Why do protestants prefer Paul over John?

When John actually knew Jesus, and Paul was as crazy as a bat?

Originally posted by shavixmir
When John actually knew Jesus, and Paul was as crazy as a bat?

Because John the Gospel writer did not actually know Jesus and Paul has a much nicer message.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because John the Gospel writer did not actually know Jesus and Paul has a much nicer message.

Could you make your next post give two of your strongest examples to demonstrate Paul's message was "nicer" than John's ?

No ?? Why no then ? ( I kind of expect from you some excuse not to. Sorry for the preemptive question. )

Originally posted by sonship
Could you make your next post give two of your strongest examples to demonstrate Paul's message was "nicer" than John's ?

No ?? Why no then ? ( I kind of expect from you some excuse not to. Sorry for the preemptive question. )

Your rudeness suggests you are worried.
I won't give examples, just a general statement:
Paul suggests you don't need to do anything to get to heaven.
Jesus in the Gospels suggests you should give away everything you own.
Most Christians are Paulians and not followers of the Jesus of the gospels.

Your rudeness suggests you are worried.
----------------------------------------------------------------


You could always surprise us and not dodge the question.

I won't give examples,
---------------------------------------

Why am I not surprised?


just a general statement:
--------------------------------------

Specifics would be better. Otherwise your charge sounds like just trolling propoganda for the skeptical. All I asked for was two of your best cases.
You couldn't even come up with that.


Paul suggests you don't need to do anything to get to heaven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, show us where Paul mentions "get to heaven" or "go to heaven."


Jesus in the Gospels suggests you should give away everything you own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are referring to something not written in John's Gospel but in Matthew's - Matthew 19:16-26 to the rich man whom Jesus told to sell everything, give it to the poor, and come and follow Him.

And this passage sounds very much like Paul's words in Philppians 3:7-11.
Paul said he counted all things loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. Everything he had he counted as dung in comparison to experiencing Jesus Christ.

1.) Your reference was not to John's writings.
2.) Paul testified his preference to suffer the loss of all things in order to gain Christ.
3.) Neither passage is about going to heaven.


Most Christians are Paulians and not followers of the Jesus of the gospels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most skeptics in this Forum don't actually read the New Testament, let alone accurately represent its teachings.

Originally posted by sonship
Why am I not surprised?

Because your demand was a deliberate set up, one of your known flawed debating tactics. Demand an answer in the form you want even when it isn't appropriate. Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

Specifics would be better.
I am sure you know the specifics even better than I do.

Otherwise your charge sounds like just trolling propoganda for the skeptical. All I asked for was two of your best cases.
Except my claim was not about 'cases' was it?

You couldn't even come up with that.
Because your question didn't fit the facts.

Most skeptics in this Forum don't actually read the New Testament, let alone accurately represent its teachings.
Neither do most Christians.

Except my claim was not about 'cases' was it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

You certainly made sure of that. So if you have no examples to back up your generalization, perhaps you could answer this.

What do you mean by "nicer" ?

What makes one NT teaching "nicer" than another ?

"... Paul has a much nicer message." - twhitehead

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because John the Gospel writer did not actually know Jesus and Paul has a much nicer message.

Paul of Tarsus is not recorded as having met Jesus either, he doesn't appear in the narratives until Acts.

Originally posted by shavixmir
When John actually knew Jesus, and Paul was as crazy as a bat?

Which John are you talking about? John the Baptist?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Paul of Tarsus is not recorded as having met Jesus either, he doesn't appear in the narratives until Acts.

Paul met Jesus.
Of what consequence is it that the meeting was recorded in the book of Acts ?

I assume that maybe you are approaching Acts with an a priori belief that Jesus could not be met after His crucifixion ?

Originally posted by sonship
Paul met Jesus.
Of what consequence is it that the meeting was recorded in the book of [b]Acts ?

I assume that maybe you are approaching Acts with an a priori belief that Jesus could not be met after His crucifixion ?[/b]

Can you give the reference.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Can you give the reference.

Acts 9:1-9 is the meeting of Jesus by Saul of Tarsus.

Notice:

"And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

And he said, Who are You, Lord?

And He said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (vs.4,5)

twhitehead,

Because John the Gospel writer did not actually know Jesus ...

Could you site a major historian or church scholar in the first 800 years CE who protested that the Apostle John, the author of that Gospel, did not know Jesus ?

Originally posted by sonship
[b]Acts 9:1-9 is the meeting of Jesus by Saul of Tarsus.

Notice:

"And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

And he said, Who are You, Lord?

And He said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (vs.4,5)

[/b]

I see, the blinding light. He sees a light and hears a voice, this isn't quite the same as meet in a physical sense.

Regarding your question to twhitehead, that Eusebius felt the need to say that the consensus at the time was that the Gospel writer was indeed John the Apostle does imply that there was some doubt about the matter.

As a separate point, it's still not clear to me which John shavimixir is referring to in the OP. He could mean John the Baptist, John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, John who wrote the Epistles, and John of Patmos. I realise that it is widely believed that, apart from John the Baptist, they were all the same person - but that doesn't tell us who shav is talking about. I assume the author of the Epistles as the Epistles are the works most directly comparable to the Pauline letters.

As an aside, my experience of US protestants is that they're quite keen on the Book of Revelation, so I'm not sure that the OP really hits the mark.

I see, the blinding light. He sees a light and hears a voice, this isn't quite the same as meet in a physical sense.

Did Paul meet Jesus or not ?

If you are arbitrarily adding the criteria that he had to have physical contact, then you are contradicting Christ's teaching that He would manifest Himself (John 14:21). Are you right and Jesus wrong here ?

Christ manifested Himself to Saul of Tarsus after His resurrection and in His exalted and glorified state. He did not promise He would only manifest Himself by means of physical touch. While this manifestation of Christ to Saul may not meet your criteria for genuineness, it met Christ's and God's.

Actually, after resurrection Christ was more interested that He would be manifested within those who believed in Him. So Paul emphasizes in Galatians, not how hard he fell on the ground, but that Christ was manifested IN him as well as TO him.

"But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,

To reveal His Son in me ... " (Gal. 1:15,16a)

Maybe this does not match your priorities concerning the meeting of Jesus. But it does match the priorities of God. That is to impart the Son of God into people, revealing Himself to them and in them.

I'd go further. Jesus told the disciples that it was even expedient THEM that HE go physically away that He might come to them, to live in them. He did not say it was to their disadvantage, as you insinuate. But rather it was to their advantage - expedient for them.

" But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, Where are you going?

But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.

But I tell you the truth, It is EXPEDIENT for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." (John 16:5-7)

You are saying Paul's meeting of Jesus was either second class or unfortunately inexpedient and secondhand. Christ says it is expedient that He come to His believers in a form in which He could live in them.