Toto

Jesus-Mythers claim that the appearances were in fact the same - that they were all appearances of a spiritual Christ.

No one in the history of Christianity that I know of has been confused.

Yes, we can blame the author of Acts. The journey to Damascus is part of Acts. Paul himself never describes his conversion experience, whether it was sudden, or whether he was ready for it.

"The abortion" is a gnostic concept. Any interpretation that misses this is likely to be off.

HelenM

No . I think those who in interpreting the passage in 1 Cor 9:20-22 as saying Paul lied are misinterpreting it.

I appreciate those on the thread who are showing they've studied this and related issues by the information and sources included in their posts. They would be worth having a discussion with, had I more time. Whereas it seems like a waste of time posting to those who have simply asserted Paul was a liar based on 1 Cor 9:20-22 and/or their own opinion that he was. This latter group evidently lack interest in serious study of what evidence there is. They are happy in their own presuppositions. The very thing they likely accuse 'fundies' of i.e. being closed-minded and not willing to seriously consider the evidence for and against their position, is the way they themselves are. Which to me seems sadly ironic.

But maybe I shouldn't be surprised to see that atheists can be as unreasonably dogmatic as the most unreasonably dogmatic Christians.

Helen

Ted Hoffman

That truly puts those that believe the Jesus in the Gospels actually existed, in a conundrum.

Like you said earlier, a MJ has greater explanatory power.

Iasion

Romans 3 talks of this issue :

Sometimes 3:7 is interpreted as Paul admitting he lies when needs be.

Yet I think the provisos in this passage means it essentially says :

humans are weak, and sometimes lie
but,
the end does NOT justify the means

Paul may well :
* really believe he SAW Iesous Christos (in a vision),
* really believe others SAW Iesous Christos,
* argue his case as best he can,
* act like a Roman, when in Rome,
* admit he is a flawed human.

without being a deliberate liar.

The passage in 1Cor. does NOT really admit to being a liar - it is common human behaviour to adapt to the cultures and people one visits.

So,
I'd say Paul is not a deliberate liar, merely a misunderstood visionary.

Iasion.

Jagged

I do not think Paul was a deliberate liar. He was a very sincere guy. Everything makes sense to him in his own mind... at least at the time he writes it down. Unfortunately, his mind was *not* healthy. He needed to believe everything made sense so much that he made up ludicrous loopholes and rationalizations for the contradictions within his writing and the rest of scripture as a whole. Reading Paul is an exercise in denial, much like the fundamentalist movement in general. Gives me a headache to read him anymore...

Paul is one case where I feel strongly that to understand him one must consult the field of psychology, specifically the mentally ill mind. The workings of his brain are not of the sort which most people are familiar with.

HelenM

Thanks for your responses, Iasion and Jagged

I can understand non-Christians responding to the writings about/by (or supposed to be by) Paul with "He was sincere but he was sincerely wrong". I can understand the response "today he would be diagnosed with a mental health disorder".

I agree with both of you in not seeing anything in the texts that supports the viewpoint that Paul was a deliberate liar.

I suspect that those who think so believe themselves to have encountered Christian leaders/pastors/teachers who are deliberate liars and they infer that Paul was one too.

But I don't see legitimate support for that in the writings we have about Paul.

Helen

Ted Hoffman

<chuckle><chuckle>

HelenM

Thanks for your response IM

BadBadBad

Helen,

What's the relevance of whether he was deliberately lying? Either the story of God and Jesus is true, or someone is either lying or perhaps delusional. Paul either believed a liar, he was a liar, or perhaps he or someone else was just delusional. From your point of view, of course it's all true. What's the relevance of whether he believed it or not? It's either true or not.

If you told me an alien came down and had a cup of coffee with you, I wouldn't believe you even if I was convinced that you believed it. It's just not a plausible story to start with. If I found out that you were trying to peddle your story to the media for money, I'd lean towards concluding that you were lying. I couldn't prove it, but I could definitely form an opinion. I don't see how the story of christianity can be made any more plausible by the fact that ignorant people a couple of thousand years ago believed it. I don't know if that's the argument you're making, but others do, and I don't buy it.

HelenM

Hi brettc,

What's the relevance of whether Paul was lying? That's a good question.

I was asking the question because I was curious about it, not because I was trying to use it indirectly to prove something else.

I was curious because Iron Monkey asserted in another thread that Paul was lying. And I wondered if that is what other people think also. I think it's more likely based on what we know that Paul sincerely believed what he taught.

Evidently at least some other people here agree with me.

And yes, whether Paul was lying or believed his message doesn't tell us whether the message itself is true or not. I agree with you on that. That's why I wasn't trying to get at whether the message is true by asking whether Paul was lying.

Helen