Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2016, 07:56 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2016 08:05 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-04-2016 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here! You admit that Paul knew nothing of your Jeebus.

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

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

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

Quote: Secondly, the entire foundation of your religion is based on the idea that Paul's Christ was the Jeebus of the gospels. You are now admitting Paul knew nothing, or next to nothing, about Jeebus. Do you not see an enormous problem reconciling these ideas? Who da fuck actually was Paul's Christ if it wasn't Jeebus? Put another way, where did Paul get his Christ from? Is not a man who simply invents his own Christ a charlatan?

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

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

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

I can help you:

- son of God

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

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


- who died as a sacrifice for everyone's sins

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


- who you must have faith in to get into heaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now read what was already in the chapter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which you replied...

"I think this last is arguable,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q , you wrote

"I didn’t say “Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.” Again, you are twisting my words about."

Unfortunately for you Q, I can cut and paste exactly what you wrote...

"Thirdly, [b]you did write something true:

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

This last is called by evangelicals “witnessing the gospel”. "

You very clearly agreed with me that Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus.

You are now renigging.

Please explain to everyone what you think Paul did know about Jeebus, and give us your evidence. I'll bet a hundred to one you'll avoid answering this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
17-04-2016, 02:09 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2016 02:24 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, this so called "debate" is, as usual, mainly just me doing my thing. You have almost nothing to say. When you do bother answering, you ignore 90% of my questions to you.

You have promised a response to this...

" If you have any evidence that Paul's "Christ" was, in fact, the Jesus of the gospels, " please present it, so you really should reply, and not with "I've already answered" or "tell me this first.."

This is supposed to be a debate, and it would be refreshing to hear something from the other side. How about you actually, honestly, and directly answer the question like you promised?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
17-04-2016, 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2016 04:42 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Mark's 116 th dream...

Q, Mark Fulton and Saint Paul find themselves together alone on a desert island.

Q has a waterproof copy of the bible.

This isn’t looking good for Mark. He goes fishing.

Paul and Q get to know each other. They spend many long hours together, but Paul does most of the talking.

Over the next few days, Q becomes increasingly withdrawn, a little bemused and somewhat agitated.

Fortunately for them, Mark gathers the food, starts a fire and builds a shelter.

As the weeks goes by, Q becomes increasingly distraught. He doesn’t mind the flies, or the heat, but he can’t get a break from Paul’s relentless preaching, not to mention his sexual advances.

Q asks Mark if he knows how to build a boat, as he needs to get away from Paul.

Many nights are spent huddled around a fire, crickets chirping in the background, and Paul endlessly droning on about his Christ. Q buries his face in the sand, tries to shut out the noise, and dreams about turkey sandwiches, cheerleaders, basketball, Ted Cruz, and the easiest way to murder Paul.

The bible gets used to start the fire.

Mark wakes up. It’s all been a weird dream. Q the internet man is still there, at the other side of the world, only sometimes bothering to post a whimpering reply, and then one that is lacking in substance. One quarter of the world still imagines Paul was a cool kid, despite knowing next to nothing about him. Hot air and dreams appeal more than reality to simple, common people.

Such is the way of the world.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
22-04-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q has left the building.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: