Doug Shaver

Yes, but if I am, it will be trivially easy for you to prove it. Just go to the thread where you deduced that Paul lied, copy your deduction and paste it into this thread.

Then show me.

aa5874

You first made an assertion that may be false, you have an obligation to provide the proof.

What can you see?

Doug Shaver

Incoherent gibberish.

aa5874

Oh my goodness! You cannot prove your first assertion is true by making another that may be false.

You have an obligation to prove your assertions.

Doug Shaver

:funny:

Sheshbazzar

So then, explain how 'Paul' could have been simply ' sincerely mistaken' about 'his' own personal account of having personally seen and conversed with Peter, James, and Jesus, AFTER 'Jesus' was raised from the dead?

And how it is that 'Paul' might have been only 'simply sincerely mistaken' in his reporting that the dead and resurrected 'Jesus' was "seen by above five hundred brethren at once;"?

ALL of 'Paul's' further theological claims rest upon the virtual truth and accuracy of his reporting of these events and conversations, ones that he alone claims to have seen and to have heard and to have been an actual participant in, and have been the (one, and the ONLY ) reporting first hand witness to.
And whose 'personal' testimony and accounting of is the -one- and the -only- source of these things.

No, it will not do, in this instance, to dismiss 'Paul's' written testimony as being the work of one who was only 'simply sincerely mistaken'.

Either what 'he' claims in writings to have 'seen', and to have 'heard' and to have personally and physically participated in, is a factual account.
Or this 'witnesses' personal tale and testimony is a rank fabrication, a knowingly and willfully composed LIE; A willful comprised composition, one deliberately and cleverly crafted with intent to deceive people through the employment of 'false witness' and lies.

Or, that the writer(s) were utterly insane and so can not be held accountable for what insane visions he (or they) wrote.
But we likewise descend into that insanity, if we are so insane as to give any credence to, and believe these fantastic, false, and insane fables and their insane reasoning's.

The explanations are confined to few possibilities.

aa5874

And I have a question for Paul. How did he recognize or identify Jesus after the resurrection having not seen him before his death?

It is evident that the Pauline writer is a liar.

His lies about the resurrection are not even plausible.

Barefoot Bree

What is this, the Lord Liar or Lunatic conundrum reborn?

How about: the guy had some powerful hallucinations, possibly drug-induced (not necessarily deliberately - see this thread ). Or even Hypnagogia. There are dozens of possible causes of hallucinations or vivid dreams, or other "mystical experiences", none of which involve lying.

And the resulting stories are his attempts to explain - to himself, first of all - these hallucinations, adapting them into the prevailing theological "styles" of the time.

Personally, I find this to be the most reasonable explanation.

aa5874

Well, please tell me, what century did Paul use the drugs?

Now, even if he used the drugs in the 1st century, he would still be a liar, since he should have written that he was on drugs when he saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

Being an addict does not hinder the ability to lie at all. A person can be addicted and be a liar, a murderer, a thief, a deceiver......

And are you implying that Paul was on drugs even when he supposedly started the churches all over the Roman Empire?

TimBowe

Yea, Paul was on drugs, I mean he had to be on something.