Provide proof that Paul was a liar or delusional

I think I did a good job presenting some evidence here that Paul and the Disciples were extremely sincere, and that their writings were not corrupt but rather, the Disciples truly knew each other.

I made the thread as a rebuttal to a Muslim and to many Muslim claims in general regarding early Christianity versus the belief that the Disciples were Muslims and the message was later corrupted.

So I want to read the other side of the coin from Jews, Muslims and Atheists/Agnostics regarding Paul. What evidence can you present that he was making up lies or just flat out nuts?

For Muslims: Please read the posted thread and explain how one can not see the sincerity of Paul and the other Apostles. What were they trying to gain from lying?

For Jews: What is your view of Paul in light of all he wrote? Was he crazy (he was obviously a pharisee) or was he just a liar. I know Jews don’t often concern themselves with Christianity, but I would really love some opinions and proofs.

Non-theists: Was Paul out of his mind or some conspiracy theorist? Was he lying and what was he trying to gain from his lie?

I would really love some evidence, or some serious reasoning based on logic that Paul was lying or nuts in his letters that preached love, and Early Church Doctrine.

There is NO such evidence, though. :slight_smile: Why do you want this evidence, anyways? Feeling doubtful?

If all thought like you then everyone would be Christian. While I agree with you that there’s no evidence others must disagree as they do not believe what Paul wrote.

What is it you want evidence of?

Do you want evidence Paul was sincere? It is very difficult to provide evidence of sincerity as sincerity exists in the mind and can only be subjectively interpreted by others.

That Paul was a liar or crazy. As he couldn’t be telling the truth about what he saw, experienced or believed if Christianity is false.

Ok ok I got you! I know what you are meaning now! :slight_smile:

Sorry I edited my post - so to recap.

Whether or not Paul was ‘crazy’ is subjective, so no one could provide irrevocable proof either way. The same can be said as to lying. One would need evidence Paul knew for certain something he said was true. Again this is subjective.

Are you referring to something specifically? Like Christ appearing to him? In which case, there are at least three options. By your implied reasoning he honestly believed Christ appeared to him, he lied and Christ did not appear to him, or he was delusional. Again, an answer any way can only be subjective. It’s not possible to provide evidence. I don’t really understand what it is you want or to whom your post is directed.

Muslims might just believe he was a renegade that only claimed to be an Apostle. If anything he wrote conflicted with the Koran, then that would simply be proof that Paul was not a true (Muslim) Apostle.

For Jews: What is your view of Paul in light of all he wrote? Was he crazy (he was obviously a pharisee) or was he just a liar. I know Jews don’t often concern themselves with Christianity, but I would really love some opinions and proofs.

The Jews would consider him a heretic. This does not require insanity or insincerity.

Non-theists: Was Paul out of his mind or some conspiracy theorist? Was he lying and what was he trying to gain from his lie?

The theist might theorize that he suffered a stroke when “met” Jesus and collapsed, and that this cause his radical change in behavior.

I would really love some evidence, or some serious reasoning based on logic that Paul was lying or nuts in his letters that preached love, and Early Church Doctrine.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

I have always thought that Paul should make anyone take a second look. Here was a very educated Pharisee whose mission was to stamp out this new “cult” called “The Way”. Paul is a historical figure. We know who he was and what he did. So what happened to him? How does a man like Paul make such a drastic change instantaneously?

I think your thread presents some challenges to those who doubt his words. :thumbsup:

If Paul was lying or delusional he certainly would not have been willing to die for that delusion.

1loved

The problems you bring up for non-believers are only problems because of the way that you’ve set them up to be problems for us. In other words, you expect us to accept that the New Testament is in some way to be interpreted as other than literature - perhaps you might have phrased it “if the New Testament were true/reportage, would Jesus/Paul be liars/mad/whatever?”

The problem is that we might then answer: “Well, only in the sense that, if the Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter books were true/reportage, then it would be accurate to say that they were/are successful magicians.”

This is a problem that often arises in discussions here, Christians are often shocked that we don’t accept Jesus as God/Messiah/whatever but tend to assume that we would be taking the New Testament at what they consider as face value. We don’t.

There is no ‘magic bullet’ argument, dronald, no knockout ‘evidence’.

Some of the NT has to be taken on Faith, sure. The four Gospels perhaps.

The reason I wanted to focus on Paul’s letters specifically is to understand the mindset of someone who would read what he wrote and reject it.

He certainly was a scholar, who in the days before Google could quote the Old Testament like no other. We know for certain he was a Pharisee and an early persecutor of the Church based on multiple accounts.

So if we are to say he lied, what motivation was there?

Then we can only say he was mad; and we know he was accused of being so. But I would like to see from other points of view. I can’t read Paul’s letters and think he’s a liar or crazy.

What do you think when you read all of his letters?

Is this a better title Ron?

I think mine made for better clickbait but sure :wink:

For what its worth, Baha’is revere Paul greatly and consider him one of the chief Apostles of Christ.

Personally, for me, St. Paul is one of my heroes :slight_smile:

Abdu’l-Baha exhorts us as follows:

One’s conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one’s faith similar to that of Peter.

.

I’ve always liked the ‘glass darkly’ from Corinthians.

Well, what do you think when you read the scriptures of non-Christian faiths (excluding Judaism, you ‘need’ ours!)? I do question whether Christianity could have gotten off the ground without the ‘re-packaging’ by Paul, as a ‘James/Jerusalem’ Jewish sect I doubt it could have but what seems to Jewish eyes as the admixture of themes that are from outside Judaism was a work of genius in the development of another religion altogether.

To me, it’s literature - I don’t accept the premises of his arguments but, from time to time, some of his use of language seems quite gifted.

I am curious why Paul would reject His Jewish tradition and lifestyle and be put to death (verifiable by extra biblical sources) for a fairy tale he wrote ??

Why not? That almost seems the definition of delusional…

I’d suggest that you’re the one making the most out of assumptions here - for example, I think you’d be pretty hard pushed to establish how/where Paul died to anybody not given to just accepting what some early Christian said on the basis that Christian tradition says he’s the kind of person who should be listened to.

Again, suggesting that Paul was writing a ‘fairy tale’ is not a characterisation of what critics are saying - history isn’t short of people who have had religious insights/visions/leaps of understanding of one sort or another and who have been prepared to face all sorts of consequences for having done so. When people say that they don’t accept what such people believed/wrote, it doesn’t mean that they’re saying that the writers were mad/bad/liars etc, they’re just saying that they don’t accept what they believed/wrote.

That somebody who we have come to know as Paul existed, I think we have to accept, that he wrote/believed in his religious insight, I think we should also accept, that he died somehow and some place is obvious. To non-believers, the rest is wrapped up in a work of literature and what we’re doing is a form of literary criticism.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.