Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from a Christian web site:

http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/rssrdeb.htm

The discussion started with a point that both most critical and traditional scholars agree on, that Paul was somehow dramatically transformed into a believer. The critical scholars claim that part of Paul’s reaching out process to the Gentiles was the fraudulent development of a miraculous Jesus, for a selfish purpose of lying to promote the early Christian Church. However, the teaching of Jesus are to be honest and not to lie, and just two chapters prior to mentioning the resurrection appearances Paul includes ethical unselfish statements on love (I Cor. 13) which are so impressive that they are the most common readings throughout the world at wedding ceremonies. Typically, the more unselfish an individual, the more reliable they are for presenting the truth as they best know it. Since the NT accounts were written while eyewitnesses were still around, the authors would have known if the accounts were real or not. This supports the view that Paul and his organization were an honest reliable group rather than some fraudulent propaganda team.

Toto

The eyewitness question was raised and dealt with in this parallel thread.

I don't know of any "critical scholars" who claim that Paul created a fraudulent miraculous Jesus for selfish purposes. Critical scholars think that Paul might have lied about his own authority or about church doctrine, but generally assume that he has some sort of life-transforming experience.

The idea that someone is probably truthful because they preach against lying and in favor of unselfishness is so silly it hardly seems worth mentioning.

Doug Shaver

Like Toto, it's news to me that that is the standard view of critical scholars. I think Paul believed everything he wrote, mainly because nothing that I've read by any critical scholar leads me to think otherwise.