Why do protestants prefer Paul over John?

Originally posted by sonship
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 suggest you do the same. All I see in this thread is you trying very hard to spam it with videos in the hope that nobody actually watches them but instead takes away your claims about their contents. That is the sort of behaviour worthy of RJ.
Pick one video, stick to it, and be willing to discuss it, otherwise we have to assume that you are just spamming nonsense and know it.

As to the question of the thread - Why do protestants prefer Paul over John?

I really shouldn't weigh in because I am neither Catholic or Protestant.
It sounds like a leading question.

We lovers of Jesus need all the help we can get. I love Paul's ministry and John's ministry too. Both men were utter pioneers in the experience of knowing Christ and living by and through Christ.

Both men reach a great degree of spiritual maturity to furnish models of lives totally surrendered to Jesus.

Originally posted by twhitehead

All I see in this thread is you trying very hard to spam it with videos in the hope that nobody actually watches them but instead takes away your claims about their contents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's silly. Of course I hope someone watches a YouTube video that I supply a link to.

last YouTube link of the day:

The Resurrection Argument that Changed a Generation of Scholars

Dr. Gary Habermas

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
That's silly. Of course I hope someone watches a YouTube video that I supply a link to.

I don't believe you. You are just trying to spam the thread.

I have many times offered to watch and discuss YouTube videos that you post and you have never once accepted the challenge. Instead you invariably just spam more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't believe you. You are just trying to spam the thread.

I have many times offered to watch and discuss YouTube videos that you post and you have never once accepted the challenge. Instead you invariably just spam more.

I have even put up debates in which I thought someone may have gotten the better point across.

You spam comments that you cannot back up.
When called on them, you wiggle out of the need to do so , with excuses galore. (or wait to get bailed out).

Did you ever thank DeepThought for answering about John when you wouldn't ?

Well here is your chance to prove me wrong. Choose one video that you think is your best case against Richard Carriers argument and lets discuss it.
My only conditions for waiting it are that:
1. You state in advance if there is any major claims by whoever is in the video that you are promoting that you disagree with.
2. You are willing to actually discuss it after I watch it and will not simply spam the thread with more videos.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well here is your chance to prove me wrong. Choose one video that you think is your best case against Richard Carriers argument and lets discuss it.
My only conditions for waiting it are that:
1. You state in advance if there is any major claims by whoever is in the video that you are promoting that you disagree with.
2. You are willing to actually discuss it after I watch it and will not simply spam the thread with more videos.

Start at about 31:00 of Richard Carrier's talk here in his debate with Craig.
And I'll tell you the problems I have with his arguments.

Evidence and argument is not persuasion. I don't promise you that you are going to accept any "proof" of anything. And that is especially the case when you can move the goalpost around indefinitely.

But if you want to defend Dr. Carrier, I think his way of inventing motives for the Gospel writers supplying certain details of the Gospel accounts tells us much more about his skepticism than anything else.

Start at 31:00. And I'll enumerate the assumptions made by Carrier that I think a purely his own skeptical imagination.

YouTube

YouTube

A few misc. objections to Dr. Richard Carrier's debate.

Carrier is sure the that Gospels classify as myth because of some things he thinks are too coincidental. IE. Jesus was crucified but Barabbas was released. Jesus, of course said He was the Father's Son. And the name Barabbas means "son of the father".

Carrier is positive that this is a fabrication. Carrier thinks it is too coincidental to have been history. This attitude carries the presupposition that God does not exist.
If God exists, there is no reason why God in His providence could not arrange for the irony deliberately.

Jesus the Son of the Father was crucified while Barabbas (son of the father) was demanded to be released. I see no reason to think this HAS to be evidence of myth writing. Rather the God who is the Creator has sovereign providence over a historical event that was exceedingly important to history.

That the Gospel writer noticed it and noted it does not have to indicate fictional literary device. So the Son of the Father died and son of the father "Barabbas" was exchanged.

Jesus said the very hairs on our head were numbered. Modern science reveals the fine calibration of certain constants to exquisitely tune the cosmos for life and human existence. Why couldn't God arrange that an ironic matter occur under His providence for this all important world event?

Basically, Carrier is saying, "I just don't believe it. It is too coincidental to have happened."

In his rebuttal William L. Craig responds the the Gospels are classified by prominent scholars as biographies.

Originally posted by sonship
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.

From Feb 5th 2012 "William Lane Craig deconstructed. at lengh." Reveal Hidden Content by me.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/william-lane-craig-deconstructed-at-lengh.145003

I spent hours transcribing the entire argument presented by WLC and then debunking his arguments.

Originally posted by googlefudge
From Feb 5th 2012 "William Lane Craig deconstructed. at lengh." [hidden] [sic* spell check doesn't function for titles sadly] [/hidden] by me.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/william-lane-craig-deconstructed-at-lengh.145003

I spent hours transcribing the entire argument presented by WLC and then debunking his arguments.

Thanks. I asked for it. You provided it.
Sometime this week I'll look at it.

Originally posted by sonship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-nmvdfG4sg

A few misc. objections to Dr. Richard Carrier's debate.

Carrier is sure the that Gospels classify as myth because of some things he thinks are too coincidental. IE. [b]Jesus was crucified but Barabbas was released. Jesus, of course said He was the Father's Son. And the name Barabbas means ...[text shortened]... l William L. Craig responds the the Gospels are classified by prominent scholars as biographies.[/b]

Having read RC's books on the historicity of JC that is not at all an accurate description
of his arguments for a mythical JC.

So Dr. Carrier continues with his suspicion that the Gospel just have to be myth writing because of certain symbolic devices.

He seems to find too suspect that James and John wanted to sit on the left and right hand with Jesus while two thieves were crucified on the left and right hand of Jesus. This has to be symbolic myth writing of a fictional genre to Carrier.

Two ambitious brothers had their mother go to Jesus and request that they have the honor of being on His left and right in His coming kingdom. For some reason, Carrier thinks the two dying thieves, one on the left and the other on the right, simply HAS to be a literary device which is myth making "by definition."

First of all, the parallel is not identical. Both James and John were believing disciples.
Of the two thieves crucified with Jesus, one believed in Him and the other did not.
So the parallel may be similar but by no means a complete reflection.

The two passages really have two completely different purposes anyway.

The lessons around the two ambitious disciples was about greatness through service.
The disciple who wants to be greatest should be a servant to all.
Who sits on the left or right of Jesus is up to the Father's will.

If anything, the account of the two thieves on the left and right of Jesus is that BOTH were guilty of their crimes. But the believing one will be saved.
I take it as a lesson to all sinners. Jesus didn't deserved to die. We actually do, being guilty of our sins. Yet we will be with Jesus if we believe in Him as the Lord and the King in God's kingdom.

Some similarities between the two ambitious brother disciples and the two co-executed criminals with Jesus, Carrier is making more of than is really stated.

Basically, as an atheist, he is saying, ie. "It is too much like a literary device. So it has to be a fictional myth."

The only thing that I would grant the one surprised at these parallels is that the Gospel writers may have purposely highlighted some of them. And this after selecting from the multitude of things they could have written about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Having read RC's books on the historicity of JC that is not at all an accurate description
of his arguments for a mythical JC.

I have no desire to misrepresent Carrier's views. And I am taking him at his own words in the discussed public DEBATE.

Accurate representation of what he SAID in this debate, anyone can explore:

YouTube

The point discussed above starts around 31:00.

PS. It is ONE, just one of his arguments. I didn't say that was his only one.

This has to be symbolic fiction, insists Dr. Carrier.

He is suspicious about Jesus teaching that the first shall be last and the last be first, in conjunction with the fact that women were the first witnesses in Christ's resurrection.

This smacks of myth making with a literary device of symbolism. I think this suspicion carries a heavy presupposition that God does not exist.

The events are of central importance in human history. At least they are written up that way. This is about the Son of God coming to be Savior of the world. If a Creator has sovereignty over the minute mechanics of creation, why should we expect He would be slipshod and sloppy about an eternal redemption accomplished for all mankind ?

Who was there at the cross,
Who was there at the resurrection,
Who first believed,
etc. etc. are all matters that could also be exquisitely purposeful in this, the universe's very central event.

The women being the first to witness the resurrection and be believing should have been a detail most men would want to exclude or hide rather than admit. The purposely inclusion of potentially embarrassing details suggests to many professional historians as evidence of authenticity.

One Gospel points out that even after He presented Himself alive some still doubted. He scolded them on another occasion, post resurrection, for their unbelief.

This sounds like me and my neighbors. This sounds like real skeptical people.

Anyway, I degress. Dr. Richard Carrier seems sure that the events are purposely symbolic in order to underscore certain teachings of Jesus.

Now I would grant that we could read an emphasis on certain TEACHINGS of Jesus by some of these events. I don't argue against that. Out of the multitude of things which surrounded the life of Jesus, sure, the Gospel writers may have mused, contemplated and selected details that brought to the forefront some vindication of what Jesus taught.

That, in itself, does not mean they were fabricated. The history is not run of the mill happenings in every respect. The events are central to human purpose and divine will. There is no automatic reason I should assume included in the thousands of things surrounding the death of Jesus, some could be recalled which exemplified some of His sayings.

Carrier, in this point, seems to be arguing against someone's sermon application of some details. So on one hand, Jesus taught that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. And on the other hand the male disciples were afraid and sleeping while some women disciples first believed that the Master had indeed been raised from the dead.

It doesn't HAVE to be mythic symbolism. I think He so taught and it so happened at His resurrection.