Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2016, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016 03:52 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(23-03-2016 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 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.

1. I didn’t cherry pick. Rather, each time you actually quoted the scriptures, I responded with other scriptures showing your fallibility. I’m the one who believes the whole NT as truth while you certainly cherry pick based on your bias.

2. I don’t need to respond to your commentary. I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings.

Dr. Fulton, here is the heart of your argument, revealed, emphasis mine:

Quote:
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.

Are you REALLY debating a “hidden agenda” that Paul never actually shared? That’s… somewhere between losing the debate and being a lunatic!

Quote: Dr Moss is not referring to the Pauline era.

There was no suppression of "Christians" while Paul was around. If you disagree, please present your evidence.

It is generally agreed that from Nero's reign until Decius's widespread measures in 250, the Anti-Christian policies by Romans were limited to isolated, local incidents.[

In 64, a great fire broke out in Rome, destroying portions of the city and economically devastating the Roman population. Tacitus records (Annals 15.44) that Nero was rumored to have ordered the fire himself, and in order to dispel the accusations, accused and savagely punished the already-detested Christians. Suetonius mentions that Christians were killed under Nero's reign, but does not mention anything about the fire (Nero 16.2)[36] Scholars disagree about whether Christians were persecuted solely under the charge of organized arson or for other general crimes associated with Christianity.[

Source: Wikipedia

Quote: This is the last time I'll respond to this same comment. You obviously didn't read my last 5 replies to this. Yes, Paul wrote a few nice lines. As to him writing "a definitive piece of literature on love"...nope. The passage in question is too short and too simplistic to be called that. And, in any case, any scoundrel or charlatan can write nice poetry. Now...please move the conversation on about this, or shut the fuck up about it.

You might want to see my signature about this, Dr. Fulton. Clearly, YOU are not a loving person. May I recommend that you read 1 Corinthians 13 several times today, and meditate on it’s extolling of love, real love?

Further, here’s an example of what you might call a practical application of “some nice lines”:

In political terms, 1 Corinthians 13 is believed to have influenced Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Christian reverend and American hero, in his peaceful, yet persevering protests to segregation. Many believe that Dr. King's powerful leadership and his enduring love for his people and for all Americans propelled the Civil Rights Movement to gain equality for all people.[9] As Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., writes: "Uncle M.L. wrote in Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral." But inspired by 1 Corinthians 13 and believing that love never fails, he also wrote that "darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." – source Wikipedia

Quote: Ah...no.

I have written most of the last 40 pages of this debate, and my writing is littered with evidence that Paul was a charlatan. You have been too lazy and too uninformed to put up any reasoned counter arguments. I have no evidence you are capable of mounting such a response.

If you are genuinely interested (which I seriously doubt), go back and read and start replying to specifics. Then we can have a real debate.

Well, I’m tempted to call you a liar here, but I’ll say in the last 40 pages, you have presented ONLY commentary and NO facts. I’ll settle for your top three facts that PROVE Paul was a charlatan, that will save you time:

Fact 1:

Fact 2:

Fact 3:

Quote: Now, I CAN give good evidence that Paul is not a charlatan APART from the Bible, such as fulfilled prophecies of Paul!

The stage is yours. Please go ahead. Please don't tell us
-you have already done it, or
-everyone knows there are fulfiilled Pauline prophesies,
but actually, genuinely, present the evidence.

Sure! Let’s clarify. When someone writes a text that includes statements such as “I’m telling the truth in Christ, I’m not lying, my conscience bearing me witness…” and submits documents with EVERY one of them in evidence containing the record of the WITNESS of the document, “Paul and Silas to…” or “Paul and Timothy to…” or “I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings. Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings…” and then a slanderer like yourself opposes them in court, without any supporting facts, what evidence should I give that the writer—who is dead and is unable to appear in court to defend himself—told the truth when he wrote repeatedly in his documents and testimonies that he is known to the communities to which he wrote, including founding some of the communities themselves, and tells the truth? What more could I add/need to add before you are tossed out of the court for your slander?

I also wrote:

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

And you have presented zero new arguments here and zero facts, indeed, reread your most recent posts. You have more commentary, including commentary about Paul and about me! So I offer you a truce, thusly:

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:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."


Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
08-04-2016, 04:39 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2016 05:11 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Christ's warrior, Q, who bravely claimed he would "immediately" defend Paul, seems to have forgotten his promise, and is having another one of his many breaks.

I'll carry on...here is another very pertinent reason Paul was a charlatan...

FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

Christ’s Sacrificial Death

Paul invented the curious concept that Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Why have plenty of people since accepted this peculiar idea?

Having the son of God become human, and free the faithful from the guilt and consequences of their sins, was an attractive story. It meant God was no longer a distant impersonal deity, like the character in the Old Testament, but someone more like them, with whom they could identify. Christ became an ally, a great guy, and everyone’s best friend. He would take on your punishment for you, provided you believed in him. Do that, and Paul promised a free pass to salvation. Churches have pushed this unusual plan to such an extent that Christians rarely question it. This is why some of them insist others believe in Jesus; so that sins can be forgiven and entry into heaven attained.

The whole argument is irrational. Why would the son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father, who was also himself, for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that punishes a scapegoat? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why would a hypothetical omniscient god buy into this balderdash? There has never been a good explanation for this nonsense despite countless contrived attempts by theologians, because no sensible explanation is possible. (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/...tonement/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...xyq3ltls).

God could simply say “you’re genuinely sorry, so I forgive you.” Yet that would never do for Paul, as he’d been indoctrinated with scripture, so couldn’t imagine a benevolent God, but thought of him as a rigid demagogue who demanded a sacrifice.

Sin

Most modern people consider sin a deliberate act that results in harm, usually to another person. Yet Paul claimed sin can be something one’s born with, like a birth defect. (http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/o...lsin.htm). This is a dim-witted idea, as a newborn can’t deliberately cause harm, so can’t sin. Paul is the only New Testament author to discuss this concept of “original sin,” as further articulated by Tertullian of Carthage (AD 150-225) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE.) It’s a nasty notion. People are told they’re basically bad - because they were born. It makes susceptible people dislike themselves, which churches know is good for business.

I think Paul misunderstood sin. He thought it was about actions or thoughts that upset his God. Yet sin harms our fellows, or sometimes the perpetrator himself. It should be the victim who does the forgiving, because they are vindicated, maybe compensated, and the guilty party can promise not to repeat the offense. Wrong-doers learn from their mistakes, and society benefits. Paul bypassed this reparative process by saying that sin was forgiven by a fictional man in the sky who insisted on faith in Christ, an unrelated third party.

In turning Christ’s death into a sacrifice that saves souls, Paul sacrificed common sense. He devalued interpersonal relationships and compromised social harmony. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvv_UM7CYg).

Today’s churches, however, like the idea, as it brings them into the equation. They can cash in by claiming to be the conduit between the sinner and the man in the sky.

Salvation

Paul put forward the idea that life on earth was just a prologue, and, therefore, unimportant compared to the never-ending afterlife, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 8&version=KJV) so he taught people to daydream about heaven. He thought that life was one long test upon which we’ll be judged, and rewarded for if we make the grade. This nasty notion poisons mental well being. Most competent, admired philosophers today know it’s better to enjoy what life has to offer, and wish the same for our fellows, than to worry about a hypothetical afterlife! (http://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Sp...rt+tolle).

If a God anything remotely like the one in the bible exists, surely he has no interest in making judgment calls, because he made every atom of us, and of the universe. Our so-called “free will” is, therefore, his creation. He knows why, when and what we have done and will do. There’s nothing about “us” that isn’t a product of “him.” Why, then, would he judge “us,” his own creation? This didn’t occur to Paul, or to people today who try to promote this nonsense.

What’s more, Paul couldn’t prove God or heaven existed. He just assumed they were real. He borrowed “God” from traditional Judaism, and “heaven” from the Pharisees, because it was so very convenient to do so. He could hang his novel ideas on the coat tails of Judaic tradition. It’s an obvious con; Paul promised a fictional salvation, a good time in a hypothetical heaven, to anyone who did what they were told, as dictated by him, yet he never had to make good his promise. Churches play the same game today using their own dubious interpretations of the bible and the same unproven promise of heaven.

Evangelical Christians are sometimes dismayed that their more down-to-earth friends haven’t accepted faith in Jesus, so aren’t going to be saved. They don’t realize that Paul just concocted this ludicrous concept.

The Second Coming of Christ

Paul taught that Christ was going to come back to earth soon:

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thess. 4; 16–18, KJV.) A few years later, in about 53 CE, Christ still hadn’t come, but Paul kept his followers primed:

“Brothers this is what I mean: our time is growing short. Those who have wives should live as though they had none, and those who mourn should live as though they had nothing to mourn for; those who are enjoying life should live as though there were nothing to laugh about; those whose life is buying things should live as though they had nothing of their own; and those who have to deal with the world should not become engrossed in it. I say this because the world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31, NJB.)

Ten years later Paul was still preaching that the end of the world was approaching, and then he disappeared from the historical record.


The above contains much of the "nuts and bolts" of Christianity, and it was all probably just invented by Paul, and his ideas, as documented here, make no sense.

It is up to each and every Christian to spend some quiet time thinking to themselves about why they have bought into this nonsense. Drinking Beverage Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
11-04-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

You are twisting my words. I will restate to help you:

Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven). Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please.

Quote: 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?

I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about. Paul had decades to travel and to talk with eyewitnesses of Jesus and others. I am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there. I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”, however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived if you will continue to feign ignorance that ALL Jewish commentators and ALL Jewish rabbis may have philosophical leanings they comment upon—but they look to justify their comments in the Tanakh! Your comments, therefore, are a bit anti-Semitic in nature. Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Quote: So you keep saying, yet you are talking nonsense. There is no
- son of God
- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins
- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

in the Old Testament. This is Pauline bullshit. What that means is that you and others of your ilk, who go about “witnessing the gospel,” are flogging a dead horse. There is no substance to back up your beliefs. Jews today know it, as do all thinking, honest people who can be bothered investigating the claim. End of story

I can help you:

- son of God

I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

Quote: The real Jesus, if he even existed, was a failed insurrectionist... nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing particularly "beautiful" about that. The fact that you use such words reveals how deeply embroiled in all this nonsense you really are. If you read the gospels' and Paul's ramblings in their entirety and with an objective eye, you'd not find anything particularly "beautiful" therein.

What is more, there was no resurrection. Dead people never walk again. Paul made that shit up, and it was ADDED to Mark's gospel, and incorporated or added to the other 3 gospels.

I’ve address some of this elsewhere. Let me help you again. You know, with those things I keep responding to your COMMENTARY with, FACTS:

The insertion, if we can accept it as such, to Mark 16, begins thus:

9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

Now read what was already in the chapter:

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

I will let you say, Dr. Fulton, that Mark’s gospel had added to it verse 9 and onward, if you will retract your ignorant statement that before verse 9, there was no resurrection statement.

Quote: "but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is you who is
"in the realm of commentary again, not fact"

What is more, you are trying to distract from my arguments by questioning my motives.

Again, you twist my words. I wasn’t making an anecdotal argument nor an ad populum argument. I was responding to your point that millions agreed with you—because billions do not agree with you. To call my billions ad populum is to call your millions ad populum!

Quote: Sorry Q...not convincing. No miracles there. Let's imagine you were trying to sell me a new religion, and you genuinely thought you did miracles. You wouldn't be writing
"I can do mighty things."

Rather, we'd get the specifics...
" Listen hear, you atheist. I can turn Macca into Kentucky fried. I raised my grandma from the dead! My handkerchief can pull party tricks! I'm not wasting my time selling you shit. I got an audience to play to..."

There are Pauline miracles in the book of Acts...written decades after Paul had disappeared by an unknown person who didn't even know Paul. To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged Paul was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

It is interesting that in verse 20 Paul implies that there are other "Christs" ie there are other wandering preachers who have invented their own versions of a Christ. Paul doesn't want to tread on their toes..."another man's foundation"...as long as the plebs believe in some nonsense about a Christ (and not necessarily his) that will do...because it undermines militaristic Judaism and "makes the Gentiles obedient.

It’s not “rather we’d get specifics” it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation"

Further, verse 20 isn’t saying “wandering preachers” who have invented their own Christs. Rather, he is explaining why he preached to Gentiles—because Jews knew about a coming (or has come) Christ. This is borne out in the verses immediately following:

20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Again you’ve erred, as your “theory” about other Christs is ignoring the (Tanakh) statement of Paul’s, these have not heard (of Christ or other Christs).

I know you dislike reading the Bible, but if you would, try to read the verses surrounding the crazy ideas you extract from your brain, so you get… context.

Quote: "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?"

I've read this multiple times...I can't make head nor tail of whatever points you are trying to make. Please explain.

I think you meant to write, “I’ve read this multiple times and can’t refute it.”

Restated by me: Paul IS verified by other NT writers. You claim there was no canon for some time after Paul was around, and I agree. We just disagree on the dating of the canon. Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul. They do verify his writing. YOU have NO counter-documents from the period. You know—facts!

Quote: "you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy."

No it doesn't. "The gospel of Christ's death and resurrection" was Paul's weak attempt to convince people that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone. Even today there has yet to be a Jewish messiah...ask any Jew...they should know.

And you and they are ignoring prophecies that place Jesus in his historical time and context.

Quote: What is more, even if Christ's death and supposed resurrection did "fulfill Tanakh prophecy," why wouldn't I, using your ridiculous reasoning, "believe" someone like, say, David Koresh, who also repeatedly used Old Testament ideas to "prove" his version of nonsense. Consider the following...

David Koresh et al failed to rise from the dead or do anything else that fulfills even several prophecies, like those found in Isaiah 53. The Tanakh also says the Jewish Messiah will be worshipped worldwide by Gentiles! Only Jesus fulfills this prophetic requirement.

