Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"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."

A logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that millions of people believe something does not make it true.

It is also a logical fallacy because you are appealing to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.) Smartass
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Quote: 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...

Doherty writes in part, “Paul lives in a world of divine REVELATION… It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary REVELATION and authority from God… Paul operates in a world of perceived REVELATION from God…” so the person who may misunderstand Doherty is yourself. I wrote, “Paul said He RECEIVED the gospel from Jesus”.

Whether or not Paul DID receive his gospel or not is a highlight of this debate, of course. You are taking the stance he didn’t and you quoted Doherty, who agrees. However, I did indeed express the facts under debate quite accurately.

Quote: "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.

Not the issue. The issue where I was refuting you was that Paul and the gospels differ on the divinity of Jesus. They do not. Actually, if you knew the NT better, you’d be able to argue effectively that Paul downplayed Jesus’s divinity compared to the gospels!

Quote: 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,)

You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here.

As for mentioning Christians who warred over heresy here, instead of complaining about 4th century controversies—for which there is more textual evidence than your Pauline theories, by the way—you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly. Be the solution you envision, sir!

Quote: 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.[quote]

Thanks for sharing more about your journey, but atheists have fallen prey to all these logical fallacies and more, as I’ve seen during my brief tenure at TTA.

[quote]The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

I love how you bold it as if you are teaching me something. Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue, not just Paul.

The problem is that Christianity as it appears in the NT isn’t a new religion, but Judaism. Or if you like, because you love to tell us all (in the name of your atheistic zeal for Judaism?) that it WAS a new religion—let's call it Judaism with a reformer.

PS. If there was no inimical intent in your studies, once you were an atheist/and since you “always suspected” Christian untruths regardless, why do seven years of study? After becoming a Christian, I did about seven days of study on Islam—anyone reading the Qu’ran can see the difficulties there. No, I think you have an axe to grind. If it's "so obvious" how bad the Bible is when you read it, why go further?

Quote: "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?

My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already. You wrote recently that you don't mind my critique, indeed you crave it, but I will withhold it if your rants will not address the resolution YOU chose for this debate!

Quote: "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.

Way to duck and dodge. Try answering my actual query! You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay liar and charlatan. Shame on you. Stop it.

Quote: "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.

You couldn’t be more wrong, although we can say this about deutero-Paul theory. I would be happy to cite thousands of words here against this latest polemic of yours but you are AGAIN off topic. Stop.

Quote: 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?

Correct! As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth.

Quote: 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.

The reason why I challenged you is because of the statistical difficulties involved. You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators, for Babylon, perhaps?

Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency, than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles, than a charlatan, Paul, changed these things and wrote more lies, then a new set of gospel writers wrote more lies, then Roman conspirators wrote deutero-Paul--you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

Of course, you are down the natural outcome of a road—the Bible isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy atop a conspiracy atop a conspiracy ad infinitum. I’d ask you to listen to yourself but spiritual blindness, it seems, makes this impossible for you.

Quote: "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."

A logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that millions of people believe something does not make it true.

It is also a logical fallacy because you are appealing to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.)

I’d let this slide but… you are 100% wrong. I was rather pointing out your use of the word “universal” when you meant “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the persons”. You KNOW that most persons disbelieve the few persons you said were “universally in accord”. I wasn't making an ad populum appeal, I was pointing out you used the wrong words. And if you stopped ranting for a moment, you would have written "Sorry, meant almost universal among scholars."

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
30-10-2015, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2015 04:37 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"Doherty writes in part, “Paul lives in a world of divine REVELATION… It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary REVELATION and authority from God… Paul operates in a world of perceived REVELATION from God…” so the person who may misunderstand Doherty is yourself. I wrote, “Paul said He RECEIVED the gospel from Jesus”.

Whether or not Paul DID receive his gospel or not is a highlight of this debate, of course. You are taking the stance he didn’t and you quoted Doherty, who agrees. However, I did indeed express the facts under debate quite accurately."


I knew you wouldn't understand what Earl Doherty and I are saying. It's not that difficult, but you are unable. I'll try again, with a slightly different angle, for the benefit of other readers. You will, no doubt, simply restate your unsubstantiated position.

Q , in common with many Christians, likes to think a dead Jesus visited Paul, and "revealed" "Paul's Gospel" to Paul. This is obviously nonsense. The road to Demascus story was invented by the author of Acts and didn't happen (I will explain why shortly)

It is obvious to anyone who reads the Pauline epistles with a critical eye that Paul thinks it is God who has revealed his son to Paul. Please see http://biblehub.com/galatians/1-16.htm.

I've already quoted a number of other places where Paul makes this clear.

There is only one quotation (Galatians 1;12) where it is implied in some translations that Jesus revealed himself to Paul... this translation from the Greek is very dubious and is not in all bibles. Ie...


New International Version
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Huh

New Living Translation
I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.Huh

English Standard Version
For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.Thumbsup

Berean Study Bible
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.Huh

Berean Literal Bible
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ.Thumbsup

New American Standard Bible
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.Thumbsup

King James Bible
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.Consider

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation from Jesus Christ. Huh

International Standard Version
For I did not receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it was revealed to me by Jesus the Messiah.Facepalm

NET Bible
For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ. Thumbsup

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For I neither received nor learned it from a man, but by the revelation of Yeshua The Messiah.Thumbsup

GOD'S WORD Translation
I didn't receive it from any person. I wasn't taught it, but Jesus Christ revealed it to me.Facepalm

New American Standard 1977
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.Thumbsup

Jubilee Bible 2000
For I did not receive it nor learn it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.Thumbsup

King James 2000 Bible
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.Thumbsup

So...was it a story about Jesus Christ or was it a story revealed by Jesus Christ? If one considres only this passage, it depends on which translation one chooses to believe.

Everywhere else that Paul talks about this, it is God who reveals the gospel, not Jesus Christ. For example...

“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB)

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Quite clearly, it is God who Paul thinks talks to him. What Paul means by this is that he thinks he has a special talent at interpreting scripture.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 09:32 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here."

This is not the issue.

Jeebus, in the gospels, could not decide whether he was the same thing, or separate from, his father.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 09:37 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly.

How very Christian of you. You Christians all imagine you are under constant attack. Stop playing the poor me card.

We're having a discussion on the intellectual content of the Bible. Stop whingeing about how hurt your butt is... and defend your book.... unless, of course, you can't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 09:47 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2015 04:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(30-10-2015 01:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 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...

Doherty writes in part, “Paul lives in a world of divine REVELATION… It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary REVELATION and authority from God… Paul operates in a world of perceived REVELATION from God…” so the person who may misunderstand Doherty is yourself. I wrote, “Paul said He RECEIVED the gospel from Jesus”.

Whether or not Paul DID receive his gospel or not is a highlight of this debate, of course. You are taking the stance he didn’t and you quoted Doherty, who agrees. However, I did indeed express the facts under debate quite accurately.

Quote: "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.

Not the issue. The issue where I was refuting you was that Paul and the gospels differ on the divinity of Jesus. They do not. Actually, if you knew the NT better, you’d be able to argue effectively that Paul downplayed Jesus’s divinity compared to the gospels!

Quote: 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,)

You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here.

As for mentioning Christians who warred over heresy here, instead of complaining about 4th century controversies—for which there is more textual evidence than your Pauline theories, by the way—you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly. Be the solution you envision, sir!

Quote: 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.[quote]

Thanks for sharing more about your journey, but atheists have fallen prey to all these logical fallacies and more, as I’ve seen during my brief tenure at TTA.

[quote]The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

I love how you bold it as if you are teaching me something. Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue, not just Paul.

The problem is that Christianity as it appears in the NT isn’t a new religion, but Judaism. Or if you like, because you love to tell us all (in the name of your atheistic zeal for Judaism?) that it WAS a new religion—let's call it Judaism with a reformer.

PS. If there was no inimical intent in your studies, once you were an atheist/and since you “always suspected” Christian untruths regardless, why do seven years of study? After becoming a Christian, I did about seven days of study on Islam—anyone reading the Qu’ran can see the difficulties there. No, I think you have an axe to grind. If it's "so obvious" how bad the Bible is when you read it, why go further?

Quote: "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?

My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already. You wrote recently that you don't mind my critique, indeed you crave it, but I will withhold it if your rants will not address the resolution YOU chose for this debate!

Quote: "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.

Way to duck and dodge. Try answering my actual query! You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay liar and charlatan. Shame on you. Stop it.

Quote: "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.

You couldn’t be more wrong, although we can say this about deutero-Paul theory. I would be happy to cite thousands of words here against this latest polemic of yours but you are AGAIN off topic. Stop.

Quote: 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?

Correct! As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth.

Quote: 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.

The reason why I challenged you is because of the statistical difficulties involved. You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators, for Babylon, perhaps?

Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency, than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles, than a charlatan, Paul, changed these things and wrote more lies, then a new set of gospel writers wrote more lies, then Roman conspirators wrote deutero-Paul--you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

Of course, you are down the natural outcome of a road—the Bible isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy atop a conspiracy atop a conspiracy ad infinitum. I’d ask you to listen to yourself but spiritual blindness, it seems, makes this impossible for you.

Quote: "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."

A logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that millions of people believe something does not make it true.

It is also a logical fallacy because you are appealing to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.)

I’d let this slide but… you are 100% wrong. I was rather pointing out your use of the word “universal” when you meant “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the persons”. You KNOW that most persons disbelieve the few persons you said were “universally in accord”. I wasn't making an ad populum appeal, I was pointing out you used the wrong words. And if you stopped ranting for a moment, you would have written "Sorry, meant almost universal among scholars."

My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already.

Haha. I was responding to the following statement from you.

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.

I couldn't let this statement go without comment, as Christianity actually contributes to the problem.

It is YOU who wandered off the topic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 10:00 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2015 03:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(30-10-2015 01:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 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...

Doherty writes in part, “Paul lives in a world of divine REVELATION… It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary REVELATION and authority from God… Paul operates in a world of perceived REVELATION from God…” so the person who may misunderstand Doherty is yourself. I wrote, “Paul said He RECEIVED the gospel from Jesus”.

Whether or not Paul DID receive his gospel or not is a highlight of this debate, of course. You are taking the stance he didn’t and you quoted Doherty, who agrees. However, I did indeed express the facts under debate quite accurately.

Quote: "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.

Not the issue. The issue where I was refuting you was that Paul and the gospels differ on the divinity of Jesus. They do not. Actually, if you knew the NT better, you’d be able to argue effectively that Paul downplayed Jesus’s divinity compared to the gospels!

Quote: 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,)

You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here.

As for mentioning Christians who warred over heresy here, instead of complaining about 4th century controversies—for which there is more textual evidence than your Pauline theories, by the way—you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly. Be the solution you envision, sir!

Quote: 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.[quote]

Thanks for sharing more about your journey, but atheists have fallen prey to all these logical fallacies and more, as I’ve seen during my brief tenure at TTA.

[quote]The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

I love how you bold it as if you are teaching me something. Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue, not just Paul.

The problem is that Christianity as it appears in the NT isn’t a new religion, but Judaism. Or if you like, because you love to tell us all (in the name of your atheistic zeal for Judaism?) that it WAS a new religion—let's call it Judaism with a reformer.

PS. If there was no inimical intent in your studies, once you were an atheist/and since you “always suspected” Christian untruths regardless, why do seven years of study? After becoming a Christian, I did about seven days of study on Islam—anyone reading the Qu’ran can see the difficulties there. No, I think you have an axe to grind. If it's "so obvious" how bad the Bible is when you read it, why go further?

Quote: "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?

My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already. You wrote recently that you don't mind my critique, indeed you crave it, but I will withhold it if your rants will not address the resolution YOU chose for this debate!

Quote: "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.

Way to duck and dodge. Try answering my actual query! You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay liar and charlatan. Shame on you. Stop it.

Quote: "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.

You couldn’t be more wrong, although we can say this about deutero-Paul theory. I would be happy to cite thousands of words here against this latest polemic of yours but you are AGAIN off topic. Stop.

Quote: 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?

Correct! As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth.

Quote: 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.

The reason why I challenged you is because of the statistical difficulties involved. You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators, for Babylon, perhaps?

Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency, than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles, than a charlatan, Paul, changed these things and wrote more lies, then a new set of gospel writers wrote more lies, then Roman conspirators wrote deutero-Paul--you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

Of course, you are down the natural outcome of a road—the Bible isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy atop a conspiracy atop a conspiracy ad infinitum. I’d ask you to listen to yourself but spiritual blindness, it seems, makes this impossible for you.

Quote: "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."

A logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that millions of people believe something does not make it true.

It is also a logical fallacy because you are appealing to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.)

I’d let this slide but… you are 100% wrong. I was rather pointing out your use of the word “universal” when you meant “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the persons”. You KNOW that most persons disbelieve the few persons you said were “universally in accord”. I wasn't making an ad populum appeal, I was pointing out you used the wrong words. And if you stopped ranting for a moment, you would have written "Sorry, meant almost universal among scholars."

"You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators..."

The new Testament was chosen, stitched together, edited and interpolated over a period of about 300 years. Most of the letters in the new Testament have been tailored to back up the Pauline epistles. The one glaring and obvious exception is the book of James which is adamantly anti-Pauline (as discussed.)

Were they all conspirators? Well... the original authors of the gospels were. Paul of course was. I think Peter and John were in on the game. So was the author of Acts. I don't know about Jude.

I don't know why you make the silly comment that you think that I think the old Testament authors were conspirators against Judaism. When you write ridiculous things like this I have to question
A) your intelligence and
B) whether you make any genuine effort to understand anything anyone else has written
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2015 04:42 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(30-10-2015 01:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 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...

Doherty writes in part, “Paul lives in a world of divine REVELATION… It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary REVELATION and authority from God… Paul operates in a world of perceived REVELATION from God…” so the person who may misunderstand Doherty is yourself. I wrote, “Paul said He RECEIVED the gospel from Jesus”.

Whether or not Paul DID receive his gospel or not is a highlight of this debate, of course. You are taking the stance he didn’t and you quoted Doherty, who agrees. However, I did indeed express the facts under debate quite accurately.

Quote: "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.

Not the issue. The issue where I was refuting you was that Paul and the gospels differ on the divinity of Jesus. They do not. Actually, if you knew the NT better, you’d be able to argue effectively that Paul downplayed Jesus’s divinity compared to the gospels!

Quote: 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,)

You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here.

As for mentioning Christians who warred over heresy here, instead of complaining about 4th century controversies—for which there is more textual evidence than your Pauline theories, by the way—you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly. Be the solution you envision, sir!

Quote: 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.[quote]

Thanks for sharing more about your journey, but atheists have fallen prey to all these logical fallacies and more, as I’ve seen during my brief tenure at TTA.

[quote]The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

I love how you bold it as if you are teaching me something. Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue, not just Paul.

The problem is that Christianity as it appears in the NT isn’t a new religion, but Judaism. Or if you like, because you love to tell us all (in the name of your atheistic zeal for Judaism?) that it WAS a new religion—let's call it Judaism with a reformer.

PS. If there was no inimical intent in your studies, once you were an atheist/and since you “always suspected” Christian untruths regardless, why do seven years of study? After becoming a Christian, I did about seven days of study on Islam—anyone reading the Qu’ran can see the difficulties there. No, I think you have an axe to grind. If it's "so obvious" how bad the Bible is when you read it, why go further?

Quote: "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?

My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already. You wrote recently that you don't mind my critique, indeed you crave it, but I will withhold it if your rants will not address the resolution YOU chose for this debate!

Quote: "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.

Way to duck and dodge. Try answering my actual query! You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay liar and charlatan. Shame on you. Stop it.

Quote: "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.

You couldn’t be more wrong, although we can say this about deutero-Paul theory. I would be happy to cite thousands of words here against this latest polemic of yours but you are AGAIN off topic. Stop.

Quote: 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?

Correct! As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth.

Quote: 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.

The reason why I challenged you is because of the statistical difficulties involved. You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators, for Babylon, perhaps?

Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency, than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles, than a charlatan, Paul, changed these things and wrote more lies, then a new set of gospel writers wrote more lies, then Roman conspirators wrote deutero-Paul--you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

Of course, you are down the natural outcome of a road—the Bible isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy atop a conspiracy atop a conspiracy ad infinitum. I’d ask you to listen to yourself but spiritual blindness, it seems, makes this impossible for you.

Quote: "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."

A logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that millions of people believe something does not make it true.

It is also a logical fallacy because you are appealing to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.)

I’d let this slide but… you are 100% wrong. I was rather pointing out your use of the word “universal” when you meant “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the persons”. You KNOW that most persons disbelieve the few persons you said were “universally in accord”. I wasn't making an ad populum appeal, I was pointing out you used the wrong words. And if you stopped ranting for a moment, you would have written "Sorry, meant almost universal among scholars."

Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency,

so far so good

than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles,

well done, you've managed to string two coherent thoughts together

than a charlatan, Paul,

....good....

changed these things


NO, as explained to you many times, and as nearly all scholars know, Paul wrote before the gospels

wrote more lies,

Yes...the gospels were largely fictional (although probably based on a once living character)

then Roman conspirators wrote deutero-Paul

very probably

--you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

No. It doesn't sound ridiculous to those who understand the history. It may sound ridiculous to you, because you are so slow at absorbing new ideas, and because you have spent your entire life to date believing the so called conventional story, as taught to you in church. Every time I introduce a novel and interesting concept to you, you simply reject it outright because it doesn't fit into your fairytale story, so you label it "ridiculous."

To anyone who has not been raised in Christianity, my explanation of the events makes far more logical sense than yours.

For example, I am telling you that Paul was raised in the Pharisaic tradition, one that gave him the idea that "revelation" was an interpretation of Scripture.

You however, believe that a dead man, as a spirit, visited Paul and revealed a new gospel to him. This is despite the fact that Paul himself barely says this, but rather claims that he was a special interpreter of Scripture.

Yours is the ridiculous story, not mine.Big Grin

Paul was a charlatan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
30-10-2015, 10:31 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2015 10:40 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(30-10-2015 01:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote: 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...

Doherty writes in part, “Paul lives in a world of divine REVELATION… It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary REVELATION and authority from God… Paul operates in a world of perceived REVELATION from God…” so the person who may misunderstand Doherty is yourself. I wrote, “Paul said He RECEIVED the gospel from Jesus”.

Whether or not Paul DID receive his gospel or not is a highlight of this debate, of course. You are taking the stance he didn’t and you quoted Doherty, who agrees. However, I did indeed express the facts under debate quite accurately.

Quote: "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.

Not the issue. The issue where I was refuting you was that Paul and the gospels differ on the divinity of Jesus. They do not. Actually, if you knew the NT better, you’d be able to argue effectively that Paul downplayed Jesus’s divinity compared to the gospels!

Quote: 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,)

You might exceed your own father in education, strength and so on, but would humbly acknowledge him as senior. You are overreaching here.

As for mentioning Christians who warred over heresy here, instead of complaining about 4th century controversies—for which there is more textual evidence than your Pauline theories, by the way—you’d do better to pursue peace with Christians and other theists rather than attacking us incessantly. Be the solution you envision, sir!

Quote: 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.[quote]

Thanks for sharing more about your journey, but atheists have fallen prey to all these logical fallacies and more, as I’ve seen during my brief tenure at TTA.

[quote]The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

I love how you bold it as if you are teaching me something. Of COURSE the Jews were looking for a Messiah to fulfill warrior prophecies and throw off the hated shackles of Rome. That’s part and parcel of the entire NT dialogue, not just Paul.

The problem is that Christianity as it appears in the NT isn’t a new religion, but Judaism. Or if you like, because you love to tell us all (in the name of your atheistic zeal for Judaism?) that it WAS a new religion—let's call it Judaism with a reformer.

PS. If there was no inimical intent in your studies, once you were an atheist/and since you “always suspected” Christian untruths regardless, why do seven years of study? After becoming a Christian, I did about seven days of study on Islam—anyone reading the Qu’ran can see the difficulties there. No, I think you have an axe to grind. If it's "so obvious" how bad the Bible is when you read it, why go further?

Quote: "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?

My commentary is that you still don’t understand formal debate concepts. We are resolved: “Paul is a charlatan” not “Christianity sucks” or “Religion is wrong”. One more time, if you cannot confine yourself to the resolution, you have the emotional strength of a child and this debate becomes irrelevant and more of a time waster for me than it is already. You wrote recently that you don't mind my critique, indeed you crave it, but I will withhold it if your rants will not address the resolution YOU chose for this debate!

Quote: "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.

Way to duck and dodge. Try answering my actual query! You are guilty of the worst imaginable gay baiting by insisting that Paul, whom everyone knows is against homosexuality, is a gay liar and charlatan. Shame on you. Stop it.

Quote: "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.

You couldn’t be more wrong, although we can say this about deutero-Paul theory. I would be happy to cite thousands of words here against this latest polemic of yours but you are AGAIN off topic. Stop.

Quote: 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?

Correct! As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth.

Quote: 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.

The reason why I challenged you is because of the statistical difficulties involved. You posit Paul as a Roman conspirator but since he lines up doctrinally and in every way with the other 8 NT authors, were they all conspirators? Or only the 4 authors/sources of the 4 gospels? And were the two dozen different OT authors all conspirators, for Babylon, perhaps?

Or is it as you wrote--Jesus did a little insurgency, than conspirators twisted his words to lie and say he did miracles, than a charlatan, Paul, changed these things and wrote more lies, then a new set of gospel writers wrote more lies, then Roman conspirators wrote deutero-Paul--you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

Of course, you are down the natural outcome of a road—the Bible isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy atop a conspiracy atop a conspiracy ad infinitum. I’d ask you to listen to yourself but spiritual blindness, it seems, makes this impossible for you.

Quote: "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."

A logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that millions of people believe something does not make it true.

It is also a logical fallacy because you are appealing to the testimony of an authority not discussing their specialty. (Argumentum ad verecundiam.)

I’d let this slide but… you are 100% wrong. I was rather pointing out your use of the word “universal” when you meant “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the persons”. You KNOW that most persons disbelieve the few persons you said were “universally in accord”. I wasn't making an ad populum appeal, I was pointing out you used the wrong words. And if you stopped ranting for a moment, you would have written "Sorry, meant almost universal among scholars."

Q, you wrote

I’d let this slide but… you are 100% wrong. I was rather pointing out your use of the word “universal” when you meant “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the persons”. You KNOW that most persons disbelieve the few persons you said were “universally in accord”. I wasn't making an ad populum appeal, I was pointing out you used the wrong words. And if you stopped ranting for a moment, you would have written "Sorry, meant almost universal among scholars."

Dear oh dear. I never wrote "universally in accord..." You say I did. Please cut and paste me to prove your point. You can't.

What I did say about this is the following....

"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."

And..

"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 was discussing scholarly opinion, a fact I make clear.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
30-10-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"As I wrote, you seem AMAZED that Jesus taught being born again is different than the physical birth, yet, as I wrote, here it is with Nicodemus. As a doctor, you fully understand many of the wonders of human birth. I wish you indeed also would understand the second, spiritual birth/rebirth."

No, I am not amazed about anything in the babble. I'm simply suggesting perhaps you could come back down to planet earth and stop pretending you believe in primitive theological concepts that are ridiculous.

Being "born again," the idea of an eternal theme park in the sky (heaven), a man being sacrificed 2000 years ago for our sins, spirits, gods, miracles, etc etc are all concepts that slip easily from your tongue, yet they have no place in modern rational parlance.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: