I was reading the Bible and I suddenly realised I had caught Paul out in an outright lie. I decided to test my hypothesis by asking a Christian I know if Paul lies, to which he replied "no". So I said, "what if I can show you an example that clearly shows him lying in one of his letters?" They said "what example". So I asked "well tell me this, how do you think that Paul would have learned about the Last Supper?" They said "well he would have learnt it from the other apostles in Jerusalem". So I asked "is that your final answer, and what if I can show you that Paul claims he didn't learn about it from the other apostles?" They agreed that it would show that Paul is a liar if he claims to learn about the Last Supper some other way.
Well let's have a look at what Paul says:
Paul is clearly claiming the credit for this teaching, he's telling his church in Corinth that he received it directly from the Lord, not from the other apostles. This is even more obvious when it's read in the full context of Corinthians - way back in chapter 9 he starts claiming his credentials as an apostle by claiming that he has seen Jesus, even if the other apostles don't recognise him as an apostle! This is the only time Paul makes a direct claim that he has seen Jesus.
Compare to 1 Cor 15:3 where he gives credit to the apostles for giving him the teaching/creed that he recites there: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: ..."
Now I thought that I had a strong case, but wouldn't you know it the Christian insisted that "oh no Paul's not actually claiming credit for the teaching, or that he received it directly from God and not the apostles". Um, WHAT? This entire section of Corinthians he's bad mouthing the other apostles, and claiming that he's the one with the true gospel because he's seen Jesus and has credentials independent of whatever the other apostles might say, and then he claims that he received this message from the Lord, not from the apostles. They might have had a case if he wasn't so clearly telling the Corinth church that he's authority is not given by the other apostles, and that he earned it all by himself!
I think Paul's been caught in a lie here, it's very clear what was going on. He didn't want his church influenced by Peter, James, or the other apostles who didn't view him as an apostle, so he told his church the teaching originates with him, and not with them. But the problem is - he lied.
Thoughts?
Well let's have a look at what Paul says:
Paul is clearly claiming the credit for this teaching, he's telling his church in Corinth that he received it directly from the Lord, not from the other apostles. This is even more obvious when it's read in the full context of Corinthians - way back in chapter 9 he starts claiming his credentials as an apostle by claiming that he has seen Jesus, even if the other apostles don't recognise him as an apostle! This is the only time Paul makes a direct claim that he has seen Jesus.
Compare to 1 Cor 15:3 where he gives credit to the apostles for giving him the teaching/creed that he recites there: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: ..."
Now I thought that I had a strong case, but wouldn't you know it the Christian insisted that "oh no Paul's not actually claiming credit for the teaching, or that he received it directly from God and not the apostles". Um, WHAT? This entire section of Corinthians he's bad mouthing the other apostles, and claiming that he's the one with the true gospel because he's seen Jesus and has credentials independent of whatever the other apostles might say, and then he claims that he received this message from the Lord, not from the apostles. They might have had a case if he wasn't so clearly telling the Corinth church that he's authority is not given by the other apostles, and that he earned it all by himself!
I think Paul's been caught in a lie here, it's very clear what was going on. He didn't want his church influenced by Peter, James, or the other apostles who didn't view him as an apostle, so he told his church the teaching originates with him, and not with them. But the problem is - he lied.
Thoughts?
Comment