Paul the liar

concerning whom the accusers, having stood up, were bringing no charge of the crimes of which I was expecting. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. (Acts 25:18-19)

Why should be believe in Paul when he confessed, he was lying to the people he was preaching?

If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner (Romans 3:7)

Here Paul without hesitation is admitting he was a blatant liar who deceived people into believing falsehood. From this we can conclude the argument brought before Fetus and the Jewish leaders in Acts 25 shows Paul was the one who came up with the resurrection idea.

"Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive" (verse 19)

Or else why would they bring this up if it was a messianic prophecy which the Jewish leaders would have known? What's worse Paul standing on trial once again lied in front of his audience.

"Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.” that’s strange for a man who openly confessed he was lying to spread the truth? (verse 8)

"If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner " (Romans 3:7)

Paul goes a step further by elaborating how deceptive he would go just to prove his point as found in Philippians

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, (Philippians 1:18)

Imagine a man who openly confess and elaborates his evil dirty motives into deceiving people to believe his lies.  Note the gospel accounts were written decades after Paul wrote his letters. The gospels writers themselves used Paul's theology that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Paul was a big influence on naive people. Bear In mind Paul was also a ruthless man who persecuted innocent 1st century Christians.

Paul also speaks about gospels circulating during his time, that is before the 4 canonical gospels were written.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— (Galatians 1:6)

Christians claim there was only one gospel during the 1st century and all apocrypha gospels were written much later, centuries after them. Can Christians show us these gospels Paul was referring to and different? What's fascinating about this is, these gospels which Paul is referring to were written and preached decades before Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

These gospels which are lost now were circulating before Pauls conversion.  Imagine Paul was killing Christians for preaching Jesus was not crucified. Take for example

Here's a quote from The Apocalypse of Peter :

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. (The Apocalypse of Peter 81)

Here's a quote from the Acts of John :

And my Lord standing in the midst of the cave and enlightening it, said: John, unto the multitude below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar is given me to drink. But unto thee I speak and what I speak hear thou. I put it into thy mind to come up into this mountain, that thou mightest hear those things which it behoveth a disciple to learn from his teacher and a man from his God… (Jesus Continues): But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but what they say not, that did I suffer. (the Acts of John 97)

Now Christian can argue with the dating system, which wouldn't change the fact these gospels were in circulation. Whether they argument it's from the 2nd century or not, the fact here is the 4 canonical are also from the 3rd - 4th onward as we have no early manuscripts dating back to the 1st or 2nd century. The bottom line is, Christians during Paul's time were disputing the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, which Paul lied to make it true.  No matter how hard Paul tried he got caught red handed and his lies exposed!

-------------------

Scripture where is this saying found?

And after that he gave to them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. (Acts 13:20)

Wrong according to  1 kings 6:1

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD. (1 kings 6:1 )

Bible commentators agreeing Paul made a mistake

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

He gave unto them judges - Men who were raised up in an extraordinary manner to administer the affairs of the nation, to defend it from enemies, etc. See Judges 2:16.

About the space of four hundred and fifty years - This is a most difficult passage, and has exercised all the ingenuity of chronologists. The ancient versions agree with the present Greek text. The difficulty has been to reconcile it with what is said in 1 Kings 6:1, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel ...he began to build the house of the Lord." Now if to the 40 years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness there be added the 450 said in Acts to have been passed under the administration of the judges, and about 17 years of the time of Joshua, 40 years for Samuel and the reign of Saul together, and 40 years for the reign of David, and three years of Solomon before he began to build the temple, the sum will be 590 years, a period greater by 110 years than that mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1. Various ways have been proposed to meet the difficulty.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(20) After that he gave unto them judges . . .—The statement in the text, assigning 450 years to the period of the judges, and apparently reckoning that period from the distribution of the conquered territory, is at variance with that in 1Kings 6:1, which gives 480 years as the period intervening between the Exodus and the building of the temple. The better MSS., however, give a different reading—“He gave their land to them as an inheritance, about 450 years, and after these things he gave unto them judges,” the 450 years in this case being referred to the interval between the choice of “our fathers,” which may be reckoned from the birth of Isaac (B.C. 1897 according to the received chronology) to the distribution of the conquered country in B.C. 1444. So far as any great discrepancy is concerned, this is a sufficient explanation, but what has been said before as to the general tendency in a discourse of this kind to rest in round numbers, has also to be remembered. (See Note on Acts 7:6.) Josephus (Ant. viii. 3, § 1) gives 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’s Temple. Of this period sixty-five years were occupied by the wanderings in the wilderness and the conquest under Joshua, eighty-four by the reigns of Saul and David and the first four years of Solomon, leaving 443 years for the period of the Judges. This agrees, it will be seen, sufficiently with the Received text in this passage, but leaves the discrepancy with 1Kings 6:1 unexplained. There would of course, be nothing strange in St. Paul’s following the same traditional chronology as Josephus, even where it differed from that of the present Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years (Acts 13:21)

Gross error, according to the Hebrew Bible Tanack, 1 Samuel 13:1 Saul rules for two years. The NIV says 42 years. Kjv also agrees with the Hebrew Bible saying 2 years.

And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ (Acts 13:22)

Where is this saying found in the Tanack, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will."

-------------

Do not add or subtract from the word of God (Deuteronomy 4:2)

You will be blessed if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today.

,But you will be cursed if you reject the commands of the LORD your God and turn away from him and worship gods you have not known before. (Deuteronomy 11:27-28)

You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it! (Deuteronomy 12:32)

Notice how Yahweh is concluding, "nothing should be added or subtracted from his command" all command of God must be followed. If however anyone chooses to reject his command then they are CURSED by God himself. Paul in Galatians declares anyone including an angel preaching a different gospel than what he did show be under God's curse.

Here's the irony. In one hand we have God declaring his words and on the other hand Paul. Out of the two on whom should be given more attention, God or Paul? Naturally God.  Paul is a nobody when it comes to the words of God.

Here's where it gets interesting. Both Jesus and Paul added and subtracted from the words of God thus, falling under the curse of God.

Jesus made many abrogation from divorce to anger to lust etc.. Paul also added his own words by declaring all food is lawful and one does not have to circumcise and above all the law of the Torah is outdated and invalid.

Paul has the audacity to say, God curse is upon those who preach a different gospel, yet the scum was under Gods curse himself by adding how own words taking away the Jews from the Torah.