St. Paul wouldn’t lie to you. Or would he?
Whether Jesus existed or not is immaterial to the problem everyone has who makes theological claims based on “Faith,” or belief. Simply put, we were not there when the accounts were written, nor were we there when the books of the bible were assembled in a process which lasted centuries. What has been left to us is the legacy of theological “stories” by men who claim what they have received is “true.” But they weren’t there either, so they are passing a story that is based on a claim of “truth” which can never be verified.
The clever men who realized this where also the men who derived great power in making the unverifiable story “true” to others. Thus Christianity became a religion based on “Faith,” that is, based on a story which must taken as true. The person or persons who wrote as the apostle “Paul” understood this weakness, so clever brains that spoke as “Paul” made it a strength. [1]
It was quite a trick. For if one is to hold a belief, one must believe in something. A belief cannot exist in a void without a context. “Paul” admits this in Corinthians where he bluffs his way through potential objections while making a fatal weakness of his argument into its greatest strength at the same time.
“[11] For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed.”
Here we see “Paul” admitting to his role in supplying the context for those who have listened to his story.
“[12] Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?”
What Paul asks here is why, since they have been given the story presented as “true,” why are the Corinthians (or some of them) doubting the resurrection, or in other words, why are they still insisting that what’s dead stays that way? Here Paul is in serious trouble, as his implausible story has to contend with the magnitude of common sense and the laws of nature, where dead things never come back to life.
“[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. [14] And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
I have heard this particular sermon many times. For all of “Paul’s” majestic bluffing, nobody seems to remember that he was not a witness to Jesus’ resurrection, either. “Paul” is guilty of relating a story as true about an incident he which he did not experience. If the Corinthians objected to “Paul’s” lack of verification, there is no mention of it in history. In the next verse, however, we possibly have the most honest statement made in this epistle:
“[15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.”
Indeed. “Paul” claims that the validity of his entire mission is based on the impossibility that he would be a “false witness before God” and lie about such a thing. But all it would take to pull off the bluff is to not care if God was watching you. I mean, wouldn’t it be a thing if God actually punished those who lied in His name?
My question is why haven’t more people called “Paul’s Bluff” and demand that he justify his belief? Maybe the Corinthians did. We’ll never know. But by making the weakest part of “Paul’s” story (“Yes, it’s a crazy story that I can’t verify) into the strongest part, (but I wouldn’t be a false witness in front of God. Honest!”), “Paul” bluffs his way into acceptance through appealing to another equally unverifiable source, namely, “God” Himself. People have bought Paul’s bluff ever since, but I say it’s time for believers to raise or fold, because I’m ready to put my cards on the table… and I’m calling.
———————————————————
[1] I use brackets to indicate my position that Paul was not a historical figure, but rather a mouthpiece created to place words of doctrine by others intent on spreading the Primitive Christian religion beyond Palestine.
