Why do protestants prefer Paul over John?

Originally posted by sonship
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 [b]"Misquoting ...[text shortened]... al NT scholar Bart Erhman. Stop making a fool out of yourself teaching that Jesus never existed.

First, that was my post.

Second, I am not referencing Bart Erhman, I am referencing the work of Richard Carrier.

[Here are two links dealing with Bart Erhman by Carrier.]

https://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

https://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

Who's arguments are logically sound and based in fact, unlike Erhman's.

So, no, I will take advice from neither you, nor Bart.

Originally posted by DeepThought
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.

JC was most likely fictional.

Thus nobody ever met him.

Thus the bible was not written by people who met JC and is entirely fictional.

The fact that the people who wrote it were real [but probably not who they claimed to be] doesn't change that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
JC was most likely fictional.

Thus nobody ever met him.

Thus the bible was not written by people who met JC and is entirely fictional.

The fact that the people who wrote it were real [but probably not who they claimed to be] doesn't change that.

Just as you most likely have an ulterior motive for working up a sweat trying to convince anyone who will listen that 1) God is not real, 2) Jesus Christ is not real, 3) Satan is not real, 4) Man is the Lord of his domain, and 5) Therefore, Man does not need a Savior.

I'd go so far as to say... that makes you dangerous.



"All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain... we can be like they are
Come on baby... don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand... don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly... don't fear the reaper
Baby I'm your man..."

"La la la la la"


Yeah, you heard me... dangerous.

Originally posted by googlefudge
JC was most likely fictional.

Thus nobody ever met him.

Thus the bible was not written by people who met JC and is entirely fictional.

The fact that the people who wrote it were real [but probably not who they claimed to be] doesn't change that.

You've started with a probability claim and ended with a certainty, you need "most likely" in front of each of your statements if you want the conclusion to follow from the premise. Clearly my statement is conditional on a historical Jesus existing. This exchange started because twhitehouse wrote the following sentence:

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.

I pointed out that this is part of Christian tradition, the evidence for time of writing is consistent with such a theory and it is not that unreasonable for someone who accepts the historicity of Jesus to believe it. I was not commenting on the historicity of Jesus, all I was trying to communicate is that believing that John the Evangelist met Jesus is not a sign of madness.

Originally posted by googlefudge
First, that was my post.

Second, I am not referencing Bart Erhman, I am referencing the work of Richard Carrier.

[Here are two links dealing with Bart Erhman by Carrier.]

https://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

https://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

Who's arguments are logically sound and based in fact, unlike Erhman's.

So, no, I will take advice from neither you, nor Bart.

Dr. Richard Carrier ?
Big bad Dr. Richard Carrier, the new great young rising hope of the new atheists?

Ok. And to those interested, cross examinations from a few experts who can stand up to Richard Carrier is in order:

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead ? Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig

YouTube

Does God Exist? Richard Carrier verses Lenny Esposito

YouTube

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead Richard Carrier verses Mike Licona

YouTube

Did Jesus Exist ? Richard Carrier verses Mark Goodacre

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
wolfgang,

Stop making a fool out of yourself teaching that Jesus never existed.

I've never taught that.
Always taught children that "Some people believe a man called Jesus ... " etc.
On balance I reckon JC is an amalgam of characters.
And if he did exist he was inconsequential at the time as evidenced by the lack of historical evidence.

And for the record much more foolish to teach Jesus did exist.
Especially for a teacher.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I pointed out that this is part of Christian tradition, the evidence for time of writing is consistent with such a theory and it is not that unreasonable for someone who accepts the historicity of Jesus to believe it. I was not commenting on the historicity of Jesus, all I was trying to communicate is that believing that John the Evangelist met Jesus is not a sign of madness.

And for the record, apart from spelling my name wrong, I concede that you are correct.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And for the record, apart from spelling my name wrong, I concede that you are correct.

Not sure where I got whitehouse from, sorry about that.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I've never taught that.
Always taught children that "Some people believe a man called Jesus ... " etc.
On balance I reckon JC is an amalgam of characters.
And if he did exist he was inconsequential at the time as evidenced by the lack of historical evidence.

And for the record much more foolish to teach Jesus did exist.
Especially for a teacher.

Well, one thing is for sure. The best way to not have to consider someone's life and claims is to just believe that they never existed and made any.

You don't even have to be timid to spell out the name, Jesus Christ, instead of using less intimidating initials, like "JC."

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The Apostle Ringo?

Originally posted by DeepThought
You've started with a probability claim and ended with a certainty, you need "most likely" in front of each of your statements if you want the conclusion to follow from the premise. Clearly my statement is conditional on a historical Jesus existing. This exchange started because twhitehouse wrote the following sentence:[quote]Every sane person who has ...[text shortened]... ng to communicate is that believing that John the Evangelist met Jesus is not a sign of madness.

Only if you take the absurd position that every informal argument must by written to
be absolutely logically sound.

I presume you not to be that stupid.

I made clear that I hold JC's historicity to probabilistically be false [to a strong enough
degree of certainty to justify belief in the lack of existence as opposed to mere lack of
belief] and then went through the consequences of that position.

Requiring a disclaimer in every sentence is absurd and unnecessary.
You understood my meaning, as did any other sane and literate person reading it.

Clearly my statement is conditional on a historical Jesus existing.

Obviously. Which is why I responded by pointing out that that assumption is unjustified.

I was not commenting on the historicity of Jesus, all I was trying to communicate is that believing that John the Evangelist met Jesus is not a sign of madness.

That I can agree with.

But then believing in god and JC is not a sign of madness, it's not a very high or impressive bar to pass.

Originally posted by sonship
Well, one thing is for sure. The best way to not have to consider someone's life and claims is to just believe that they never existed and made any.

You don't even have to be timid to spell out the name, Jesus Christ, instead of using less intimidating initials, like "JC."

JC is faster to type. And in my case Jesus is one of those words that my brain refuses
to remember how to spell, which seriously slows down my typing for any sentence for
which I would use the name and so I use the initials.

I'm certainly not timid about it, just not respectful towards an ancient fictional character.