Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why does Paul lie?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why does Paul lie?

    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?
    Last edited by Aractus; 06-15-2017, 08:26 PM.

  • #2
    You cut off your quotation of 1 Corinthians 15 before Paul specified what the teaching he received was. There is no mention of the Lord's Supper there, therefore no contradiction.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      I have edited to clarify. It was not to show a "contradiction", just that he gives credit for that teaching in the same letter to the apostles. But he claims the last supper he learned directly from God. I think all he contributed was 1 Cor 11:27-32 (inserting his theology into the Lord Supper's ceremony).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Aractus View Post
        I have edited to clarify. It was not to show a "contradiction", just that he gives credit for that teaching in the same letter to the apostles. But he claims the last supper he learned directly from God. I think all he contributed was 1 Cor 11:27-32 (inserting his theology into the Lord Supper's ceremony).
        You are the one lying here.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Edited to make it seem like it was something it isn't.


          1 Cor 15:3 - 8

          3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,4 that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


          Note the mention of having seen the Resurrected Christ.


          Paul isn't lying. Nor is he practicing deceit.....
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Aractus View Post
            I have edited to clarify. It was not to show a "contradiction", just that he gives credit for that teaching in the same letter to the apostles. But he claims the last supper he learned directly from God. I think all he contributed was 1 Cor 11:27-32 (inserting his theology into the Lord Supper's ceremony).
            It seems that you had to edit not to clarify but rather because continuing would blow a hole in your argument.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aractus
              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.”
              Well I would have thought this gives a lot of ammunition to the idea that early Christians believed they could learn truths from visions.

              We touched on this in your Mythicism thread, where I suggested that early Christians might have had a practice of having visions of Jesus / angels in the spirit world where he revealed to them 'truths' (e.g. the entire book of revelation) and that events in the Gospels might contain a lot of spiritually revealed 'truths' about the 'life of Jesus' rather than being quite so much based on events that had actually occurred as is usually assumed. I intend to start a new thread sometime in the next week about what Malina and Pilch have to say about early Christian spiritual visions in their Social Science Commentary on Revelation.

              I think you are correctly interpreting this quote in your understanding that Paul is claiming he received this teaching directly from the spiritual vision. This in turn, I suggest, raises the question of did the teaching of the last supper originate with Paul (rather than ever actually occurring) as a result of Paul learning about it in a vision of Jesus? And are the gospel accounts of it therefore dependent on Paul who taught this learned-from-vision teaching to other Christians as he did all his missionary journeys?
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Assuming standard critical dates, Paul is dead by the time the first gospel is written, and according to most scholarship on the issue, the Letters of Paul aren't collated until the 90s.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  Edited to make it seem like it was something it isn't.


                  1 Cor 15:3 - 8

                  [FONT="]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]4 that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


                  Note the mention of having seen the Resurrected Christ.
                  Sure but that's not a direct claim, it's a part of a creed and comes in the same letter and after the claim he makes in chapter 9.

                  Also he doesn't say he saw the "Resurrected Christ", in fact he couldn't have because the supposed Damascus Road event happens after the 40 days of the resurrection. But look that's not the argument, in this instance it is clear that Paul lied.

                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Assuming standard critical dates, Paul is dead by the time the first gospel is written, and according to most scholarship on the issue, the Letters of Paul aren't collated until the 90s.
                  I'm not exactly sure the point you're trying to make, but I'm perfectly comfortable believing that there was at least a proto-Mark, Q, Thomas, or something written down while Paul was alive. The interesting thing is that we don't really know how much Paul actually knew, and how much he did know through the other apostles but chose to ignore to pursue his own theology. I think with the Last Supper we can say this is an early Christian custom, based on a supper Jesus had with his disciples. Paul has gone ahead and developed the theology and claimed it as his own. Making the practise of the supper in his churches a more spiritual event than perhaps the ones guided by Petrine/"Jerusalem" theology.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                    I have edited to clarify. It was not to show a "contradiction", just that he gives credit for that teaching in the same letter to the apostles. But he claims the last supper he learned directly from God. I think all he contributed was 1 Cor 11:27-32 (inserting his theology into the Lord Supper's ceremony).
                    wait, so just because you and your friend think the only way he could have gotten the teaching was from the apostles and Paul TELLS you he got it from the Lord, you assume he is lying. Why? Because you can't be wrong?

                    Comment


                    • #11


                      Failure in reading comprehension is strong in this one.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                        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?
                        "Badmouthing the other apostles?" What on earth are you rabbiting on about?

                        Anywho, from 1 Cor. 9:
                        Source: 1 Cor 9:1 NRSV

                        Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        and

                        Source: Gal. 1:11-12

                        11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        I think you've managed to give me even less reason to take anything you say seriously. Objective? LoL. You're too transparently playing "gotcha" for me to swallow that line.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                          The interesting thing is that we don't really know how much Paul actually knew, and how much he did know through the other apostles but chose to ignore to pursue his own theology.
                          I suspect it's safe to presume there was enough contact both direct and indirect between Paul and the other apostles that he knew their teachings well. Multiple sources indicate he personally met and interacted with Peter. Presumably there was plenty of cross-pollination of ideas too due to the various other Christians travelling around.

                          Paul has gone ahead and developed the theology and claimed it as his own. Making the practise of the supper in his churches a more spiritual event than perhaps the ones guided by Petrine/"Jerusalem" theology.
                          Well it makes me suspect that Paul might not have been the only one in the early church having these spiritual revelations where he is told things by the Lord. It makes me wonder just how common such things were in the early church.

                          Perhaps another good candidate for such 'spiritually revealed teachings' are the lengthy sections in the Gospel of John that are quite different the synoptics, where Jesus engages in some lengthy and deeply theological monologues. Critical scholars have typically tended to view these sections as the gospel author blatantly and obviously writing his own theology back into the mouth of the Jesus, but perhaps the better reading is that the gospel author (and/or his community) had received these teachings in a spiritual vision of Jesus.

                          And, of course, many of the gnostic gospels are great candidates for this kind of thing, and from what I know of the gnostics (albeit mostly from prejudiced sources like Irenaeus) they seemed quite open about the fact that they were getting their information from such spiritual sources, which they considered superior to fleshly sources anyway.

                          Of course, if we accept that learning 'truths' about Jesus and his teachings and life through 'spiritual visions' was at least somewhat mainstream in the early Christian community (including Paul, the Gospel of John, the book of Revelation) this then presents methodological challenges regarding the historicity of the remainder of the gospels, because potentially anything and everything in them could also have come from information gleaned from such spiritual visions if indeed the early Christian communities were regularly engaging in such practices. Any Jesus that might have originally existed, and founded the Christian movement, might bear almost zero relationship to the 'Jesus' that the gospels subsequently came to depict after numerous Christians had such spiritual visions that told them truths and stories and teachings that were later combined into the gospels. Q could have started life as a growing and circulating collection of spiritual revelations that had been had by different Christians.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            wait, so just because you and your friend think the only way he could have gotten the teaching was from the apostles and Paul TELLS you he got it from the Lord, you assume he is lying. Why? Because you can't be wrong?
                            Look, this is someone I know very well. It's not as if they're going to say to me "you tricked me", they honestly did not expect that Paul claimed to receive the teaching some other way (despite that passage being read every Sunday at their church).

                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            I suspect it's safe to presume there was enough contact both direct and indirect between Paul and the other apostles that he knew their teachings well. Multiple sources indicate he personally met and interacted with Peter. Presumably there was plenty of cross-pollination of ideas too due to the various other Christians travelling around.
                            My working hypothesis is that Paul severed ties with the "Jerusalem church" as I call it in the early-mid 60's.

                            Well it makes me suspect that Paul might not have been the only one in the early church having these spiritual revelations where he is told things by the Lord. It makes me wonder just how common such things were in the early church.
                            "Suspect" is the wrong word. But it does make you wonder whether Jesus himself originally gained support by claiming divine revelation?

                            Perhaps another good candidate for such 'spiritually revealed teachings' are the lengthy sections in the Gospel of John that are quite different the synoptics, where Jesus engages in some lengthy and deeply theological monologues. Critical scholars have typically tended to view these sections as the gospel author blatantly and obviously writing his own theology back into the mouth of the Jesus, but perhaps the better reading is that the gospel author (and/or his community) had received these teachings in a spiritual vision of Jesus.
                            I don't think anyone had a "spiritual" vision of Jesus other than some of the disciples and possibly Paul. People see visions of deceased loved ones, and that's perfectly normal and not actually supernatural.

                            Of course, if we accept that learning 'truths' about Jesus and his teachings and life through 'spiritual visions' was at least somewhat mainstream in the early Christian community (including Paul, the Gospel of John, the book of Revelation) this then presents methodological challenges regarding the historicity of the remainder of the gospels, because potentially anything and everything in them could also have come from information gleaned from such spiritual visions if indeed the early Christian communities were regularly engaging in such practices. Any Jesus that might have originally existed, and founded the Christian movement, might bear almost zero relationship to the 'Jesus' that the gospels subsequently came to depict after numerous Christians had such spiritual visions that told them truths and stories and teachings that were later combined into the gospels. Q could have started life as a growing and circulating collection of spiritual revelations that had been had by different Christians.
                            What you present there is a mysticist view. The Jesus that "might have" existed didn't bear "almost zero" relationship to the "actual Jesus". The very idea is nonsensical.

                            The other way to interpret what you said is that the gospel writers so mischaracterised Jesus that there's "almost zero" information about his character. Okay, so they mischaracterised him. It happens, it's normal. There are many different ways to characterise Adolf Hitler, and historians debate about it. There are different ways to characterise Ned Kelly, and contemporary accounts do so. Doesn't change that he was a real historical character that we can say some definite things about, just like we can with Jesus. But as to his character, yes that's perfectly up for debate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                              Look, this is someone I know very well. It's not as if they're going to say to me "you tricked me", they honestly did not expect that Paul claimed to receive the teaching some other way (despite that passage being read every Sunday at their church).
                              Yeah so because he didn't remember the verse where Paul says that the Lord told him, and his first response was "I guess the apostles told him" - then his reaction was "Paul lied!!?" - I am betting his reaction was "Oh I forgot about that. Yeah God told him" right?

                              Why would your reaction be "Paul lied" instead of "oh I am wrong?"

                              How does your ignorance of how he found out make Paul a liar? because YOU didn't know how he found out?

                              You make no sense at all.

                              I think that you found out about theologyweb by being told by leprechauns. If you tell me different you are lying. That is what you are doing with Paul.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              21 responses
                              82 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              415 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X