Why do protestants prefer Paul over John?

Originally posted by sonship
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:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd6qzFYzX8

...[text shortened]... t ? [/b] Richard Carrier verses Mark Goodacre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EulhS8EkJk[/b]

William Lane Craig is an idiot, I've ripped apart his pathetically bad arguments before in
detail and all you theists did was spam other peoples video's in response.
I'm not watching any more carp from him, or anyone else you enjoy, it's not worth the effort to
prove their arguments wrong to the point of stupidity when you NEVER EVER listen.

As for Carrier... I/we [atheists] have no need of 'rising new hope's' as we have had perfectly
valid arguments since the ancient Greeks if not before.

NONE of my arguments against Christianity require JC to be fictional, and indeed most of my life
I vaguely assumed that there was a historical JC even if I never believed in the character portrayed
in the bible. Which I would note was Carriers position before he researched the subject.
More to the point my moral/ethics arguments don't even require god to be non-existent.

Unlike you. Because you and other theists like you who believe in some variant of the Christian
religion[s] absolutely do require JC and god to be non-fictional and existent. Your positions are
untenable if they don't exist. The only position I have that would change if they were proved to
exist would be my belief in their existence/non-existence. Which is such a trivial part of my belief
system that nothing of note would be effected.

Originally posted by Suzianne
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 time ...[text shortened]... e reaper
Baby I'm your man..."

"La la la la la"


Yeah, you heard me... dangerous.

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.

You really should try getting a handle on logic at some point, those don't follow at all.

Let's start with 4 and 5...

I'm not totally certain what you mean by saying that "Man is the Lord of his domain" but it sounds nothing
at all like anything I say or argue. Apart from anything else it's sexist.
I would be fascinated to here what on Earth I have said that you could have drawn that conclusion from.

For point 5 I would say that we do not need a saviour and that we do not in fact have any need of being 'saved'
but that doesn't in any way follow from your point 4. [or indeed from points 1 through 3]
Indeed I am quite happy to [for the sake of hypothetical argument] accept that your god exists and that so does JC and
satan and I would STILL argue that we don't need 'saving'. And would STILL argue that your religion contains no salvation.
It therefore cannot be true that I think that our lack of need for a saviour follows from any of your points.

I can thus only conclude that you have absolutely no clue at all what my position is and do not understand anything I
have been saying these past few years. Which is rather sad.

I can only suggest that if you actually wish to understand [if not agree with] my actual position then you should
ask what I think instead of making it up. I suspect a fair few others here could say the same thing.

Just as you most likely have an ulterior motive for working up a sweat trying to convince anyone who will listen that ...

My motive is that I value truth and rationality and hold the well founded belief that your religion [like all religions] is untrue.

I don't need any other motive.

I do not however work up a sweat about it... although I can't see any practical method of convincing you otherwise at this point.

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

I'm quite aware that you hold that opinion, but being 'dangerous' to your religion is my goal, so yay me I guess.

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

I don't think it's so much "prefer" as much as the fact that Paul wrote 13 books of the bible (which is much more than any other biblical author), in addition to the fact that he's the major figure in the book of Acts. As a result, he's quoted more and preached about more.

Originally posted by googlefudge
William Lane Craig is an idiot, I've ripped apart his pathetically bad arguments before in
detail and all you theists did was spam other peoples video's in response.
I'm not watching any more carp from him, or anyone else you enjoy, it's not worth the effort to
prove their arguments wrong to the point of stupidity when you NEVER EVER listen.

As f ...[text shortened]... ence. Which is such a trivial part of my belief
system that nothing of note would be effected.

Sonship said the "new atheists" by which I'd assume he meant ones that dispute the historicity of Christ. I took a look at the first of the two Carrier blogs. The first thing I did was follow the link to Ehrman's article. I find it difficult to take someone who argues for (or against) the historicity of Christ seriously if they do not know the historical status of Pilate. It should be noted that Ehrman's speciality is textual criticism rather than historical research, which takes in more information, such as archeological finds and so forth. Even so it's enough for me to think that he's not done a good enough job to make it worth buying his book. I felt that the part of Carrier's article where he pointed this out was something of a high point. I found his habit of categorizing informal fallacies somewhat tedious. I'm not really impressed by either of them.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sonship said the "new atheists" by which I'd assume he meant ones that dispute the historicity of Christ.

I am sure that is not what he meant. What he means is an imaginary new religion called 'new Atheism' lead by Richard Dawkins and a few others that are supposedly a great threat to his religion.

I'm not really impressed by either of them.
It is not necessary to be impressed by their personalities or style. The only question is whether or not Richard Carrier makes a good argument that a historical Jesus is less likely than a non-historical one.
Sonship would love to turn it into a personality war where he pits other 'authorities' against him and claims they won some debates. But sonship is not willing to discuss the contents of those debates or the actual arguments used by Richard Carrier. His hope is that nobody will actually bother to watch the YouTube videos he posted and assume that he is correct that his champions won the debates. The reality however is the opposite.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sure that is not what he meant. What he means is an imaginary new religion called 'new Atheism' lead by Richard Dawkins and a few others that are supposedly a great threat to his religion.

[b]I'm not really impressed by either of them.
It is not necessary to be impressed by their personalities or style. The only question is whether or not Ri ...[text shortened]... sume that he is correct that his champions won the debates. The reality however is the opposite.[/b]

Indeed. I concur that there are parts of Carriers style and tone that can be irritating.
However, I generally find that the essentials of his arguments are correct.

I would also note that his tone in his books [as opposed to blog posts] is more considered
as one would expect from peer reviewed publication.

It's not particularly that I like Carrier [although I do not dislike him either] but rather that
he is in the important parts of his arguments right.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sonship said the "new atheists" by which I'd assume he meant ones that dispute the historicity of Christ.

Nah, first because not all the famously so called 'new atheists' do dispute the historicity of JC,
But mainly for the reasons twhitehead points out.

'New Atheism' is posited as this new 'religion' that wants to ban all religions [and Christmas] and
destroy morality etc etc etc

Which is total bunk, but you will never convince Christians who love to feel persecuted of this fact.

Originally posted by Suzianne
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 time ...[text shortened]... e reaper
Baby I'm your man..."

"La la la la la"


Yeah, you heard me... dangerous.

not dangerous, simply ignorant and misinformed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not dangerous, simply ignorant and misinformed.

Says the man who refuses to read a science book on the grounds that he just might learn something which would be damaging to his well guarded ignorance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not dangerous, simply ignorant and misinformed.

Would you care to give an example of a point on which googlefudge is misinformed?

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

Exactly how do you know one is preferred over the other?

A short segment of a larger discussion:

Gary Habermas and Dr. Richard Carrier

The name of the video is

Richard Carrier's Embarresingly Bad Understanding of History and the Resurrection of Jesus

YouTube

The fuller discussion:
Three Historians:
Michael Licona , Gary Habermas, RIchard Carrier on :The Infidel Guy Show
The Resurrection of Jesus

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
A short segment of a larger discussion:

Gary Habermas and Dr. Richard Carrier

The name of the video is

[b] Richard Carrier's Embarresingly Bad Understanding of History and the Resurrection of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5RVm6sKulg

The fuller discussion:
Three Historians:
Michael Licona , Gary Habermas, RIchard Carrie ...[text shortened]... el Guy Show
The Resurrection of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM5CpD8USCQ[/b]

Sonship. What you have to realise, is that when I [and I suspect many others on 'my side'] listen to
these videos in which atheists get supposedly defeated by theists... I/we see the exact opposite.

I just listened to that video [it's a still image so 'watched' isn't really appropriate] and Carrier came
out as the one who knew the history, not Habermas.

Your video's do not show what you think they show.

Originally posted by googlefudge

William Lane Craig is an idiot,
---------------------------------------------------

Aside from having self delusions of grandeur you also rely heavily on ad homs.

I've ripped apart his pathetically bad arguments before in
detail and all you theists did was spam other peoples video's in response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you link me to one of your outstanding instances of this ripping apart ?
Link me to the ripping apart you are most proud of.

I'm not watching any more carp from him, or anyone else you enjoy, it's not worth the effort to prove their arguments wrong to the point of stupidity when you NEVER EVER listen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll listen to your "rippings." But I don't guarantee you that listening will lead to agreement with everything you say. Where I think you made a valid point, I'll grant that.

Don't think to listen automatically means I'll say "You're Right!, You're Right!, Your'e Right! "

More to the point my moral/ethics arguments don't even require god to be non-existent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far all I see is that you be able to say that -

William Lane Craig is an idiot,
---------------------------------------------------

That and some strutting around and bragging.

Unlike you. Because you and other theists like you who believe in some variant of the Christian religion[s] absolutely do require JC and god to be non-fictional and existent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, generalizations aside, let me assure you of my position. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, the entire New Testament is useless. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then you can discount anything I may say about the Christian faith.

Without Christ existing and dying a redemptive death and rising in vindicating resurrection, there is nothing about my belief really worth salvaging.

If Christ was not, is not, and did not rise then -
" Let us eat, drink and be merry. For tomorrow we die and rot. "

Do I make myself clear as to where I stand on this matter of the reality or non-reality of Jesus Christ ?


Your positions are untenable if they don't exist. The only position I have that would change if they were proved to exist would be my belief in their existence/non-existence. Which is such a trivial part of my belief system that nothing of note would be effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what? I think I agree. If ... that is IF ... Christ does not exist, my "Christian" position is meaningless. So the stakes from me are really high.

If Christ is fictional then my feeling is that life is absurd and we are all living on the edge of an abyss. Go satisfy the flesh then while you have time. For each moment brings us all closer to an oblivion of death and decay.

It matters not then, how we live, who is helped or hurt. Our death will meaning nothing except to the worm that sweetly feeds on our carcass. Of what use is morality? Of what use is evolving into some "next" "better" goodness ?

So, I agree with your statement about the untenableness (?) of Christian faith if Jesus did not rise from a redemptive death on Calvary.

"If it is only that we have hoped in Christ in this life, we are all men most miserable." - Paul

Which I would note was Carriers position before he researched the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My impression of Richard Carrier is that he was interested deeply in salvation through some Eastern religion. He found his view threatened by the exclusive claims of Jesus. And he gave his life's work in trying to invalidate everything about Jesus.

This life's work has presently developed into his effort to erase Jesus from history (extreme vested interest IMO) , like you, throwing his support behind saying He didn't live and never said ....

That or at least showing he can propose some kind of excuse for discounting everything the New Testament says about Jesus.

Despite your cheerleading against William L. Craig, others can make up their own mind on a debate between Carrier and Craig:

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sonship. What you have to realise, is that when I [and I suspect many others on 'my side'] listen to
these videos in which atheists get supposedly defeated by theists... I/we see the exact opposite.

I just listened to that video [it's a still image so 'watched' isn't really appropriate] and Carrier came
out as the one who knew the history, not Habermas.

Your video's do not show what you think they show.

I just listened to that video [it's a still image so 'watched' isn't really appropriate] and Carrier came out as the one who knew the history, not Habermas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It showed that Carrier's attempt at mythisizing Jesus as just another dying and rising god, was flawed. He didn't know the history of the comparison he was attempting to use as a model.

The shorter episode:

YouTube