Paul the Liar... Or At the Very Least, Paul: The First Documented Case of Alzheimers...

UPDATED:

Okay, okay, I know: a strong claim to make. But have you ever noticed how many Christians, fundie and otherwise, look to this man more than even the supposed words of Christ in the bible? Most sermons, most admonishments, most "lessons" pounded from the pulpit are from this very man's letters.

Of course, there are, to begin with, a few, shall we say, "suspect," things about Paul one ought to consider. Such as, for one, his "instantaneous" conversion.

---

Act 9:1-9

1. And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2. And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5. And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus.
9. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

---

HE FELL OFF HIS ASS AND HAD A CONCUSSION, PEOPLE. Well, okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment. He truly converted, was blind for three days, and some dude named Ananias was "called" by the lord to go to Saul/Paul, heal his blindness from beholding the glory of God, and then Saul/Paul would begin preaching in the name of God. Fuzzy-warm, yes? Happily ever after...

But no! So here's where the lie comes in from Paul's own words. Read the following three passages carefully:

---

Acts 9:19-29: "And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."

Acts 26:19-21: "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."

Galatians 1:15-23: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

---

Are we paying attention? Let's look at what we have here from Paul's own mouth. In Acts, Paul has his "vision." He then "Straightway" begins preaching in Damascus, amazing the people and basically "wowing" them. He supposedly "confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ." And then "many days later," a bunch of Jews plotted to kill him so he ran away to Jerusalem. He hook sup with Barnabas, and he in turn takes him to meet the apostles, who were afraid of him because he used to be Saul the persecutor and killer of followers of Christ. After some talk, they accept him as the real deal, and then they all go on a revival tour all over Jerusalem. Got it? That's Acts.

Then there's Galatians. Paul saw his "vision." And that's the only thing that remains true to the account in Acts. Paul "immediately" he did NOT associate with "flesh and blood" (i.e., people), nor did he go to Jerusalem to see the apostles. After his apparent conversion, he takes a few years to travel to Arabia then back to Damascus. He doesn't even mention preaching in either of these places. After at least three years, he finally makes his way to Jerusalem for the first time and meets only Peter and James; no mention of any other apostles (which you would think would be an important point, being a convert and former persecutor of Christians and all). He stays with them for fifteen days but, once again, he mentions no preaching campaign with the apostles, with some of them, or alone. None. He has never even been here before in the past, nor has he performed a preaching campaign here, since he is unknown to them, and they have "heard only" by way of gossip and rumor of his claimed conversion. He even claims, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." So, if he isn't lying now, then he lied before about meeting all of the disciples, am I right? Or, wait, what if he's lying about not lying? Umm, wait, which part is true again?

Now there are some that claim that Luke wrote the book of Acts. So what if he did? Then is Luke a liar? In which case, should we believe Luke or Paul, neither of which were an actual disciple of Christ?

Either way, this spells a MAJOR biblical problem for all you "innerrant" scripture people. Prove me wrong. I double-dog dare you.

---

---

The Update:

Tom recently took some umbrage as to my supposed lack of detailing historical evidence of this supposed inconsistency with Paul's whereabouts, so, in the interest of keeping up-to-speed, here are a few things I will clarify due to his correct pointing out of some things:

1. What is a double-dog dare? This is a dare beyond your usual dare. A double-dog dare usually signifies that you are so confident in your premise or truth that it takes someone with great cajones and great conviction to even attempt to disprove your point and/or stance.
2. I do not believe the bible is innerrant. That's fine, but the point of the post was toward those who do hold to such a stance (such as Adam and Green). When it comes down to it, yes, there are some time differences between the actual writings of the two letters, some authorship issues that will never be clarified, and the whole "whisper-down-the-alley" effect of personal accounts being told by persons removed from the historical context in question. All of that is moot, though, when held in the view of "inerrancy." To be "innerrant" or "devoid or errors," there should in fact be no inconsistencies or half-truths or contradictory passages. My lack of pointing out historical facts and figures which would have clarified to non-inerrant position holders would have been nice, but not important considering the target audience (which almost truly none exist in this forum but a select few) for which the point of the post was intended.
3. First things first: It is silly to expect the bible to be written in such a precision as today's books are written. First of all, it was written by probably hundreds of different men over a span of probably 5000 years (give or take a couple of hundred or so) and completed just under 2000 years ago. Think about that. True. No argument form me, actually. But we are talking about two specific passages which aren't separated by hundreds of years, but from (perhaps) two authors who were each others "contemporaries," and probably knew of each other, and maybe even met once or twice toward the end of each others' lives (if we assume Luke and Paul as the actual authors). They may not have, but they were close enough to each others historical time line that it is possible. For two such differing accounts in such a brief period of time amounts to one of two things:
   1. One of them was lying for purposes of either self-protection or mass deception
   2. One of them was flat-out wrong
   And either way, you still have a great contradiction to the target audiences perceptions for which they can not take up the double-dig dare except to hide themselves from the truths presented which refute their "inerrant" stance.
4. And BTW, Paul was writing these letters to individual people in individual small churches in individual circumstances. He probably would not want these specific letters to be universally applied, and he certainly had no idea that they would be canonized and thus scrutinized to death for thousands of years, else he probably would've been much more careful with what he said and how he said it! Irrelevant. It's a fucking three year difference of Paul's conversion. Even if Paul was speaking to separate church entities (which he was), it doesn't explain why he would "forget" or even "change" the story of his blessed salvation unless he were lying or had something to hide.
5. But I thought you knew more about it than what you have shown in your most recent post. And like I said, I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination. I might know more than the average person, but I am far from an expert. I just wish you'd put all that investigation and research you put into your fundie diatribes and perhaps incorporate them into your bible diatribes. You really do such a good job with them, exposing their hypocrisies and such. Thanks, I try. The post, while it could have had all of the historical facts presented, was not pertinent. But in the interests of all my readers, I will try to present a more inclusive and all-around coherent world-view for anyone who might be reading, as opposed to hitting a narrow target in the future.

And Darkmind? As much as I would like to not take fundies so seriously, they fuck up my life too much to not do so. Before you know it, they'll be fucking with everybody's if they have their way. Of course, I'm also very tired right now--who ever decided a work day should start at fuckin' 8 a.m.? I'm off for caffeine...