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

Gee Q, I would have thought you would have been more strongly convinced that I am wrong about this. If I'm right, you know that means, don't you? It means you've based your entire theology on a fiction, on the unsubstantiated ramblings of a nobody (Paul). It means you are following a charlatan; an ancient version of a Jim Jones, or a David Koresh, or, in fact any streetbox preacher spouting their interpretation of scripture to a stupefied audience. Paul was no different to these; he just happened to end up in the babble.

I made the “arguable” remark to be conciliatory and to pursue peace with you in this debate. I’m on record in this debate and in other threads that over 90% of Pauline theology is simply Tanakh theology. I’d say the number is closer to 99%, but that is “arguable”.

Quote:
"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."

Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.

I’ve read your response above, to which I must ask:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings?"

Quote: FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

It’s a fact that you have an anti-spiritual bias, and that you would say that any religious person claiming miracles isn’t sincere. Whereas logic dictates that a sincere person may be deceived. I will allow you to believe Paul was deceived, but simply saying he was a charlatan because he claims to have seen miracles, well, that would make everyone a charlatan who has ever lived, except atheists.

Regardless, you have presented no facts to date. I "win" the debate, therefore.

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
12-04-2016, 02:54 AM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2016 03:35 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

You are twisting my words. I will restate to help you:

Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven). Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please.

Quote: 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?

I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about. Paul had decades to travel and to talk with eyewitnesses of Jesus and others. I am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there. I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”, however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived if you will continue to feign ignorance that ALL Jewish commentators and ALL Jewish rabbis may have philosophical leanings they comment upon—but they look to justify their comments in the Tanakh! Your comments, therefore, are a bit anti-Semitic in nature. Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Quote: So you keep saying, yet you are talking nonsense. There is no
- son of God
- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins
- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

in the Old Testament. This is Pauline bullshit. What that means is that you and others of your ilk, who go about “witnessing the gospel,” are flogging a dead horse. There is no substance to back up your beliefs. Jews today know it, as do all thinking, honest people who can be bothered investigating the claim. End of story

I can help you:

- son of God

I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

Quote: The real Jesus, if he even existed, was a failed insurrectionist... nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing particularly "beautiful" about that. The fact that you use such words reveals how deeply embroiled in all this nonsense you really are. If you read the gospels' and Paul's ramblings in their entirety and with an objective eye, you'd not find anything particularly "beautiful" therein.

What is more, there was no resurrection. Dead people never walk again. Paul made that shit up, and it was ADDED to Mark's gospel, and incorporated or added to the other 3 gospels.

I’ve address some of this elsewhere. Let me help you again. You know, with those things I keep responding to your COMMENTARY with, FACTS:

The insertion, if we can accept it as such, to Mark 16, begins thus:

9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

Now read what was already in the chapter:

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

I will let you say, Dr. Fulton, that Mark’s gospel had added to it verse 9 and onward, if you will retract your ignorant statement that before verse 9, there was no resurrection statement.

Quote: "but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is you who is
"in the realm of commentary again, not fact"

What is more, you are trying to distract from my arguments by questioning my motives.

Again, you twist my words. I wasn’t making an anecdotal argument nor an ad populum argument. I was responding to your point that millions agreed with you—because billions do not agree with you. To call my billions ad populum is to call your millions ad populum!

Quote: Sorry Q...not convincing. No miracles there. Let's imagine you were trying to sell me a new religion, and you genuinely thought you did miracles. You wouldn't be writing
"I can do mighty things."

Rather, we'd get the specifics...
" Listen hear, you atheist. I can turn Macca into Kentucky fried. I raised my grandma from the dead! My handkerchief can pull party tricks! I'm not wasting my time selling you shit. I got an audience to play to..."

There are Pauline miracles in the book of Acts...written decades after Paul had disappeared by an unknown person who didn't even know Paul. To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged Paul was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

It is interesting that in verse 20 Paul implies that there are other "Christs" ie there are other wandering preachers who have invented their own versions of a Christ. Paul doesn't want to tread on their toes..."another man's foundation"...as long as the plebs believe in some nonsense about a Christ (and not necessarily his) that will do...because it undermines militaristic Judaism and "makes the Gentiles obedient.

It’s not “rather we’d get specifics” it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation"

Further, verse 20 isn’t saying “wandering preachers” who have invented their own Christs. Rather, he is explaining why he preached to Gentiles—because Jews knew about a coming (or has come) Christ. This is borne out in the verses immediately following:

20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Again you’ve erred, as your “theory” about other Christs is ignoring the (Tanakh) statement of Paul’s, these have not heard (of Christ or other Christs).

I know you dislike reading the Bible, but if you would, try to read the verses surrounding the crazy ideas you extract from your brain, so you get… context.

Quote: "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?"

I've read this multiple times...I can't make head nor tail of whatever points you are trying to make. Please explain.

I think you meant to write, “I’ve read this multiple times and can’t refute it.”

Restated by me: Paul IS verified by other NT writers. You claim there was no canon for some time after Paul was around, and I agree. We just disagree on the dating of the canon. Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul. They do verify his writing. YOU have NO counter-documents from the period. You know—facts!

Quote: "you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy."

No it doesn't. "The gospel of Christ's death and resurrection" was Paul's weak attempt to convince people that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone. Even today there has yet to be a Jewish messiah...ask any Jew...they should know.

And you and they are ignoring prophecies that place Jesus in his historical time and context.

Quote: What is more, even if Christ's death and supposed resurrection did "fulfill Tanakh prophecy," why wouldn't I, using your ridiculous reasoning, "believe" someone like, say, David Koresh, who also repeatedly used Old Testament ideas to "prove" his version of nonsense. Consider the following...

David Koresh et al failed to rise from the dead or do anything else that fulfills even several prophecies, like those found in Isaiah 53. The Tanakh also says the Jewish Messiah will be worshipped worldwide by Gentiles! Only Jesus fulfills this prophetic requirement.

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

Gee Q, I would have thought you would have been more strongly convinced that I am wrong about this. If I'm right, you know that means, don't you? It means you've based your entire theology on a fiction, on the unsubstantiated ramblings of a nobody (Paul). It means you are following a charlatan; an ancient version of a Jim Jones, or a David Koresh, or, in fact any streetbox preacher spouting their interpretation of scripture to a stupefied audience. Paul was no different to these; he just happened to end up in the babble.

I made the “arguable” remark to be conciliatory and to pursue peace with you in this debate. I’m on record in this debate and in other threads that over 90% of Pauline theology is simply Tanakh theology. I’d say the number is closer to 99%, but that is “arguable”.

Quote:
"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."

Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.

I’ve read your response above, to which I must ask:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings?"

Quote: FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

It’s a fact that you have an anti-spiritual bias, and that you would say that any religious person claiming miracles isn’t sincere. Whereas logic dictates that a sincere person may be deceived. I will allow you to believe Paul was deceived, but simply saying he was a charlatan because he claims to have seen miracles, well, that would make everyone a charlatan who has ever lived, except atheists.

Regardless, you have presented no facts to date. I "win" the debate, therefore.


"Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven)."

Ah...no. As far as I'm aware, Paul never claimed to have "encountered Jesus."

Paul, or someone writing in his name, did claim, once, that he saw (was "seen") by him...


1 Corinthians 15:1-11King James Version (KJV)

"1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."


If you have any evidence Paul thought he had met "Jesus" the ghost, even if it is "once only," please present it.

If you have any evidence that Paul's "Christ" was, in fact, the Jesus of the gospels, please present it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-04-2016, 03:12 AM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2016 03:31 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

You are twisting my words. I will restate to help you:

Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven). Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please.

Quote: 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?

I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about. Paul had decades to travel and to talk with eyewitnesses of Jesus and others. I am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there. I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”, however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived if you will continue to feign ignorance that ALL Jewish commentators and ALL Jewish rabbis may have philosophical leanings they comment upon—but they look to justify their comments in the Tanakh! Your comments, therefore, are a bit anti-Semitic in nature. Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Quote: So you keep saying, yet you are talking nonsense. There is no
- son of God
- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins
- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

in the Old Testament. This is Pauline bullshit. What that means is that you and others of your ilk, who go about “witnessing the gospel,” are flogging a dead horse. There is no substance to back up your beliefs. Jews today know it, as do all thinking, honest people who can be bothered investigating the claim. End of story

I can help you:

- son of God

I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

Quote: The real Jesus, if he even existed, was a failed insurrectionist... nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing particularly "beautiful" about that. The fact that you use such words reveals how deeply embroiled in all this nonsense you really are. If you read the gospels' and Paul's ramblings in their entirety and with an objective eye, you'd not find anything particularly "beautiful" therein.

What is more, there was no resurrection. Dead people never walk again. Paul made that shit up, and it was ADDED to Mark's gospel, and incorporated or added to the other 3 gospels.

I’ve address some of this elsewhere. Let me help you again. You know, with those things I keep responding to your COMMENTARY with, FACTS:

The insertion, if we can accept it as such, to Mark 16, begins thus:

9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

Now read what was already in the chapter:

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

I will let you say, Dr. Fulton, that Mark’s gospel had added to it verse 9 and onward, if you will retract your ignorant statement that before verse 9, there was no resurrection statement.

Quote: "but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is you who is
"in the realm of commentary again, not fact"

What is more, you are trying to distract from my arguments by questioning my motives.

Again, you twist my words. I wasn’t making an anecdotal argument nor an ad populum argument. I was responding to your point that millions agreed with you—because billions do not agree with you. To call my billions ad populum is to call your millions ad populum!

Quote: Sorry Q...not convincing. No miracles there. Let's imagine you were trying to sell me a new religion, and you genuinely thought you did miracles. You wouldn't be writing
"I can do mighty things."

Rather, we'd get the specifics...
" Listen hear, you atheist. I can turn Macca into Kentucky fried. I raised my grandma from the dead! My handkerchief can pull party tricks! I'm not wasting my time selling you shit. I got an audience to play to..."

There are Pauline miracles in the book of Acts...written decades after Paul had disappeared by an unknown person who didn't even know Paul. To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged Paul was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

It is interesting that in verse 20 Paul implies that there are other "Christs" ie there are other wandering preachers who have invented their own versions of a Christ. Paul doesn't want to tread on their toes..."another man's foundation"...as long as the plebs believe in some nonsense about a Christ (and not necessarily his) that will do...because it undermines militaristic Judaism and "makes the Gentiles obedient.

It’s not “rather we’d get specifics” it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation"

Further, verse 20 isn’t saying “wandering preachers” who have invented their own Christs. Rather, he is explaining why he preached to Gentiles—because Jews knew about a coming (or has come) Christ. This is borne out in the verses immediately following:

20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Again you’ve erred, as your “theory” about other Christs is ignoring the (Tanakh) statement of Paul’s, these have not heard (of Christ or other Christs).

I know you dislike reading the Bible, but if you would, try to read the verses surrounding the crazy ideas you extract from your brain, so you get… context.

Quote: "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?"

I've read this multiple times...I can't make head nor tail of whatever points you are trying to make. Please explain.

I think you meant to write, “I’ve read this multiple times and can’t refute it.”

Restated by me: Paul IS verified by other NT writers. You claim there was no canon for some time after Paul was around, and I agree. We just disagree on the dating of the canon. Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul. They do verify his writing. YOU have NO counter-documents from the period. You know—facts!

Quote: "you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy."

No it doesn't. "The gospel of Christ's death and resurrection" was Paul's weak attempt to convince people that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone. Even today there has yet to be a Jewish messiah...ask any Jew...they should know.

And you and they are ignoring prophecies that place Jesus in his historical time and context.

Quote: What is more, even if Christ's death and supposed resurrection did "fulfill Tanakh prophecy," why wouldn't I, using your ridiculous reasoning, "believe" someone like, say, David Koresh, who also repeatedly used Old Testament ideas to "prove" his version of nonsense. Consider the following...

David Koresh et al failed to rise from the dead or do anything else that fulfills even several prophecies, like those found in Isaiah 53. The Tanakh also says the Jewish Messiah will be worshipped worldwide by Gentiles! Only Jesus fulfills this prophetic requirement.

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

Gee Q, I would have thought you would have been more strongly convinced that I am wrong about this. If I'm right, you know that means, don't you? It means you've based your entire theology on a fiction, on the unsubstantiated ramblings of a nobody (Paul). It means you are following a charlatan; an ancient version of a Jim Jones, or a David Koresh, or, in fact any streetbox preacher spouting their interpretation of scripture to a stupefied audience. Paul was no different to these; he just happened to end up in the babble.

I made the “arguable” remark to be conciliatory and to pursue peace with you in this debate. I’m on record in this debate and in other threads that over 90% of Pauline theology is simply Tanakh theology. I’d say the number is closer to 99%, but that is “arguable”.

Quote:
"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."

Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.

I’ve read your response above, to which I must ask:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings?"

Quote: FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

It’s a fact that you have an anti-spiritual bias, and that you would say that any religious person claiming miracles isn’t sincere. Whereas logic dictates that a sincere person may be deceived. I will allow you to believe Paul was deceived, but simply saying he was a charlatan because he claims to have seen miracles, well, that would make everyone a charlatan who has ever lived, except atheists.

Regardless, you have presented no facts to date. I "win" the debate, therefore.

"Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis,.."

Yeah, thanks for that, you intellectual giant. How about you close up mummy's thesaurus and stop talking shit Big Grin

Reminds me of black adder...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-04-2016, 03:23 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

You are twisting my words. I will restate to help you:

Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven). Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please.

Quote: 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?

I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about. Paul had decades to travel and to talk with eyewitnesses of Jesus and others. I am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there. I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”, however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived if you will continue to feign ignorance that ALL Jewish commentators and ALL Jewish rabbis may have philosophical leanings they comment upon—but they look to justify their comments in the Tanakh! Your comments, therefore, are a bit anti-Semitic in nature. Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Quote: So you keep saying, yet you are talking nonsense. There is no
- son of God
- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins
- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

in the Old Testament. This is Pauline bullshit. What that means is that you and others of your ilk, who go about “witnessing the gospel,” are flogging a dead horse. There is no substance to back up your beliefs. Jews today know it, as do all thinking, honest people who can be bothered investigating the claim. End of story

I can help you:

- son of God

I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

Quote: The real Jesus, if he even existed, was a failed insurrectionist... nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing particularly "beautiful" about that. The fact that you use such words reveals how deeply embroiled in all this nonsense you really are. If you read the gospels' and Paul's ramblings in their entirety and with an objective eye, you'd not find anything particularly "beautiful" therein.

What is more, there was no resurrection. Dead people never walk again. Paul made that shit up, and it was ADDED to Mark's gospel, and incorporated or added to the other 3 gospels.

I’ve address some of this elsewhere. Let me help you again. You know, with those things I keep responding to your COMMENTARY with, FACTS:

The insertion, if we can accept it as such, to Mark 16, begins thus:

9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

Now read what was already in the chapter:

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

I will let you say, Dr. Fulton, that Mark’s gospel had added to it verse 9 and onward, if you will retract your ignorant statement that before verse 9, there was no resurrection statement.

Quote: "but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is you who is
"in the realm of commentary again, not fact"

What is more, you are trying to distract from my arguments by questioning my motives.

Again, you twist my words. I wasn’t making an anecdotal argument nor an ad populum argument. I was responding to your point that millions agreed with you—because billions do not agree with you. To call my billions ad populum is to call your millions ad populum!

Quote: Sorry Q...not convincing. No miracles there. Let's imagine you were trying to sell me a new religion, and you genuinely thought you did miracles. You wouldn't be writing
"I can do mighty things."

Rather, we'd get the specifics...
" Listen hear, you atheist. I can turn Macca into Kentucky fried. I raised my grandma from the dead! My handkerchief can pull party tricks! I'm not wasting my time selling you shit. I got an audience to play to..."

There are Pauline miracles in the book of Acts...written decades after Paul had disappeared by an unknown person who didn't even know Paul. To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged Paul was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

It is interesting that in verse 20 Paul implies that there are other "Christs" ie there are other wandering preachers who have invented their own versions of a Christ. Paul doesn't want to tread on their toes..."another man's foundation"...as long as the plebs believe in some nonsense about a Christ (and not necessarily his) that will do...because it undermines militaristic Judaism and "makes the Gentiles obedient.

It’s not “rather we’d get specifics” it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation"

Further, verse 20 isn’t saying “wandering preachers” who have invented their own Christs. Rather, he is explaining why he preached to Gentiles—because Jews knew about a coming (or has come) Christ. This is borne out in the verses immediately following:

20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Again you’ve erred, as your “theory” about other Christs is ignoring the (Tanakh) statement of Paul’s, these have not heard (of Christ or other Christs).

I know you dislike reading the Bible, but if you would, try to read the verses surrounding the crazy ideas you extract from your brain, so you get… context.

Quote: "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?"

I've read this multiple times...I can't make head nor tail of whatever points you are trying to make. Please explain.

I think you meant to write, “I’ve read this multiple times and can’t refute it.”

Restated by me: Paul IS verified by other NT writers. You claim there was no canon for some time after Paul was around, and I agree. We just disagree on the dating of the canon. Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul. They do verify his writing. YOU have NO counter-documents from the period. You know—facts!

Quote: "you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy."

No it doesn't. "The gospel of Christ's death and resurrection" was Paul's weak attempt to convince people that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone. Even today there has yet to be a Jewish messiah...ask any Jew...they should know.

And you and they are ignoring prophecies that place Jesus in his historical time and context.

Quote: What is more, even if Christ's death and supposed resurrection did "fulfill Tanakh prophecy," why wouldn't I, using your ridiculous reasoning, "believe" someone like, say, David Koresh, who also repeatedly used Old Testament ideas to "prove" his version of nonsense. Consider the following...

David Koresh et al failed to rise from the dead or do anything else that fulfills even several prophecies, like those found in Isaiah 53. The Tanakh also says the Jewish Messiah will be worshipped worldwide by Gentiles! Only Jesus fulfills this prophetic requirement.

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

Gee Q, I would have thought you would have been more strongly convinced that I am wrong about this. If I'm right, you know that means, don't you? It means you've based your entire theology on a fiction, on the unsubstantiated ramblings of a nobody (Paul). It means you are following a charlatan; an ancient version of a Jim Jones, or a David Koresh, or, in fact any streetbox preacher spouting their interpretation of scripture to a stupefied audience. Paul was no different to these; he just happened to end up in the babble.

I made the “arguable” remark to be conciliatory and to pursue peace with you in this debate. I’m on record in this debate and in other threads that over 90% of Pauline theology is simply Tanakh theology. I’d say the number is closer to 99%, but that is “arguable”.

Quote:
"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."

Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.

I’ve read your response above, to which I must ask:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings?"

Quote: FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

It’s a fact that you have an anti-spiritual bias, and that you would say that any religious person claiming miracles isn’t sincere. Whereas logic dictates that a sincere person may be deceived. I will allow you to believe Paul was deceived, but simply saying he was a charlatan because he claims to have seen miracles, well, that would make everyone a charlatan who has ever lived, except atheists.

Regardless, you have presented no facts to date. I "win" the debate, therefore.

"If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please."

Ah...ha... Huh

Someone, please, anyone, explain what da fuck this random thought has anything to do with Paul. Am I missing something profound? The commentary section on this debate would be the place to explain it to me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-04-2016, 03:41 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Ps. welcome back.

Your "immediate" response in Paul's defense caught me unawares.

I'm lying, bleeding on the canvas, stunned by the fact your response only took 9 days to come. Facepalm

Let's hope our audience hasn't left the stadium while waiting for you to reappear in the ring.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-04-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: "Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven)."

Ah...no. As far as I'm aware, Paul never claimed to have "encountered Jesus."

Paul, or someone writing in his name, did claim, once, that he saw (was "seen") by him...


1 Corinthians 15:1-11King James Version (KJV)

"1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."


If you have any evidence Paul thought he had met "Jesus" the ghost, even if it is "once only," please present it.

If you have any evidence that Paul's "Christ" was, in fact, the Jesus of the gospels, please present it.

So your first claim here is now:

“Yes, Paul said he saw Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, but he probably didn’t write 1 Corinthians 15.”

Please share the evidence you have that Paul did not write the 15th chapter. Let me help you with what modern scholarship acknowledges:

There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ca.53-54 AD). [1] The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon,[2] including that of Marcion. The personal and even embarrassing texts about immorality in the church increase consensus.

However, two passages may have been inserted at a later stage. The first passage is 1 Cor 11:2–16 dealing with praying and prophesying with head covering.[3] The second passage is 1 Cor 14:34–35 which has been hotly debated. Part of the reason for doubt is that in some manuscripts, the verses come at the end of the chapter instead of at its present location. Furthermore, Paul is here appealing to the law which is uncharacteristic of him. Lastly, the verses come into conflict with 11:5 where women are described as praying and prophesying.[4]

Quote:If you have any evidence Paul thought he had met "Jesus" the ghost, even if it is "once only," please present it.

I don’t understand the ghost reference you made, unless you are confused about the Holy Spirit, but Jesus resurrected in bodily form, not as a ghost. Here are some references for you:

*1 Corinthians 15, which YOU gave above!

*The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, "Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome." – Acts 23:11

* Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? – 1 Corinthians 9:1

* And as he [Saul] traveled he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are your persecuting me?' And he said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting'. – Acts 9:3-5

In all, Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to over 500 persons.

Quote:If you have any evidence that Paul's "Christ" was, in fact, the Jesus of the gospels, please present it.

I can certainly bother to do so, Mark, if you will first cede that doing so authenticates Paul as the gospel writers are outside sources to him. That is one of my points that you have never responded to:

The gospel writers are separate sources from Paul, they tally with each other.

Quote: Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis,.."

Yeah, thanks for that, you intellectual giant. How about you close up mummy's thesaurus…

Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, a person to receive the Word of God, since the Jewish people and the Gentiles would acknowledge Paul’s rabbinical training, knowledge of Tanakh, and classical learning, too.

Quote: "If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please."

Ah...ha...

Someone, please, anyone, explain what da fuck this random thought has anything to do with Paul. Am I missing something profound? The commentary section on this debate would be the place to explain it to me.

LOL. I can type more slowly, but I don’t know if that will help you. LOL.

It’s not a random thought—you ducked my point. To paraphrase:

MF: Paul was a charlatan. FACT: He knew little about the life of Jesus.

Q: Paul told the truth. He met Jesus once, and built his case that Jesus was Messiah based on a review of Tanakh prophecy plus the eyewitnesses of Jesus he conferred with.

MF: No, that’s baloney. Paul made up a new religion.

Q: No, you are being rude. EVERY prophet and person of note of BOTH testaments looked to earlier prophets to confirm their doctrines. Since every OT prophet after Moses comments on Moses, when you say Paul made up a new religion, you are denying the fact that Paul says all of his doctrines can be found in Moses and the prophets. Your comments are somewhere between liberal scholarship and anti-Semitic in tone and nature.

Quote: Ps. welcome back.

Your "immediate" response in Paul's defense caught me unawares.
I'm lying, bleeding on the canvas, stunned by the fact your response only took 9 days to come.

Let's hope our audience hasn't left the stadium while waiting for you to reappear in the ring.

Is that your apology for keeping me waiting only 5 days for you to appear, immediately before? Be mature, please, in this debate. Stop pandering to that juvenile part of your audience who only responds to four-letter words.

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
12-04-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

You are twisting my words. I will restate to help you:

Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven). Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please.

Quote: 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?

I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about. Paul had decades to travel and to talk with eyewitnesses of Jesus and others. I am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there. I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”, however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived if you will continue to feign ignorance that ALL Jewish commentators and ALL Jewish rabbis may have philosophical leanings they comment upon—but they look to justify their comments in the Tanakh! Your comments, therefore, are a bit anti-Semitic in nature. Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Quote: So you keep saying, yet you are talking nonsense. There is no
- son of God
- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins
- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

in the Old Testament. This is Pauline bullshit. What that means is that you and others of your ilk, who go about “witnessing the gospel,” are flogging a dead horse. There is no substance to back up your beliefs. Jews today know it, as do all thinking, honest people who can be bothered investigating the claim. End of story

I can help you:

- son of God

I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

Quote: The real Jesus, if he even existed, was a failed insurrectionist... nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing particularly "beautiful" about that. The fact that you use such words reveals how deeply embroiled in all this nonsense you really are. If you read the gospels' and Paul's ramblings in their entirety and with an objective eye, you'd not find anything particularly "beautiful" therein.

What is more, there was no resurrection. Dead people never walk again. Paul made that shit up, and it was ADDED to Mark's gospel, and incorporated or added to the other 3 gospels.

I’ve address some of this elsewhere. Let me help you again. You know, with those things I keep responding to your COMMENTARY with, FACTS:

The insertion, if we can accept it as such, to Mark 16, begins thus:

9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

Now read what was already in the chapter:

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

I will let you say, Dr. Fulton, that Mark’s gospel had added to it verse 9 and onward, if you will retract your ignorant statement that before verse 9, there was no resurrection statement.

Quote: "but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is you who is
"in the realm of commentary again, not fact"

What is more, you are trying to distract from my arguments by questioning my motives.

Again, you twist my words. I wasn’t making an anecdotal argument nor an ad populum argument. I was responding to your point that millions agreed with you—because billions do not agree with you. To call my billions ad populum is to call your millions ad populum!

Quote: Sorry Q...not convincing. No miracles there. Let's imagine you were trying to sell me a new religion, and you genuinely thought you did miracles. You wouldn't be writing
"I can do mighty things."

Rather, we'd get the specifics...
" Listen hear, you atheist. I can turn Macca into Kentucky fried. I raised my grandma from the dead! My handkerchief can pull party tricks! I'm not wasting my time selling you shit. I got an audience to play to..."

There are Pauline miracles in the book of Acts...written decades after Paul had disappeared by an unknown person who didn't even know Paul. To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged Paul was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

It is interesting that in verse 20 Paul implies that there are other "Christs" ie there are other wandering preachers who have invented their own versions of a Christ. Paul doesn't want to tread on their toes..."another man's foundation"...as long as the plebs believe in some nonsense about a Christ (and not necessarily his) that will do...because it undermines militaristic Judaism and "makes the Gentiles obedient.

It’s not “rather we’d get specifics” it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation"

Further, verse 20 isn’t saying “wandering preachers” who have invented their own Christs. Rather, he is explaining why he preached to Gentiles—because Jews knew about a coming (or has come) Christ. This is borne out in the verses immediately following:

20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Again you’ve erred, as your “theory” about other Christs is ignoring the (Tanakh) statement of Paul’s, these have not heard (of Christ or other Christs).

I know you dislike reading the Bible, but if you would, try to read the verses surrounding the crazy ideas you extract from your brain, so you get… context.

Quote: "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?"

I've read this multiple times...I can't make head nor tail of whatever points you are trying to make. Please explain.

I think you meant to write, “I’ve read this multiple times and can’t refute it.”

Restated by me: Paul IS verified by other NT writers. You claim there was no canon for some time after Paul was around, and I agree. We just disagree on the dating of the canon. Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul. They do verify his writing. YOU have NO counter-documents from the period. You know—facts!

Quote: "you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy."

No it doesn't. "The gospel of Christ's death and resurrection" was Paul's weak attempt to convince people that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone. Even today there has yet to be a Jewish messiah...ask any Jew...they should know.

And you and they are ignoring prophecies that place Jesus in his historical time and context.

Quote: What is more, even if Christ's death and supposed resurrection did "fulfill Tanakh prophecy," why wouldn't I, using your ridiculous reasoning, "believe" someone like, say, David Koresh, who also repeatedly used Old Testament ideas to "prove" his version of nonsense. Consider the following...

David Koresh et al failed to rise from the dead or do anything else that fulfills even several prophecies, like those found in Isaiah 53. The Tanakh also says the Jewish Messiah will be worshipped worldwide by Gentiles! Only Jesus fulfills this prophetic requirement.

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

Gee Q, I would have thought you would have been more strongly convinced that I am wrong about this. If I'm right, you know that means, don't you? It means you've based your entire theology on a fiction, on the unsubstantiated ramblings of a nobody (Paul). It means you are following a charlatan; an ancient version of a Jim Jones, or a David Koresh, or, in fact any streetbox preacher spouting their interpretation of scripture to a stupefied audience. Paul was no different to these; he just happened to end up in the babble.

I made the “arguable” remark to be conciliatory and to pursue peace with you in this debate. I’m on record in this debate and in other threads that over 90% of Pauline theology is simply Tanakh theology. I’d say the number is closer to 99%, but that is “arguable”.

Quote:
"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."

Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.

I’ve read your response above, to which I must ask:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings?"

Quote: FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

It’s a fact that you have an anti-spiritual bias, and that you would say that any religious person claiming miracles isn’t sincere. Whereas logic dictates that a sincere person may be deceived. I will allow you to believe Paul was deceived, but simply saying he was a charlatan because he claims to have seen miracles, well, that would make everyone a charlatan who has ever lived, except atheists.

Regardless, you have presented no facts to date. I "win" the debate, therefore.

"I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”,"

No. You obviously don't understand why I, and many others here at TTA, write "Jeebus." We know your "Jesus" is a comic book character, a fictional creation of over enthusiastic authors, just like superman. Think of "walking on water" in the same vein as "able to leap tall buildings in a single jump" or "love one another" with "peace, justice and the American way"

In fact, when we write "Jeebus," we are indirectly being more respectful to a man who just maybe may have existed, and may have tried to start a war against Rome.

Your Jeebus is a fiction and a joke, and it is embarrassing for you that you think he is real.

As to the "of Nazareth" bit...this too is a fiction...Nazareth didn't exist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-04-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

You are twisting my words. I will restate to help you:

Paul would be a charlatan if he claimed to have seen Jesus many times. He claimed to have encountered Jesus once only (twice if you include his ascension to Heaven). Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

If you are going to be consistent, recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please.

Quote: 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?

I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about. Paul had decades to travel and to talk with eyewitnesses of Jesus and others. I am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there. I know you like to be rude to religious people in general, for example, claiming to be a scholar in debate while unwilling to type “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus” instead of “Jeebus”, however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived if you will continue to feign ignorance that ALL Jewish commentators and ALL Jewish rabbis may have philosophical leanings they comment upon—but they look to justify their comments in the Tanakh! Your comments, therefore, are a bit anti-Semitic in nature. Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Quote: So you keep saying, yet you are talking nonsense. There is no
- son of God
- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins
- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

in the Old Testament. This is Pauline bullshit. What that means is that you and others of your ilk, who go about “witnessing the gospel,” are flogging a dead horse. There is no substance to back up your beliefs. Jews today know it, as do all thinking, honest people who can be bothered investigating the claim. End of story

I can help you:

- son of God

I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

Quote: The real Jesus, if he even existed, was a failed insurrectionist... nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing particularly "beautiful" about that. The fact that you use such words reveals how deeply embroiled in all this nonsense you really are. If you read the gospels' and Paul's ramblings in their entirety and with an objective eye, you'd not find anything particularly "beautiful" therein.

What is more, there was no resurrection. Dead people never walk again. Paul made that shit up, and it was ADDED to Mark's gospel, and incorporated or added to the other 3 gospels.

I’ve address some of this elsewhere. Let me help you again. You know, with those things I keep responding to your COMMENTARY with, FACTS:

The insertion, if we can accept it as such, to Mark 16, begins thus:

9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

Now read what was already in the chapter:

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

I will let you say, Dr. Fulton, that Mark’s gospel had added to it verse 9 and onward, if you will retract your ignorant statement that before verse 9, there was no resurrection statement.

Quote: "but something like two billion people who think you are just trying to drive a wedge among believers."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is you who is
"in the realm of commentary again, not fact"

What is more, you are trying to distract from my arguments by questioning my motives.

Again, you twist my words. I wasn’t making an anecdotal argument nor an ad populum argument. I was responding to your point that millions agreed with you—because billions do not agree with you. To call my billions ad populum is to call your millions ad populum!

Quote: Sorry Q...not convincing. No miracles there. Let's imagine you were trying to sell me a new religion, and you genuinely thought you did miracles. You wouldn't be writing
"I can do mighty things."

Rather, we'd get the specifics...
" Listen hear, you atheist. I can turn Macca into Kentucky fried. I raised my grandma from the dead! My handkerchief can pull party tricks! I'm not wasting my time selling you shit. I got an audience to play to..."

There are Pauline miracles in the book of Acts...written decades after Paul had disappeared by an unknown person who didn't even know Paul. To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged Paul was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

It is interesting that in verse 20 Paul implies that there are other "Christs" ie there are other wandering preachers who have invented their own versions of a Christ. Paul doesn't want to tread on their toes..."another man's foundation"...as long as the plebs believe in some nonsense about a Christ (and not necessarily his) that will do...because it undermines militaristic Judaism and "makes the Gentiles obedient.

It’s not “rather we’d get specifics” it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation"

Further, verse 20 isn’t saying “wandering preachers” who have invented their own Christs. Rather, he is explaining why he preached to Gentiles—because Jews knew about a coming (or has come) Christ. This is borne out in the verses immediately following:

20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Again you’ve erred, as your “theory” about other Christs is ignoring the (Tanakh) statement of Paul’s, these have not heard (of Christ or other Christs).

I know you dislike reading the Bible, but if you would, try to read the verses surrounding the crazy ideas you extract from your brain, so you get… context.

Quote: "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?"

I've read this multiple times...I can't make head nor tail of whatever points you are trying to make. Please explain.

I think you meant to write, “I’ve read this multiple times and can’t refute it.”

Restated by me: Paul IS verified by other NT writers. You claim there was no canon for some time after Paul was around, and I agree. We just disagree on the dating of the canon. Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul. They do verify his writing. YOU have NO counter-documents from the period. You know—facts!

Quote: "you should believe the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection because it fulfills Tanakh prophecy."

No it doesn't. "The gospel of Christ's death and resurrection" was Paul's weak attempt to convince people that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone. Even today there has yet to be a Jewish messiah...ask any Jew...they should know.

And you and they are ignoring prophecies that place Jesus in his historical time and context.

Quote: What is more, even if Christ's death and supposed resurrection did "fulfill Tanakh prophecy," why wouldn't I, using your ridiculous reasoning, "believe" someone like, say, David Koresh, who also repeatedly used Old Testament ideas to "prove" his version of nonsense. Consider the following...

David Koresh et al failed to rise from the dead or do anything else that fulfills even several prophecies, like those found in Isaiah 53. The Tanakh also says the Jewish Messiah will be worshipped worldwide by Gentiles! Only Jesus fulfills this prophetic requirement.

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

Gee Q, I would have thought you would have been more strongly convinced that I am wrong about this. If I'm right, you know that means, don't you? It means you've based your entire theology on a fiction, on the unsubstantiated ramblings of a nobody (Paul). It means you are following a charlatan; an ancient version of a Jim Jones, or a David Koresh, or, in fact any streetbox preacher spouting their interpretation of scripture to a stupefied audience. Paul was no different to these; he just happened to end up in the babble.

I made the “arguable” remark to be conciliatory and to pursue peace with you in this debate. I’m on record in this debate and in other threads that over 90% of Pauline theology is simply Tanakh theology. I’d say the number is closer to 99%, but that is “arguable”.

Quote:
"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings."

Ha ha. Poor paranoid you. You live in a world where rules are dictated to you from an old antiquated book of propaganda, and you are frightened you will go to hell if you think for yourself.

Paul has been dead for 2000 years, and he's still controlling your thoughts. Chill out, Q, maybe have a beer. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. You can "safely reject" anything. When you die, you're dead. There's no hell, and, you should be pleased to know, no heaven.

I’ve read your response above, to which I must ask:

"I need to (again) ask you if all you have is commentary, or if you have any facts in evidence that Paul is a charlatan, so I can safely reject his writings?"

Quote: FACT 3: MOST OF WHAT PAUL WROTE WAS UTTER NONSENSE...

It’s a fact that you have an anti-spiritual bias, and that you would say that any religious person claiming miracles isn’t sincere. Whereas logic dictates that a sincere person may be deceived. I will allow you to believe Paul was deceived, but simply saying he was a charlatan because he claims to have seen miracles, well, that would make everyone a charlatan who has ever lived, except atheists.

Regardless, you have presented no facts to date. I "win" the debate, therefore.

Q, your argument about which bit was added to Mark's gospel is pathetically weak. All the gospels were edited, interpolated and rearranged for a few hundred years after they were first written. Mark's 16;9-20 is but one example of an addition.

There were no printing presses, and there was no one authority controlling the spread of all the hand written copies. Your ignorance about this is remarkable.

Jesus’ Resurrection

“If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of the resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection, also is not believable.” (Bishop John Shelby Spong.)

The Romans crucified Jesus. That didn’t look good. The Gospel authors couldn’t have him just disappear after such a dreadful demise. They had to spruce up the story, because no one idolizes a loser. Jesus had to come back, just like a god was expected to. The Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysus, the Persian Mithras, and many others had all risen from the dead. Resurrection is a timeless theme; if a character is charismatic enough, people like to imagine he’s defeated death, even today. Consider Elvis Presley.

Christ’s resurrection “proved” his divinity; it meant he wasn’t another “also-ran.” It’s the central tenet of the faith, the one most important belief upon which Christianity is based. Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, and the one that the others copied, should have made a big deal about this exceptional event. Yet Mark only devotes the second half of his last chapter to the resurrection, as if it was tacked on like an afterthought. He has only twenty or so lines describing what many people presume was the premiere event in the world’s history. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16).

There are a few more odd facts about these verses. Their character and style seems out of place. At 16:9 there’s an apparent end to the narrative flow and the style loses its descriptive quality. Mary Magdalene is spoken of as if she hadn’t been mentioned before. What’s more, the appearance of a risen Jesus isn’t documented in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the oldest Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, in about one hundred early Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written 897 CE and 913 CE.) In many other early texts that include verses 9–20, asterisks mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian, early third century commentators, are unaware that a resurrected Jesus appeared in Mark. Eusebius and Jerome are, but they’re fourth century commentators, and they note that a risen Jesus never appears in their earlier Greek transcripts.

The original author of Mark failed to mention that Jesus visited his followers after he was crucified! That’s one seriously important omission! Verses 16:9–20 were obviously added to the end of Mark by an unknown author, a fact admitted by most contemporary New Testament scholars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16).

A footnote in the Jerusalem Bible states,
“The ‘long ending’ of Mark, vv.9–20, is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired scripture. This does not necessarily imply Markan authorship which, indeed, is open to question.” The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“Catholics are not bound to hold these verses (16:9–20) were written by Saint Mark.” The arrogant authors are assuming they can tell Catholics what to believe. They then make the following ridiculous claim as one of several possible explanations for the lack of a resurrection ending:

“If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more.” Imagine Mark sitting at his desk, pen poised, just about to create history by writing the final twenty lines of his epic when—oops—he dies! A trail of ink meanders off the page, and none of his readers were to find out who saw the risen Jesus until about 200 years later. The encyclopedia continues:

“Whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.” They’re ordering their readers what to believe! To resort to special pleading suggests how weak their argument is.

If Jesus’ original biographer failed to mention who he reappeared to and when, then obviously there was no resurrection. The fact that someone (probably in the early third century) could just add an ending to a Gospel, and (almost) get away with it, seriously undermines all the Gospel stories. Any obvious flaws in the texts could be just as easily doctored, as happened here, and subsequent readers would be no wiser. Imagine the tailoring of sayings and events that went on when the original version of Mark was first put together!

Most Church leaders who know about the interpolated ending don’t advertise it. They don’t want to compromise the faith of their flock, and that’s fraudulent.
The authors of the other Gospels included an appearance of a risen Jesus. They each gave different reports of events after Jesus’ death, because they didn’t have a resurrection story in Mark’s chronicle to copy, so each made up their own. Matthew adds an earthquake and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem.

“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 26;51-53, KJV.) Jesus wasn’t the only Jew to rise from the dead! There were zombies too! What did these walking corpses get up to? I wonder whether they helped remove the rubble from the earthquake? Maybe they went back to their old homes, which would have caused quite a ruckus. It might have been disturbing divvying up dinner to your dead half decayed dad!

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes this about the Gospels:
“First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm). I think they’re reading their canonical accounts with rose-colored glasses.

Luke and John have the risen Jesus appearing in Jerusalem, far more prestigious than Galilee, which was believed to be a backward badland, yet was where Mark suggests he will be hanging out. (see 16;7.) There are numerous other inconsistencies. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the very different resurrection reports, with no success.

Jesus did have two brothers, James and Jude, who may have written their own letters that ended up in the bible. If one’s brother had risen from the dead, one would be elated and awestruck, but neither even mentions the fact.

Paul believed in a resurrection, but not because Jesus’ disciples told him about it. This is how he got to know his risen Christ:
“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” (Gal. 1:15–16, NJB.) He was writing at least twenty years after Jesus died, and gave no description of God’s son. His revelation wasn’t a physical reappearance of a dead Jesus, but one that emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.

There’s no first-century secular writer who mentioned Jesus, let alone a risen Jesus. If a resurrected Jesus had appeared to as many people as claimed, contemporary historians, his brothers, friends and followers would have shouted it from the rooftops, yet we hear not a word about it from them.

There are many reasons why millions of people today are convinced Jesus rose from the dead. Some think eyewitnesses wrote the gospels, and that they’re are factual biographies. Some apologists dissect the four accounts of the resurrection to try to reconcile them with each other, (unsuccessfully) as if that somehow proved they were true. If a tale is told often enough, it takes on a life of its own, and that’s what’s happened here.

The fact is there are no legitimate reasons to prove the extraordinary claim that Jesus, or anyone else, rose from the dead. The truth is the believers have been duped. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PWFvzKl3I).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: