Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you seem very obsessed with what you call "facts."

I don't know what you mean by this in this (the debate's) context. Please explain yourself.

Please go on to explain how your "facts" (whatever that may mean) prove that Paul was honest and told the truth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
24-03-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote:May I recommend that you read 1 Corinthians 13 several times today, and meditate on it’s extolling of love, real love?

Sure, I'll read it again.

In the meantime, perhaps you could read this love letter...

"Mein Liebes Tschapperl,

Don't worry about me. I'm fine though perhaps a little tired. I hope to come home soon and then I can rest in your arms. I have a great longing for rest, but my duty to the German people comes before everything else. Don't forget that the dangers I encounter don't compare with those of our soldiers at the Front. I thank you for the proof of your affection and ask you also to thank your esteemed father and your most gracious mother for their greetings and good wishes. I am very proud of the honor - please tell them that - to possess the love of girl who comes from such a distinguished family. I have sent to you the uniform I was wearing during the unfortunate day. It is proof that Providence has protected me and that we have nothing more to fear from our enemies.

From my whole heart, your A.H."

Nice letter, isn't it? You can probably guess who wrote it to the woman who would become his wife, Eva Braun. Please meditate on the love these two people shared despite all their adversaries, even an assassination attempt on his life. Love conquers all.

Sorry to hear you being a cynic on love. However, we both know why Hitler’s post is a typical letter from the front and 1 Corinthians 13 motivated Dr. MLK, Jr., a fact you ignored from my last post (shocking, I know).
Quote: Wow...you actually looked something up and have contributed to the discussion! Well done! Thankyou for pointing this out.

My opinion on this, and it is just an opinion, is that it never happened to "Christians."
I think the evidence is weak. All sorts of nonsense, such as Peter and Paul lost their lives at this time, was made up by church fathers, many decades after the event. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere. If you choose to believe Christians were martyred at this time, that's your right, but we will have to agree to disagree.

I will end this debate in the boxing ring and say you WON the debate if you will admit that you have NO facts against Paul, only commentary. OR, again, present your top facts PROVING Paul was a charlatan, not including “He’s religious so he must be lying”:

FACT 1:

FACT 2:

FACT 3:

Quote:
This is another big non sequitur. (if you don't know what that means please look it up.)

I could write a hundred letters full of lies to my mother, who knows me well.

Paul was writing about what appears to be his own delusions and hallucinations, that only he experienced, so he could quite easily have been lying. In fact, given that he was not overtly psychotic, the most likely explanation is that he was lying.

1. You never addressed my syllogism, that witnesses testified within the documents.

2. The sole fact you’ve presented that Paul lied is “he wrote about miracles”.

Again, present your top facts PROVING Paul was a charlatan, not including “He’s religious so he must be lying”:

FACT 1:

FACT 2:

FACT 3:

Quote: Q, you seem very obsessed with what you call "facts."

I don't know what you mean by this in this (the debate's) context. Please explain yourself.

Please go on to explain how your "facts" (whatever that may mean) prove that Paul was honest and told the truth.
Asking again, what facts can I ADD to “a man writes multiple documents testified to by multiple witnesses and multiple outside sources and some atheist says he must have lied because he did miracles”. So, here’s your chance since YOU chose the debate resolution, and it isn’t “Q will argue Paul told truth”.
Again, present your top facts PROVING Paul was a charlatan, not including “He’s religious so he must be lying”:

FACT 1:

FACT 2:

FACT 3:

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
24-03-2016, 07:44 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 10:48 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Ok Q, here is the first of my facts proving Paul was a charlatan. You didn't respond to this last time, now is your chance to do so, like you promised...

"and I will gladly address them all, and immediately!"

Apologies to those who have read this before, but Q insists on me repeating myself.


FACT 1. Paul Knew Almost Nothing of Jesus

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,

“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.)

What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life.

Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers.

Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

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

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

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

The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts about Jesus as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might care to know about Yeshua. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul nor James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure - because the Gospels hadn’t been written yet, so Jesus’ status as a legendary character hadn’t been created.

Who then, was Paul’s Christ? It was someone who Paul thought had existed in heaven since the beginning of time, yet only revealed to the world via his own peculiar interpretation of Jewish scripture. Douglas Lockhart (http://douglaslockhart.com/) and a number of other scholars (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm) think it could have been the “Teacher of Righteousness” written about in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are many theories as to who this character was, one of which is that he was an Essene leader, a priest, who lived perhaps a hundred years before Yeshua, who had disapproved of the Hasmonean high priest.

In the Gentile world of the time there was competition from many dying and rising gods such as Mithras. Those gods often didn’t have a mortal life that was remembered, just like Paul’s Christ. It was only the myth of them dying and rising again that gave them significance, just like his Christ. I think Paul's Christ, real identity uncertain, was a Judaic myth invented to compete with these other cults. The idea that his Christ would one day be equated with Yeshua may not ever have been on Paul’s radar. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm).

It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries. Or, it could be that Paul was using the (very common) name to represent a spirit, not a person. “Paul” does say, once, in 1 Tim 6;13, that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, yet this wasn’t written by Paul. “Paul” does talk about what Christ allegedly said on the night he was betrayed, in the first letter to the Corinthians, but this whole passage is unique in that regard and therefore it too is suspiciously “unPauline.”

Most Christians I have talked to about this are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus undermines the account about Jesus being an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds. This is an image created by churchmen using the Gospels. Paul knew none of this. Outside of Jewish scripture he only ever acknowledged one source of wisdom—himself. An authoritative Yeshua, even one recently deceased, would have focused the limelight on someone more significant than himself, and I don’t think he would have liked that.

Just who Paul thought his Christ was is a difficult concept to grasp, and in my opinion it’s not worth spending too much time on. It helps to remember that the sources of Paul’s ideas are obscure; that his writings have been tampered with; that original meaning is often lost in translations; that the Jesus stories we know so well only finished being cobbled together in the fourth century, and Paul had never read them, that Paul had an overactive imagination, and he was a very peculiar man.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
24-03-2016, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 01:40 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"Sorry to hear you being a cynic on love."

I'm not cynical about love. I just don't need a scheming little weasel of a man like Paul telling me what it is, or how to express it, particularly as it is obvious from Paul's writings elsewhere that he didn't like women, or gays, or anyone who refused to believe his nonsense.

"we both know why Hitler’s post is a typical letter from the front"


No. Hitler wasn't on "the front" when he wrote this. He had just survived an assassination attempt on home turf. And I have no idea what a "typical letter from the front" is. Please explain.

"1 Corinthians 13 motivated Dr. MLK, Jr., a fact you ignored from my last post (shocking, I know)."

That may be true. I didn't see any need to comment. What, exactly, is your point? I find nothing "shocking" about this.

“a man writes multiple documents testified to by multiple witnesses"

Please produce the writings of the multiple witnesses. You can't, because they don't exist.


"and some atheist says he must have lied because he did miracles”.


Huh? You clearly have not understood any of the reasons given by myself ("some atheist") why Paul was a liar.

What is more, Paul did not claim he did miracles, so he didn't lie about this, so I have no idea what you are talking about. (The author of Acts claimed Paul was a miracle worker, a claim that is obviously nonsense, but that's a separate issue.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
25-03-2016, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 01:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"a man writes multiple documents testified to by... multiple outside sources..."

You are referring to Paul. Please tell our readers what you mean by "testified to". Then tell us exactly what has been "testified to." Then please tell our readers who these "multiple outside sources" are. You have insisted on contemporary evidence from myself, so please apply the same standard to your own argument... I want to know who the contemporary multiple outside sources you refer to are.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
25-03-2016, 01:49 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 02:08 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"The sole fact you’ve presented that Paul lied is “he wrote about miracles”."

Oh dear. How unfortunate for you that the previous 42 pages are there for all our readers to investigate, and they are littered with well reasoned arguments from me and others about why Paul was a liar.

What is more, i have never claimed Paul "wrote about miracles" because...um...Paul never wrote about miracles ( certainly not any he performed,) so I can't help but conclude you are creating arguments I have supposedly used, yet they have only been invented by your own imagination.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
25-03-2016, 02:13 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 02:16 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
'Again, present your top facts PROVING Paul was a charlatan, not including “He’s religious so he must be lying”:"

YOUR INABILITY TO APPRECIATE THE DEPTHS I EXPLORE TO EXPOSE YOUR NONSENSE BLOWS ME AWAY.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
26-03-2016, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2016 03:55 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
It's been 4 days, and not a word from from Q. So much for his "immediate response." Some of the loudest Christians imagine they are defenders of the faith, yet are nowhere to be seen or heard when the conversation becomes deep.

I've had time to think about which point to make "fact 2" about why Paul was a charlatan. (I've got a lot to choose from.) This is as good as any...

FACT 2 : Paul just made up his own theology - Christian theology

Anyone trying to understand how Christianity emerged out of its birth canal might assume that Paul, the creator of Christian theology, had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, but I say he didn’t. I’ve imagined going back in time to ask him what he thought his source was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell me how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual answer to the question would probably be a long time arriving.

Paul wrote,

“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.)

This is from one of his best-known letters. He specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and

“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He bragged that his God, a character he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he bad-mouthed anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus). Moreover, Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,

“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.)

The source of this was

“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.)

Paul replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology.

One of Paul’s main themes was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too (in common with Jews.) He wrote,

“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.)

However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself just a few years earlier, is never explained in today’s Christian circles.

Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html).

I think Paul manufactured his Christ to counter the dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a political messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism, his own imagination, and maybe elsewhere.
He was clearly a master confabulator, inventing fictions and interpretations to support his own views. I don’t think any of his possible sources add any credibility to his theology.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He wouldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people who, judged by today’s standards, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
28-03-2016, 10:23 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote:FACT 1. Paul Knew Almost Nothing of Jesus

This does not make Paul a charlatan. Firstly, Paul never claimed to have met Jesus beyond the Damascus Road, one time—if he had, he would have been a charlatan.

Secondly, one of Paul’s main points, frequently repeated, is that when he learned about what Jesus did say and do from other eyewitnesses, He could find over and again that Jesus was promised in Old Testament prophecy.

Thirdly, you did write something true:

Quote: Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life.

This last is called by evangelicals “witnessing the gospel”. I’ve shared the gospel at TTA many times. Not once did I say “you have to believe it because Jesus did miracles” or “you have to believe the gospel because Jesus had a great family”. I have said—as did Paul and as did OTHER NT writers—you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy.

While I don’t blame you as an embittered TTAtheist for rejecting the death and resurrection of the beautiful Savior, the fact that you assume someone is insincere (a charlatan) because they emphasize and proselytize the death and resurrection of Jesus shows a VERY strong bias against most Christians who have ever lived—and while I’ve met some fake or self-concealing Christian people—you are just being snotty and rude. Stop it.

Quote: What is more, Paul did not claim he did miracles, so he didn't lie about this, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Along with most of the rest of the garbage you’ve posted recently and throughout our debate, I’ve already reproved you, but you are too busy whining to read what I wrote. I’ve already (Once? Twice?) cited Paul’s statement in Romans 15 that he personally did miracles in furthering the gospel.

Quote: "a man writes multiple documents testified to by... multiple outside sources..."

You are referring to Paul. Please tell our readers what you mean by "testified to". Then tell us exactly what has been "testified to." Then please tell our readers who these "multiple outside sources" are. You have insisted on contemporary evidence from myself, so please apply the same standard to your own argument... I want to know who the contemporary multiple outside sources you refer to are.

Um, you’re a typical atheist who thinks the Bible canon came hundreds of years after the documents themselves, right? You’ve claimed Paul knew nothing about Jesus, so all those other NT writers who wrote and showed they knew Jesus—if they verify Paul—are outside verifications, right? I mean, I personally believe God wrote the NT, one person—but you do think it was written by multiple sources, right?

Quote: FACT 2: Paul just made up his own theology - Christian theology

I think this last is arguable, particularly since Paul says every three to ten verses or so, “just like it says in Tanakh…”.
Regardless, you are in the realm of commentary again, not fact, since there are millions of people who would agree with you but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-04-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(28-03-2016 10:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:FACT 1. Paul Knew Almost Nothing of Jesus

This does not make Paul a charlatan. Firstly, Paul never claimed to have met Jesus beyond the Damascus Road, one time—if he had, he would have been a charlatan.

Secondly, one of Paul’s main points, frequently repeated, is that when he learned about what Jesus did say and do from other eyewitnesses, He could find over and again that Jesus was promised in Old Testament prophecy.

Thirdly, you did write something true:

Quote: Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life.

This last is called by evangelicals “witnessing the gospel”. I’ve shared the gospel at TTA many times. Not once did I say “you have to believe it because Jesus did miracles” or “you have to believe the gospel because Jesus had a great family”. I have said—as did Paul and as did OTHER NT writers—you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy.

While I don’t blame you as an embittered TTAtheist for rejecting the death and resurrection of the beautiful Savior, the fact that you assume someone is insincere (a charlatan) because they emphasize and proselytize the death and resurrection of Jesus shows a VERY strong bias against most Christians who have ever lived—and while I’ve met some fake or self-concealing Christian people—you are just being snotty and rude. Stop it.

Quote: What is more, Paul did not claim he did miracles, so he didn't lie about this, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Along with most of the rest of the garbage you’ve posted recently and throughout our debate, I’ve already reproved you, but you are too busy whining to read what I wrote. I’ve already (Once? Twice?) cited Paul’s statement in Romans 15 that he personally did miracles in furthering the gospel.

Quote: "a man writes multiple documents testified to by... multiple outside sources..."

You are referring to Paul. Please tell our readers what you mean by "testified to". Then tell us exactly what has been "testified to." Then please tell our readers who these "multiple outside sources" are. You have insisted on contemporary evidence from myself, so please apply the same standard to your own argument... I want to know who the contemporary multiple outside sources you refer to are.

Um, you’re a typical atheist who thinks the Bible canon came hundreds of years after the documents themselves, right? You’ve claimed Paul knew nothing about Jesus, so all those other NT writers who wrote and showed they knew Jesus—if they verify Paul—are outside verifications, right? I mean, I personally believe God wrote the NT, one person—but you do think it was written by multiple sources, right?

Quote: FACT 2: Paul just made up his own theology - Christian theology

I think this last is arguable, particularly since Paul says every three to ten verses or so, “just like it says in Tanakh…”.
Regardless, you are in the realm of commentary again, not fact, since there are millions of people who would agree with you but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers.


"This (that Paul knew nothing of Jesus) does not make Paul a charlatan. Firstly, Paul never claimed to have met Jesus beyond the Damascus Road, one time—if he had, he would have been a charlatan."

Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

Firstly, the "road to Damascus" story is not historical. The account in Acts of Paul’s abrupt, theatrical conversion to belief in Jesus on the road to Damascus is very familiar to most Christians. It’s a fabrication. Paul was a man eager to be believed and desperate to shore up his own credibility. If he’d experienced a visit from Jesus’ ghost on the road to Damascus and been temporarily blinded, he undoubtedly would have mentioned it in his letters, and he doesn’t. I think the author of Acts was trying to make his readers believe that Paul had received his commission - and therefore his legitimacy - directly from Jesus. The difficult fact that Jesus had died many years before Paul surfaced was glossed over by having Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul, who then, allegedly, went from being intensely pro-Jewish to becoming a fan of Jesus and fiercely pro-Christian. The informed reader, however, knows that the historical Yeshua was a fundamentalist Jew.

Acts was written probably sometime at least fifty-plus years after this was supposed to have happened by someone (real identity unknown) who didn’t witness this alleged conversion (if he did he would have said so.) The author never even claimed he’d met Paul.

Paul did decide that his Christ was an important character. This was an idea that I think he promoted after a deliberation over political issues. It was probably just before, or in the early 50s CE, roughly fifteen years after Yeshua’s death, that he launched a tale about his Christ designed to sell a new theology to the wider world.

Secondly, the entire foundation of your religion is based on the idea that Paul's Christ was the Jeebus of the gospels. You are now admitting Paul knew nothing, or next to nothing, about Jeebus. Do you not see an enormous problem reconciling these ideas? Who da fuck actually was Paul's Christ if it wasn't Jeebus? Put another way, where did Paul get his Christ from? Is not a man who simply invents his own Christ a charlatan?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: