… but, Paul was lying when he wrote that [that which obviously undercuts my point!]…” ANOTHER OUTSTANDING DEBATE TACTIC from you.

"There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying."

Please restate, say, two of these arguments...so we all know what you are referring to.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
09-03-2016, 10:08 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(09-03-2016 10:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: You're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

No, I’m certainly not. So, you have someone you can debate on your own intellectual level.

Quote: "you specially seem to know that any verse I mention is either Paul lying or someone redacting Paul,"

I apologise to all readers that you have to read this, again, from Q, despite me already addressing it many times. It is not true on many levels. I don't automatically disagree with any of the quotes Q posts. I pass commentary on ancient writings. We all do. It is our right and our obligation to read them with a critical eye. My opponent does not know how to do that.

"and every verse you mention, you know whether or not Paul is being truthful or lying, which is… insane."

No. I am passing commentary...giving an opinion...my explanation of what was written, and why. This is what rational people do. We comment on the written word.

You, however, assume everything Paul wrote was the Word of God. To do that is irrational. (Just like a Muslim might erroneously believe an angel literally visited Mohammed.) As the Inquisition so eloquently wrote elsewhere...

"In Q's world, bible proves bible is the ultimate standard of truth."

Now you are either lying or high, not sure which. Doctors ought to keep out of the prescriptions till, Dr. Fulton!

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying.

Quote: Yes, I asked you to prove that Jesus returned triumphant with an army, as you claim was predicted to happen in the old Testament. You can't, because it never happened. Quoting Jude (who was actually talking about Yahweh, not Jesus) or Revelations doesn't cut the mustard, because they too were just ramblings... not records of history. Surely even you can understand that point.

Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus, then proactively said, “Don’t bring Revelation into it” showing you already knew those quotations existed. Next, you are saying Jude is “rambling”. REALLY OUTSTANDING DEBATE ARGUMENT.

Quote: Ha ha. That's really ironic coming from someone like you. Don't people like you spend literally hours wanking to each other about every little imagined hidden meaning in the babble? And then shoving your "interpretations" down innocent people's throats? Isn't there a whole industry built around this called "hermeneutics"...which is nothing more than the art of pretending the babble says something it usually doesn't?

You are overcomplicating, I think. I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

For example, you cite a Paul verse (Remember him? Remember the debate resolution you opined?) in an effort to show Paul as a charlatan, and I cite a Paul verse. Then you say, ignoring my hermeneutic, “Buh… buh… but, Paul was lying when he wrote that [that which obviously undercuts my point!]…” ANOTHER OUTSTANDING DEBATE TACTIC from you.

"Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus,"

NO... As I have already explained to you three times, I was asking for proof that Jesus came with an army. There is no such proof.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
09-03-2016, 11:31 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(09-03-2016 10:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: You're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

No, I’m certainly not. So, you have someone you can debate on your own intellectual level.

Quote: "you specially seem to know that any verse I mention is either Paul lying or someone redacting Paul,"

I apologise to all readers that you have to read this, again, from Q, despite me already addressing it many times. It is not true on many levels. I don't automatically disagree with any of the quotes Q posts. I pass commentary on ancient writings. We all do. It is our right and our obligation to read them with a critical eye. My opponent does not know how to do that.

"and every verse you mention, you know whether or not Paul is being truthful or lying, which is… insane."

No. I am passing commentary...giving an opinion...my explanation of what was written, and why. This is what rational people do. We comment on the written word.

You, however, assume everything Paul wrote was the Word of God. To do that is irrational. (Just like a Muslim might erroneously believe an angel literally visited Mohammed.) As the Inquisition so eloquently wrote elsewhere...

"In Q's world, bible proves bible is the ultimate standard of truth."

Now you are either lying or high, not sure which. Doctors ought to keep out of the prescriptions till, Dr. Fulton!

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying.

Quote: Yes, I asked you to prove that Jesus returned triumphant with an army, as you claim was predicted to happen in the old Testament. You can't, because it never happened. Quoting Jude (who was actually talking about Yahweh, not Jesus) or Revelations doesn't cut the mustard, because they too were just ramblings... not records of history. Surely even you can understand that point.

Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus, then proactively said, “Don’t bring Revelation into it” showing you already knew those quotations existed. Next, you are saying Jude is “rambling”. REALLY OUTSTANDING DEBATE ARGUMENT.

Quote: Ha ha. That's really ironic coming from someone like you. Don't people like you spend literally hours wanking to each other about every little imagined hidden meaning in the babble? And then shoving your "interpretations" down innocent people's throats? Isn't there a whole industry built around this called "hermeneutics"...which is nothing more than the art of pretending the babble says something it usually doesn't?

You are overcomplicating, I think. I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

For example, you cite a Paul verse (Remember him? Remember the debate resolution you opined?) in an effort to show Paul as a charlatan, and I cite a Paul verse. Then you say, ignoring my hermeneutic, “Buh… buh… but, Paul was lying when he wrote that [that which obviously undercuts my point!]…” ANOTHER OUTSTANDING DEBATE TACTIC from you.

Please reconcile the two following of your assertions...

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word,...

and

"I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

Please tell us how you know which of Paul's words were "inspired" and which were not. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
15-03-2016, 10:03 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote:"Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans."

I'm not sure why you make this point, as it seems to be arguing my case, not yours.

I won’t say, “You can’t be that dense, Dr. Fulton,” but I will say, you must be—like all embittered atheists—truly, spiritually blinded.

You claim that Paul wrote pro-Roman propaganda to get Jews and Jewish Christians to calm down—and it worked so badly, apparently, that the whole empire was “deceived”! Dr. Fulton, have you stopped for one second to ever think, “Gee, maybe someone should have told Constantine that the whole think was a crock, and then pulled paperwork to show it was all a Roman conspiracy!”

Quote: "There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying."

Please restate, say, two of these arguments...so we all know what you are referring to.

You claimed my problem was in claiming Paul’s word as God’s dictated word. I’ve never even had a chance to argue that, since mostly I’ve simply shown PAUL’S words where they refute your myths. You keep printing tired atheist canards about Paul that even PAUL disagrees with in PAUL’S words. You then goalpost shifted to say I was wrong for ascribing a divine nature to Paul’s writings.

Quote: "Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus,"

NO... As I have already explained to you three times, I was asking for proof that Jesus came with an army. There is no such proof.

I agree. Jesus told his followers to stand down, including the guerrilla-like zealots and so forth. He told Pilate He would die for redemption, not for an army revolt.

Quote: Please reconcile the two following of your assertions...

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word,...

and

"I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

Please tell us how you know which of Paul's words were "inspired" and which were not.

I can say NONE of Paul’s words were inspired—and we can go back over the debate to see where you are STILL wrong.

In addition, I brought up five or six points on my last post—all of which you ignored. I take it then you concede this debate to my side?

Thanks!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
17-03-2016, 05:30 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2016 03:05 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(15-03-2016 10:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:"Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans."

I'm not sure why you make this point, as it seems to be arguing my case, not yours.

I won’t say, “You can’t be that dense, Dr. Fulton,” but I will say, you must be—like all embittered atheists—truly, spiritually blinded.

You claim that Paul wrote pro-Roman propaganda to get Jews and Jewish Christians to calm down—and it worked so badly, apparently, that the whole empire was “deceived”! Dr. Fulton, have you stopped for one second to ever think, “Gee, maybe someone should have told Constantine that the whole think was a crock, and then pulled paperwork to show it was all a Roman conspiracy!”

Quote: "There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying."

Please restate, say, two of these arguments...so we all know what you are referring to.

You claimed my problem was in claiming Paul’s word as God’s dictated word. I’ve never even had a chance to argue that, since mostly I’ve simply shown PAUL’S words where they refute your myths. You keep printing tired atheist canards about Paul that even PAUL disagrees with in PAUL’S words. You then goalpost shifted to say I was wrong for ascribing a divine nature to Paul’s writings.

Quote: "Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus,"

NO... As I have already explained to you three times, I was asking for proof that Jesus came with an army. There is no such proof.

I agree. Jesus told his followers to stand down, including the guerrilla-like zealots and so forth. He told Pilate He would die for redemption, not for an army revolt.

Quote: Please reconcile the two following of your assertions...

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word,...

and

"I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

Please tell us how you know which of Paul's words were "inspired" and which were not.

I can say NONE of Paul’s words were inspired—and we can go back over the debate to see where you are STILL wrong.

In addition, I brought up five or six points on my last post—all of which you ignored. I take it then you concede this debate to my side?

Thanks!

"I won’t say, “You can’t be that dense, Dr. Fulton,” but I will say, you must be—like all embittered atheists—truly, spiritually blinded.

You claim that Paul wrote pro-Roman propaganda to get Jews and Jewish Christians to calm down—and it worked so badly, apparently, that the whole empire was “deceived”! Dr. Fulton, have you stopped for one second to ever think, “Gee, maybe someone should have told Constantine that the whole think was a crock, and then pulled paperwork to show it was all a Roman conspiracy!” "


Q, I've read the above over and over to try to understand what your point is...and...I've still got almost no idea what you are on about. You seem to be trying to make some point about Constantine. I think you need a little history lesson. The following is my own writing, a summation of many historians' perspectives, complete with some references. I hope you learn something from it.

"It was only from the fourth century on that there was an obviously dominant, unified, institutionalized form of Christianity – Catholicism. The Catholic Church insinuated itself into the political establishment and insisted on the strict obedience of church leaders. Scores of other Christian cults still existed, but became less important after the Catholics oppressed them.

Catholic bishops met and decided what everyone should and shouldn’t believe. They adopted doctrines that condemned egalitarianism and the esoteric ideas of the Gnostics. These doctrines became known as creeds.

So it was only nearly three centuries after the death of Jesus that the “facts” about his life and his teachings were decided. A set of four tales about Jesus, the Gospels, were said to be the true accounts of his life, and it was then touted that these had been told right from the start. In a series of councils over the next few hundred years, more dogma was thrashed out by opposing factions and presented to the public as the truth.

In 313 CE, the Emperor Constantine (reigned from 306–337 CE) reversed the government’s policy of hostility to Christianity in his “Edict of Milan.” (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm). Constantine was a highly superstitious man and a Mithraic. He probably respected all religious cults, and interestingly, saw no contradiction in championing both Mithraism and Christianity. He held the title “Pontifex Maximus,” high priest of the cult of the state, (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a104.htm) for himself. This title was to be later taken by the Popery.

His government embraced Christians as allies. In 320 CE he declared himself a Christian and fashioned himself as a priest-king who was the thirteenth apostle of Jesus. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/constant...ine.html). Christianity was given a colossal leg up by becoming the official religion of the empire. The new faith went to bed with the political masters of the Western world and the empire had a universal religion to unite most of its people. It was a marriage of convenience that suited both parties. It was due to this symbiotic connection that Christianity was established and given the means to flourish.

What made Constantine embrace Christianity? His mother was a Christian. The church was springing up strongly. It was wide reaching and well organized, as it had modeled its hierarchy on Roman (not Jewish!) principles. It had a clerical class, and a chain of command that was competent at controlling conflicts. The bishops had a level of legal autonomy allowing them to interpret law. The Christians accepted people from all parts of the empire and respected Roman rule. All this was attractive to Constantine because he wanted stability. In the preceding decades civil wars and external enemies had challenged the Pax Romana. He was overseeing a massive, disparate empire, so the social cohesion made possible by a universal monotheism was appealing. He knew the people were easier to control if they all shared the same religion.

The Christian hierarchy received economic favors from the government. The money that had previously gone to pagan priests now went to Christian bishops. Later in the fourth century all other pagan cults were suppressed or destroyed, although many of their traditions were absorbed into Christianity. Those foolhardy enough to hold onto their old beliefs were persecuted.

Wealthy people commonly left one third of their property to the church and the Christian clergy were exempt from paying some taxes. To be a bishop became a ticket to affluence, and an appointment as such was highly sought after. Bribery and tax evasion were common. Inevitably, it was the rich and well connected who became bishops, and many were lured from the army or navy. The Catholic Church became very wealthy and powerful.

As a consequence of Paul’s amorphous Christ concept, there was much contention as to whether Christ was a God, a spirit, a mortal man, or all three. Arius, a presbyter from Libya, gained followers around the empire by insisting
“there was a time when the Son was not,” in other words, the son was a creation of the father. Others said the son was of the same substance as the father. The argument spread, threatening to rip the church in two. Constantine disapproved of the conjecture and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to rectify the rift. (http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_...ror.html). This was the first ecumenical council of the Catholic church, and Constantine commanded it, which confirms how close church and state had become.

There was a belligerent atmosphere at the council. (http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readin.../11.html). It resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine; that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit were all of the same substance, a belief that became known as the Nicene Creed. (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm). Those who voted against it were banished.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, Jesus had most often been perceived as an intermediary between man and God; the council decided he actually was God. The core character of Christianity was created; Jesus the son of God. This Nicaean formula clearly wasn’t founded on Yeshua. It was nothing more than a contorted creation invented to unify some of the opinions about Jesus.

Some websites claim that there were not only Christian commanders at this council, but leaders from many other cults, sects and religions too, including those of Apollo, Demeter/Ceres, Dionysus, Janus, Jupiter, Zeus, Osiris and Isis. (http://www.northernway.org/pagandna.html, http://www.examiner.com/article/1st-coun...part-014). The council contrived to coalesce these competing cults under one “catholic” (i.e. “universal”) church to be controlled by the Constantine government. Their gods were subjugated under the name of the new god, Jesus Christ. If this is true, it would help explain how “Jesus” blended the religious formulas of China, India, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Palestine into a single sect suitable for all. Forget Christmas; the Council of Nicea marked the true birth of Jesus Christ.

Any texts that contradicted what the clergy had chosen as canonical were labeled as subversive. Old copies of the Gospels were recalled and scribes were co-opted to make revised copies suitable for consumption throughout Christendom. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblia...ar_40.htm, http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/fabrication of the galilaeans.htm).

In 335 CE, a mere ten years later, all of a sudden Jesus wasn’t of the same substance as God any more. A second Council, also convened by Constantine, that of Tyre, reversed the conclusion of the first, and Arianism, the belief that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, became the brand new dogma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Synod_of_Tyre). This decision lasted until Constantine’s death in 337 CE, after which the empire was split into a Nicene West and an Arian East. There was no universal consensus about Jesus’ status for the next forty odd years.

In 381 CE, the emperor Theodosius convened an ecumenical council at Constantinople, resulting in the ratification of the first Nicene formula. The Roman world was at last given a definitive triune god—a gobbledygook spiel about three characters in one that is still promoted by churches today. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o).
The uneducated citizens of the Empire, impressed with the promise of a heavenly paradise, and intimidated with violence if they weren’t, were easy pickings for the Catholic Church, although some of the braver rural people hung on to many of their pagan traditions.

The vastness of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread throughout much of Europe. An infrastructure under the umbrella of one god and emperor was convenient. Before the Roman Empire declined in Europe, Christianity was firmly established in many of the key regions that would shape the history of the western world.

It’s obvious that the burgeoning power of Christianity had nothing to do with the inherent truth of the dogma and everything to do with politics and power."


Q, you quite clearly know nothing about the above history. If you think you do, please clearly state what you disagree with, and why, and please cite your references.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
17-03-2016, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2016 03:07 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(15-03-2016 10:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:"Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans."

I'm not sure why you make this point, as it seems to be arguing my case, not yours.

I won’t say, “You can’t be that dense, Dr. Fulton,” but I will say, you must be—like all embittered atheists—truly, spiritually blinded.

You claim that Paul wrote pro-Roman propaganda to get Jews and Jewish Christians to calm down—and it worked so badly, apparently, that the whole empire was “deceived”! Dr. Fulton, have you stopped for one second to ever think, “Gee, maybe someone should have told Constantine that the whole think was a crock, and then pulled paperwork to show it was all a Roman conspiracy!”

Quote: "There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying."

Please restate, say, two of these arguments...so we all know what you are referring to.

You claimed my problem was in claiming Paul’s word as God’s dictated word. I’ve never even had a chance to argue that, since mostly I’ve simply shown PAUL’S words where they refute your myths. You keep printing tired atheist canards about Paul that even PAUL disagrees with in PAUL’S words. You then goalpost shifted to say I was wrong for ascribing a divine nature to Paul’s writings.

Quote: "Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus,"

NO... As I have already explained to you three times, I was asking for proof that Jesus came with an army. There is no such proof.

I agree. Jesus told his followers to stand down, including the guerrilla-like zealots and so forth. He told Pilate He would die for redemption, not for an army revolt.

Quote: Please reconcile the two following of your assertions...

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word,...

and

"I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

Please tell us how you know which of Paul's words were "inspired" and which were not.

I can say NONE of Paul’s words were inspired—and we can go back over the debate to see where you are STILL wrong.

In addition, I brought up five or six points on my last post—all of which you ignored. I take it then you concede this debate to my side?

Thanks!

"you must be—like all embittered atheists—truly, spiritually blinded."


What da fuck are you talking about? Facepalm

You somehow claim this because you somehow imagine Constantine actually believed the shit he was peddling (he obviously didn't, see my previous post) , and I'm not clever enough to realise it? The truth is you're not smart enough to know what you don't know, and you're arrogant and stupid enough to advertise your ignorance. Classic Dunning Kruger again.

Atheists are not "embittered." We like facts, and don't believe bullshit. To label us as "embittered" is a typical fundamentalist ploy to distract from the fact that we make sense and you don't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
17-03-2016, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2016 05:59 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(15-03-2016 10:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:"Your “pro-Gentile, pro-Roman propaganda” worked so perfectly, that Constantine declared Christianity the state religion! Good job, Romans."

I'm not sure why you make this point, as it seems to be arguing my case, not yours.

I won’t say, “You can’t be that dense, Dr. Fulton,” but I will say, you must be—like all embittered atheists—truly, spiritually blinded.

You claim that Paul wrote pro-Roman propaganda to get Jews and Jewish Christians to calm down—and it worked so badly, apparently, that the whole empire was “deceived”! Dr. Fulton, have you stopped for one second to ever think, “Gee, maybe someone should have told Constantine that the whole think was a crock, and then pulled paperwork to show it was all a Roman conspiracy!”

Quote: "There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word, merely quotations that showed you were sharing canards and falsehoods about the text as written. Stop lying."

Please restate, say, two of these arguments...so we all know what you are referring to.

You claimed my problem was in claiming Paul’s word as God’s dictated word. I’ve never even had a chance to argue that, since mostly I’ve simply shown PAUL’S words where they refute your myths. You keep printing tired atheist canards about Paul that even PAUL disagrees with in PAUL’S words. You then goalpost shifted to say I was wrong for ascribing a divine nature to Paul’s writings.

Quote: "Actually, you asked for textual quotations showing an army of Jesus,"

NO... As I have already explained to you three times, I was asking for proof that Jesus came with an army. There is no such proof.

I agree. Jesus told his followers to stand down, including the guerrilla-like zealots and so forth. He told Pilate He would die for redemption, not for an army revolt.

Quote: Please reconcile the two following of your assertions...

There are a dozen spots on this “debate” where my objection from the Bible had nothing to do with Paul’s writing God’s Word,...

and

"I would say that hermeneutics says, “Since all the 66 books are inspired, we can confer between books and verses to shed light on doctrine.”

Please tell us how you know which of Paul's words were "inspired" and which were not.

I can say NONE of Paul’s words were inspired—and we can go back over the debate to see where you are STILL wrong.

In addition, I brought up five or six points on my last post—all of which you ignored. I take it then you concede this debate to my side?

Thanks!

"You keep printing tired atheist canards about Paul that even PAUL disagrees with in PAUL’S words."

You just don't get it. Paul was a charlatan. That's the guts of my case. If you disagree, you need to say why. Telling us Paul contradicts me is not a valid argument. When is that penny going to drop for you? You've repeatedly stated that some of my writing disagrees with the babble, as if that is a good argument (it isn't). You have to do better than that, old boy; you're not in Sunday school here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: