Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2015, 10:11 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

Q, you wrote
"Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay…"

You know I didn't write that, and everyone reading this knows I didn't write it.

I said Paul may have been gay, and the fact he badmouthed homosexuality does not mean he wasn't a homosexual himself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
27-10-2015, 10:24 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

Q, you wrote

"Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence."

Let's look at the facts. We know the deutero Paulines were around in the 140's CE. Most of the experts who know about these things think they weren't written by the same character that wrote the so-called authentic Paulines. Marcion probably introduced the whole Pauline opus to Rome in the 140's. So they were written pre 140's. No one is sure when. So they could be dated anything from 50 CE to the 140's CE. Do some more reading....and stop adamantly asserting things you haven't researched. You have assumed they were written by Paul...but, in fact, you have zero evidence for that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
27-10-2015, 10:33 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

Q, you wrote
"I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY."

Yet I was responding to your assertion that

"There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote."

There quite clearly was such a group...a jubilant throng that welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
27-10-2015, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 03:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

"But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising."

You bet I am. Welcome to reality. It was only Paul who made up the ridiculous nonsense that Jesus died for your sins. Any sensible child knows Paul's story is stupid. I can remember thinking this as a six year old...

Christ’s Sacrificial Death

Scholars agree that Paul invented the curious concept that Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Why has this strange idea become part of Christian dogma?

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

The whole argument is irrational. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father, who was also himself, for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that kills an innocent scapegoat? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven?

Amongst theologians, there has never been a sound explanation for these ideas, because no sensible explanation is possible.

( http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/...atonement/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...zuxyq3ltls )

Paul’s God could simply be had to say

“you are genuinely sorry, so I forgive you.”

Yet that was not good enough for Paul, as he had been indoctrinated with Scripture, so he could not imagine a benevolent God. Instead, Paul had God as a rigid demagogue who demanded a sacrifice.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-10-2015, 03:01 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 05:44 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

Q, you wrote

"you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong."

Yep. Your Jeebus was, in places, made out to be a pacifist.

Unfortunately for your argument, there's a teeny-weeny inconsistency in the gospels. An aggressive Jesus manages to poke his head up too...

“Anyone who believes in the Son has eternal life, but anyone who refuses to believe in the Son will never see life: the anger of God stays on him” (John 3:33, NJB.)

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16, NJB.)

“Anyone who does not remain in me is like a branch that has been thrown away—he withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and they are burnt” (John 15:6, NJB.) (A similar quote is repeated in Mark 6:11.)

“Then he began to approach the towns in which most of his mira- cles had been worked, because they refused to repent. Alas for you Chorazin! Alas for you Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you were done in Tyre or Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes, and still I tell you that it will not go as hard on Judgment day on Tyre or Sidon as with you. And as for you Capernaum, did you want to be exalted as high as heaven? You shall be thrown down in hell for if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet. And still, I tell you that I will not go as hard with the land of Sodom on Judgment day as with you” (Matt. 11:20–24, NJB.)

“But as for my enemies who did not want me for their king, bring them here and execute them in my presence” (Luke 19:27, NJB.)

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ...woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!... You blind men!... You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matt. 23:13–34, NJB.)

“Well then, just as the darnel is gathered up and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of time. The Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that provoke offences and all who do evil, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth” (Matt. 13:40–43, NJB.)

“Next he will say to those on his left hand ‘Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’’’ (Matt. 25:41, NJB.)

“If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36, NJB.)

“And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” (Mark 4:11–13 KJV.)

“And so I tell you, every human sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next” (Matt. 12:31–32, NJB.)

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law. A man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Anyone who prefers father or mother to me is not worthy of me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to me is not worthy of me. Anyone who does not take his cross and follow in my footsteps is not worthy of me. Anyone who finds his life will lose it; anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:34–39, NJB.)

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26, KJV.)

Poor ol' Jeebus! He had so many different authors putting words in his mouth he didn't know if he was Arthur or Martha.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
28-10-2015, 03:07 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

"Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans..."

Evidence please.

"for your soul, too,"

Now you're getting really loopy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-10-2015, 03:12 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!"

Really! Well you had better ennumerate them. I'd hate to leave anyone thinking you had scored a single point off me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
28-10-2015, 03:35 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 03:44 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(27-10-2015 01:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: Q, you wrote
Here in the English language, “late first century” means after 135 AD, right?

Oops!
No wonder you have trouble understanding commentary about history.
"late first century" means, um, late first century.
"after 135 AD" means, um, after the year 135, ie well into the SECOND century. You are so unread you have make a basic mistake.

I apologize. I made a typing error. You said “well into the second century” or some such. Regardless, if this is the worst you can catch me in… 

Quote:Q I've just spent an hour researching this. I suggest you do the same. The vast majority of commentators accept the idea of "pseudo Paul" i.e. that Paul wrote only about half (about 6) of the letters attributed to him, and that anonymous others wrote the others. The anonymous letters are sometimes referred to as "duetero Pauline."

The vast majority of “unbiased” scholars? The many “unbiased” scholars who are thus saying that 1/3 of the NT is a lie? I can provide citations of scholars verifying that the entire NT was completed before the 1st century ended and you will call them biased. So, we’ll save that for later.

Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: You are very naive. Do you really think anyone would buy the argument that because Paul bad mouthed homosexuality, he couldn't have been one himself?

I anticipated this nonsense of yours prior to posting. Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay… regardless, since Paul speaks about marital intercourse as a foreshadowing of the pleasures of Heaven (thanks, God!) I am making a case from the text and you are making an argument from… silence.

Quote: Any excuses about these passages being "poorly translated" or "only reflecting contemporary mores" or whatever (bla bla bla) are missing the point. These verses are read out to people , and children, in church. That is immoral. Read them again. The meaning is clear.

My point was actually that you don’t seem to read in the English language at all. Without going to the Greek or to the historical context, Paul is urging married couples to spend time together having sex to keep from adultery and temptation. Ergo, you are just making stuff up, again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

That is exactly what to believe (that Jesus was a pacifist preacher without any political ambitions!) reading Jesus’s discussion with Pilate, which you skipped… “if you are a king, where are your armies?”

You are not a "big picture" person, are you? Here we have Jesus, a patriotic Jew, arrested by 600 Roman soldiers, executed by the Roman authorities between two zealots, accused of being King of the Jews, and you just don't get the obvious truth that your Jeebus was threatening the pax Romana.

Q, you wrote

There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote.

No, none. Oh wait, there was the massive crowd on Palm Sunday that welcomed Jesus in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in Matthew 21-22, Mark 11-12, Luke 19-20, and John 12.

We will have a great debate as soon as you debate what I WRITE, not what you (disingenuously? evilly?) accuse me of writing to “win” the debate! I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY. Yes, His peaceful following threatened the Pax Romana. But you are twisting the NT which says Christ died to save--to Christ died for a political uprising. Moreover, because you are an atheist, you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong.

Quote: I believe I have earlier on another thread(s) sent you links to extensive defenses of canon and 1st and 2nd century canon, church leadership, etc.

It is becoming obvious you haven't a clue about the history. You can't answer my questions. You didn't even know there was no such thing as a single Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Of course I knew there were dissensions and factions. There were apocrypha and other splitting issues. There were councils in the NT to discuss dissensions long BEFORE the Catholic councils. But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!

Quote: There are scores of other similar quotes from Paul that I could've posted.

Paul's arrogance and narcissism jumps out at the reader from the page. This is not the writing of a humble or modest man, but the delusions of a small man who somehow imagined he was important. Why anyone with a critical eye could consider these ramblings as anything more then the delusions of an unwell little weasel of a man is beyond me.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians. As you preclude the possibility that we love you and are trying to save your immortal soul you push the atheist nonsense that we, including Jesus and Paul and ALL the apostles, are egomaniacs. Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans for your soul, too, brother—not because he was an egomaniac Roman conspirator.

Quote: "I remain correct. Those who follow CHRIST are “Christians”. Paul claimed no followers, and further reproved the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians for claiming allegiance to him or any apostle rather than CHRIST, from where we get the English word, “Christian”. You are wrong again, Mark."

Ah...ah. Ok. Please clarify yourself so I understand you. Are you saying there were no Christians in the first and second centuries?

If there were such people, were they "following?" Paul?

If they were Christians they were called so for following CHRIST. If they were following Paul, we’d call them “Pauline”. NAZARENE means “following the One from NAZARETH.”

Quote: Q you wrote

"Do you have scholarly citations for this lunacy, for this rudeness, Mark? In fact, in the very passage you quoted, he is urging both marriage partners to ENJOY sexuality and to PARTICIPATE FULLY."

I don't think you have read these passages slowly. Let me help you. Paul writes

“For to be carnally minded is death..."

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:"

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband..."

Paul was pissed off that people were having sex. They must have been far more interested in eachother than in buying into his delusions about god. People then were pretty much the same when it came to sex as people are today. We love it! Poor old Paul was fighting a losing battle against humanity.

And humanity is fighting an often-losing battle against unplanned pregnancy, poverty and STDs! YES, to be after strange flesh is self-destructive. This does not include marital sex. And what psycho translation rendered it as “sex is always a danger” or did you write that yourself. “Unwed sex is always a danger.” Sure.

**

I don’t know why you rambled on about the virgin Mary but it certainly looks like an attempt to obfuscate my point about your quotation from the RCC being inconclusive.

**

I also don’t know why the invective. I thought when I was invited to the Ring it was to have a gentlemanly debate. You are no gentleman. Is this how you talk to your patients? Shove it up where?! Stop it or I’ll leave the debate. Give me the excuse, please, God, please—for just as predicted, you have only the following arguments repeated ad nauseam (emphasis on my nausea):

1. Whenever Mark quotes the Bible, he’s right. Whenever Q quotes it, it’s a passage of later insertion or in doubt.

2. Arguments from silence.

3. Backwards transpositions—Paul limited his income, remained unmarried after being widowed, was beaten times without number, shipwrecked and martyred not for religious passion, but because he wanted to accrue power—as a Roman conspirator—when not rotting in Roman prisons across the empire. Yes, Mark, sounds logical—if you’ve lost your mind. I think you haven’t lost your mind, but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in.

Fulton, please!

I'm growing weary of responding to every point you make while you skip about 3/4 of my arguments. I will judge your next posting carefully and if you are unable to share facts instead of philosophical ramblings/wacky, fringe Bible commentary, I'll leave. Thanks.

Mark, you say the same things about ALL born again, witnessing Christians.

What are you talking about?

As you preclude the possibility that we love you

How very "Christian" of you...professing love towards someone you haven't even met, the purpose being to wield control. The world has had enough of Christian "love." Ask almost any indigenous native population around the world, the kids raised in Christian orphanages, the Jews, homosexuals, and women everywhere.


and are trying to save your immortal soul

More threats of hell. This is just so pathetically weak...it is an insult to the human intellect.

"but your soul is tarnished and you’ve let the devil in."

I don't have a soul. I have a brain. There is no such thing as the devil.

(I hope you are going to raise the intellectual bar a lot higher than this in future conversations.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
28-10-2015, 04:04 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"... ALL born again, witnessing Christians."

What's this "born again" bullshit?

You were born once, and once only.

Daddy Q put half a baby Q into Mummy Q's vagina. Mummy Q made 1/2 a baby Q, and the two half Q's sort of kissed inside mummy Q's uterus. Baby Q started life as a fertilized ovum. Nine months later baby Q took a trip down mummy Q's vagina, and Q was born. This is known as "giving birth." It was a one way trip. There is no going back. You cannot be "born again." Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
28-10-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: You keep trying to make the point that I am interpreting the Bible. You're damn right I am. That is what this debate is about. I'm exposing the bible for all its weaknesses. You come from a school of thought where you automatically suppose the babble is the infallible Word of God, and you therefore can't adjust your thinking. You need to be called out for that. Bring the debate on. Tell me why I'm wrong, yet stop getting offended when I disagree with you. It does your cause no good.

I have told you why you’re wrong, and how. For example, you were caught suggesting a specific where Paul undid a teaching of Jesus. I gave a quotation ascribed to Jesus from the gospels. Instead of writing, “Oh, okay, thank you,” you decided univocally that “These verses must have been added to the gospels later to backup Paul,” and I’ve requested your proof that these verses were added later and you were silent ever since. That would be one of many examples, including my predictions pre-debate, that you would simply dredge up half-scriptural statements while denying any scriptures I brought to the debate.

Quote:What Paul probably meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret Scripture.

What Paul said was He received the gospel from Jesus, one of four biblical qualifications to be an apostle. You have a gift for ignoring what writers SAY and inserting “what they probably meant.”

Quote: That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago…

It really doesn’t matter what it was that impressed people millennia ago that you speak of—you are showing your bias here. You are calling your own ancestors idiots. Please confine yourself to factual, non-prideful statements if you can. Thanks.

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

Did Paul also manufacture Jesus’s statement, “The Father and I are One!”?)

Again, read the Bible before appointing yourself its true expositor.

Quote: Use "google." The fact Paul didn't write about half the stuff attributed to him is almost universally accepted. Pick up almost any book on Paul and that fact is admitted.

I think you are confusing “universally accepted” with “universally accepted in secular universities by religion professors”. You know that hundreds of millions of people read the scriptures without your ideas imposed on the Bible. While I appreciate your desire, I genuinely do, to see something that bothers you, that you feel is a mistake made by millions, even billions, and your genuine desire to help them, I think you also get a rush from your iconoclastic style—saying the most horrific accusations against Paul and Jesus. It’s uncalled for entirely.

Now, typically, you will say, “Grow up and take it, Q!” but in my experience, only infantile people resort to invective and cursing in debates.

**

You posted hundreds of words against religion in general, citing everyone from President Reagan to Gregory Paul, lashing out. Why I don’t know, and since it has nothing to do with proving or disproving Paul’s many statements, I will ignore those comments other than to say, “Sure, religion is an opiate of the--can we move on to Paul, now?”

**

Quote:
Q, you wrote
"Mark, if everyone who is opposed to homosexuality is gay…"

You know I didn't write that, and everyone reading this knows I didn't write it.

I said Paul may have been gay, and the fact he badmouthed homosexuality does not mean he wasn't a homosexual himself.

Well, let me be more specific than general. I wonder where (our PC society, no doubt) you formulated the idea that someone who speaks out publicly against homosexuality is not merely homophobic, but a closet homosexual. Oh, that’s right. The Roman Catholic Church. Glad you cleared that up—I’d forgotten about the peer-reviewed literature stating that no atheists who are virulently anti-gay are closet gays. 

As a tolerant, loving Christian, I’m surprised at your Paul bashing, describing him as an angry, closeted gay. If TTA atheist members weren’t such hypocrites, they would have called you out on it already. How typical for you to describe someone so anti-gay as Paul as a gay man! Labeling, bating, inciting hate, baiting homosexuals. These are tricks for atheists, apparently. You and TTA members accuse Jesus and apostles so often of being gay, and hate them so much, it is clear you are gay bashing. Consider…

Quote:
Q, you wrote

"Of course, since there is ZERO textual or contemporaneous evidence to prove that a pseudo-Paul(s) wrote in the second century, you are making an argument from… silence."

Let's look at the facts. We know the deutero Paulines were around in the 140's CE. Most of the experts who know about these things think they weren't written by the same character that wrote the so-called authentic Paulines. Marcion probably introduced the whole Pauline opus to Rome in the 140's. So they were written pre 140's. No one is sure when. So they could be dated anything from 50 CE to the 140's CE. Do some more reading....and stop adamantly asserting things you haven't researched. You have assumed they were written by Paul...but, in fact, you have zero evidence for that.

Rather, there is the following evidence:

* Greek, textual evidence—so much so that even Hebrews is disputed as to whether it is Pauline as well.

* The evidence of the many 1st and 2nd century expositors who quote from any and ALL Pauline epistles as genuine—does your conspiracy of Rome cover every bishop of the ancient world, too, including all those martyred by Rome? Really?

* The witness of Tertullian, which witness you “casually” omitted when I described it as OPPOSITE to your saying he defamed Paul. Tertullian’s teacher was Irenaeus, whose teacher was an elderly John the apostle. These men could have called out pseudo-Paul anytime by first-hand knowledge!

* The witness of the many apostolic councils accepting Paul’s letters—you are not remembering they had a label/category for Bible fakes, “apocrypha”! You had to have reason and evidence to accept a letter as authentic, rather than what the world says, that willy-nilly decisions were made.

Quote: Q, you wrote
"I wrote that Jesus had no ARMY."

Yet I was responding to your assertion that

"There was no group of persons zealously supporting Jesus in public in front of the Roman authorities, and the Jewish authorities, as you wrote."

There quite clearly was such a group...a jubilant throng that welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

It was some children and poor people, and the Pharisees there asked Jesus to silence them. THE SAME CROWD CALLED FOR CHRIST’S DEATH DAYS AFTER. The Romans could have walked away from the crucifixion as Jesus was done. No.

Quote: Scholars agree that Paul invented the curious concept that Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Why has this strange idea become part of Christian dogma?

Because it is repeated by two dozen authors across both testaments.

Quote: Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven?

Imperfect people would ruin a utopia. Christ, being perfect, died, once for all, the just for the unjust. Atheists like to say substitutionary atonement isn’t logical. We can debate the logic but not the loving. Several Catholic priests—you know—the people you constantly bash at TTA—went forward saying their Auschwitz numbers were the numbers of Jews they didn’t no. They substituted for them, died for them, sent these other men free. Jesus substituted for us. It’s in the words of Jesus—if you’d like two dozen gospel sayings, let me know—and in the OT, before you Paul-bash yet again.

Quote: Q, you wrote

"you can’t be bothered to remember passages like “he who lives by the sword dies by it” and other PACIFIST statements of the Lord. You are 100% wrong."

Yep. Your Jeebus was, in places, made out to be a pacifist.

“Made out” is again, your cherry-picking. Each and every scripture is as you wrote… “so it will be at the end of time”. Only a few armchair theologians are that unaware that Jesus taught pacifism so much so in the gospels that His people excerpted themselves from violence in 70 and 132 AD, thus disqualifying your “Roman conspiracy to quell Christians” theory. Or will you put your money where your theory says—it would actually prove your theory in part if you will recognize pacifism and turning the other cheek was taught. Here, Mark, your debating is so poor I’m doing it for you to help you.

So, pick one:

*Jesus taught pacifism as did Paul so there was a Roman conspiracy to make Jews become Christians

*Jesus didn’t teach pacifism but open warfare so Jesus was crucified to quell Israel

You are trying to teach BOTH conspiracies, which should be suspect even to TTA friends that you are playing against all odds and logic.

Quote: "But the real issue, Mark, is that you are not addressing several dozen points I’ve put before you in previous posts on this debate!"

Really! Well you had better ennumerate them. I'd hate to leave anyone thinking you had scored a single point off me.

No need. Just look through my posts and YOU will see the things you skipped. Because the other atheists can’t comment here because you were so anxious to show them your skills and rhetoric.

Quote: What's this "born again" bullshit?

You were born once, and once only.

Is that how “most scholars” view Jesus’s statements in John 3 regarding the necessity of the new birth, and Paul’s complementary statements about a new creation for individuals? It’s tiring to watch you go back and forth between “scholarly” and “filthy”. PICK ONE, please.

Quote: Daddy Q put half a baby Q into Mummy Q's vagina. Mummy Q made 1/2 a baby Q, and the two half Q's sort of kissed inside mummy Q's uterus. Baby Q started life as a fertilized ovum. Nine months later baby Q took a trip down mummy Q's vagina, and Q was born. This is known as "giving birth." It was a one way trip. There is no going back. You cannot be "born again."

Again, actually read the Bible, as in the passage at hand Nicodemus made the EXACT SAME POINT and Jesus responded. Were you aware of this fact, Dr. Fulton?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: