Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2016, 02:53 PM
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 can say NONE of Paul’s words were inspired—and we can go back over the debate to see where you are STILL wrong."


Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
18-03-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: "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.

You’ve got to be having me on. Repeating:

If Christianity wasn’t a Jewish movement led by Jewish people including Rabbi Paul, and was—as you claim, along with a handful of scholarly cranks—a Roman conspiracy, shouldn’t the Romans have revealed their conspiracy before Christianity 1) failed to pacify the Jews as you claimed it was meant to do 2) took over their whole Empire??!!

Your Roman conspiracy claim, if it is the main reason you feel Paul is a charlatan, ends our debate with you on the losing side.

Put thusly:

1. Conspirators seek to forward hidden agendas.
2. Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas.
3. Constantine should have revealed the big conspiracy, and is a terrible example to prove your “case”.

Quote: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.

I AM aware of the history of Constantine and manipulation for power, especially since I stand against the RCC. YOU are still missing the obvious. An anti-Constantine faction or person(s) could have simply proven Christianity was a conspiracy and stopped Constantine and his kind from doing what they did! Or stopped the crowds from hassling Rome for the three centuries prior re: things Romans loved like gladiatorial games! Your Christianity is a Roman conspiracy nonsense… is nonsense!

Quote: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.

I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great!

I’ve already cited verses that countered your claims that Paul was lying. Since you have presented ZERO evidence OUTSIDE the Bible that Paul was a charlatan, only opinions of people, including your own, written 300-2,000 years after Paul’s time, you simply can never accuse me of using the Bible to prove my point. Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul! However, your entire platform in this debate is opinion. Normally in a formal debate both sides prevent facts. For example, if we debated the right to life each of us would prevent statistics regarding health outcomes since Roe v. Wade, science facts re: human gestation, etc.

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.

Quote: "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."

Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.

Why, I’d be happy to… any number of times you have taken statements of Paul, which if taken at face value, show he was utterly sincere, and somehow claimed via your psychic powers that you know he was lying when he wrote them. Prove your case or STHO… “Shut The Heaven Up!”

1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!

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
18-03-2016, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2016 10:37 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(18-03-2016 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: "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.

You’ve got to be having me on. Repeating:

If Christianity wasn’t a Jewish movement led by Jewish people including Rabbi Paul, and was—as you claim, along with a handful of scholarly cranks—a Roman conspiracy, shouldn’t the Romans have revealed their conspiracy before Christianity 1) failed to pacify the Jews as you claimed it was meant to do 2) took over their whole Empire??!!

Your Roman conspiracy claim, if it is the main reason you feel Paul is a charlatan, ends our debate with you on the losing side.

Put thusly:

1. Conspirators seek to forward hidden agendas.
2. Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas.
3. Constantine should have revealed the big conspiracy, and is a terrible example to prove your “case”.

Quote: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.

I AM aware of the history of Constantine and manipulation for power, especially since I stand against the RCC. YOU are still missing the obvious. An anti-Constantine faction or person(s) could have simply proven Christianity was a conspiracy and stopped Constantine and his kind from doing what they did! Or stopped the crowds from hassling Rome for the three centuries prior re: things Romans loved like gladiatorial games! Your Christianity is a Roman conspiracy nonsense… is nonsense!

Quote: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.

I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great!

I’ve already cited verses that countered your claims that Paul was lying. Since you have presented ZERO evidence OUTSIDE the Bible that Paul was a charlatan, only opinions of people, including your own, written 300-2,000 years after Paul’s time, you simply can never accuse me of using the Bible to prove my point. Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul! However, your entire platform in this debate is opinion. Normally in a formal debate both sides prevent facts. For example, if we debated the right to life each of us would prevent statistics regarding health outcomes since Roe v. Wade, science facts re: human gestation, etc.

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.

Quote: "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."

Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.

Why, I’d be happy to… any number of times you have taken statements of Paul, which if taken at face value, show he was utterly sincere, and somehow claimed via your psychic powers that you know he was lying when he wrote them. Prove your case or STHO… “Shut The Heaven Up!”

1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!

Q...there is a serious problem here.

Throughout this debate, you have been repeating the same poorly expressed half arguments again and again. I have replied to all of them, often 3 or 4 times. You either do not read the replies, or ignore them, because you never move the conversation on. You just make the same assertions again. This last post of yours is another example of this.

This is frustrating for me, as I would like to debate new ideas about Paul, rather than repeat myself endlessly, and it must be extremely tedious for our readers. Do I repeat myself again, and again, when I know you are not going to respond back, and when I know our readers have already read and understood my arguments? I can't keep doing that...people will get turned off.

Please...go back and reread my answers to all these assertions of yours...and then move the conversation forward by commenting on them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
18-03-2016, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2016 10:38 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(18-03-2016 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: "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.

You’ve got to be having me on. Repeating:

If Christianity wasn’t a Jewish movement led by Jewish people including Rabbi Paul, and was—as you claim, along with a handful of scholarly cranks—a Roman conspiracy, shouldn’t the Romans have revealed their conspiracy before Christianity 1) failed to pacify the Jews as you claimed it was meant to do 2) took over their whole Empire??!!

Your Roman conspiracy claim, if it is the main reason you feel Paul is a charlatan, ends our debate with you on the losing side.

Put thusly:

1. Conspirators seek to forward hidden agendas.
2. Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas.
3. Constantine should have revealed the big conspiracy, and is a terrible example to prove your “case”.

Quote: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.

I AM aware of the history of Constantine and manipulation for power, especially since I stand against the RCC. YOU are still missing the obvious. An anti-Constantine faction or person(s) could have simply proven Christianity was a conspiracy and stopped Constantine and his kind from doing what they did! Or stopped the crowds from hassling Rome for the three centuries prior re: things Romans loved like gladiatorial games! Your Christianity is a Roman conspiracy nonsense… is nonsense!

Quote: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.

I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great!

I’ve already cited verses that countered your claims that Paul was lying. Since you have presented ZERO evidence OUTSIDE the Bible that Paul was a charlatan, only opinions of people, including your own, written 300-2,000 years after Paul’s time, you simply can never accuse me of using the Bible to prove my point. Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul! However, your entire platform in this debate is opinion. Normally in a formal debate both sides prevent facts. For example, if we debated the right to life each of us would prevent statistics regarding health outcomes since Roe v. Wade, science facts re: human gestation, etc.

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.

Quote: "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."

Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.

Why, I’d be happy to… any number of times you have taken statements of Paul, which if taken at face value, show he was utterly sincere, and somehow claimed via your psychic powers that you know he was lying when he wrote them. Prove your case or STHO… “Shut The Heaven Up!”

1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!

"I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great! "

You've brought this up...again.

Here is (one of) my responses (from post 186), which you never replied to....


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

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

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

Hence, an insincere charlatan can write nice prose, such as what Paul, or someone writing in his name, wrote in 1 Corinthians 13.

What is more, an ability to write nice prose does not qualify one to be God's spokesman.

I have already pointed this out to you multiple times, (another time was when I quoted Bob Dylan), yet you keep boring our readers by just restating your assertion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
18-03-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(18-03-2016 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: "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.

You’ve got to be having me on. Repeating:

If Christianity wasn’t a Jewish movement led by Jewish people including Rabbi Paul, and was—as you claim, along with a handful of scholarly cranks—a Roman conspiracy, shouldn’t the Romans have revealed their conspiracy before Christianity 1) failed to pacify the Jews as you claimed it was meant to do 2) took over their whole Empire??!!

Your Roman conspiracy claim, if it is the main reason you feel Paul is a charlatan, ends our debate with you on the losing side.

Put thusly:

1. Conspirators seek to forward hidden agendas.
2. Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas.
3. Constantine should have revealed the big conspiracy, and is a terrible example to prove your “case”.

Quote: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.

I AM aware of the history of Constantine and manipulation for power, especially since I stand against the RCC. YOU are still missing the obvious. An anti-Constantine faction or person(s) could have simply proven Christianity was a conspiracy and stopped Constantine and his kind from doing what they did! Or stopped the crowds from hassling Rome for the three centuries prior re: things Romans loved like gladiatorial games! Your Christianity is a Roman conspiracy nonsense… is nonsense!

Quote: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.

I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great!

I’ve already cited verses that countered your claims that Paul was lying. Since you have presented ZERO evidence OUTSIDE the Bible that Paul was a charlatan, only opinions of people, including your own, written 300-2,000 years after Paul’s time, you simply can never accuse me of using the Bible to prove my point. Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul! However, your entire platform in this debate is opinion. Normally in a formal debate both sides prevent facts. For example, if we debated the right to life each of us would prevent statistics regarding health outcomes since Roe v. Wade, science facts re: human gestation, etc.

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.

Quote: "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."

Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.

Why, I’d be happy to… any number of times you have taken statements of Paul, which if taken at face value, show he was utterly sincere, and somehow claimed via your psychic powers that you know he was lying when he wrote them. Prove your case or STHO… “Shut The Heaven Up!”

1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!


"...Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims."


This may or may not be true, but it is a completely different discussion than one about the veracity of Paul's claims.

For example, you may genuinely believe you are the best table tennis player in the world...whether you actually are is a completely different question.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
18-03-2016, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2016 07:27 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(18-03-2016 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: "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.

You’ve got to be having me on. Repeating:

If Christianity wasn’t a Jewish movement led by Jewish people including Rabbi Paul, and was—as you claim, along with a handful of scholarly cranks—a Roman conspiracy, shouldn’t the Romans have revealed their conspiracy before Christianity 1) failed to pacify the Jews as you claimed it was meant to do 2) took over their whole Empire??!!

Your Roman conspiracy claim, if it is the main reason you feel Paul is a charlatan, ends our debate with you on the losing side.

Put thusly:

1. Conspirators seek to forward hidden agendas.
2. Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas.
3. Constantine should have revealed the big conspiracy, and is a terrible example to prove your “case”.

Quote: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.

I AM aware of the history of Constantine and manipulation for power, especially since I stand against the RCC. YOU are still missing the obvious. An anti-Constantine faction or person(s) could have simply proven Christianity was a conspiracy and stopped Constantine and his kind from doing what they did! Or stopped the crowds from hassling Rome for the three centuries prior re: things Romans loved like gladiatorial games! Your Christianity is a Roman conspiracy nonsense… is nonsense!

Quote: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.

I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great!

I’ve already cited verses that countered your claims that Paul was lying. Since you have presented ZERO evidence OUTSIDE the Bible that Paul was a charlatan, only opinions of people, including your own, written 300-2,000 years after Paul’s time, you simply can never accuse me of using the Bible to prove my point. Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul! However, your entire platform in this debate is opinion. Normally in a formal debate both sides prevent facts. For example, if we debated the right to life each of us would prevent statistics regarding health outcomes since Roe v. Wade, science facts re: human gestation, etc.

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.

Quote: "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."

Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.

Why, I’d be happy to… any number of times you have taken statements of Paul, which if taken at face value, show he was utterly sincere, and somehow claimed via your psychic powers that you know he was lying when he wrote them. Prove your case or STHO… “Shut The Heaven Up!”

1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!

How to write the same thing in 6 different sentences, as per Q...

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.
1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!


Oh the irony of you telling me I have no facts! Open any page of this debate, say page 1 for example, and you will find my commentary littered with facts, and yours littered with unexplained assumptions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-03-2016, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 03:25 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(18-03-2016 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: "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.

You’ve got to be having me on. Repeating:

If Christianity wasn’t a Jewish movement led by Jewish people including Rabbi Paul, and was—as you claim, along with a handful of scholarly cranks—a Roman conspiracy, shouldn’t the Romans have revealed their conspiracy before Christianity 1) failed to pacify the Jews as you claimed it was meant to do 2) took over their whole Empire??!!

Your Roman conspiracy claim, if it is the main reason you feel Paul is a charlatan, ends our debate with you on the losing side.

Put thusly:

1. Conspirators seek to forward hidden agendas.
2. Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas.
3. Constantine should have revealed the big conspiracy, and is a terrible example to prove your “case”.

Quote: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.

I AM aware of the history of Constantine and manipulation for power, especially since I stand against the RCC. YOU are still missing the obvious. An anti-Constantine faction or person(s) could have simply proven Christianity was a conspiracy and stopped Constantine and his kind from doing what they did! Or stopped the crowds from hassling Rome for the three centuries prior re: things Romans loved like gladiatorial games! Your Christianity is a Roman conspiracy nonsense… is nonsense!

Quote: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.

I’ve already mentioned a number of counter-arguments, such as 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “love chapter” of the Bible, being widely known for two millennia as the greatest exposition ever on compassion and tenderness toward others. This is commonly known at universities, and not just Sunday school classes, and your brilliant response was a mere, “Nah, he didn’t really mean it. It’s not that loving a passage in the babble.” ANOTHER WINNING DEBATE MOVE FROM YOU. Great!

I’ve already cited verses that countered your claims that Paul was lying. Since you have presented ZERO evidence OUTSIDE the Bible that Paul was a charlatan, only opinions of people, including your own, written 300-2,000 years after Paul’s time, you simply can never accuse me of using the Bible to prove my point. Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul! However, your entire platform in this debate is opinion. Normally in a formal debate both sides prevent facts. For example, if we debated the right to life each of us would prevent statistics regarding health outcomes since Roe v. Wade, science facts re: human gestation, etc.

1. Formal debates engage the audience/judges via BOTH opinion and fact.
2. You have presented no facts. You have the burden of proof, since scholars may disagree with Paul’s doctrines personally but have found him fervent and sincere—they know Paul believed even the supernatural elements of his claims.
3. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, you failed in our debate.

Quote: "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."

Please...be my guest. Just once...actually make a point....don't just pretend you have already made it.

Why, I’d be happy to… any number of times you have taken statements of Paul, which if taken at face value, show he was utterly sincere, and somehow claimed via your psychic powers that you know he was lying when he wrote them. Prove your case or STHO… “Shut The Heaven Up!”

1. I demand debate satisFACTion from you, via your actually presenting FACTS.
2. I’m still waiting for FACT one from you, 41 pages in.
3. Present a FACT or let’s just leave the ring and call it a day, sir!

"Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas"

Evidence please (ask I with no real hope of an answer)

You may care to comment on this article (ask I with no real hope of an answer) http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth...ersecuted/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
22-03-2016, 10:01 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: "I'll remind you of your own definition of "charlatan"...

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

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

Hence, an insincere charlatan can write nice prose, such as what Paul, or someone writing in his name, wrote in 1 Corinthians 13.

I see. Are you MORE likely to consider someone who writes such nice prose to be a charlatan? Are you MORE likely to assume someone is insincere if they are a religious leader, and will you admit your bias if so? Are you MORE likely to let documents from the past speak for themselves or MORE likely to call people liars when they cannot defend themselves, because it’s convenient?[/quote]

Quote:What is more, an ability to write nice prose does not qualify one to be God's spokesman.

I have already pointed this out to you multiple times, (another time was when I quoted Bob Dylan), yet you keep boring our readers by just restating your assertion.

You are correct, writing nice prose is not an indicator of divine inspiration. You have, however, NEVER responded to my assertion that:

1. You’ve called Paul not just a charlatan but a nasty, spiteful, vicious, disgusting piece of work.

2. This assertion of yours flies in the face of 1 Cor 13 not being called “nice prose” but the most definitive piece of literature on love in history!

3. I conclude that you have no choice other than to say 1 Cor 13 is “nice prose” to cover your tracks here. Shame on you. Recant your position!

Quote:Oh the irony of you telling me I have no facts! Open any page of this debate, say page 1 for example, and you will find my commentary littered with facts, and yours littered with unexplained assumptions.

Please bullet point below every fact you have in evidence that Paul was a charlatan—and I will gladly address them all, and immediately! Let me help you:

* Saying someone who claims a link to God is de facto a liar is not a “fact”

* Copying and pasting commentary written hundreds to thousands of years after Paul was preaching is not a fact—this includes your own “commentary”

* Posting phrases out of context or saying, “Gee, I don’t understand these verses” or “Christians commonly lie about these verses” is not a fact proving Paul was a charlatan.

Quote: "Christians for three centuries BEFORE Constantine worked anti-Roman agendas"

Evidence please (ask I with no real hope of an answer)

You may care to comment on this article (ask I with no real hope of an answer) http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth...ersecuted/

Of course, I’d be delighted to comment on the article:

1. If we accept all Moss has to say, Paul is still not a charlatan, since Paul discusses Roman persecutions in the NT, but lived through some of the “maybe 10 or 12 scattered years during which Christians were singled out for supression by Rome’s imperial authorities” as Moss puts it.

2. For some reason, rather than presenting new lines of argumentation, you simply repeat your questions to me as if I’ve haven’t answered you already, multiple times. Your latest example: “Evidence please, Q, that Christians worked anti-Roman agendas”, when I’ve already mentioned statements like “Behind every [Roman] idol is a demon… Paul and his followers are in our city to overthrow our pantheon of gods, anti-gladitorial sentiment and protests among Christians, etc. Clearly you enjoy going back to read your posts but not mine!

Quote: Q...there is a serious problem here.

Throughout this debate, you have been repeating the same poorly expressed half arguments again and again. I have replied to all of them, often 3 or 4 times. You either do not read the replies, or ignore them, because you never move the conversation on. You just make the same assertions again. This last post of yours is another example of this.

This is frustrating for me, as I would like to debate new ideas about Paul, rather than repeat myself endlessly, and it must be extremely tedious for our readers. Do I repeat myself again, and again, when I know you are not going to respond back, and when I know our readers have already read and understood my arguments? I can't keep doing that...people will get turned off.

Please...go back and reread my answers to all these assertions of yours...and then move the conversation forward by commenting on them.

1. You have never replied to many of my arguments, which is why I used opportunities to re-ask you questions, however…

2. What are your new arguments? I’m all ears.

3. If you have no new arguments to make, or facts to present
(still!) let’s shut this one down. Sound good?

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
22-03-2016, 02:52 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 08:53 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"I see. Are you MORE likely to consider someone who writes such nice prose to be a charlatan?"

Look at the facts. Paul, or someone writing in his name, wrote some nice prose. Some people of your ilk wax lyrical about it. That does not mean everything Paul wrote was the truth, and it does not mean anything he wrote was inspired by a hypothetical God. You are somehow trying to claim that because he wrote a few nice lines he was honest, and didn't have an underlying agenda. That makes no sense.

You have cherry picked a small part of Paul's opus. I, and the scholars I have quoted, have demonstrated that Paul was a liar and a charlatan. You haven't responded in a specific way to any of this commentary.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
22-03-2016, 02:59 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"Are you MORE likely to assume someone is insincere if they are a religious leader, and will you admit your bias if so?"

I will admit my bias.

If someone is a "religious leader," yes, I immediately suspect they are insincere.

Having said that there's no doubt there are some sincere religious leaders... They are just naive, but not necessarily insincere. Paul was not in this category. He had a secondary agenda that he never revealed.

The sincerity of a religious leader is not the real question at hand. It is the truth or otherwise of what they are preaching that is the real issue. No religious leader has any proof for the existence of their hypothetical god.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: