Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[dyanaprajna2011]

Something I've mentioned in passing in several threads, but never really explored in detail, is some statements Paul makes in his letters to lying and using deception to gain converts. I'll post these here:

But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

For though I be free from all [men], yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Also, look at the three narratives of his conversion experience in Acts 9:3-7, Acts 22:6-10, and Acts 26:12-20. There are contradictions in these three narratives. Even the great western saint Jerome said of Paul:

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

So, how can we trust one who admits to using deceit, and not only that, but even those who followed his words and teachings admitted he did so? Can we really trust the letters of Paul to support any kind of spirituality if this is the case? And not only that, but later church fathers followed his lead, in finding great use for deception and lying, as long as they gained things for their god:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

So, in Clements opinion, even if something is true, if it contradicts their faith, it's not to be regarded as true.

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Even the great reformer Martin Luther said:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Is this the faith that was inspired by Paul? One of deceit and lies, in order to gain for their god? The Bible, in other places, and even in Paul's letters, warns against lying, using deceitful speech, and misleading others. What are we to make of all of this? Is this the kind of example we want to follow for spirituality? How about today's Christian leaders, are we to trust them? I'll let another quote from St. Jerome illustrate this point:

‘There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’

The Bible says that "satan is the father of lies". Jesus even mentioned that it might be possible for the antichrist to deceive the apostles, just as they had been done by Paul. Is it possible that Paul was the one Jesus had in mind when he said that satan is the father of lies? What does this mean for Christianity, which is mostly built on the teachings of Paul, who (and this is for another thread), contradicted Jesus on many matters?

 

[oldbadger]

Massively interesting. I copied all of your OP so that I can study and take it all in. I must get these Epistles that you quote from. Thankyou

I can add nothing, other than to say that I have always mistrusted Paul, his agenda, His church, the lot.

 

[Jainarayan]

Paul was egotistical, controlling and a usurper of Peter's place in leading the church. Ninety percent of what Paul wrote should be redacted from the Bible. Christianity is not Christianity, it is Paulism. True Christianity is Jesuism, with which I have no problem.

 

[oldbadger]

Paul was egotistical, controlling and a usurper of Peter's place in leading the church. Ninety percent of what Paul wrote should be redacted from the Bible. Christianity is not Christianity, it is Paulism. True Christianity is Jesuism, with which I have no problem.

Yes.... that's the part that I have always believed, that Catholicism is mainly Paulism. I think that Paul focused upon rules and laws which Jesus may not have, or did not, particularly bother with. Oh... the whole thing.

Whereas Jesus was a beautiful, understanding, loving (sometimes angry) prophet, Paul was something else. Christians would be angry with my term 'prophet', I expect, but I do think about Jesus and what I know about him quite a lot.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's not only Catholicism, but all of 'Christianity' that is more reliant on Paul than Jesus. Jesus's teachings became secondary to Paul, as if Paul had to make commentaries on them. Paul's commentaries (i.e. epistles) are beyond the pale.

Swami Prabhavananda wrote a nice book called The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta. It puts Jesus's teachings in a light that no Christian commentator would dream of. It's sad that a Hindu swami gave a clearer commentary on what Jesus really said and meant than Christians.

I think there were times when Jesus was justifiably angry, as was Krishna at times.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,

I think there were times when Jesus was justifiably angry, as was Krishna at times.

I am interested to know more, can you say more about this part ? :0 Angry about what ? Are you referring to the part of the Mahabharata where Sri KrishnaJi behead the king with His chakra ?

Thank you

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

[Jainarayan]

Well that too. In the beginning of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna chastises Arjuna for, in the translation of Swami Tapasyananda, "this loathesome stupidity" for Arjuna not wanting to fight. I should expand the anger to Narasimha's rage during and after killing Hiranyakashipu (Krishna and Vishnu are, after all, one and the same). Narasimha's fury and rage were so great that the gods were afraid. Not even Mahalakshmi could calm Him down. He eventually did because of the supplication of Prahlada.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Something I've mentioned in passing in several threads, but never really explored in detail, is some statements Paul makes in his letters to lying and using deception to gain converts....

What benefit did it have for Paul to gain converts?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What benefit did it have for Paul to gain converts?

Considering he was essentially a Nazi-turned-Rabbi, ego-stroking perhaps?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

What benefit did it have for Paul to gain converts?

How does it benefit Christian's today to get converts? And they try very very hard to convert people. Some people are quite erratic about their beliefs they want to "save" everyone. Some people get off on controlling others with their beliefs.... And another plus side is more donations.

 

[Desert Snake]

How does it benefit Christian's today to get converts? And they try very very hard to convert people. Some people are quite erratic about their beliefs they want to "save" everyone. Some people get off on controlling others with their beliefs.... And another plus side is more donations.

I don't think that answered InvestigateTruth's question, at all, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion

 

[SageTree]

I think Saint Paul was better at playing the lyre than being a receiver.


heh.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What benefit did it have for Paul to gain converts?

It seems to me that the answer to this question is twofold: 1. for control. Paul seemed to really enjoy the control and power that he had over others, and 2. to destroy Christianity from the inside. He had attempted to destroy it from the outside, but realized that he would fail at doing this. So he destroyed it from the inside, by taking Christianity to the Gentile population, and adding elements from their own pagan religions to the mix.

 

[Harrytic]

As a Christian myself, I believe that Paul was a man hungry for power and fame. He wanted followers. He took the popularity of Jesus and Jesus’s teachings and added his own spin on it. One thing we can definitely be certain of was that he was no prophet and he was very fallible. The guy believed that Jesus’s return and the end of the world was eminent and going to take place in his life time (not 2000 years later). He was completely and utterly wrong, so I would be dubious about taking his teachings seriously and would very much doubt his integrity.

 

[Desert Snake]

As a Christian myself, I believe that Paul was a man hungry for power and fame. He wanted followers. He took the popularity of Jesus and Jesus’s teachings and added his own spin on it. One thing we can definitely be certain of was that he was no prophet and he was very fallible. The guy believed that Jesus’s return and the end of the world was eminent and going to take place in his life time (not 2000 years later). He was completely and utterly wrong, so I would be dubious about taking his teachings seriously and would very much doubt his integrity.

so, in other words, you have your own version of the Bible. Interesting.

 

[Ken Brown]

Something I've mentioned in passing in several threads, but never really explored in detail, is some statements Paul makes in his letters to lying and using deception to gain converts. I'll post these here:

Also, look at the three narratives of his conversion experience in Acts 9:3-7, Acts 22:6-10, and Acts 26:12-20. There are contradictions in these three narratives. Even the great western saint Jerome said of Paul:

So, how can we trust one who admits to using deceit, and not only that, but even those who followed his words and teachings admitted he did so? Can we really trust the letters of Paul to support any kind of spirituality if this is the case? And not only that, but later church fathers followed his lead, in finding great use for deception and lying, as long as they gained things for their god:

So, in Clements opinion, even if something is true, if it contradicts their faith, it's not to be regarded as true.

Even the great reformer Martin Luther said:

Is this the faith that was inspired by Paul? One of deceit and lies, in order to gain for their god? The Bible, in other places, and even in Paul's letters, warns against lying, using deceitful speech, and misleading others. What are we to make of all of this? Is this the kind of example we want to follow for spirituality? How about today's Christian leaders, are we to trust them? I'll let another quote from St. Jerome illustrate this point:

The Bible says that "satan is the father of lies". Jesus even mentioned that it might be possible for the antichrist to deceive the apostles, just as they had been done by Paul. Is it possible that Paul was the one Jesus had in mind when he said that satan is the father of lies? What does this mean for Christianity, which is mostly built on the teachings of Paul, who (and this is for another thread), contradicted Jesus on many matters?

Hi dyanaprajna2011, most are like you and do not understand Paul very well. The Apostle Paul was the greatest and most knowledgeable Apostle concerning the Spiritual understanding of the Law:

2Pe 3:15-17
(15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(17) Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

You see dyanaprajna2011, even the Apostle Peter recognized the special WISDOM that had been given to Paul, which LAWLESS men would then distort and twist.

Now, you have fallen INTO the category of being one of those whom Peter was speaking about. Take for example the first Scripture you referenced in 2 Cor 12:16. You have presented that Paul was lying and using deceit, even as being so bold as to openly admit to this sin. Shame on you! The Apostle Paul was speaking of how he did not "hold out his hand" as the churches of this world do today, and ask for them to take care of him. This was a crafty move on his part, to not let them have any reason to accuse him of having "monetary" MOTIVES in his presentation of the Gospel to them. That totally disarmed any accusations that would say he was preaching to them for profit...and that was very crafty of him. You should apologize for even suggesting Paul was a liar and a deceitful person. KB

 

[Harrytic]

so, in other words, you have your own version of the Bible. Interesting.

I have the New American Standard version. What version do you have?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

so, in other words, you have your own version of the Bible. Interesting.

Lots of people do. Some accept a version of the Deuterocanon (there are three to my knowledge). Some accept the Gnostic texts. Some accept the Book of Mormon. Others have teachings of their leaders they place on the same level as the Bible. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with doing this. One should be free to accept or reject anything they see fit, according with their spirituality.

 

[Desert Snake]

Lots of people do. Some accept a version of the Deuterocanon (there are three to my knowledge). Some accept the Gnostic texts. Some accept the Book of Mormon. Others have teachings of their leaders they place on the same level as the Bible. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with doing this. One should be free to accept or reject anything they see fit, according with their spirituality.

I'm not aware of the Bibles that teach those ideas he was talking about.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hi dyanaprajna2011, most are like you and do not understand Paul very well. The Apostle Paul was the greatest and most knowledgeable Apostle concerning the Spiritual understanding of the Law:

I spent 30 years as a Christian, studying everything I could about Christianity, including the writings of Paul, and how each different denomination viewed him. One thing is for certain, everyone has their own opinion, so is there anyone who really "understands" him? You see, I don't look it him with the presupposition of conservative Christianity that he was an apostle of god, divinely inspired. I'm not required to believe any such thing. I view him objectively, with no preconceived notions, letting his own words speak for themselves. That's how I came to the conclusion I did, and was one of the main reasons why I eventually left Christianity.

You see dyanaprajna2011, even the Apostle Peter recognized the special WISDOM that had been given to Paul, which LAWLESS men would then distort and twist what he wrote.

Peter was just a man, just as fallible as you or me.

Now, you have fallen INTO the category of being one of those whom Peter was speaking about. Take for example the first Scripture you referenced in 2 Cor 12:16. You have presented that Paul was lying and using deceit, even as being so bold as to openly admit to this sin. Shame on you!

Sorry, I don't believe in the Christian concept of sin. Morality to me is more universal, and logical. Slandering a man who admitted to lying to gain converts is hardly something that is immoral.

The Apostle Paul was speaking of how he did not "hold out his hand" as the churches of this world do today, and ask for them to take care of him. This was a crafty move on his part, to not let them have any reason to accuse him of having "monetary" MOTIVES in his presentation of the Gospel to them. That totally disarmed any accusations that would say he was preaching to them for profit...and that was very crafty of him. You should apologize for even suggesting Paul was a liar and a deceitful person. KB

Paul's motives were not financial. Of course he presented himself this way, to hide his true motives, which was power, control, and the destruction of the message that Jesus preached. This was just one way he used deceit to trick people into accepting his message. As for your comment that I should apologize, that's moot. I simply pointed out the obvious, what Paul said in his own words. As I'm not a Christian, I don't have any stake in what Paul was or was not. I don't have any reason to apologize.