The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Rhondazvous]

The original "lying for Christ"?

Well, as someone said a couple of posts back, the Bible can be interpreted however one wants to interpret it, though imo we should strive to interpret it correctly, as in how the author intended his audience to perceive it and given the historical context. Personally, I don't see this as an instance of "lying" for the sake of the Gospel as much as I see it as instruction for meeting people where they're at in life for the sake of the Gospel. Sort of how one may dress differently for certain occasions, or use less "appropriate" language amongst their peers than they would with their parents, etc. I think Paul is saying that one must politic, though not necessarily with intention to deceive, but to relate to the person or party in a way that one can establish a good rapport.

 Your interpretation of Paul's word would be acceptable by most Christians looking for a solution, but is it based on historical context or on your own ideas about what it takes to "relate" to people?

Outside his own claims, no other biblical writer confirms Paul as an apostle Barnabas vouches for Paul's conversion, but falls short of calling him an apostle.  Although in the book of Acts we see Paul meeting with all the saints and going off on an evangelism spree, in Paul's own writings, particular in Galatians 1, he gives a sworn affidavit that he never met the saints. Words like immediately and straightway preclude interpreting these as anything but a contradiction. Paul's accounts of his conversion, where in one version he sees a light but hears no voice, and in another he hears a voice but sees no man, are quite contradictory. Why should we be generous in interpreting his claims of being all things to all people?