Liar, Liar

[TedM]

Has anyone ever attempted to detail and summarize all of the places in the NT and/or the Church Father writings that a non-believer would have to conclude was

1. known by the writer (which can include an interpolator) to be a lie

or

2. known by the writer to have been 'created history' (ie manufactured by the writer based on his beliefs about what must have happened)

as opposed to fiction that the writer had heard from others?

Two possible examples: the use of 2 animals by Matthew when Jesus rides into Jerusalem, and the claim by the author of 2Peter that he witnessed the transfiguration.

I am under the impression that doubters/skeptics would conclude that many of the authors knew they were lying when they wrote certain things. THIS, I think, is something many people simply can't fathom-- (ie sure one or two might have 'exagerrated' but it is 'extremist' to conclude that most or all were knowingly lying).

I think this would be a very interesting exercise as well as potentially a good article - or book - idea.

[Secret Alias]

I don't think there would be a lot of examples where everyone would agree that the author knew he was lying so the book only has a few pages. Of course 'the Holy Spirit' tells people things so technically any 'lie' could have been written off as an 'imperfectly understood' correspondence via the spirit.

[TedM]

I don't think there would be a lot of examples where everyone would agree that the author knew he was lying so the book only has a few pages. Of course 'the Holy Spirit' tells people things so technically any 'lie' could have been written off as an 'imperfectly understood' correspondence via the spirit.

maybe, but I think most skeptics would say that supposed fulfillment of prophecy were made up -- for example casting lots for Jesus' clothing, or the 30 sheckles paid to Judas. Most skeptics say there is no way they are historical and the author had to have known that. I'll bet the list is quite long of things most skeptics would agree upon.

I think it might be illuminating to see both the quality and quantity of such items.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't think there would be a lot of examples where everyone would agree that the author knew he was lying so the book only has a few pages. Of course 'the Holy Spirit' tells people things so technically any 'lie' could have been written off as an 'imperfectly understood' correspondence via the spirit.

maybe, but I think most skeptics would say that supposed fulfillment of prophecy were made up -- for example casting lots for Jesus' clothing, or the 30 sheckles paid to Judas. Most skeptics say there is no way they are historical and the author had to have known that. I'll bet the list is quite long of things most skeptics would agree upon.

I think it might be illuminating to see both the quality and quantity of such items.

I have adduced the examples before of modern Christians thinking that Jesus was not particularly attractive, and that he had his beard pulled out during his passion. They do not glean these data from any text conventionally thought of as historical (like the gospels); rather, they get them from the Jewish scriptures (Isaiah 50.6 and 53.2, in these two cases). These people are not lying, at least not in the sense that they are knowingly passing on misinformation; they sincerely believe that the OT is a good source of historical data, recorded prophetically in advance, about the life and death of Jesus.

Ben.

[DCHindley]

Ted,

Strangely enough, my pants seem to be on fire.

If something was commonly seen when folks were crucified, such as soldiers dividing up clothing items between them, maybe even by gambling, or it was heard that Judas had somehow betrayed Jesus, it is not a great step to "fill in" additional details by mining the sacred writings. When folks are searching for "meaning" in unfortunate events, those texts which probably had no special significance to them before now suddenly pop out at them.

The writers of the DSS peshers are an example. When their righteous leader was treacherously killed, they too mined their sacred writings to find meaning for the events. In their minds, God had even planted these passages to have special meaning after the events, knowing in advance as gods do that the events would happen.

Brrr.

[robert j]

Right before relating the very convenient story of his 2nd trip to Jerusalem Paul wrote --

Now in what I write to you, behold before god, I do not lie. (Galatians 1:20)

And right before his odd story of the great basket-escape in Damascus, and --- more importantly --- right before his convenient story of the man he knew that was caught-up to the 3rd heaven fourteen years prior, Paul wrote ---

The god and father of the Lord Jesus, the one being blessed to the ages, knows I am not lying. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

I’m beginning to think that Paul wrote these vows prior to relating biographical tales that he had not told the congregations about during his evangelizing visit --- hence Paul’s perceived the need to “authenticate” the information with his oaths before god.

But if that’s the case, what I wonder is this --- why didn’t Paul initially tell about these seemingly important events?

And why didn’t Paul write about either of these two seemingly very important events to any of his other congregations? Neither story is found in any other letter. Certainly, it would seem, that the right hand of fellowship and the granting of the gentile franchise from the Jerusalem pillars (Gal 2:9) would have been a great argument in 2 Corinthians in response to the threat from the Jewish super-apostles.

[Bernard Muller]

Paul admitted he was a liar, but only about pious lies:
http://historical-jesus.info/5.html
and also:
http://historical-jesus.info/26.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

There is very little academic interest in this subject, TedM. Most of their arguments, when approaching anything along these lines, would basically run 'a priori' in the other direction: of course we wouldn't want to say that anyone was intentionally dishonest or anything, therefore...

They're too smart and sophisticated to be caught in anything so gauche as saying that an ancient Christian ever lied. Like some kind of dumb, angry atheist or something.

[Bernard Muller]

These people are not lying, at least not in the sense that they are knowingly passing on misinformation; they sincerely believe that the OT is a good source of historical data, recorded prophetically in advance, about the life and death of Jesus

The problems is that these bits and pieces borrowed from various texts of the OT are from a different contexts than the ones they are put in relation to Jesus and often from not even prophetic writings:
'Hebrews' is full of that, more so in Heb 1:1-14:
For to which of the angels did God ever say, [Psalm2:7, unspecified author] "you are my Son; today I have become your Father"?
[the "Son" in the psalm is a Davidian king (NOT Jesus Christ) who has already been "installed"[/b] as "my king on Zion [Jerusalem], my holy hill." (6). His potential enemies, "kings" and "rulers of the earth" (10), are advised to "be wise" and "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry ..." (12)]
` or again,
[2Sa7:14a, here the "Son" is definitively Solomon (NOT Jesus Christ), "... your offspring to succeed you [David], who will come from your own body ..." (7:12)]
` "I will be his father and he will be my Son"?

But about the Son he says, [Psalm45:6-7, but here "O God" is God, not his Son] "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom [some Jewish Christianity here] ...". He [God] also says,
[Next, psalm102:25-27: but in it, according to the context, the Creator here is God. But for Apollos it is Christ]
` "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands ...". To which of the angels did God ever say,
[Psalm110:1, allegedly "of David", not God. According to the next two verses of the psalm, the addressee is a young Judean king with troups]
` "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those [the elects] who will inherit salvation?"

And so on. The author was a big liar and the others many times.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

These people are not lying, at least not in the sense that they are knowingly passing on misinformation; they sincerely believe that the OT is a good source of historical data, recorded prophetically in advance, about the life and death of Jesus

The problems is that these bits and pieces borrowed from various texts of the OT are from a different contexts than the ones they are put in relation to Jesus and often from not even prophetic writings....

Is taking something out of context always a lie? (Bearing in mind that the principal definition of a lie involves the intent to deceive.)

Ben.

ETA: Know what? Never mind. I do not care for semantic arguments. My energies are better applied elsewhere.