Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): Nowhere in there does Paul say that he would lie or does lie.
(Fr Andrew): No...but he does say that he will represent himself to be whatever he thinks his audience wants him to be in order to advance his agenda. That's misleading at best and indication that what he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
You may say that he technically skirted the Biblical proscription on lying, but you have to slice the baloney pretty thin to do so.

Ted Hoffman

Dear Father Andrew,
There was something you said about slicing the baloney pretty thin.
I must solemnly confess that find that aphorism particulary epigrammatic.
The lord has surely blessed your keyboard with incredible sapience and penetrating insight.

Toto

Iron Monkey: Paul did not write Acts. The three different versions of his conversion experience in Acts testify to the fact that Acts is a fictionalized account in which Paul is cast as a main character.

Part of Paul's bad rep comes from people trying to reconcile Acts and Paul's letters. Paul's ignorance of the HJ is only a mystery if you accept Acts' version of events.

HelenM

Sorry, that was very unclear What I meant was Paul saying things that you believe are untrue is not lying. IOW Paul is not lying unless he also believes them to be untrue.

Helen

HelenM

A more accurate way of expressing what I think is that you haven't given me any compelling reason to believe you. That's not quite the same as, I won't believe you unless someone else agrees with you. The problem with that is a) it implies that I'd give someone else's words more credence than yours, which is not necessarily true because that would be irrational. I'd only give someone else's words more credence if they provided more corroborative evidence.

Well, I don't think I do actually. I don't go around seeking to prove that everyone who speculates something with little or no basis for the speculation is wrong. I would hope that anyone who prides themselves on being rational and logical and smart would care whether their deductions are based on evidence or not. But if they don't, well, that's up to them.

My point is, what are they based on? I think you have insufficience evidence to state them with the certainty with which you have stated them.



Don't be sorry - just show me the facts that your thoughts about Paul are based on.

Yes it is, provided we are willing to admit that our conclusions are pure speculation when they are not based on evidence.

Did I state you were wrong?

I said you're speculating; I said you don't have evidence that backs up your speculations and I said I think your speculations are unreasonable.

But I don't remember saying 'you're wrong'.


Did you miss where I explained that? Evidently you did.

I would be happy to simply say 'lying' because I define lying as deliberately saying what one knows is untrue. It's a deliberate attempt to deceive.

But I've seen other people confused about this so that's why I put the word 'deliberate' in there. I know it's redundant really.

I just clarifed what I meant by that. But in case you missed it, I meant: if Person A says something that person B doesn't believe, that doesn't necessarily mean Person A is lying. Person A is only lying if Person A doesn't believe it themself.

See, you evidently don't understand the definition of 'lying' yet.

It's only lying if the person who says it doesn't believe it but claims that they do. If they believe it they are not lying. If it is not in fact true, then they are mistaken but they didn't lie.

Helen

HelenM

Is it lying if you speak the German language to Germans? Is it misleading if you speak German to them to 'advance your agenda' which is to be understood?

Helen

Tristan Scott

Toto is right.

Paul never mentions the events on the road to Damascus. Luke is the only one who mentions that event in Acts. It is doubtful that Paul ever read Acts.

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): Is it lying if you speak the German language to Germans? Is it misleading if you speak German to them to 'advance your agenda' which is to be understood?
(Fr Andew): Of course not. But if you faked a German heritage while you were in the company of Germans, in order to gain their confidence so you could advance your agenda--that would come real close in my view.
Paul said that he pretended to be Jewish when in the company of Jews, and Gentile when in the company of Gentiles.
He became "all things to all men"--he misrepresented himself--to sell religion.

HelenM

If. But no-one said anything about faking a heritage, as far as I can tell.

He didn't say he pretended to be Jewish when in Jewish company, etc.

He didn't say he pretended anything.

Helen

Fr.Andrew