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

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.

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?

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 [is] like a refiner's fire And like launderer's soap. 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?
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]

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?

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 [is] like a refiner's fire And like launderer's soap. 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.

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?
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. Thank you Lord Jesus!!!!

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.

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.

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, Lunatic

Great.

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


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.