A new version of Lord, Liar, Lunatic

[salvationfound]

I never use Lord, Liar, Lunatic when talking about Jesus because I believe
it assumes too much. You would have to believe that the writers accurately
wrote down what Jesus said and many non-believers say that isn't what
happened.

But there is another person we can use this methodology on more likely.
Paul.

In his own letters (and the majority of scholars and historians agree) we
read,

A person named Paul persecuted Christians.
Paul claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
As a result of that suppose vision of Jesus he joined the Christians.

Now there are three options for this:
Either Paul was lying.
Either Paul had a hallucination.
Or Paul really did see the resurrected Jesus.

So the claim that Paul was lying.
For someone to make this claim they would have to assume that Paul gained
more by joining the church than that he would have staying with Judaism.

But this doesn't make sense when one reads about the life of Paul in
Philippians 3. Paul was a Hebrew among Hebrews in regards to the law. A
Pharisee. Sounds like this is saying he was already doing well for himself.

Galatians 1 Paul says he was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my
own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. Once
again it seems to say that Paul lived well for himself. So one questions why
Paul would make up a story that would in fact cause him to abandon
something he believed in so strongly.

So did he really gain more by being a Christian?
2 Corinthians answers this question:


I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.


Now for someone to go through all of this and still speak of the truth of
his authority in Christianity when they know it is a lie is very bizarre. Yet he
never quit. He continued preaching his authority as a witness for Christ even
after all of this. This makes the idea of him lying seem very implausible.

Paul had an hallucination.
This I admit seems more plausible than the lying theory. So let us assume for
the moment Paul had a false vision.

I have to ask does this really occur? In what circumstances does a
persecutor have visions that cause him to join that group. Has anyone even
heard of such a thing?

In other words give me an example of a person in history outside of
Christianity who:
persecuted a group of people
CLAIMED they saw a vision
as a result of that vision they joined that cause

Remember I said outside Christianity. (I once heard some story of a Muslim
who persecuted Christians and had a dream about Jesus and joined
Christianity as a result I don't even know if the story is true but even if it
is it simply shows the truth of Christianity and doesn't go against it.)
Paul's conversion is so unique and so amazing that it is in fact a miracle itself.
Persecutors do not have visions that support the cause they are fighting
against.

To claim his ending of persecutions, joining Christianity, being
persecuted himself and eventual martyrdom (And I believe there is enough
evidence to point to martyrdom) is all because of some hallucination is so
incredible I feel I'd have to have more faith to believe THAT then that Paul
really did see Jesus.

So if Paul didn't lie and he didn't have a hallucination then what happened to
Paul? For me the only conclusion I can come up with for his conversion is
that he really did see the resurrected Jesus.

[MikeWC]

What if he was lying or exaggerating about the various punishments? Remember, his letters travelled far and wide - many, if not most of the recipients would never have a chance to check the facts.

I've always been a little leary of Paul, since it's pretty clear he became the top dog of Christianity very quickly, especially outside Jeruselam. How'd he get so much power so quickly?

[InChristAlways]

What if he was lying or exaggerating about the various punishments? Remember, his letters travelled far and wide - many, if not most of the recipients would never have a chance to check the facts.

I've always been a little leary of Paul, since it's pretty clear he became the top dog of Christianity very quickly, especially outside Jeruselam. How'd he get so much power so quickly?Hi Mike. Well, he was Christ's chosen vessel for one thing, and you can't get much higher than that:wink:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

[salvationfound]

What if he was lying or exaggerating about the various punishments? Remember, his letters travelled far and wide - many, if not most of the recipients would never have a chance to check the facts.

I've always been a little leary of Paul, since it's pretty clear he became the top dog of Christianity very quickly, especially outside Jeruselam. How'd he get so much power so quickly?


That is a stretch Mike.
I'll give you 3 reasons.

1. First off it is not an extraordinary event that
requires an extraordinary evidence. I mean after all Paul himself was
persecuting Christians is it really reasonable to assume he was the only one
in the entire world? We have nothing to contradict what Paul is saying here
so I don't see why we should all of a sudden deny it without some sort
of documented evidence.

2. Skeptics like to use the whole the gospels were written well after the
deaths of the believers blah blah blah. You can't do that here. To say that
Paul was lying would mean he would be taking a huge risk here. He would
have to tell an entire church a lie and just HOPE that no one bothers to look
into it. Besides you talk about how his letters travelled far and wide but
just remember he also had his close associates go to that church. Timothy
1 Corinthians 4:17, Titus 2 Corinthians chapter 7. These people know Paul
intimately so he ran the risk of the Corinthians asking Titus, "So tell us about
those beatings Paul received" Titus answers, "What beatings?"

Paul would have been risking alot by making such a lie. Its absence from
anywhere in church history indicates we should assume the truthfulness of
the sufferings.

3. Outside sources confirm what happened to Paul very shortly after his
death. Acts confirms many of the problems Paul talks about. Including the
stoning. And Acts was written apparently by someone who knew Paul well.
The most liberal dating I can find is it was written in 90AD. Less than thirty
years after Paul died well within the lifetimes of people who knew Paul
personally. Same with 1 Clement which talks about Paul's suffering. There is
some speculation that this is the same Clement mentioned in Paul's writings
which would also make him an ample source to confirm Paul's sufferings and
it was apparently written in the 90s AD.

So with the combination of all three and no evidence to the contrary your
speculation that Paul apparently was lying about his sufferings seems to be
based on nothing more than your own desire that it not be true with no
evidence to back it up and all evidence going against your claim.

And as for your saying how did Paul become top dog it actually causes me
to answer the question that he probably was telling the truth about seeing
the resurrected Christ. Your own question helps to point to it.

[Bagger_Vance]

The Christian makes a very dangerous attempt to justify their faith when they use subjective experiences like the one of Paul supposedly seeing Jesus. Muhammad(Peace Be Unto Him) spoke to Allah who told him The New Testament got it wrong? Was Muhammad lying? Was he a lunatic? It certainly didn't help him in the short term and he had no way of knowing that the faith would be successful. In fact if he was lying he would have stopped after he had to flee Mecca in fear of his life.

What about John Smith? Was he lying when he said an Angel floated down and told him to start copying the golden tablets? Why would he lie? Seems a lot to believe since he was called a heretic and drug through all kinds of lawsuits for a lie.

Do you see the trap? Why do people lie? The reasons are as boundless and endless as the amount of lies available and if you want to use that defense "Why would they lie?" it can be used just as well for any religious figure.

[bar Jonah]

GODISNOWHERE refers to the "quadlemma."

Lord -- Liar -- Lunatic -- Legend

[InChristAlways]

The Christian makes a very dangerous attempt to justify their faith when they use subjective experiences like the one of Paul supposedly seeing Jesus. Muhammad(Peace Be Unto Him) spoke to Allah who told him The New Testament got it wrong? Was Muhammad lying? Was he a lunatic? It certainly didn't help him in the short term and he had no way of knowing that the faith would be successful. In fact if he was lying he would have stopped after he had to flee Mecca in fear of his life. :lol: :lol: :teeth: :teeth: Well then, you and the jews should be pretty comfortable together as they also don't believe Jesus was lord.

So is the Muslim's Lord suppose to come to the Gold Dome in Jerusalem instead of the Jewish temple of God?

Funny Malachi doesn't mention Muhammed coming?:wink: :teeth:

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He like a refiner's fire And like launderer's soap. [i]3 He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver, That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness.

Matthew 21:12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves

[LGM]

I never use Lord, Liar, Lunatic when talking about Jesus because I believe
it assumes too much. You would have to believe that the writers accurately
wrote down what Jesus said and many non-believers say that isn't what
happened.

Bingo! Such a simple thing to grasp.



But there is another person we can use this methodology on more likely.
Paul.

In his own letters (and the majority of scholars and historians agree) we
read,

A person named Paul persecuted Christians.
Paul claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
As a result of that suppose vision of Jesus he joined the Christians.

Most historians and scholars agree on what exactly? :huh:
That Paul made these claims in some letters trying to convince people of his authority? I guess we agree on that. Geee...I wonder why Paul would have to keep convincing people of HIS authority to be god's spokesmodel?

When a non-believer reads Paul, I feel like I'm reading the first century version of David Koresh, Reverend Moon, Joseph Smith, John Calvin, Pat Robertson, etc...

He's just another god-struck theologian, with in-depth knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, a creative mind, an over-active, delusional imagination, a charismatic style, a tireless work ethic, and a desire to have people believe in HIM, HIS authority, HIS theology and HIS ability to speak for the one, true, god.

People who do what Paul did have EVERYTHING to gain if they are successful in getting others to follow them, compared to being just another ho-hum Pharisee. It's a process oft reapeated in countless other cultural insitituions. Think Elvis...

There's little evidence that Paul "joined" anything. He started his own brand of first century messainic cult, based on his own exegesis and "visions". His authority doesn't come from any earthly knowledge or discipleship of Jesus. You're confusing Paul's Jesus with the Jesus in the gospels, they are two totally different folks.

Paul's authority all comes from him. Just like Koresh, Moon, and Smith.



So if Paul didn't lie and he didn't have a hallucination then what happened to
Paul? For me the only conclusion I can come up with for his conversion is
that he really did see the resurrected Jesus.
That's the conclusion you started with and worked your way backward.

Try the same with Koresh, Moon, and Smith.

[Bagger_Vance]

:lol: :lol: :teeth: :teeth: Well then, you and the jews should be pretty comfortable together as they also don't believe Jesus was lord.

So is the Muslim's Lord suppose to come to the Gold Dome in Jerusalem instead of the Jewish temple of God?

Funny Malachi doesn't mention Muhammed coming?:wink: :teeth:

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He like a refiner's fire And like launderer's soap. [i]3 He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver, That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness.

Matthew 21:12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves


I'm not a muslim I just almost converted in my youth. :teeth:

I think the muslim answer to your inquiry is that simply parts of the Old and New Testament were perverted and/or lost. This is why Allah tapped and spoke to Muhammad(PBUH) and gave him the new and improved infallible scoop. Based on the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument it makes no sense for a barely educated man like Muhammad(PBUH) to fabricate this whole story so that he could be persecuted and kicked out of Mecca.

Ditto for John Smith and Buddha. The point is that the defense of christianty through the notion of "Why would they lie?" is just as easily used for any religion.

[InChristAlways]

Most historians and scholars agree on what exactly? :huh:
That Paul made these claims in some letters trying to convince people of his authority? I guess we agree on that. Geee...I wonder why Paul would have to keep convincing people of HIS authority to be god's spokesmodel?

When a non-believer reads Paul, I feel like I'm reading the first century version of David Koresh, Reverend Moon, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc... Hi LGM. Actually, Paul was writing more for his brethren, the jews benefit, than the gentiles, otherwise, why would he have given this warning in 1 corin about a "new world" coming?.

Shortly after he was martyred, I believe it wasn't long after before God had the roman army sent to punish as least some his persecutors, the corrupt jewish rulers in Jerusalem, and replaced the temple with a nice pretty Gold Dome, which is here to this day. At least that is how I view it.:teeth: Thank you Lord Jesus!!!!

1 corin 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, [i]30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing For the form of this world is passing away.

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

[i]Luke 21:21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

[Skeptic]

A new version of Lord, Liar, LunaticGreat.

New packaging for an old fallacy . . .

How compelling.

Byron

[salvationfound]

Paul's authority all comes from him. Just like Koresh, Moon, and Smith.




What about John Smith? Was he lying when he said an Angel floated down and told him to start copying the golden tablets? Why would he lie? Seems a lot to believe since he was called a heretic and drug through all kinds of lawsuits for a lie.


yap yap yap.
Did anybody read what I wrote?


In other words give me an example of a person in history outside of
Christianity who:
persecuted a group of people
CLAIMED they saw a vision
as a result of that vision they joined that cause


None of the examples you gave me Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc. does this.
My argument still stands.



Most historians and scholars agree on what exactly?


http://www.risenindeed.info/evidence.htm


five facts about the resurrection claim that are agreed upon by nearly all ancient historians
The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed




That Paul made these claims in some letters trying to convince people of his authority?

So what you think he was lying about persecuting the church? That would be
the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Paul: "All of you follow me because I once sent many of you to prison and
tried to destroy your church."
*after he finishes speaking to the audience*
"hee hee! I sure fooled them into thinking I persecuted them."

Have you ever heard of anybody lying about persecuting the very people he
wants to be a part of? That's just stupid.



There's little evidence that Paul "joined" anything. He started his own brand of first century messainic cult, based on his own exegesis and "visions".


So then once again your saying Paul never persecuted them and lied about
it? That's just stupid and I think we deserve documented evidence to back
that up.



People who do what Paul did have EVERYTHING to gain if they are successful in getting others to follow them, compared to being just another ho-hum Pharisee.


You totally ignored my post. I already EXPLAINED this are you really paying
that little attention?

I said:


For someone to make this claim they would have to assume that Paul gained
more by joining the church than that he would have staying with Judaism.


And I explained why this is not a logical assumption and you just ignored it.

I even went further to explain why we should believe Paul was stoned, beaten
and put in prison. Your just ignoring what I write and posting stuff I already
dealt with.



That's the conclusion you started with and worked your way backward.


ummm I was posting a hypothesis and then explaining how I came to that
conclusion. Was that wrong?



Try the same with Koresh, Moon, and Smith.


Ok let us do that.

Smith did he persecute mormons and then joined their cause? hmmmm ummm
oh my goodness no.

David Koresh? hmmmm ummmmmm oh my goodness no.

Moon? hmmmm ummmm blah blah blah.

Your argument makes no sense. So Paul created Christianity all by himself
and then made a lie that he persecuted Christianity and joined them. Made
up Peter, James the twelve apostles and lied about getting persecuted
himself and somehow got the entire church to believe him and absolutely
no one arguing against this?

You got to give me some documented evidence to back this up other than
your imagination. And don't give me but Koresh, Moon and Smith whine whine
whine. Because what happened to them has no bearing on whether or not
Paul really did see the resurrected Christ. Its a red herring. The question is
did Paul see the resurrected Christ not is his experience similar to Moon,
Koresh and Smith? Besides I already explained how it isn't.
I want to know what sources brought you to this conclusion.

[InChristAlways]

no post sorry

[salvationfound]

Hey InChrist,

could you please create a new thread or something? This really doesn't have
anything to do with my thread here. If you create a new thread I'll see if
I can find an answer about it.

[LGM]

yap yap yap.
Did anybody read what I wrote?

Yeah…sorry to burst your bubble Augustine…but your simplistic analysis doesn’t have me panting…



None of the examples you gave me Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc. does this.
My argument still stands.

Your argument assumes you have a clue about the real history of Paul, messianic Judaism and other cults of the time, Roman politics, and the complex interrelationships and setting of the first century ANE that eventually led to the Roman – Jewish war…all from reading Paul’s real and forged epistles and the fairytale called “Acts”.

You don’t. You don’t have a clue. You don’t have any clue who or what Paul persecuted, or what authority he had to put ANYONE in ANY prison. You believe it all because its IN DA BIBLE!

So Paul was a straight up Jew and then saw the benefit that a Roman friendly messianic cult could provide to his own, and his own people’s survival, and the fact that it could attract gentiles and Jews alike. Ho-hum…

Paul’s letters and the book of Acts are the incredibly biased works of Paul, and some other forgers and unknown writers with an agenda that neither YOU, or I, or any other god-struck, 21st century , anachronistic, armchair apologist has a complete picture of. Sorry we don't have the letters of all the people who thought Paul was a delusional crackpot to cross reference... Sorry we don't have the Roman records on what they thought of Paul
:ahem:

Paul never saw any resurrected, bodily Jesus. Look it up. he had a “vision”, he saw some “light”, those with him didn’t see JESUS…I wonder why? They heard "voices", just like half the delusional folks on this site claim...It seems everyone's hearing voices except me...I gotta go see my doc...I must be well or something...

And please don't quote some TV preacher trying to scam little old ladies out of their SS check with his "facts" that all "historians" agree on. I'm not likely to send him a check for that keen insight.

[salvationfound]

And please don't quote some TV preacher trying to scam little old ladies out of their SS check with his "facts" that all "historians" agree on. I'm not likely to send him a check for that keen insight.


Oh COME ON! Plleeeease tell me your joking. I was merely using the
website to quote Gary Habermas statement about what the majority believes.

And are you saying Habermas is not a good enough authority to say what
the majority believes?
http://www.greer-heard.com/Bio%20Pages/Greer_Heard%20Habermas%20Bio.htm


Gary Habermas is the Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Dr. Habermas pursued undergraduate studies at William Tyndale College (B.R.E) and graduate studies at the University of Detroit (M.A.) and Michigan State University (Ph.D.).

But if you still don't believe me then I challenge you to prove me wrong. You
tell me. Do the majority of historians not believe that Paul did indeed persecute
Christians and later become a Christian himself?



Your argument assumes you have a clue about the real history of Paul, messianic Judaism and other cults of the time, Roman politics, and the complex interrelationships and setting of the first century ANE that eventually led to the Roman – Jewish war…all from reading Paul’s real and forged epistles and the fairytale called “Acts”.


And your biased attitude over Acts and the epistles is evident as well. In
fact so is your attempt at trickery because I don't use the disputed
epistles anywhere in my arguments.

You see Paul's persecution of the church is located in Galatians 1, philippians
3, 1 Corinthians chapter 15. None of these are disputed epistles. And its
inclusion into each of these and its confirmation in Acts is is evidence that
it probably is true and is why the majority of historians believe it. You see I
don't just believe it because it is "In the Bible" I explain why THIS point in the
Bible is accurate. But you on the other hand with no evidence to back up
anything you say simply says because its in the Bible it CAN'T be true.

It is the same thing with his being persecuted. Not only did I show 1
Corinthians a NON-disputed epistle and its confirmation in Acts but I can also
show Philippians. Read it it is clear that Paul has been imprisoned. Once
again a NON-disputed epistle. All this once again brings me to the conclusion
that Paul was persecuted after he became a Christian. Once again not just
because it is "IN" the Bible.



So Paul was a straight up Jew and then saw the benefit that a Roman friendly messianic cult could provide to his own, and his own people’s survival, and the fact that it could attract gentiles and Jews alike. Ho-hum…


Wonderful speculation. And of course we should believe it because you say
so not because you have any evidence for it.



Paul never saw any resurrected, bodily Jesus. Look it up. he had a “vision”, he saw some “light”, those with him didn’t see JESUS…I wonder why? They heard "voices", just like half the delusional folks on this site claim...It seems everyone's hearing voices except me...I gotta go see my doc...I must be well or something...


oh goody the bodily resurrection vs. spiritual resurrection AGAIN!
I've already dealt with this in this thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57359&page=2&pp=16&highlight=bodily+resurrection

I'm not going to do it again.

In conclusion LGM yes my arguments are based on using the Bible as a
documented source. YES I admit it. But I explained why I believe those
passages should be accepted not JUST because they are in the Bible.
I gave reasons why THOSE specific
arguments written should be accepted and why the majority of historians
accept it. You on the other hand have just said your own personal bias and
your own personal speculation no sources, no evidence, no quotes, using red
herrings like because my source is from a preaching website it means Gary
Habermas can't be used as a source, outright trickery by speaking of disputed
epistles which I've never used in any of my arguments and in the end
absolutely nothing that counters anything I have ever said.

Not to mention bringing up Smith, Koresh and Moon 3 people who came YEARS
after Paul as somehow proof that Paul did not see the resurrected Jesus.
And did not meet the critera that I mentioned. AND bringing up arguments
that I already dealt with.

Can I use your pathetic arguments to prove that other skeptics like Voltaire's
arguments are pathetic as well?

My arguments stand and until I see a skeptic use SOME type of source to
counter what I am saying my arguments still have merit.

[lonigan]

[QUOTE=salvationfound]yap yap yap.
Did anybody read what I wrote?

None of the examples you gave me Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc. does this.
My argument still stands.

http://www.risenindeed.info/evidence.htm
[\Quote]

For years I have been reading arguments for the Resurrection based on
what historians agree on. Until fairly recently, I accepted the so called
"facts" that historians accept. Later, I decided to test this "facts"
assertion. I did a lot of reading and then in Nov. 2004, John Powell started
the best thread I have ever read at this site. Scientist that he is, John
actually asked historians what they though about Jesus as myth. The
answers the 15 historians gave convined me that the Habermas history
claims are trash. Here is John Powell's thread:

[url]http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/index.php?[\url]

[salvationfound]

I couldn't get into the thread lonigan. Its too bad because if your right
then I would have to revise my argument on what the majority says. I'd
be very curious to know does the majority of scholars and historians not
believe that Paul persecuted Christians. I'd be very curious to know.

But I have to tell you even though John Powell is probably one of the skeptics
I respect the most I just have a hard time listening to him when he goes on
about the Christ myth.

I read a great article about how the historians feel about the Christ myth:
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

[InChristAlways]

No post. Off topic sorry.

1 corin 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing [it.] For the form of this world is passing away.

[lonigan]

I couldn't get into the thread lonigan. Its too bad because if your right
then I would have to revise my argument on what the majority says. I'd
be very curious to know does the majority of scholars and historians not
believe that Paul persecuted Christians. I'd be very curious to know.

But I have to tell you even though John Powell is probably one of the skeptics
I respect the most I just have a hard time listening to him when he goes on
about the Christ myth.

I read a great article about how the historians feel about the Christ myth:
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Sorry, try this link:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=13062&page=1&pp=16


The first couple of pages from this thread are probably the most interesting
since these pages contain the responses from the historians. Later pages
degenerate somewhat into the kinds of speculation, insults, and retorts
that we usually see here.

I don't know whether most historians believe that Paul persecuted
Christians, but for me, it seems quite likely that he did since we have his
own words and some supporting evidence from Acts.

[salvationfound]

The first couple of pages from this thread are probably the most interesting
since these pages contain the responses from the historians. Later pages
degenerate somewhat into the kinds of speculation, insults, and retorts
that we usually see here.

I don't know whether most historians believe that Paul persecuted
Christians, but for me, it seems quite likely that he did since we have his
own words and some supporting evidence from Acts.


It is an interesting thread I'll admit. I'll have to spend more time with it soon.

[Adam]

For years I have been reading arguments for the Resurrection based on
what historians agree on. Until fairly recently, I accepted the so called
"facts" that historians accept. Later, I decided to test this "facts"
assertion. I did a lot of reading and then in Nov. 2004, John Powell started
the best thread I have ever read at this site. Scientist that he is, John
actually asked historians what they though about Jesus as myth. The
answers the 15 historians gave convined me that the Habermas history
claims are trash. Here is John Powell's thread:

[url]http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/index.php?[\url]
John Powell has not been posting since June 25th, so he probably has not looked at my more recent postings on his thread, "Tophet's Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ" where I seem to have gotten the best of it from July 8th to the latest post on July 17th. I am a historian myself (professionally trained, but making my living as an accountant), and I showed sound evidence for eye-witnesses composing the gospels. See my similar posts on other Apologetics 301 threads, "The Bible" and "Do copies of the New Testament manuscripts accurately represent the originals?" The latter is a more complicated thread, but no one has posted there against me since July17th, either. Jesus is certainly not a myth--no legitimate scholars say that anymore (though there are illegitimate scholars still around). It has been 150 years since scholars thought the gospels were written near the end of the 2nd Century, whereas now some (including myself) say they were completed before 70 A. D., within 40 years of the Crucifixion. (And the crucifixion of Jesus is a fact all legitimate scholars acknowledge.)
Adam

[lonigan]

John Powell has not been posting since June 25th, so he probably has not looked at my more recent postings on his thread, "Tophet's Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ" where I seem to have gotten the best of it from July 8th to the latest post on July 17th. I am a historian myself (professionally trained, but making my living as an accountant), and I showed sound evidence for eye-witnesses composing the gospels. See my similar posts on other Apologetics 301 threads, "The Bible" and "Do copies of the New Testament manuscripts accurately represent the originals?" The latter is a more complicated thread, but no one has posted there against me since July17th, either. Jesus is certainly not a myth--no legitimate scholars say that anymore (though there are illegitimate scholars still around). It has been 150 years since scholars thought the gospels were written near the end of the 2nd Century, whereas now some (including myself) say they were completed before 70 A. D., within 40 years of the Crucifixion. (And the crucifixion of Jesus is a fact all legitimate scholars acknowledge.)
Adam


I gave the link to John Powell’s article in response to the claims Habermas
makes about agreement among historians for the premises he uses to
establish the Resurrection as fact. From the limited responses from the historians in the John Powell survey, it is obvious that Habermas’ premises are a foundation built on quicksand. Notice that the historians in the survey should be well qualified to express opinions about the New Testament since their specialty is the Greco-Roman period., yet there is hardly any support that the Gospels are to be taken as entirely historical. I believe that Potter best speaks for these historians:

POTTER:
I treat the Gospels in my Literary Texts and the Roman Historian. Note that i regard much that is in the Gospels as fiction, and the Gospels as examples of texts that use historical formulae to lend an impression of reality to the accounts. This is not the same thing as saying that there was no historical figure of Jesus--I take the narrative of the crucifixion in John as being largely historical--rather it is to say that his followers had their own agendas and that these come through in the Gospel accounts

Adam, I went back and read the article "Tophet's Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ." My general comment from this thread is that you need to be more careful to seriously consider your opponents arguments. Throughout the debate with John, you kept accusing John of sidetracking and using red herrings. In general, however, John seems to be using valid analogies from
Mormonism and the BOM.

[Adam]

Adam, I went back and read the article "Tophet's Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ." My general comment from this thread is that you need to be more careful to seriously consider your opponents arguments. Throughout the debate with John, you kept accusing John of sidetracking and using red herrings. In general, however, John seems to be using valid analogies from Mormonism and the BOM.
I made it quite clear I have never inter-acted with John Powell, so I refrained from claiming I had bested him, just the others who had come forth in July 2005.
Regarding the historians you cite, regard me as like the boy who candidly observes, "The Emperor has no clothes!" History as a discipline takes as a given that supernatural elements are to be discarded. With this premiss rejected, any conclusions based upon it fall as well.
Adam

[Adam]

Adam, I went back and read the article "Tophet's Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ." My general comment from this thread is that you need to be more careful to seriously consider your opponents arguments. Throughout the debate with John, you kept accusing John of sidetracking and using red herrings. In general, however, John seems to be using valid analogies from Mormonism and the BOM.
I made it quite clear I have never inter-acted with John Powell, so I refrained from claiming I had bested him, just the others who had come forth in July 2005.
Regarding the historians you cite, regard me as like the boy who candidly observes, "The Emperor has no clothes!" History as a discipline takes as a given that supernatural elements are to be discarded. With this premiss rejected, any conclusions based upon it fall as well.
Adam

[galapagos]

So the claim that Paul was lying.
For someone to make this claim they would have to assume that Paul gained
more by joining the church than that he would have staying with Judaism.

But this doesn't make sense when one reads about the life of Paul in
Philippians 3. Paul was a Hebrew among Hebrews in regards to the law. A
Pharisee. Sounds like this is saying he was already doing well for himself.

Galatians 1 Paul says he was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my
own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. Once
again it seems to say that Paul lived well for himself. So one questions why
Paul would make up a story that would in fact cause him to abandon
something he believed in so strongly.You should take a course in logic. In order to show Paul isn't a liar you can't use his own words. If Paul is a liar about seeing Jesus then you can't trust anything he says, so you wouldn't be able to trust that he is advanced in Judaism, or anything else he says. You are assuming that he can be trusted on everything else he says even if he was lying about the vision of jesus. Yeah right.

Now for someone to go through all of this and still speak of the truth of
his authority in Christianity when they know it is a lie is very bizarre. Yet he
never quit. He continued preaching his authority as a witness for Christ even
after all of this. This makes the idea of him lying seem very implausible.

Here you assume that just because you can't think of a reason why he would lie, that PROVES there is no reason for him to lie. That is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Why did David Koresh do what he did? What did he have to gain? He ended up dying for what he believed, therefore by your logic his claims must be real. Just because you or I can't think of a reason for what he did, that doesn't mean he doesn't have one.


Paul had an hallucination.
This I admit seems more plausible than the lying theory. So let us assume for
the moment Paul had a false vision.

I have to ask does this really occur? In what circumstances does a
persecutor have visions that cause him to join that group. Has anyone even
heard of such a thing? Easy. I can easily imagine that someone who was obsessed in persecuting christians could start to turn the tables on it and identify with them, possibly having some radical hallucination like seeing jesus. He may get so sick of the violence involved in persecuting these people that he has guilt feelings and they manifest themselves as an hallucination. It could be like a post traumatic stress disorder.


In other words give me an example of a person in history outside of
Christianity who:
persecuted a group of people
CLAIMED they saw a vision
as a result of that vision they joined that cause

Remember I said outside Christianity. (I once heard some story of a Muslim
who persecuted Christians and had a dream about Jesus and joined
Christianity as a result I don't even know if the story is true but even if it
is it simply shows the truth of Christianity and doesn't go against it.)
Paul's conversion is so unique and so amazing that it is in fact a miracle itself.
Persecutors do not have visions that support the cause they are fighting
against. Great fallacy here. Just because I can't find someone who is EXACTLY like Paul, doesn't mean Paul had a legitimate vision. That's how you chistians think, if your religion is unique in any aspect, that is supposed to be some kind of proof that it is real. Get serious.

What did the leaders of the heaven's gate cult have to gain? Nothing. They died along with everyone else in their cult. Of course they are not EXACTLY like Paul. They don't have to be.


Not to mention bringing up Smith, Koresh and Moon 3 people who came YEARS after Paul as somehow proof that Paul did not see the resurrected Jesus.
And did not meet the critera that I mentioned. AND bringing up arguments
that I already dealt with.These people don't PROVE that Paul didn't see the resurrected jesus. Our burden of proof is not to prove Paul didn't see jesus. We only have to show that your trillemma is wrong by showing he could be a liar or had a fake vision. Koresh, etc show that people can make fantastic claims, yet don't have anything to gain from it as far as we can see. This shows that your trillemma is wrong.



So Paul was a straight up Jew and then saw the benefit that a Roman friendly messianic cult could provide to his own, and his own people’s survival, and the fact that it could attract gentiles and Jews alike. Ho-hum…Wonderful speculation. And of course we should believe it because you say
so not because you have any evidence for it.
Again, we don't have to PROVE these things, just suggesting possibilities is enough. You are the one that is making a claim that you say is proof that Paul saw jesus. As soon as we tell you one example that maybe he didn't, we have proved you wrong. We gave you examples, so we have proved you wrong.

And finally...

Now there are three options for this:
Either Paul was lying.
Either Paul had a hallucination.
Or Paul really did see the resurrected Jesus. Here are more choices for your "trilemma" which again proves you wrong because the whole idea is a fallacy.

1. Paul saw a "real" vision, but it was the devil or something tricking him. Since it was "real" your points about him lying or hallucinating are irrelevant. He would have honestly thought it was jesus.
2. Paul was a Deut. 13 false prophet sent by god to test the faith of the Jews.
3. Paul was somewhat crazy. Not crazy enough to think he was an english muffin, just crazy enough that maybe he likes being persecuted or whatever. With this possibility, all your arguments about no one would be persecuted for a lie, etc are irrelevant because since he isn't normal, you can't use arguments based on what most people would do. He is not like "most people".

There must be more possibilities but all I need is one and I prove you wrong.



My arguments stand and until I see a skeptic use SOME type of source to
counter what I am saying my arguments still have merit. I just did, but you aren't going to admit it because you seem to have this need to pretend you have the best arguments in the world and anyone who disagrees is just not listening to your brilliant points.

[salvationfound]

You should take a course in logic. In order to show Paul isn't a liar you can't use his own words. If Paul is a liar about seeing Jesus then you can't trust anything he says, so you wouldn't be able to trust that he is advanced in Judaism, or anything else he says. You are assuming that he can be trusted on everything else he says even if he was lying about the vision of jesus. Yeah right.


Wrong. You may have a point if all we had to confirm was his words but
that's not the case. We have Acts, Clement, the church confirming his
authority and confirming his writings as scripture even as early as Marcion.
All that combined is evidence that what he wrote is correct. We have both
a witness statement from Paul AND confirming statements from outside
sources including people who knew him. And I even brought this up earlier
that Paul was risking alot by lying to people who could have checked his
stories like asking Timothy or Titus. We have internal and external evidence
stuff that historians use to prove historical truth. And a personal witness statement is still evidence as any court of law will tell you.



Here you assume that just because you can't think of a reason why he would lie, that PROVES there is no reason for him to lie. That is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Why did David Koresh do what he did? What did he have to gain? He ended up dying for what he believed, therefore by your logic his claims must be real. Just because you or I can't think of a reason for what he did, that doesn't mean he doesn't have one.


That's not what I said. I don't recall where I said in my opening post, "if I
can't come up with a reason why he lied that proves there is no reason for
him to lie." Oh and also I'm not falling for your red herring on David Koresh.
This section was about lying so including David Koresh who as you just said
believed what he was saying means that it has nothing to do with whether or
not Paul was lying. This section was about lying and trying to put in David
Koresh being crazy shows how weak your arguments are.

What I am claiming is there IS no reason for him to lie. That is my
hypothesis. And I showed it by examining the fact that he was put in prison,
beaten and eventually killed. No one would do that if they were lying no one
would go through that. A person to give up everything they were to be
beaten and killed does it knowing they are lying? That doesn't make sense
and it doesn't happen and it didn't happen here.



Easy. I can easily imagine that someone who was obsessed in persecuting christians could start to turn the tables on it and identify with them, possibly having some radical hallucination like seeing jesus. He may get so sick of the violence involved in persecuting these people that he has guilt feelings and they manifest themselves as an hallucination. It could be like a post traumatic stress disorder.


Ok interesting theory. Can you show me an example of this occuring
anywhere in history? If Paul is the only example anywhere in history where
this has occurred that makes your theory rather suspect. People do not abandon their beliefs to join another group due to an hallucination. Your claim is an extraordinary one. And I just don’t see how you can use an extraordinary claim to counter an extraordinary claim.

But let us look at this hallucination hypothesis even closer. Gerd Ludemann also brings up the concept of guilt resulting in a hallucination. William Lane Craig gives 2 reasons to consider this implausible.
Information from:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/visions.html
1. There are insufficient data to do a psycho–analysis of Paul. theory is based on imaginative conjectures about Paul's psychological state, of which we know almost nothing. Psychoanalysis is notoriously difficult even with a patient seated in front of oneself on the couch, but it is virtually impossible with historical figures. That is why the genre of psychobiography is rejected by historians. Martin Hengel rightly concludes, "the skeptic does not recognize these limits on the historian. Here he gets into the realm of psychological explanations, for which no verification is really possible . . . . the sources are far too limited for such psychologizing analyses."
2. The evidence we do have points away from guilt hallucination idea. Krister Stendahl says, “Contrast Paul, a very happy and successful Jew, one who can . . . say . . . , ‘As to the righteousness under the law, (I was) blameless’ (Philip. 3:6). That is what he says. He experiences no troubles, no problems, no qualms of conscience. He is a star pupil, the student to get the thousand dollar graduate scholarship in Gamaliel’s Seminary . . . . Nowhere in Paul’s writings is there any indication . . . that psychologically Paul had some problem of conscience . . . .

So there is no reason to believe that Paul had some type of guilt-based hallucination. And once again I do ask can you find an example of this occurring? If you cannot then that is at least partly a reason to believe that such an incident didn’t occur here.



Great fallacy here. Just because I can't find someone who is EXACTLY like Paul, doesn't mean Paul had a legitimate vision. That's how you chistians think, if your religion is unique in any aspect, that is supposed to be some kind of proof that it is real. Get serious.


Yes I believe that Paul’s conversion is evidence for the resurrection. People do not do what he did. And yet it happened. That’s why it is a miracle. The conversion is extraordinary evidence. And the fact that we can’t find someone who did what Paul did shows that such an action cannot be done without some miraculous event occurring. If a natural cause could explain such a conversion then we would be able to find examples of it having occurred. The conversion is evidence of the supernatural because natural causes cannot explain the facts only the miraculous explanation can. Here is an example I am in America talking to someone and then I leave the room and 10 minutes later the phone rings and they pick it up and it was me calling them from Japan. Now I tell them that the reason I’m in Japan is because God miraculously sent me there. Obviously me getting there in less than 10 minutes is evidence that I didn’t get there by natural means. Natural means cannot explain it giving reason to believe I was telling the truth about God teleporting me. That’s what I’m saing here. That this conversion cannot be explained by natural means and a good reason to show that is to say that such a conversion having happened naturally isn’t shown anywhere in our history. The conversion is my evidence that Paul did indeed see the risen Jesus.



What did the leaders of the heaven's gate cult have to gain? Nothing. They died along with everyone else in their cult. Of course they are not EXACTLY like Paul. They don't have to be.


Bringing up Heaven’s gate is irrelevant. Maybe they really are in space for all I know. But whether or not their beliefs are true has no bearing on whether or not Paul saw the risen Jesus. Its irrelevant to any of my arguments.



Again, we don't have to PROVE these things, just suggesting possibilities is enough. You are the one that is making a claim that you say is proof that Paul saw jesus. As soon as we tell you one example that maybe he didn't, we have proved you wrong. We gave you examples, so we have proved you wrong.


So let me understand. All you have to do is give any theory to explain the vision of Paul and apparently you have proven me wrong. Does it not matter that you have no evidence for your claim? That you’ve given no sources? That you have shown no documentation or even given any real logic outside of theoretical speculation to prove your point? Despite all of that all you need is a possible theory and you’ve proven me wrong? Wow what a very convenient position. First off I already gave reasons why your theory was implausible. But I reject such a methodology that one can use to explain away my hypothesis.

To state any theory of yours facts are needed. Without facts anything is possible. Possibilities have to be something more than just a theoretical idea.
Let me see if I can find a source on this fallacy. Ah! Here is one:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~arichar6/logic.htm


one believes an alternate explanation refutes another explanation without a comparison of the merits between the two explanations

Explanation is not to be confused with refutation. They would agree with me that for you to reject the evidence for my hypothesis in favor of a hypothesis with no evidence seems hypocritical.



Here are more choices for your "trilemma" which again proves you wrong because the whole idea is a fallacy.

1. Paul saw a "real" vision, but it was the devil or something tricking him. Since it was "real" your points about him lying or hallucinating are irrelevant. He would have honestly thought it was jesus.
2. Paul was a Deut. 13 false prophet sent by god to test the faith of the Jews.
3. Paul was somewhat crazy. Not crazy enough to think he was an english muffin, just crazy enough that maybe he likes being persecuted or whatever. With this possibility, all your arguments about no one would be persecuted for a lie, etc are irrelevant because since he isn't normal, you can't use arguments based on what most people would do. He is not like "most people".

There must be more possibilities but all I need is one and I prove you wrong.


If you have to use extraordinary possibilities to refute extraordinary possibilities then I’m not even gonna bother refuting you. I explained the reasons for my hypothesis and merely stating a possibility without reason I already just spoke about.



I just did, but you aren't going to admit it because you seem to have this need to pretend you have the best arguments in the world and anyone who disagrees is just not listening to your brilliant points.


I said source. Just stating a possibility is not a source. You have shown nothing to refute anything I have said my arguments still stand.

[galapagos]

Wrong. You may have a point if all we had to confirm was his words but
that's not the case. We have Acts, Clement, the church confirming his
authority and confirming his writings as scripture even as early as Marcion.
All that combined is evidence that what he wrote is correct. We have both
a witness statement from Paul AND confirming statements from outside
sources including people who knew him. And I even brought this up earlier
that Paul was risking alot by lying to people who could have checked his
stories like asking Timothy or Titus. We have internal and external evidence
stuff that historians use to prove historical truth. And a personal witness statement is still evidence as any court of law will tell you. Let's go through it again. Let's say Paul is lying about seeing Jesus. That means all the sources you are citing are people that have fallen for his lies. Of course they are going to vouch for him. You talk about Timothy and Titus. Where are the writings from them? As far as we know they are made up people. All we have from Paul, Acts, etc are copies made hundreds of years after the originals. That's sure not a personal witness in a courtroom. In a trial you can look at the reactions of the witness and cross-examine them. If you want to live in some dream world that the church confirming Paul's authority means anything, go ahead, but it doesn't. Without Paul, the church would be completely different or wouldn't exist. Most of the NT is written by Paul. This alone shows that the church thinks he has authority. But it doesn't show that he really does have authority. Of course the church fathers, who were born after Paul died, are going to vouch for him. Anybody who didn't would have been declared a heretic. Why didn't you include Pope Benedict or Billy Graham in this list also? That's just as legitimate.

And again I didn't say that alone proves he's lying. I said IF he's lying you can't trust anything he says and using the suckers that fell for his lies as proof that he has authority is basically a circular argument: The church fathers give Paul authority because Paul is not lying and Paul is not lying because the church fathers give him authority.



one believes an alternate explanation refutes another explanation without a comparison of the merits between the two explanations
Explanation is not to be confused with refutation. They would agree with me that for you to reject the evidence for my hypothesis in favor of a hypothesis with no evidence seems hypocritical.This is hilarious. That's exactly what apologetics does. If I say that the NT has two different geneologies for Jesus and they both go through Joseph, apologists say that the Luke's geneology goes through Mary. There is no evidence based on the text that it goes through Mary, they are just presenting an alternate explanation without a comparison of the merits between the two explanations! As you say, explanation is not to be confused with refutation. Apologists will disagree with you on that one. They think that as soon as they can come up with ANY explanation that will explain away a contradiction in the bible then their job is done.

Anyway, back on topic, as I've already said I am in no way refuting the claim that Paul saw Jesus. I am refuting your claim that there are only 3 possibilities for Paul's claim. There's a big difference. Here's an example.

Let's say you and I are detectives examining a dead body with a bullet wound in his head and a knife in his chest. You make an assertion: "There are only three possibilities for cause of death: 1) the bullet wound 2) the knife wound or 3) both of them." If I bring up any possibility other than yours (like say he died of a heart attack before he could be shot or knifed) then I have proved your assertion that there are only three possibilities for cause of death to be wrong. I've shown there are at least four. It doesn't matter how likely my possibility is. I also don't have to come up with an example of someone in history who has died of a heart attack before being shot and knifed. I am not saying that he didn't die of the wounds, just that it's possible that there was another cause so you can't rule it out. In other words I've only proven wrong your claim that there are three choices. I did not say whether I actually believed he had a heart attack. The coroner would have to see.

Now back to Paul. Your claim was that there are only three possibilities

1 he was lying
2 he had a hallucination
3 he saw the risen Jesus

All I need to show is that there are more choices that the three you claim. Such as what I previously said.

4. Paul saw a "real" vision, but it was the devil or something tricking him. Since it was "real" your points about him lying or hallucinating are irrelevant. He would have honestly thought it was jesus.
5. Paul was a Deut. 13 false prophet sent by god to test the faith of the Jews.
6. Paul was somewhat crazy. Not crazy enough to think he was an english muffin, just crazy enough that maybe he likes being persecuted or whatever. With this possibility, all your arguments about no one would be persecuted for a lie, etc are irrelevant because since he isn't normal, you can't use arguments based on what most people would do. He is not like "most people".

I especially find example 6 to be very credible. No magic required. You can't tell me it's that hard to believe that Paul did not exactly think how most people think. You say that no one would be persecuted for a lie but you can't prove that. All you are doing is using logic based on what standard normal people nowadays think. You would have to examine everyone in history in order to find out how common it is. Asking a few of your friends is meaningless. Most people think you'd have to be "crazy" to jump out of an airplane. Nevertheless some people do it. If people jump out of airplanes even though I think it's crazy, then people can be persecuted for a lie. People don't cut off one of their ears, yet Van Gogh did. People don't get persecuted by the church by claiming the earth goes around the sun. Gallileo did. What did Gallileo have to gain from this? He had it made before he claimed the earth goes around the sun. Then he threw it all away. Yes, it turned out to be the truth, but I sure wouldn't have done that and I can't imagine why anyone would. History is full of people who did things that "people don't do."

By saying "people just don't do this" you are making the world too black and white. There are lots of shades of grey and we don't know how every human in history is going to react in every single circumstance. Of course, the NT loves to paint a black and white world, every human is evil, as soon as you accept Jesus you are white as snow. According to Jesus, being angry with someone is the same as being a murderer.

And saying Paul saw the devil or is a Deut 13 false prophet is no more silly that saying he saw the "real" Jesus. How can you use logical thinking to show that it's more likely to be the "real" Jesus than the devil? They both are illogical in our natural world. To say it was really Jesus and can't possibly be the devil, you are just letting your bias get in the way. Once I come up with examples like these I have shown that its not a trilemma like you claim, but has at least six choices.



Ok interesting theory. Can you show me an example of this occuring
anywhere in history? If Paul is the only example anywhere in history where
this has occurred that makes your theory rather suspect. People do not abandon their beliefs to join another group due to an hallucination. Your claim is an extraordinary one. And I just don’t see how you can use an extraordinary claim to counter an extraordinary claim.

So there is no reason to believe that Paul had some type of guilt-based hallucination. And once again I do ask can you find an example of this occurring? If you cannot then that is at least partly a reason to believe that such an incident didn’t occur here.As I said I didn't claim this is what happened. I said it may have happened. In your trillemma you claim it couldn't possibly have happened. As long as it could possibly have happened you are wrong. I don't need to come up with an example in history.

According to your source Paul shows no signs of being guilty. Of course not. He thinks he was washed clean by the blood of Christ. We have no evidence of what he was feeling before his "vision." He says he used to be an awful sinner because he used to persecute christians. That's enough to show that he didn't think he was blameless as your source says. He thinks every human is a piece of garbage so he is not going to feel guilty about anything he did in the past. But again we don't know what he used to think. He only says blameless under the law because under Jewish law it's OK to kill heretics. That doesn't mean he felt good about it.

You keep talking about extraordinary claims. What are the odds that I will win the lottery if I buy a ticket? Astronomical. But someone is going to win the lottery. Same with Paul. Maybe it's very uncommon for a particular person to be persecuted for a lie, but all it takes is one person out of all the millions of people around to do it. That makes it a lot more certain, like the idea that someone, somewhere is sure to win the lottery.

The whole point is your version of the trilemma is no better than the lord liar or lunatic theory of Jesus. All you are going to get is a lot of christians will say "right on!" and all the skeptics are going to know its just as much a fallacy as the lord liar lunatic. It only works on people who already think the letters of Paul, Acts, the gospels and the church fathers are super reliable sources. Anybody else is going to know it's meaningless. Go ahead and think you have some brilliant theory, but what is the point of it if it only works with people who are already christian?

By the way Acts is not reliable because it says Paul performed a circumcision on somebody, and in his letters, Paul is always ranting about how stupid it is to get a circumcision.