Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2015, 02:39 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 02:46 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(28-10-2015 11:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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?

Q, you wrote

"What Paul said was He received the gospel from Jesus,"

Well, actually, as already explained to you, NO. You simply ignored my arguments why. Here is a repeat of my argument, perhaps better worded, as presented by Earl Doherty, who is a much better known author than me. I doubt you will read it, and if you do you won't understand it. I'm putting it here for anyone who is interested in the truth...

"THE SOURCE OF PAUL’S GOSPEL
The Idea of “Reception” (paralambano) in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11:23 and Galatians 1:12

The Call of An Apostle

Paul lives in a world of divine revelation. He moves amid wide-ranging and diverse circles of apostles who preach the Christ, none of whom show any sign of tracing their authority or knowledge about such a divine figure back to a ministry on earth, or to a group of apostles who had been participants and witnesses of that ministry. As I discussed in my first Supplementary Article (“Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate”), neither Paul nor any other writer among the New Testament epistles gives us evidence of the concept of apostolic tradition, or of the idea that anyone had known Jesus personally. The latter idea is notably missing in Paul’s direct references to the Jerusalem apostles, with whom he has important disputes; and it is equally missing in his discussions of the question of who is to be considered a legitimate apostle.

In 1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul asks plaintively:
“Am I not an apostle? Did I not see Jesus our Lord?”
It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary revelation and authority from God. In 2 Corinthians 10 to 12, Paul defends his apostleship and compares himself to unnamed rivals ... who are competing for the Corinthians’ allegiance:

“Someone is convinced, is he, that he belongs to Christ? Let him think again, and reflect that we belong to Christ as much as he does” (10:7).

And he goes on in 11:4 to reveal the source of all these competing messages and claims to legitimacy:

"For if someone comes who proclaims another Jesus . . . if you receive a spirit different from the spirit already given to you, or a gospel different from the gospel you have already accepted . . ."

Paul operates in a world of perceived revelation from God, populated by self-appointed apostles who learn about the Christ, and formulate their own interpretations of him, through the Spirit.

In all of his arguments over the legitimacy of his position, Paul never addresses the issue in this way:

“Yes, I know others were appointed by Jesus in his earthly ministry, but the way in which I was called is just as worthy . . .”

Had there been such a thing as appointment by Jesus, can we believe that this, or a link to those who had been so appointed, would not be the ever-present benchmark by which all apostles were measured? Could Paul possibly have ignored such a standard throughout the debates in which he engages concerning apostolic legitimacy? In fact, Paul’s arguments reject the very idea that there could be any deficiency of qualification on his part. And the implication of 1 Corinthians 9:1 is that, since his "seeing" of the Lord is to be regarded as legitimizing his apostleship and this "seeing" was entirely visionary, the legitimacy of the others he is comparing himself to, which includes the Jerusalem apostles, is based on the same measure, namely visionary revelation.

That this is the universal standard is clear from 2 Corinthians 10:18. Paul declares:

“It is not the man who recommends himself, but the man whom the Lord recommends.”

There is no suggestion of a separate basis of authority or pre-eminence based on having known and been chosen by a Jesus on earth. Here “Lord” refers to God (cf. 3:4-6), which is in keeping with the way Paul regularly expresses himself about his call to preach the gospel. Acts has so imposed on Christian consciousness the legend of the dramatic event on the road to Damascus that it comes as a surprise that Paul nowhere refers to such an experience. (Note that Paul’s vision of the Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:8 is not described as a conversion experience, and the Damascus road event is notably missing in his reference to “visions and revelations” in 2 Corinthians 12:1f.)

In fact, Paul consistently tells us that it was God himself who called him to be an apostle. In 1 Corinthians 1:1, “the will and call of God” has led him to preach. In 1 Thessalonians 2:4, he is “approved by God.” It is God, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, who qualified Paul to dispense his new covenant, God’s actions which made him an apostle to the gentiles in Galatians 2:8. (Those same actions of God also made Peter an apostle to the Jews!)

As for his knowledge of the Christ, Paul tells his readers in Galatians 1:16 that it was God who revealed his Son to him, not Jesus who revealed himself.

Even the pseudo-Pauline writers express things in the same vein. It is the “commission God gave me,” in Colossians 1:25. Paul is commissioned “by the will of God” in Ephesians 1:1; in 3:7 he is “made a minister by God’s gifts and powers.” Whenever all these passages were penned, it is difficult to imagine that the writers possessed any concept that Jesus had called or appointed apostles, whether on earth or even through spiritual channels. In fact, Paul clearly excludes such an idea in 1 Corinthians 12:28: “In the church, God has appointed in the first place apostles . . .” No writer who had the Gospel picture before his mind could possibly have said such a thing.

The gospel which apostles like Paul preach is likewise never said to have had its source in Jesus or his ministry. Paul constantly refers to the “gospel of God” (Romans 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:2); 1 Peter 4:17 condemns those “who refuse to obey the gospel of God.” Occasionally, Christ is the object of the gospel (1 Thessalonians 3:2), but its source is consistently God himself, and it comes to the minds of apostles like Paul through the channel of God’s Spirit.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people to whom it came? If anyone claims to be inspired or a prophet, let him recognize that what I write has the Lord’s authority. [1 Corinthians 14:36-38] "

I ( Mark Fulton) am hoping there are readers out there who already know what Earl Doherty and I are saying, or have just learned something.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 02:45 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"You are calling your own ancestors idiots."

NO. I said nothing of the sort. I called them naive.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 02:53 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"Did Paul also manufacture Jesus’s statement, “The Father and I are One!” "

No. the gospels weren't written at the time Paul wrote so Paul would never have heard this statement.

If, hypothetically, Paul had read the Gospels, he would be entitled to be quite confused as to the relationship between Jesus and his dad...

Jesus said,

“The father is in me, and I in Him” (John 10:38, NJB,) and

“I and my father are one” (John 14:30, NJB.)

So Jesus said he is a part of, and equal to, his father, but Jesus also spoke of his father as someone else:

“...for the father is greater than I” (John 14:28, NJB,) and

“For God sent his son into the world not to condemn the world, but so that through him the world might be saved.” (John 3:17, NJB.)

In the fourth century some Christians murdered others over controversies about who Jesus was. If John’s contributors had come to some consensus, maybe these fanatics would not have lost their lives, and the Bible would not be so confusing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 03:07 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 04:07 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

Actually...no....well...maybe a little.

This is how I address this very issue in my book...

"Some readers may label me as biased or polemical. I am a little. I have always suspected that stories in the Bible were untrue and that most of the ethics promoted in the Bible were suspect. As a child, irrational ideas from the Bible were presented as the truth to me, and I have a small chip on my shoulder about that. A child trying to understand the world is not helped by teachers with secondary agendas. It annoys me now, and it annoyed me then, that my teachers thought it was more important to conform and believe than to discover the truth.

When researching the history, I tried to start my investigations with an open mind and a clean slate. I scoured Christian literature searching for good facts to underpin the conventional Christian position, but they do not exist. The more I learned, the more obviously untenable and manufactured the “conventional” Christian version of events became.

This book took seven years to research. During that time I showed some of my writing to scores of devout Christians, or had real conversations with them, and invited their comments. What was making them tick? What didn’t I understand? Was I missing the “big picture?” None of them were willing or able to discuss the history in any depth. Some ignored me, or told me they did not have time to talk. Others said their faith was unshakeable, so there was no point discussing it. These Christians were out of their depth discussing real history, and what is more, were not genuinely interested in it either! Some of them dismissed me as biased.

Most of these Christians were not fazed enough to follow up with some fact finding for themselves.

Fortunately, there were some other really nice, open minded and real people, Christians and “lapsed” Christians, who were enthralled by what they read. They are now thinking a lot more clearly about their beliefs.

To defend Christianity based on historical truth is impossible! One cannot ignore the history. I have not manufactured the holes in the story; they have always been there.

I am not that interesting, so it is of little consequence if I am biased. This is not a book about me. It is a book containing hundreds of facts and concepts, and they each deserve consideration. That is interesting.

Most Christians are willing to preach or sit in a pew for hours, but not to explore the real history. That strikes me as having too narrow a curriculum. When facts are discussed, most zealous Christians feel uncomfortable, so slink off out of the spotlight or become confrontational. This may be due to laziness or closed - mindedness. They often question their antagonist’s credentials or motives. Yet most of them have no idea about the real history of their religion.

Some Christian apologists use logical fallacies to justify their beliefs; for example

- A lot of other people believe too (Argumentum ad numerum.)
Or they appeal to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.)
Or it is a very popular belief (Argumentum ad populum.)
Or it is a very old belief (Argumentum ad antiquitatem.)
Or the belief has been repeated often (Argumentum ad nauseam.)
Or they are afraid of the consequences of not believing (Argumentum ad baculum.)
Or an argument has not yet been proven false (Argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

None of these fallacies are based on a rational examination of facts.

I am not arrogant enough to claim that all my “facts” or opinions are the last word on the way things were. Pick up any historical work and there will be different angles proposed, so some historians will disagree (perhaps rightly) with some of my writing. It is in the nature of history, particularly ancient history, that the truth is elusive.

Yet I think you, the reader, are now well equipped to put things in perspective for yourself. I have shared my conclusions with you, and I hope you have learned something, and that the pieces of the puzzle are now starting to fit. I hope some of the links I have provided will help you round out your knowledge and come to your own conclusions."



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 03:16 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 03:18 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Q, you accuse me of saying "horrific" things about Jesus. Maybe you should read this

"The evidence indicates that Yeshua was in fact a popular potential Messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was brave enough to stand up to the Romans. Yeshua’s primary agenda was not to preach pagan theology or pacifist ethics, as Christian beliefs would have it. If that had been the case Yeshua would not have had any Jewish followers, nor would he have aroused the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. Yeshua attracted the crowds because so many people at that time were poor and oppressed by the Romans. The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

Christianity first emerged decades after Yeshua’s death, and then became a religion primarily for Gentiles. Christianity used Yeshua’s story to create something new that was not Jewish, and that Yeshua would not have understood or approved of.

Any real story of Yeshua has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries created many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented Yeshua’s message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than for Jews.

It is highly unlikely that Yeshua thought that he was literally God’s son, or that any of his original disciples thought that of him either. Yeshua never saw himself as the Savior of the World or the Lamb of God. It never crossed his mind to sacrifice himself for sinners. Yeshua never rose from the dead.

The Romans crucified Yeshua twice: once in real life, and then by turning him into “Jesus” and lying about his legacy in the Gospels.

Does it not seem odd and rather macabre that some of today’s Christians worship a crucifix? As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, is it not it in poor taste to eagerly advertise the fact? What would Jesus think of that? If he were somehow alive today, would not his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

Does it make sense to:
- worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian and Peter Cresswell. Authors like these have not had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth."

I suggest that your story of Jesus is "horrific." I have some respect for the real man...you, as a consequence of your ignorance, don't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 03:30 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"You posted hundreds of words against religion in general, citing everyone from President Reagan to Gregory Paul, lashing out."

No. Just against Christianity.

Did you read it? Examine the study for yourself? Where is your commentary on it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 03:34 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

I never said anything remotely like this, and this is the second time I've told you that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 03:47 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 04:13 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

Bullshit! There was lip service paid to this ideal, but it was never put into practise.

Q, you obviously have never studied how the NT was compiled. Please read some books. I have studied the topic...in much depth. Here are my conclusions...

The Church Fathers, who, over a period of roughly 300 years, compiled the New Testament canon, wrote volumes attacking their opposition and arguing with their critics, so they would have recorded solid facts about the historicity of Jesus to bolster the credibility of their books if they had them. They did not because they could not.

These Church Fathers wrote volumes about the early Church’s followers and martyrs, but there is one thing conspicuously absent from their writings; bona-fide details about a flesh and blood historical Jesus.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there an explanation to vouch for the authenticity of any of the Jesus accounts that could convince a truly objective historian. Outside the Bible, some Church fathers, bishops, and academics pass fleeting commentary in an attempt to justify an historical Jesus. Some of this commentary has survived, yet it was written 100 or more years after Yeshua’s death, is very sparse, piecemeal, and unfortunately always raises more questions than it answers.

There was much disagreement amongst various early Christian groups about what was or was not the word of God, and it took 350 years after Jesus’ death for the canon to be definitively decided.

The criteria used to choose the canon were unscholarly and never strictly applied. The key case for inclusion in the canon was that the scripts were already popular in particular parishes. This standard is obviously flawed, as popularity has little to do with historical truth. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are popular books, but no one thinks they are records of real history just because they are well liked.

The accounts of Christians who were not card carriers in conformist churches were ignored. The Gnostics, Marcionites and numerous other Christian groups had writings that were labeled as heretical. Catholics took what they thought was useful from them, and then destroyed nearly all their writings. To destroy literature is not the conduct of people interested in the truth, but the behavior of empire builders.

There are falsely signed letters throughout the Bible; rarely in the writings of antiquity are the true identities of so many authors so hidden from the reader. Some of Paul’s epistles are the only works for which we know the author’s real identity, and even then his writings have been interfered with by unknown others. The real identities of the authors were rarely recorded, possibly because to do so would have exposed how fabricated the writings were. Anonymous authors meant answers to many difficult questions did not have to be given. It was easier to foster faith than to discuss facts.

The Church Fathers either presumed or pretended that the Gospels were true, but could not prove it. This leaves a massive hole in Christianity’s legitimacy.

The men discussed here were the more educated members of the early Christian churches. Yet they were often narrow-minded, superstitious, and dishonest, and a few of them even admitted their dishonesty. Some of them forged documents. They repeatedly displayed very little critical faculty; no story was too silly, no falsehood too glaring, no argument too weak to prevent them teaching it with full confidence of its truth. Time and again the Church Fathers thought it was permissible, and even commendable, to assert falsehoods for the sake of selling faith. It could be said that they were the tabloid journalists of their day.

St Gregory, commenting in the mid fourth century, wrote

“A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated.” (St. Gregory, from Jerome’s letter 52 to Nepotian.)

Yet it is on the Church Fathers’ testimonies that today’s Christian assumes that the Gospels are truthful.

It is obvious that these Church Fathers, and no doubt others with similar attitudes, would have edited and interpolated the New Testament. If you can claim angels have sex with women, you can promote a virgin birth. If you can say you saw a dead corpse move, why not have an evil spirit enter a herd of pigs? If you can write about men with one eye in their foreheads, you have no reservations about a Jesus walking on water. If you are willing to use falsehood as medicine, then you are pleased to have Jesus rise from the dead. I could go on and on.

Some of these men, or their colleagues, altered quotations from the Septuagint to create phony prophesies concerning Jesus. Someone added Jesus’ resurrection to the Gospel of Mark. Someone attributed the authorship of the Gospels to Jesus’ apostles. Someone probably inserted into Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus wanted to start a new Church with Peter at its head. Someone probably inserted Jesus’ name into Paul’s writings. Some anonymous Christians wrote letters in Paul’s name. Someone wrote Acts to try to link Yeshua’s disciples with Paul’s theology. Numerous other people incorporated traditions from pagan cults into the new one.

There are countless other examples of the early Christians’ dishonesty.

There was a corrupt intellectual culture in the early Christian church.

There are no legitimate excuses for this. Fiction touted as truth, uncritical scholarship, and appeals for faith are unacceptable to an educated, modern audience.

These Church Fathers were using the type of arguments that they knew worked, so as to convince groups of mainly common people about the supposed truth of superstitious nonsense.

The human family has always had real thinkers, people who were clearly interested in the truth. Consider men such as Plato, Plutarch, Celsus, Cicero, Philo, Seutonius, Tacitus, Bucky Ball, GWG and others, who employed high standards of integrity and scholarship. Their writings are believable, consistent and still read well. These Church Fathers were not in this group. Celsus wrote

“It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.” (Celsus, 178 CE231).

None of the church fathers were honest enough to publicly admit that their faith was formed on a foundation of manufactured nonsense.

How could anyone today be convinced of the divinity, the miracles, or the teachings of Jesus after considering what these Church Fathers had to contend?

Christianity is not unique in this regard. Jewish and Islamic dogma is also manufactured nonsense. Consider how many of today’s Christians quite readily appreciate how childish, borrowed, concocted and unhistorical the Islamic faith is, yet fail to see similar parallels in their own religion.

It seems obvious why the Church Fathers concocted lies and so vehemently denigrated other commentators such as the Gnostics, Marcion and Celsus. Promoting their version of the dogma fortified their own power and status, and that of the institutions they represented.

These Church Fathers were bishops buttressing their own positions and their Church’s coffers. They were pompous priests who perched themselves in high places in pursuit of power, money and prestige.

Elders or presbyters were lower than the bishop; deacons or servants were lower than the elders, and the common plebs were at the bottom of the pile. These commoners were poorly equipped to detect dishonesty, or to tell the difference between truth and fiction. Bishops typically had little or no respect for them. Bishops had a patronizing attitude towards the common people; the people were to be fooled and manipulated for the Church’s benefit. The clergy regularly referred to the public as “rabble” or “fools” or “the multitudes” or the “crowd,” yet it was the commoners who put cash in their collections.

The Church Fathers were advocating an earthly monarchy with a bishop on the throne. Paul had said much the same thing many years earlier, with himself as an ultimate authority, the equivalent of a king. The Vatican still runs a monarchy today, with the pope as God’s mouthpiece, which is one of the reasons why the men in today’s Vatican have become so unpopular amongst thinking people.

It is sad, wrong and ironic that generations of ordinary, trusting Christians have wasted their time looking for truth and meaning in the New Testament, hoping to be enlightened, when the characters who created it were so cavalier, so casual with the truth. Churches today still insist that people believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, yet they have no facts to back this assertion up. By forcing faith on children and adults too busy to carefully consider it, priests and preachers have ruled over human reason to benefit themselves at the expense of the little people who sit in pews and put money on plates.

The world has moved on, people are better informed, more critical, and much better educated. Modern people, who genuinely care about the health and happiness of our fellow men, and particularly the children, might be best served by not letting these writings and those who advocate them have an undeserved authority. It is time bibliolatry and theology were replaced with open-mindedness, pragmatic thought, and genuine empathy. The era in which uninformed people blindly believe Christian dogma and bow down to those promoting it should now be over."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 02:24 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 02:47 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(28-10-2015 11:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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?

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?

Well...having spent some time studying hermeneutics, I've decided to add to the number of different versions of the babble. Here are the passages you refer to in "my" bible

John 3 King Mark Version (KMV)

3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus was perplexed, and saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Have you been smoking that green stuff from your garden again?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

There was a pregnant pause, Jesus took a long drag from his spliff, coughed, and squinted.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus stared into the distance and pondered these things, for he was not the sharpest tool in the toolbox, and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 It is my job to talk shit, and you, Johnny boy, must write it down. Do not question what I say, for, verily, we must sound confident, as one day people will buy into this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
29-10-2015, 02:38 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 02:41 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(28-10-2015 11:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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?

"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."


NO, you are just extremely lazy because you haven't even tried to understand what I am saying.

There may have been a real historical Yeshua. If there was, he was knocked off by the Romans for being a political insurgent.

A few decades later the Roman government, who controlled the spread of literature at the time, wrote the gospels and thereby created "Jesus." They used the memory of the political insurgent, but reinvented his story. They put pacifist words in his mouth. It's called propaganda...a rewrite of history, and the government (the Flavians) were very good at it.

Surely you can understand this, even if you don't agree with it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: