HelenM

I'm splitting this issue off from another thread because I'm curious to know whether other people here believe Paul was deliberately lying about what he claimed to have seen and what he believed.

If you don't consider us to have texts reliable enough that we could know what Paul claimed, then I wouldn't expect you to comment.

Anyway, this is from the other thread:

Occam's Razor would agree with me wouldn't it? That Paul was saying what he believed to be true is the simplest explanation for what he wrote.

If you think Paul was deliberately lying then the burden of proof is on you to show how this fits whatever evidence we have better than my assumption that he believed what he wrote. The burden of proof is on you to give a plausible motive for why Paul would deliberately lie and pretend to have seen/believe what he had not seen and believed.

Why would he lie about it?

Do you generally assume people are deliberately lying when they say they believe something? Or just in Paul's case?

My guess is that few people would agree with you, that Paul was deliberately lying.

In my opinion, to hold a belief that someone was deliberately lying - without strong evidence that they were and/or without a plausible motive - indicates you to be unreasonably biased against the possibility that that person was telling what he/she believed to be the truth.

Now, nowhere have I said I know Paul was telling the truth as he believed it to be. But I think that's a more reasonable assumption than that he was deliberately lying, in the absence of a plausible motive or strong evidence,

I've said "deliberately" lying in an attempt to be as clear as possible although I would define lying as a verb to be deliberate; if you say something that is not true but you don't realize it's untrue, I wouldn't call that lying. IM, when you talk about Paul lying I have understood you to mean he was intentionally claiming things to be true he knew were not true. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Helen

Boro Nut

In a way, no. It's a natural relex to being temporarily blinded to stop you bumping in to things.

Boro Nut

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): We have Paul's own testimony that he was not above bending the truth if the opportunity arose to further his agenda. (1 Cor:20-22)
I think it's reasonable to examine everything he said with that in mind.

HelenM

I think you are referring to this passage, Fr. Andrew>

Nowhere in there does Paul say that he would lie or does lie. He would not say he would lie (nor would anyone else have him saying that - if you think someone else wrote it) because the Old Testament clearly saying that God hates lying. For example:

Anyway I addressed the Corinthians passage on another thread here in the last couple of days. Paul, like many other people including some who post here, I expect, was saying that he is sensitive to the culture and language of his audience.

If you like you can post quotes to try and prove he wasn't particularly sensitive to it. But, what I mean is, Paul thought he was and evidently Paul intentionally did adapt to his audience. But not by lying - there is no evidence of that and it's an unreasonably supposition considering what the Old Testament, which Paul would have known well, says about lying.

Helen

Sarpedon

Motive: The strongest determinant of wrongdoing.

Paul had a motive to lie. He became quite powerful by what he said and did. When in doubt, ask the question "qui bono?" (who gains (or alternately, who is this weird man who wears the shades all the time, even when addressing the bloody UN))

Ted Hoffman

Occams razor does not oblige us to send our brains on leave.

If one can establish motive for blatant incorrectness, the possibility of dishonesty becomes strong.


PAUL HAD A MOTIVE FOR LYING
Paul collected money from the people of Corinth etc. allegedly to help their brothers in distress from other places.
Nowhere is it written that Paul actually did take to needy people the money he kept collecting. The fact that he collected money from even those in deep poverty like the people of Macedonia, while praising them for theit grace, means he fleeced even the very poor. Common sense dictates that one should not take money from poor people, unless Paul was in the business of perpetuating poverty.
1 Cor 16:2 has Paul invoking the people to collect money for him purpotedly to help unknown neighbours in distress and Galatians 6:6 has Paul telling people they MUST in fact give him money/gifts since he was instructing them in spiritual matters.

Paul's power over the people, getting them to collect money for him (for watever reasons), relied on the people believing that Jesus was a powerful God who could overcome God. Paul therefore said things that were blatantly untrue like Jesus corpse coming back from the dead.

Paul, being the intelligent man that he was, was therefore lying when he stated that a corpse was seen by over 500 people for over 40 days.

PAUL CONTRADICTED HIMSELF
PAULS TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Pauls testimony leaves questionable omissions and makes exaggerations that indicate he was only interested in his personal aggrandizement
And :

Read The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance for more on the last two arguments.

HelenM

If...but you haven't, imo.

Most of Paul's life is not recorded, therefore it is more likely that a given event - such as when he dropped off the collection - wouldn't be recorded than that it would.

You clearly have no direct evidence that Paul kept the money else you would have posted it by now.

Irrelevant. All that is relevant is what Paul believed was right to do, in assessing whether he actually did something or not. Plus, of course, any record of him doing it or any record of him not doing it.

As I previously explained you are misinterpreting Galatians 6:6

Saying things you believe are untrue is not lying.

It's not a lie unless he did not believe it himself. You have yet to give any evidence he did not believe it.


That doesn't prove he lied, even if he did, unless he realized he did.


That's only your interpretation and presupposition.

I looked at that. As best I could tell so far, it nowhere says Paul deliberately lied. So it doesn't support your case that Paul did. Feel free to quote me the part that says Paul deliberately lied, if it is in there somewhere. Maybe I missed it.

Most of what you've done here is repeat the same unsubstantiated comments you've posted previously about Paul.

I repeated some of my responses I gave before but if all you are going to do is repeat yourself without giving back-up not previously provided I won't keep wasting time repeating myself back to you. I don't know whether you will interpret lack of further response from me as you having a stronger case to make than me but as far as I'm concerned it will be because repeating myself is a waste of time. If you disagree you disagree and there's no point us both posting the same things over and over again.

Helen

Jack the Bodiless

I think it's entirely possible that Paul believed in Christianity, but sometimes exaggerated or lied, and then chose to believe that as well.

Some people can't readily separate truth from falsehood, and come to believe their own propaganda. I don't know how this could be tested, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if many convicted criminals who genuinely believe themselves to be innocent are actually guilty.

There WAS a somewhat related test, involving role-playing the aftermath of a hypothetical crime. Those people designated as "innocent" passed a polygraph (lie-detector) test, whereas those designated as "guilty" failed the test even though they hadn't actually committed any crime! They had, essentially, convinced themselves of their own guilt.

Ted Hoffman

Ted Hoffman

I see your line of reasoning Helen. What I say is only true if someone else thinks and says Paul lied. Well, FYI, I can think, I can read and deduce and draw conclusions. And that is what I have done. You need to demonstrate that my deductions are incorrect.
I challenge you to demonstrate that my conclusions are wrong.
You need a bible verse saying:
Is that what you need as evidence?
Like I have said, that will not happen. You have to apply your mental powers and take apart my argument.
The Bible is not the only source of knowledge/facts and I am sorry to break this to you. Its very legitimate to use our brains to gain further insight and draw conclusions. If you cannot, with the help of reason, demonstrate that I am wrong, you cannot state that I am wrong.

Do you have ANY evidence that Paul said the truth when he said the corpse of Jesus walked around for 40 days and was seen by more than 500 people?

Do you have ANY evidence that Paul indeed gave ANYONE the money he collected from the poor people?

You were incapable of answering the direct questions I asked you in the earlier post.
I do not need ANY evidence to prove that dead people stay dead unless you can provide evidence that you come from another planet.

I am curious as to how far you want to take this apologetic task you have arrogated upon yourself. Its evident that you are out on a limb and are seeking support and making unrealistic demands for evidence. Asking for evidence to prove that dead people stay dead is simply irrational.

After realizing that, you came up with a new phrase : deliberately lying.
Whats the difference between lying and deliberately lying?

To sink further, now you have just stated that: :Saying things you believe are untrue is not lying. ."

How far are you intending to go with this and what do you hope to accomplish?

You are making an a priori assumption that Paul was saying the truth. We are not obligated to do the same. Prove that dead people rise from the dead.

When someone contradicts his earlier testimony about what is allegedly an experience they underwent, its evidence of lying.
When someone states a falsehood, like corpses rising from the dead, that person is lying.
When someone gets money by peddling such lies, that person is a fraudster.

That, dear Helen, is what the character called Paul was. A fraudster. He sprinkled his lies with some sophistry, abstruse obfuscation, gnostic crap, and wild-eyed claims.
And it worked.
Like magic.