Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2016, 03:33 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, 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 am saying that Paul was a commentator on the Tanakh and saw Jesus there."

So you keep saying...again and again, as if that somehow legitimises Paul. It doesn't.

I half agree with you about the source of Paul's Christ...I think Paul invented his Christ partly based on ideas in scripture. Yet the key issue here, one that you have failed to admit to yourself or to our readers, is that Paul failed to base his Christ on a once living flesh and blood character. The reason for that is clear to anyone who thinks about it logically... The Jeebus comic book character had yet to be invented when Paul wrote.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
14-04-2016, 02:42 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, 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.

[b]
Is Jesus the son that is referred to in Proverbs 30:4?


Answer: In an attempt to prove the divine origin of Jesus, Christian theologians have pointed to this proverb as a prooftext for their claim. However, an examination of what the text actually says will dispel any attempt at such a forced interpretation.

After informing us that he does not have all the wisdom and understanding that he should possess, Agur, the son of Jakeh, poses a series of rhetorical Questions, the Answers to which he realizes all men who seek knowledge should possess:

Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if you know? (Proverbs 30:4)

Knowing the Answers to these Questions is to know the fundamentals of all knowledge.

The Answer to the Question “What is his name?” is given in the Scriptures, where we are informed that only God, the creator of heaven and earth, is in complete control of the forces of nature. Following this Question a second Question is asked: “What is his son’s name?” As the first Question is readily Answered through a reading of the Scriptures, the source of all true knowledge, so, too, the second Question is to be Answered by studying the same source. We thus obtain the Answer by studying such verses as Exodus 4:22: “Israel is My son, my firstborn”; Deuteronomy 14:1: “You are the children of the Lord your God”; and Hosea 2:1: “It will be said to them: ‘You are the children of the living God.'” Consequently, it is Israel that is the name of His son, His firstborn. True, we find elsewhere in the Bible that David and Solomon stand in a filial relationship with God (Psalms 89:27-28, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 28:6). Indeed, this will also be true of the future Messiah. But the right to this title is due, in the final analysis, to the fact that they are the representatives or personifications of Israel as a whole. Hence, it is Israel that is the sole bearer of the august title of the “son” or “firstborn” of God.

Christian theology may argue that any reference to Israel’s relationship with God only points to an allegedly greater relationship between God and Jesus, but this argument remains unproved, having no bases in the Jewish Scriptures. It is an argument based on misguided motives, trying to prove the preconceived by forced interpretation. Only in a figurative sense will the future Messiah, when the calms, enter into the “sonship” of God, a position he will share with all of God’s chosen servants.

Gerald Sigal
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
14-04-2016, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2016 03:23 PM 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.




Cutting through the distortions and mistranslations of this enigmatic text.
by Marshall Roth

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is a beautiful, poetic song, one of the four “Servant Songs” in which the prophet describes the climactic period of world history when the Messiah will arrive and the Jewish people assume the role as the spiritual leaders of humanity.
Isaiah 53 is a prophecy foretelling how the world will react when they witness Israel's salvation in the Messianic era. The verses are presented from the perspective of world leaders, who contrast their former scornful attitude toward the Jews with their new realization of Israel's grandeur. After realizing how unfairly they treated the Jewish people, they will be shocked and speechless.

While the original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

In order to properly understand these verses, one must read the original Hebrew text. When the Bible is translated into other languages, it loses much of its essence. The familiar King James translation uses language which is archaic and difficult for the modern reader. Furthermore, it is not rooted in Jewish sources and often goes against traditional Jewish teachings. Modern translations, while more readable, are often even more divorced from the true meaning of the text.
For an accurate Jewish translation of the Bible, read the “ArtScroll English Tanach."

The Context of Isaiah 53

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:
“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20
The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.
One obvious question that needs to be addressed: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

The Jewish people are consistently referred to with the singular pronoun.

This question evaporates when we discover that throughout the Bible, the Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun. For example, when God speaks to the entire Jewish nation at Mount Sinai, all of the Ten Commandments are written as if speaking to an individual (Exodus 20:1-14). This is because the Jewish people are one unit, bound together with a shared national destiny (see Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy chapter 32). This singular reference is even more common in biblical verses referring to the Messianic era, when the Jewish people will be fully united under the banner of God (see Hosea 14:6-7, Jeremiah 50:19).

As we will see, for numerous reasons this chapter cannot be referring to Jesus. Even in the Christian scriptures, the disciples did not consider the Suffering Servant as referring to Jesus (see Matthew 16:21-22, Mark 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45).

So how did the Suffering Servant come to be associated with Jesus? After his death, the promoters of Christianity retroactively looked into the Bible and “applied” – through mistranslation and distortion of context – these biblical verses as referring to Jesus.
Missionary apologist Walter Riggans candidly admitted:

“There is no self-evident blueprint in the Hebrew Bible which can be said to unambiguously point to Jesus. Only after one has come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and more specifically the kind of Messiah that he is, does it all begin to make sense...” (Yehoshua Ben David, Olive Press 1995, p.155)
The intention is not to denigrate another religion, but rather to understand the true meaning of the Divine word.

Isaiah 53 – Line by Line

Early in the Book of Isaiah, God predicts the long and difficult exile of the Jewish people. Chapter 53 occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation," which tell of the restoration of Israel to prominence as God's chosen people.
The key to understanding this chapter lies in correctly identifying who is speaking. Though the book was written by Isaiah, verses 53:1-10 are told from the perspective of world leaders. Following in the footsteps of the previous chapter (Isaiah 52:15 – “the kings will shut their mouths in amazement”), these verses describe how world leaders will be shocked with disbelief when God’s Servant Israel – despite all contrary expectations – is vindicated and blossoms in the Messianic age.

(1) Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of God been revealed!
מִי הֶאֱמִין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ וּזְרוֹעַ יְהוָה עַל מִי נִגְלָתָה
In this opening verse, world leaders are shocked at the incredible news of Israel’s salvation: “Who would believe what we have heard!”
This verse refers to “the arm of God.” Throughout the Jewish Bible, God's "arm" (זרוע) always denotes a redemption of the Jewish people from physical persecution. For example, God took the Jews out of Egypt “with a strong hand and an outstretched arm” (Deut. 26:8). (See also Exodus 3:20, 6:6, 14:31, 15:6; Deut. 4:34, 7:19; Isaiah 51:9, 52:10, 62:8, 63:12; Jeremiah 21:5, 27:5; Ezekiel 20:33; Psalms 44:3, 89:11, 98:1, 136:12).
(2) He formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; he had neither form nor beauty. We saw him, but without a desirable appearance.

וַיַּעַל כַּיּוֹנֵק לְפָנָיו וְכַשּׁרֶשׁ מֵאֶרֶץ צִיָּה לא תאַר לוֹ וְלא הָדָר וְנִרְאֵהוּ וְלא מַרְאֶה וְנֶחְמְדֵהוּ
This imagery of a tree struggling to grow in dry earth is a metaphor for the Jewish struggle in exile. A young sapling in dry ground appears that it will die. The Jews were always a small nation, at times as small as 2 million people, threatened with extinction. In this verse Isaiah describes Israel’s miraculous return from exile, like a sapling that sprouts from this dry ground. This idea appears throughout the Jewish Bible (see Isaiah 60:21, Ezekiel 19:13, Hosea 14:6-7, Amos 9:15).

(3) He was despised and rejected of men, a man of pains and accustomed to sickness. As one from whom we would hide our faces, he was despised, and we had no regard for him.

נִבְזֶה וַחֲדַל אִישִׁים אִישׁ מַכְאבוֹת וִידוּעַ חלִי וּכְמַסְתֵּר פָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ נִבְזֶה וְלא חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ
This verse describes the Servant as universally despised and rejected. This has been a historical theme for the Jewish people, as a long list of oppressors have treated the Jews as sub-human (the Nazis) or as a pariah state (the United Nations). See similar imagery in Isaiah 49:7, 60:15; Psalms 44:14; Nechemia 3:36.

While this description clearly applies to Israel, it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account which describes Jesus as immensely popular (Matthew 4:25). “Large crowds” of people came from far and wide to hear him speak, and Jesus had to sail into the water to avoid being overrun by the crowds (Mark 3:7-9). Luke 2:52 describes him as physically strong and well respected, a man whose popularity spread and was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15). A far cry from Isaiah’s description of “despised and rejected.”

Although Jesus died a criminal's death, Isaiah is describing someone for whom rejection has spanned the ages – obviously referring to a nation, not an individual who suffered rejection for only a few hours.

(4) Indeed, he bore our illnesses and carried our pains – but we regarded him as diseased, stricken by God and afflicted.

אָכֵן חֳלָיֵנוּ הוּא נָשָׂא וּמַכְאבֵינוּ סְבָלָם וַאֲנַחְנוּ חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ נָגוּעַ מֻכֵּה אֱלהִים וּמְעֻנֶּה
Throughout the centuries of Israel’s exile, many nations persecuted the Jews on the pretense that it was God’s way of “punishing” the “accursed” Jews for having stubbornly rejected the new religions. In these verses, until the end of the chapter, the nations confess how they used the Jewish people as scapegoats, not for the “noble” reasons they had long claimed.

Indeed, the nations selfishly persecuted the Jews as a distraction from their own corrupt regimes: “Surely our suffering he did bear, and our pains he carried...” (53:4)
(5) He was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.

וְהוּא מְחלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֽנתֵינוּ מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא לָנוּ
This verse describes how the humbled world leaders confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our iniquities” – i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as previously claimed, the stubborn blindness of the Jews.

Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.” This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others – not the opposite as Christians contend – that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others.

Indeed, the Christian idea directly contradicts the basic Jewish teaching that God promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him; thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others (Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14).
(6) We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and God inflicted upon him [Israel] the iniquity of us all.
כֻּלָּנוּ כַּצּאן תָּעִינוּ אִישׁ לְדַרְכּוֹ פָּנִינוּ וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲון כֻּלָּנוּ.

The nations realize that their lack of proper leadership (“shepherd”) caused them to treat the Jews with disdain. They further acknowledge how punishments that should have befallen the nations were averted through Israel’s suffering.
(7) He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth. Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a lamb that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.

נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה וְלא יִפְתַּח פִּיו כַּשֶּׂה לַטֶּבַח יוּבָל וּכְרָחֵל לִפְנֵי גֽזְזֶיהָ נֶאֱלָמָה וְלא יִפְתַּח פִּיו
In various contexts, the Bible uses the imagery of “sheep led to the slaughter” specifically in reference to the Jewish people. For example: "You give us as sheep to be eaten and have scattered us among the nations... we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered" (Psalms 44:12, 23).

This verse prophesizes the many hardships – both physical torment and economic exploitation – that the Jews endured in exile. Ironically, this prophecy refers in part to the 11th century Crusaders who "persecuted and afflicted” the Jews in the name of Jesus. In our time, while Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were "led to the slaughter," they still remained like a "lamb that is silent before her shearers" – without complaints against God.

(8) He was released from captivity and judgment; who could have imagined such a generation? For he was removed from the land of the living; because of my people's sin they were afflicted.

מֵעצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ
The phrase, "land of the living” (Eretz HaChaim) refers specifically to the Land of Israel. Thus this verse, “He was removed from the land of the living,” does not mean that the servant was killed, but rather was exiled from the Land of Israel.
This verse again describes the world’s surprise at witnessing the Jewish return to the Promised Land. "Who could have imagined” that the nation we tortured now prospers? World leaders offer a stunning confession: “Because of my people’s sin, they [the Jews] were afflicted.”

Here the text makes absolutely clear that the oppressed Servant is a collective nation, not a single individual. This is where knowledge of biblical Hebrew is absolutely crucial. At the end of the verse, the Hebrew word for “they were” (lamoh – לָמוֹ) always refers to a group, never to an individual. (see for example, Psalms 99:7)
(9) He submitted his grave to evil people; and the wealthy submitted to his executions, for committing no crime, and with no deceit in his mouth.

וַיִּתֵּן אֶת רְשָׁעִים קִבְרוֹ וְאֶת עָשִׁיר בְּמתָיו על לא חָמָס עָשָׂה וְלא מִרְמָה בְּפִיו
Missionaries cite this verse as a claim that Jesus lived a sinless life, and was thus the Messiah. This is contradicted, however, by the Gospels themselves, who record that Jesus sinned by violating the Sabbath (John 9:16) and – by claiming to be God Himself – violating the grave prohibition against making any physical image of God (John 10:33, 14:9-10).

Throughout history, Jews were given the choice to “convert or die.” Yet as this verse describes, there was “no deceit in his mouth” – the loyal Jews refused to accept a pagan deity as their God. Rather than profane God’s Holy Name, they “submitted to the grave” – i.e. chose to die rather than renounce their faith. As such these Jews were often denied proper burial, discarded “to the grave as evil people.”
Further, wealthy Jews "submitted to his executions, for committing no crime" – killed so that wicked conquerors could confiscate their riches.

(10) God desired to oppress him and He afflicted him. If his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days, and God’s purpose would succeed in his hand.

ויהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים וְחֵפֶץ יְהוָה בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח
"God desired to oppress” the Jewish people, in order to inspire them to return to Torah observance. If the Jews would only "acknowledge guilt," they would see their "offspring and live long days." This refers to the Messianic era when all Jews will return to Torah observance.

This verse emphasizes that the Servant is to be rewarded with long life and many children. This verse could not possibly refer to Jesus who, according to the New Testament, died young and childless. (Furthermore, if Jesus was alleged to be the immortal Son of God, it is absurd to apply the concept of “living long days.”)
Although missionaries may claim that the “offspring” refers to spiritual descendants, this is based on a distortion and mistranslation. In this verse, the Hebrew word for "offspring" (zera - זֶרַע) always refers to physical descendants (see Genesis 12:7, 15:2-4, 15:13, 46:6; Exodus 28:43). A different word, banim (בנים), generally translated as "sons," is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1).

(11) He would see the purpose and be satisfied with his soul's distress. With his knowledge My servant will cause the masses to be righteous; and he will bear their sins.

מֵעֲמַל נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע בְּדַעְתּוֹ יַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי לָרַבִּים וַעֲוֹנתָם הוּא יִסְבּל
Missionaries cite this verse to claim that Jesus died for our sins. The Christian idea of one’s sins being forgiven through the suffering of another person goes against the basic biblical teaching that each individual has to atone for his own sins by repenting. (Exodus 32:32-33, Deut. 24:16, Ezekiel 18:1-4)

This verse describes how God’s Servant “will cause the masses to be righteous” – not as some mistranslate, “he will justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations," leading the world to righteousness through knowledge of the one true God. The Jews will accomplish this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zechariah 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isaiah 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3). As it says: “The world will become full of the knowledge of God, as water covers the sea” (Isaiah 11:9).
(12) Therefore, I will assign him a portion in public and he will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for he bore the sin of the many, and prayed for the wicked.
לָכֵן אֲחַלֶּק לוֹ בָרַבִּים וְאֶת עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְאֶת פּֽשְׁעִים נִמְנָה וְהוּא חֵטְא רַבִּים נָשָׂא וְלַפּֽשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ

This verse speaks of how the Jews always pray for the welfare of the nations they are exiled into (see Jeremiah 29:7). The verse continues to explain that the Jewish people, who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God, will be rewarded.

Regarding the above passage, some have claimed that the "suffering servant" cannot be Israel, since Israel has sins. Yet this is a fallacy, since we know that no human being – not even Moses – is completely free of sin. Yet Moses was considered “righteous,” which takes into account not only one's good deeds, but also one's repentance after sin. If Jesus is God, these ideas have no meaning.

Immediately following this promise of reward for the Jews’ suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 clearly speaks of the redemption which awaits the Jewish people. This point is acknowledged by all Christian commentaries.

Conclusion

In the days of Jesus, nobody ever understood Isaiah 53 to be predicting the death of the Messiah. When Jesus said, "I am going to Jerusalem where I will suffer and die," the Apostle Peter did not relate this in any way to the suffering described in Isaiah 53. Rather, Peter rebuked Jesus, saying, "Be it far from you Lord, this shall not be unto you." In other words, "God forbid – that cannot happen to you!" Peter never expected the Messiah to be tortured and killed (see Matthew 16:21-22).

Interestingly, the 20th century Christian New English Bible – Oxford Study Edition (annotation on Isaiah 52:13-53:12) clearly identifies the Suffering Servant as the nation of Israel which “has suffered as a humiliated individual."
If the context of Isaiah 53 so clearly refers to the Jewish people, how could so many Christian leaders have mistranslated the Bible? History shows that – for whatever motivation – many did so knowingly:

Lucius Coelius Firmianes Lactantius, 3rd century Church leader: "Among those who seek power and gain from their religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it."

St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated."

Dr. Herbert Marsh, 19th century English Bishop: "It is a certain fact that several readings in our common printed text are nothing more than alterations made by Origen..."
Walter Brueggemann Ph.D., an ordained minister and author of 60 books on the Bible, writes: "[A]lthough it is clear that this poetry does not have Jesus in any first instance on its horizon, it is equally clear that the church, from the outset, has found the poetry a poignant and generative way to consider Jesus, wherein humiliation equals crucifixion and exaltation equals resurrection and ascension."

Why It Matters

When all the verses have been parsed, and all the proofs have been presented, one still might wonder: What difference does it make who is right?
The theological gap between Judaism and Christianity is not limited to the question: "Who is the Messiah," or a debate over the translation of a few biblical verses. Judaism and Christianity are two different belief systems, differing over core issues such as the existential nature of man, the role of our relationship with God, and the path to genuine spiritual fulfillment.

Jews have held steadfast to their beliefs for thousands of years, amidst all forms of persecution and hardship. They have done so in the belief that the Jewish people – as bearers of God’s message of morality and justice – have a unique and crucial role to play in human history. As the prophet Isaiah predicts, this will become eminently clear when the Messiah, the King of Israel, arrives.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
14-04-2016, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2016 04:58 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.

"it’s you were wrong, Mark, when you said Paul did not speak of Pauline wonders:"


I said Paul didn't do miracles.

If he had, he would have told us about them. He doesn't.

Did he do miracles and not brag about them in his letters? No. Paul wasn't a genuinely modest man.

This is logical and undeniable.

End of your half baked argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
14-04-2016, 03:47 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.

"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."

This is full of errors and wrong assumptions. No wonder I couldn't understand your point. I'm not sure where to start.

I agree some Pauline ideas are repeated in other NT writings. So what? The whole NT was edited and interpolated right up to the time of, and including Constantine. The thought police (politicians and church "fathers" and, actually, anyone else with a pen,) tried to make some coherence out of the mess of ideas. Was Jeebus a god? Was Christ human? Did he rise from the dead? Who was his dad?

This is one of the reasons there are some Pauline ideas in some other NT writings.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
15-04-2016, 04:26 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.

Paul was a logical choice for God’s amanuensis, since he built his case from the scriptures.

No. Paul made up shit to suit himself partly based on some ideas from the scriptures.

"recognize that EVERY Tanakh prophet after Moses quotes Moses and/or the Law! Be consistent, please."

Piss poor argument. David Koresh and Jim Jones quote scripture. Are they prophets?Cool Be consistent.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
15-04-2016, 04:34 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 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."

Yes, Paul did have decades to travel and talk to "the eyewitnesses of Jesus and others." Yet Paul fails to mention (almost) anything Jesus said or did. This is undeniably remarkable, and what it means that what is written in the gospels is almost entirely fabricated. You need to get your head around this glaring fact. I have mentioned it numerous times and you've failed to comment.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
15-04-2016, 04:51 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.

"however you are either completely untutored in Judaism or simply insulting all Jewish people who’ve ever lived..."

How ironic coming from you, who just misinterpreted Jewish scripture to make it fit into your entirely fabricated delusions about Jeebus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
15-04-2016, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2016 05:19 PM 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.

"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."


This is so full of errors! Paul "taught" (ie promoted his own version of nonsense) to both Jews and gentiles. He wasn't about to waste his time introducing himself and his ideas to a community that had already been taught about a Christ, a different Christ to his, because it was too much hard work and the goal of the exercise had already been achieved... someone else was already sprouting some nonsense that undermined militaristic Judaism and controlled the crowds ("made the gentiles obedient")
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
15-04-2016, 05:58 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-04-2016 12:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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.

Q, how did you turn
"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)" written by myself, into your claim that I wrote...

" he probably didn’t write 1 Corinthians 15.” ?

The fact is that either Paul, or someone writing in his name, wrote this, which is exactly what I wrote...nothing more and nothing less. I did not write that "Paul probably didn't write 1 Corinthians 15."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: