Duvduv

Paul is described on only three occasions as saying that he is not lying.
Now one could assume that if he is said to be trying to convince doubters that he is telling the truth about something, merely stating that he is not lying would not help in the least, and if the doubters among his followers thought Paul was lying on these three occasions, one can only assume that they thought he was lying on other matters as well, and his protests would therefore be required on more than in these three cases.

1) In the case of Galatians 1, the mere protest of not lying makes absolutely no sense unless his "followers" suspected him of lying specifically in relation to his visit to Jerusalem. Of course the writer gives no explanation of why anyone should suspect him of lying in this particular case in the entire epistle.

Indeed the whole incident makes no sense because the (unnamed and undescribed) churches of Judea claimed that they heard from OTHERS (unnamed) that he persecuted THEM, but of course there is no description of any of this. And he does not even appeal to his doubters when claiming his alleged revelations and his exclusively-revealed gospel which is where one would expect him to appeal to his doubters:

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. 20(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."
24And they were glorifying God because of me.

2) In 2 Corinthians 11 "Paul" is talking about suffering in preaching to his fellow Jews, and then interrupts the narrative to claim he is not lying. Of course the reader will wonder why it is in this matter specifically out of all other claims in the entire epistle that he should appeal to his doubters as he then talks about his escape in Damascus.

30If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. 31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.

3) In the middle of discussing the love of Christ at the end of Chapter 8 of Romans he interrupts at the start of Chapter 9 and appeals to his readers that he is not lying. Once again the reader is left to wonder why the writer makes the appeal to his doubters specifically in this area of the entire epistle.

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Each of these examples shows how poorly the writer was trying to communicate, and how he gives away the fictitious nature of the story by advocating on his own behalf in a way that makes absolutely no sense within the context of the overall narrative.

aa5874

In both instances when the Pauline writer claimed he was NOT lying in Galatians 1.20 and 2 Cor. 11.31 it is about EVENTS that are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 9

In Acts 9 it is claimed Saul did MEET the Apostles and travelled with them but in Galatians 1 Paul claimed he ONLY met Peter and James.

In Acts 9 there is NO mention of King Aretas when Paul was in the basket by the wall in Damauscus but in 2 Cor. 11.31-33 the writer mentioned the King.

If ACTS 9 was already known THEN it makes sense for Paul to claim he was NOT lying when he made statements that contradict events found in the 9th chapter of Acts.

Duvduv

In that scenario it becomes totally unclear why the author in the epistles who specifically identify two events recorded in Acts which show a contradiction between the account in the epistle and the account in Acts where Paul specifically says he isn't lying..... This would make no sense at all for the purpose of establishing the reputation of "Paul" for the Church.

Iskander

Paul was an outsider and, apparently, he was made to feel like one by the apostles.


The polemic of Galatians is said to have been directed against Peter and his friends and this confrontation must have been a recurring theme of his teaching. The conflict seem to have been serious enough--as judging by the words of Iren. AH 3.13.1, words that now seems to us so unnecessary and hence somewhat mysterious-- for Paul to feel he had to defend his honesty as a preacher


AH 3.13.1:

Chapter XIII—Refutation of the opinion, that Paul was the only apostle who had knowledge of the truth.

“Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul”

aa5874

It made sense to the Pauline writer to claim he was NOT lying when he contradicted events in Acts 9.

Up to this present time people Believe Paul and think that the author of Acts is the one who is in error.

Duvduv

I don't understand. How could Christians consider one of their holy books to be in error?? I have never heard of this.

Vorkosigan

The reiteration of not lying is a classic sign of forgery. Gal has been altered, perhaps in relation to Acts.

aa5874

Are you serious???

So what about the differences between the short-ending and the long ending gMark??

What about the differences in gMatthew and gLuke??

What about the differences in gJohn and the Synoptics??

What about the differences in the non-Pauline Epistles and the Pauline letters???

What about the differences in the short-ending gMark and the Pauline letters???

What about the differences in REVELATION by John and the Pauline Revelations???

The NT is filled with differences but there is ONE thing that is the same.

Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

Acts 13:30 KJVGalatians 1:1 KJV Remarkably it is NOT a lie that Jesus was RAISED from the dead in Galatians and Acts.

mountainman

How many times is the word "believe" used in the new and strange testament?

Toto

You need to learn more about Christianity - or is this some sort of mock horror?

Christianity never took its texts literally until a few centuries ago. For most of Christian history, the laity were forbidden from reading scripture because it just might confuse them, and the Bible was written in various dead languages in any case. Only priests were in on the mystery. Any apparent contradictions were not errors, and anyone who disagreed might be burnt at the stake to make that clear.