Why do protestants prefer Paul over John?

Originally posted by sonship
So if you have no examples to back up your generalization,

Stop insisting that my statement applies to examples. It does not. And I am sure that you are perfectly well aware of what I meant.

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

I never suggested otherwise. Of course he did claim to have met Jesus' ghost, but thats besides the point.

Originally posted by sonship
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 ?

Why would I want to? Every sane person who has even a sprinkling of knowledge about the New Testament knows that the author of the gospel of John never met Jesus. Or are you talking 'know' as in 'saw him in a vision'?

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

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

It is your answer which is pre-emptive and suggestive of a closed mind.
Why ask the question if you "know" the answer?
(I could answer that but I won't!!) 😉

Originally posted by sonship
[b] 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

[/b]

Someone secure in their position (and obviously better informed)
would provide examples refuting the claims.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would I want to? Every sane person who has even a sprinkling of knowledge about the New Testament knows that the author of the gospel of John never met Jesus. Or are you talking 'know' as in 'saw him in a vision'?

Here it is again. "Christians are not sane."

I wonder why any of us ever talk to you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would I want to? Every sane person who has even a sprinkling of knowledge about the New Testament knows that the author of the gospel of John never met Jesus. Or are you talking 'know' as in 'saw him in a vision'?

By Christian tradition John the Apostle is the same person as John the Evangelist. If this is correct then the writer of the book of John was one of the disciples and spent a considerable amount of time with Jesus. Based on a quick reading of the relevant Wikipedia page last night I came to the conclusion that it is not at all clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

Originally posted by Suzianne
Here it is again. "Christians are not sane."

That is not what I said.

I wonder why any of us ever talk to you?
I wonder why you do. You never have anything constructive to say.

Do you believe that any of the writers of any of the books of the New Testament were written by people who met Jesus prior to the crucifixion?

Originally posted by DeepThought
By Christian tradition John the Apostle is the same person as John the Evangelist. If this is correct then the writer of the book of John was one of the disciples and spent a considerable amount of time with Jesus. Based on a quick reading of the relevant Wikipedia page last night I came to the conclusion that it is not at all clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

Given that the whole thing is a fictional fabrication and that JC probably never existed
let alone was known by the authors of the NT decades [or more] later, it seems to be
quite clear enough.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given that the whole thing is a fictional fabrication and that JC probably never existed
let alone was known by the authors of the NT decades [or more] later, it seems to be
quite clear enough.

more unsubstantiated bilgewater

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given that the whole thing is a fictional fabrication and that JC probably never existed
let alone was known by the authors of the NT decades [or more] later, it seems to be
quite clear enough.

According to the various Wikipedia articles I read on the Johannine texts last night, John the Apostle died of natural causes as an advanced age. The range of dates for the writing of John's gospel starts at 75 AD. I don't see any overarching reason that the text shouldn't have been written by him.

twhitehead wrote that the NT says Paul met the ghost of Jesus Christ. Given the modern vernacular usage of the word "ghost" as the immaterial part of someone who has died.

The Apostle Paul never said that he met the ghost of Jesus.
The New Testament never says that Jesus is dead and someone met the ghost of Jesus.


Acts written by Luke records how Paul met Jesus after He rose from the dead, in His state of exaltation and glorification.

In addition to Acts 9:1-9 recording Paul's meeting of Jesus in Luke's research journalism (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:1-4), he records Paul's own words about this meeting (Acts 22:6-12).


And here Paul says he met Jesus after resurrection:

" For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

And He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.

Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

And last of all He appeared to me also, as it were to one born prematurely." (First Corinthians 15:4-8)

Paul does speak of the Spirit of Christ. But it is not of one dead but of Christ Who is raised from the dead, alive and available to be met.

Ananias, the old disciple that baptized Paul, said this to him:

" ... The God of our fathers has previously appointed you to know His will and to see the righteous One and to hear the voice from His mouth; For you will be a witness to Him unto all men of the things which you have seen and heard." (Acts 22:14b-15)

The things of course included the resurrected and glorified living Jesus, whom Paul met on the road to Damascus.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Stop insisting that my statement applies to examples. It does not. And I am sure that you are perfectly well aware of what I meant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop insisting that me asking you to back up your statement was being disingenuous.
Stop insisting that because I knew "perfectly well" something or other, I have no right to request some examples from the history prior to 21rst Century higher textural criticism, that early church "fathers" *( or early historians) didn't believe John's author knew Jesus.


You made a grandstanding like statement with examples of this skepticism. I asked you to substantiate it with a couple of examples. That is all.

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

You couldn't or you wouldn't back up your statement.

At least DeepThought came along side and showed some evidence some disputation about the matter was known, referring to Eusebius the church historian. He managed to submit something without the need to insinuate that my question was underhanded.

Maybe you should thank him for doing your job.

I accept that the early church historian Eusibius evidences that some questioned about John's authorship. I will look into it.

But in the process of canonization, the writing usually had to be by an original apostle or close associate of one.

Now, you want to talk about knowing perfectly well something?
You know perfectly well that you are as bias toward any, and pretty much every manner of disqualifying the veracity of the New Testament there is in existence.

wolfgang,

Given that the whole thing is a fictional fabrication and that JC probably never existed let alone was known by the authors of the NT decades [or more] later, it seems to be quite clear enough.

New Testament scholar Bart Erhman has become the darling of the atheists in criticizing the New Testament. He wrote "Misquoting Jesus". He's found he can make a lot of money feeding red meat to the unbelieving atheist crowds.

But they have also gone too far in pointing to him to back up some of their opinions about Jesus never having lived. This got blown back in their faces on a radio program when Erhman set the record straight that he never taught that Jesus didn't live.

He has advised people like you that you are making a fool out of yourself spreading rumors that Jesus never lived.

If you won't take the advice from me, take it from skeptical NT scholar Bart Erhman. Stop making a fool out of yourself teaching that Jesus never existed.

Originally posted by sonship
Stop insisting that me asking you to back up your statement was being disingenuous.

No, I will not stop. It was being disingenuous.

Stop insisting that because I knew "perfectly well" something or other,
Stop lying. I never insisted any such thing.

I have no right to request some examples from the history prior to 21rst Century higher textural criticism, that early church "fathers" *( or early historians) didn't believe John's author knew Jesus.
Request all you want, but I won't be providing any such examples because I never claimed any such examples exist. As before you are being disingenuous. You are suggesting that I claimed something I didn't and that when I fail to answer your question that assumes I claimed something I didn't you will try to crow about how you are right and I am wrong.
If you have to use dishonest tactics to try and win an argument, the argument isn't worth winning.