Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"

[Mark Fulton]

(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.

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.

Um....depends which part of the babble you choose to believe....

Mark 16King James Version (KJV)

16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen


Here are some references for you:

*1 Corinthians 15, which YOU gave above!

You didn't read what I wrote, did you!

It is "Christ" that Paul thinks appears to him, not Jesus.

*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

Nonsense from Acts...not from Paul himself.

* 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

I'll grant you this one.

* 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

See above

[Mark Fulton]

(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.

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.

No.

Let me correct your delusions...

Paul was a logical choice for the Roman government, a person to spread propaganda, since maybe some of the Jewish people, and some Gentiles might acknowledge Paul’s rabbinical training, knowledge of Tanakh, and classical learning, too.

[Mark Fulton]

(12-04-2016 03:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.


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.


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.


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.


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!


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.


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!


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


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.


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”.


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?"


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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Resurrection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul believed in a resurrection, but not because Jesus’ disciples told him about it. This is how he got to know his risen Christ:
“Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:15–16, NJB.) He was writing at least twenty years after Jesus died, and gave no description of God’s son. His revelation wasn’t a physical reappearance of a dead Jesus, but one that emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.

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

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

The fact is there are no legitimate reasons to prove the extraordinary claim that Jesus, or anyone else, rose from the dead. The truth is the believers have been duped. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PWFvzKl3I).

"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]"

Oh...that's interesting! I had previously been told, by yourself, that you thought the ENTIRE NT was the word of God. Please clarify your position for our readers.

[Mark Fulton]

(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..."

Oh the hypocricy of you accusing me of this!

Christianity itself is a construct of the Roman government, through its agents such as Paul. It is an insult against Judaism.

Christianity denigrated God's ancient covenant with the Jewish people by delegating it as "old." It had the gall to somehow invent something new and supposedly better...replacing a key tenet of Judaism.

Christianity invented an already been and gone Messiah for the Jewish people, Jeebus, who never did what a Messiah was supposed to do, and then had the gall to tell the Jews they had killed their own Messiah. This supposed Jewish Messiah told the Jews to love their enemies, pay taxes to Rome, and "blessed are the meek," all very convenient ideas the Roman government promoted to control the plebs.

Christianity denigrated core Jewish beliefs such as the importance of circumcision, dietary kosher rules, the temple and the sabbath.

You, Q, are just the modern day sucker at the believing end of ancient Roman propaganda.

At least modern day Jews have enough integrity to keep to themselves, and not try to tell everyone else the way things are, whereas Christians like you can't help but stick your fingers in everyone else's business.

[Mark Fulton]

(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.

"Regardless, the other NT writers were not collaborators of Paul."

Mmmmm. That's an interesting statement. I happen to think some of them were, some weren't.

Nevertheless, haven't you been told in Sunday school that "Luke" was Paul's companion? And that "Luke" wrote both the gospel of Luke and Acts?

And...James met Paul, right? And..."James" wrote the book of James?

I hope you understand that the gospel of Luke, Acts and the book of James are part of the New Testament?

[Mark Fulton]

(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 "win" the debate, therefore."

Have you seen the last film ever shot of Hitler? He comes out of his bunker in Berlin to encourage German schoolboys to keep fighting... because he imagines, or pretends to imagine, that Germany is somehow still going to win the war. Berlin is surrounded by the Russians, Americans and British. The boys look bemused and embarrassed. You remind me of Hitler.

[Mark Fulton]

(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.

Stop being ticked off at Paul for doing what any Jewish rabbi would do, comment on Tanakh to justify his viewpoint.

Your inability to comprehend just how anti Semitic Paul was, is a product, not of your scholarly understanding, but of your Christian brainwashing.

Even your babble makes it clear Paul was attacked by Jews nearly everywhere he went, and with good reason. Paul was not "doing what any Jewish rabbi would do." He was heaping shit on Jewish dogma, trying to replace it with his own.

You don't appreciate how vehemently Jews everywhere opposed Paul. They knew that Paul was a fraud and a liar.

Paul, in his own time, was a failure. He didn't prevent a massive war...the first Jewish war of 66-70.

[Mark Fulton]

Q...you have made a big deal about how Jesus was predicted in scripture.

I say you have fallen for Roman government propaganda that Jeebus was predicted in scripture.

I hope you, and other readers, will read the following resurrection appearance of Jeebus from Luke, and recognise the hand of a propaganda machine's writing.... ie

"listen here you dumb fuck Jews...your saviour was this Jeebus, as predicted in your own scripture, and your own people killed him! You may have hoped he was going to set Israel free (from Rome) but ...um...he didn't... We're tired of you Jewish religious fanatics causing us trouble...this is what you're going to believe from now on...and the more gentiles that believe this shit too, the better..."

"The Road to Emmaus

13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him.
17 And He said to them, “What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?”
18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?”
19 And He said to them, “What things?”

So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22 Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23 When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24 And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.”

25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

The Disciples’ Eyes Opened

28 Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. 29 But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them.
30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples

36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them,

“Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

The Scriptures Opened

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

(Luke 24; 23-50 KJV)

Interesting reading when you know the real history, isn't it!

Can you not hear a group of government employees pissing themselves laughing while they wrote this?

[Mark Fulton]

Please read my previous post.

In Matthew's gospel we have more of the same shit. Consider chapter 27.

It is the Jews responsible for Jeebus' death.

Pilate, and his wife, and the Roman centurion, are the good guys.

Some insurance is thrown in to help the punters believe the spiel about Jeebus' resurrection..."the Jews may claim that their Jeebus didn't rise from the dead, but we know that's not true..."

Jeebus fulfills scripture.

Jeebus, the now dead pacifist, was the real king of the Jews. What's more, he was the frickin son of God! You don't get more important than that!

There's a palate of earthquake and risings from the dead to make it all dark, dramatic and serious.

A commitee of authors must have had some real giggles stitching this together. It is so transparent it is childlike....

Matthew 27 King James Version (KJV)

1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.

16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?

18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.

22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

36 And sitting down they watched him there;

37 And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.

38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,

40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,

42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:

56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

[Mark Fulton]

What the hell, might as well have a laugh about John too...complete with Mark Fulton's discussion...


John 20 King James Version (KJV)

1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

( More evidence Jeebus was gay )

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

( It's real important that everyone BELIEVE. Jeebus MUST rise again, otherwise the whole story is pointless.)

10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

( Mary, of course, had a run of the mill chat with two angels. You do that if you're living in biblical times )

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

( Yeah, because Mary had terrible vision, as explained earlier...hang on, wait a minute...)

15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

( Yeah, don't touch me bitch, cos...um...I'm "not yet" going up to daddy in the sky. Whatdya mean, that don't make sense? )

18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

(So um, Mary is having this real cool conversation with Jeebus and two angels, yet needs to go home to touch base with some other cool kids)

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews,

(Dem pesky Jews...always causing trouble. But wait a minute, weren't the disciples...um...Jews? )

came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Yep, they'd just seen their mate rise from the dead. That's why they were "glad." They all went home, watched an episode of the Waltons, and went to bed.


21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

( Yeah, so all dumb fucks who just might be thinking I'm making this up...you better believe so you'll get "blessed" with the crown of credulity.)

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

( Yeah, Jeebus was even better than what's written here...I'm just too lazy to tell you more. )

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

( In other words, I made this shit up to dupe you, and I'm dumb enough to admit it.)