Why does Paul lie?

[Aractus]

There's nothing convoluted about what I put forward. Jesus did not bring a "New Covenant", that's a projection of the early church onto what he taught. The prophesied NC is nothing like NC in the gospels, and Jesus makes pretty strong statements in favour of the Law of Moses. It wasn't until 50AD that they went and took a vote to drop the Law of Moses, and we don't really know what happened either because Acts was written by someone who admired Paul, but it appears they agreed to drop most of the Law. If Jesus had told them from the start to do that, then they wouldn't have had to do it 20 years later - and him saying to do so would be contradictory to his other teachings. So the suggestion that he said "this is my blood of the new covenant" is untenable. If he said anything about a covenant at that meal, he would have either have meant the Mosaic Covenant, or a covenant he felt he had with his disciples.

[JonathanL]

There's nothing convoluted about what I put forward. Jesus did not bring a "New Covenant", that's a projection of the early church onto what he taught. The prophesied NC is nothing like NC in the gospels, and Jesus makes pretty strong statements in favour of the Law of Moses. It wasn't until 50AD that they went and took a vote to drop the Law of Moses, and we don't really know what happened either because Acts was written by someone who admired Paul, but it appears they agreed to drop most of the Law. If Jesus had told them from the start to do that, then they wouldn't have had to do it 20 years later - and him saying to do so would be contradictory to his other teachings. So the suggestion that he said "this is my blood of the new covenant" is untenable. If he said anything about a covenant at that meal, he would have either have meant the Mosaic Covenant, or a covenant he felt he had with his disciples.

There never was a vote to "drop the Law of Moses". That wasn't what the council of Jerusalem was about. It was about whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to follow the Mosaic law, which is a completely different question altogether.

[tabibito]

Happily we have the author of Hebrews to give us an accurate exposition of what the Old Testament record meant by the introduction of the New Covenant - so I think we can disregard the latter day teachers' contradictory claims.

And the Jews are fully cognisant with the signification of New Covenant - it means any pre-existing covenant is obsolescent ... just as the author of Hebrews explains.

[JonathanL]

Happily we have the author of Hebrews to give us an accurate exposition of what the Old Testament record meant by the introduction of the New Covenant - so I think we can disregard the latter day teachers' contradictory claims.

And the Jews are fully cognisant with the signification of New Covenant - it means any pre-existing covenant is obsolescent ... just as the author of Hebrews explains.

But the New Covenant doesn't require any Jew that wishes to follow it to stop following the Mosaic regulations. All it requires is for that person to recognize that following the regulations of the Old Covenant isn't a salvific issue.

[Starlight]

If a modern Jew became a Christian, how would you guys answer their question to you of "does God want me to follow the Mosaic law? I get that it's not a salvation issue, but I wish to follow God's will for my life."

[JonathanL]

If a modern Jew became a Christian, how would you guys answer their question to you of "does God want me to follow the Mosaic law? I get that it's not a salvation issue, but I wish to follow God's will for my life."

I would refer him to Romans 14. It's not my business whether or not he wants to follow the Mosaic law, and he shouldn't try and make it my business either. It's a matter between him and God.

[tabibito]

Near as I can tell, Paul had no problem with people following the OT laws - provided that they didn't try to impose those laws on others. But that only went so far, as is demonstrated by his rebuke directed at Peter.

[One Bad Pig]

If a modern Jew became a Christian, how would you guys answer their question to you of "does God want me to follow the Mosaic law? I get that it's not a salvation issue, but I wish to follow God's will for my life."

It would not be necessary for a convert to follow the Mosaic law, but I'd discourage the convert from adhering to modern Judaism, which is a significant burden added to the Mosaic law (and is a significant departure from it without the possibility of sacrifices). Jesus seemed almost to delight in breaking those additional laws (e.g., by healing on the Sabbath).

[One Bad Pig]

There's nothing convoluted about what I put forward. Jesus did not bring a "New Covenant", that's a projection of the early church onto what he taught. The prophesied NC is nothing like NC in the gospels, and Jesus makes pretty strong statements in favour of the Law of Moses. It wasn't until 50AD that they went and took a vote to drop the Law of Moses, and we don't really know what happened either because Acts was written by someone who admired Paul, but it appears they agreed to drop most of the Law. If Jesus had told them from the start to do that, then they wouldn't have had to do it 20 years later - and him saying to do so would be contradictory to his other teachings. So the suggestion that he said "this is my blood of the new covenant" is untenable. If he said anything about a covenant at that meal, he would have either have meant the Mosaic Covenant, or a covenant he felt he had with his disciples.

How is this NOT convoluted? This says a lot more about you than the text you're ostensibly interpreting.

[tabibito]

"this is my blood of the new covenant"

Where's the problem?

[Sparko]

If a modern Jew became a Christian, how would you guys answer their question to you of "does God want me to follow the Mosaic law? I get that it's not a salvation issue, but I wish to follow God's will for my life."

ask The Wall.

[TheWall]

I will answer that question if asked.

[One Bad Pig]

I will answer that question if asked.

Assume you've been asked.

[TheWall]

Well in the old testament law you had tge moral law and the ceremonial law. Interlap between the two exist. When christ died for us he fullfilked the prophecies and the ceremonial law. He became the sacrifice and split the curtain signifying the openness of the new covenant.
Now if you had a muslim or jew who became a christian moral law applies. However they may choose to not eat pork or shellfish or maybe they do. Paul said either was ok when discussing idol meats and celebrations. I hope this helps.

[Abigail]

I was reading the Bible and I suddenly realised I had caught Paul out in an outright lie. I decided to test my hypothesis by asking a Christian I know if Paul lies, to which he replied "no". So I said, "what if I can show you an example that clearly shows him lying in one of his letters?" They said "what example". So I asked "well tell me this, how do you think that Paul would have learned about the Last Supper?" They said "well he would have learnt it from the other apostles in Jerusalem". So I asked "is that your final answer, and what if I can show you that Paul claims he didn't learn about it from the other apostles?" They agreed that it would show that Paul is a liar if he claims to learn about the Last Supper some other way.

Well let's have a look at what Paul says:

Source: 1 Cor 11:17-34 NRSV

17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 22 What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

© Copyright Original Source

Paul is clearly claiming the credit for this teaching, he's telling his church in Corinth that he received it directly from the Lord, not from the other apostles. This is even more obvious when it's read in the full context of Corinthians - way back in chapter 9 he starts claiming his credentials as an apostle by claiming that he has seen Jesus, even if the other apostles don't recognise him as an apostle! This is the only time Paul makes a direct claim that he has seen Jesus.

Compare to 1 Cor 15:3 where he gives credit to the apostles for giving him the teaching/creed that he recites there: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: ..."

Now I thought that I had a strong case, but wouldn't you know it the Christian insisted that "oh no Paul's not actually claiming credit for the teaching, or that he received it directly from God and not the apostles". Um, WHAT? This entire section of Corinthians he's bad mouthing the other apostles, and claiming that he's the one with the true gospel because he's seen Jesus and has credentials independent of whatever the other apostles might say, and then he claims that he received this message from the Lord, not from the apostles. They might have had a case if he wasn't so clearly telling the Corinth church that he's authority is not given by the other apostles, and that he earned it all by himself!

I think Paul's been caught in a lie here, it's very clear what was going on. He didn't want his church influenced by Peter, James, or the other apostles who didn't view him as an apostle, so he told his church the teaching originates with him, and not with them. But the problem is - he lied.

Thoughts?

Even if Paul had received the teaching from other Christians and perhaps an apostle directly after his conversion, once Jesus Himself gave it to Paul then Paul had a much better witness to the teaching. Like, say, if you have a tennis lesson from someone who shows you how Serena Williams has shown them to serve and then you have a lesson with Serena Williams yourself and she shows you how to serve. When passing on that knowledge to others you can say you got it directly from Serena, because you did, even if she she has told you exactly the same stuff. We have a saying in English that we 'got it from the horse's mouth' . Getting something from the horses mouth often confirms what we have heard from others but it brings a new dimension of surety and authority when passing that information along.