Fallacies used against Paul

[Ron Amnsn]

The apostle Paul and his writings have come under attack from various quarters in discussions here and elsewhere on the Internet. Several fallacies often pop up during those discussions. I have attempted to name and describe those fallacies as I see them and will share those in this thread. Recognizing and avoiding the common fallacies may help us sort through the many accusations made against Paul.

[Ron Amnsn]

This first one was posted in another thread. I'm repeating it here so this thread will be complete.

Fallacy: Justice on Unequal Balances

According to this fallacy, Paul and his writings are supposed to be judged by a different standard than we use to judge those who oppose Paul. In practice this means that Paul and all his writings are viewed with suspicion until it can be proven that Paul and his writings are totally faultless. On the other hand, the writings and allegations of those who oppose Paul are accepted at face value without asking whether or not these people and their writings meet the same standards that are used to judge Paul.

This fallacy can be seen when the allegations or writings of those who are clearly not upholding Torah are used to accuse Paul of not upholding Torah. This fallacy also comes into play when different portions of Paul's writings are judged by different standards. We see this when those passages that can be construed as evidence against Paul are readily accepted as valid at face value, but those portions that provide evidence in Paul's favor are considered dubious. Those who use this fallacy allow Paul to (supposedly) condemn himself, but will not allow Paul to defend himself.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Interpretation as Intent

This fallacy is heard on both sides of many theological debates. It assumes that one specific interpretation of a passage conveys the actual meaning that a Bible author intended to convey. People fall into this fallacy when they forget that the process of translating from one language to another is not an exact science, and when they neglect to check for other reasonable interpretations of a passage. This fallacy is being used when a person condemns Paul (or another person) on the basis of one interpretation of a passage, when a reasonable alternative interpretation of the passage exists that would leave Paul (or another person) free from condemnation.

A person's writings can be justly condemned only on the basis of what the author actually intended to say, not on the basis of what an opponent thinks they intended to say. Christianity has developed traditional interpretations of Paul's writings that seem to support a Torah-less Christianity, but before judging Paul by those prevalent interpretations a diligent review should be done to see if there is another reasonable interpretation that would be compatible with Torah-observance.

This fallacy often occurs when a person is not fully aware of the context within which Paul was writing. I think those who claim Paul taught a different gospel than Jesus taught have fallen into this fallacy by interpreting Paul's writings in a different way than they would have been interpreted by the original recipients of Paul's epistles.

[Dr. Rich]

Ron, this is nonsense. Here do this: Just give me ONE good reason why anyone needs the writings of Paul to understand how salvation works? Or for that matter, give me ONE good reason why anyone needs ANYONE'S writings other than those who were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus and recorded it down for us by the Holy Spirit causing them to remember everything Jesus said (John 14:26)????

Huh? It is pure nonsense to place your soul in jepardy of destruction by building your foundational belief upon anyone else other than the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone!

Those who keep wanting to spin, twist, and dance their way through other's writings (I really don't care who's either) other than the eyewitnesses are playing a deadly game of chance. Therefore, why do it? Why make fun of those serious people who have built their foundation ONLY upon the words o

f Jesus? The many different offshoots of christianity itself is overwheliming evidence to stay clear of other people's writings. Even a fifth grader could figure that out!

[Musicman1228]

The idea that we must know the exact historic and cultural context in which any Biblical author wrote would then preclude ANY definitive interpretation of any writings of any author, simply based on the fact that NO ONE can know everything there is to know about the personal and cultural situations that may have in some way or other affected HOW and WHAT a particular author wrote. Truth then becomes moot because under the above fallacy it becomes impossible for anyone to form a consistent textual context.

This method of interpretation allows anyone to interpret the writings of anyone in any way that bests serves their personal agenda.

Jesus eliminated the cultural context in finding Truth by telling His disciples that He would cause THEM (his own disciples) to remember EVERYTHING that He said to them, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26.

Jesus also said that the words that His disciples remembered would cause others to believe in Him through THEIR words.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17:20-21.

Jesus removed any cultural or Historic context as affecting the meaning and interpretation of HIS words through the above statements. It is only the strength of HIS words that prove the truth found in HIS words and teachings AS GIVEN TO HIS OWN EYEWITNESS DISCIPLES. This also makes it possible and necessary to remove both historic and cultural components from the words and teachings of ANYONE that claims to be 'of God', including the 'apostle' Paul.

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.  Matt.24:5.

By his own words Paul made the claim that Jesus is the Christ, and that he was preaching his (Paul) gospel in the name of Jesus Christ.

This being the facts of the case we can and must use the words of Paul in the same way we use the words of Jesus Christ, ie. their words speak for themselves outside of the need to interpret them using any historic or cultural context. If we accept Jesus as meaning exactly what He said to His disciples then we must also accept what Paul said as what he meant to those to whom he was writing, without applying personal interpretation by saying things like "Paul may have said it, but surely he didn't mean it that way." We must interpret both Jesus and Paul in exactly the same way-what they said is what they meant.

This being the case then context becomes moot vis a vis interpretation and the vast distinctions between the gospel that Jesus taught and the gospel of Paul becomes clear.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Modern Christianity equals 1st-century Christianity

Since we don't have a lot of knowledge about the context and situations that Paul addressed in his epistles, we sometimes make the mistake of assuming that the original situation was just like a situation we face today. This fallacy can be heard in claims such as, "Paul taught that people could eat unclean animals," or "Paul said it didn't matter if you keep Sabbath or not."

The problem arises if we assume that the issues of today were the issues of Paul's day. In Paul's day the followers of Jesus were not debating which day was the true Sabbath or whether it was okay to eat unclean animals. Those questions weren't issues because the answers were clearly defined in the Scriptures the people were following (the Old Testament). The issues that did arise in Paul's congregations were issues that were not clearly defined in the Old Testament, such as, "Is it okay to eat the meat from clean animals that was purchased in the marketplace, even though it may have (or may not have) been offered to idols when it was butchered?" or "Gnostics condemn us for being gluttonous and sensual on Sabbath and Feast Days, how should we respond?" or "Do we need to fast twice each week according to Rabbinic tradition as some of the Jews in our congregation insist?" When reading the answers that Paul provided to the Torah-observant believers of his day, a person would get the totally wrong idea if he assumed that Paul was addressing the issues facing today's Torah-less Christians.

[Musicman1228]

Modern Christianity is what it is - the product of the imagination of a murderer that claimed (with no proof but his own words) that he saw a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, and this vision and others like it changed the gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus taught His earthly disciples into the gospel of Paul and salvation by grace through faith.

The religion of Christianity was not started by Jesus Christ while here on earth, nor was it appropriated as a religion by the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly, known as the Way. Christianity came about because one person said he received visions that offered an easier, wider more inclusive, tolerant and gentler road to salvation than what Jesus taught in His gospel of the Kingdom. This is why Paul's gospel became so popular so quickly.

Unfortunately, the gospel that Paul teaches is not the gospel that Jesus Christ taught to His own disciples while He was here on earth. In the gospel of the Kingdom you must actually DO something in order to grow in the knowledge and understanding of the words of Jesus Christ. In the gospel of Jesus one must submit to the process of sanctification by abiding in the words of Jesus Christ, and by keeping the Commandments of God (the Ten). This is a description of the 'remnant', the offspring of the Woman of Rev.12.

[Guest]

Nice diatribe against Paul. One of God's chosen messengers.

It's like deja vu all over again. And again.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Responsibility is Retroactive

This fallacy tries to place on Paul the responsibility for how his writings have been abused over the centuries. It usually sounds something like this: "Look at how the Christians have used Paul's writings to convince everyone that they don't have to do anything but believe. Paul is somehow responsible for that."

Paul could only be held responsible if he actually intended his writings to be used for that purpose. Paul testified that he believed "everything that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets." (Acts 24:14) and the Bereans confirmed that Paul's message agreed with Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:11). If anyone has used Paul's writings outside of those parameters, then the responsibility is their own.

If this fallacy were true, Martin Luther would be responsible for Adolph Hitler's treatment of the Jews because Hitler used the writings of Luther to justify what was done. And Jesus would be responsible for the way his own teachings have been twisted to convince people that it is okay to eat unclean animals. (as in Mark 7:19)

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: A Portion as the Whole

According to this fallacy Paul's New Testament epistles constitute the whole teachings of Paul and can be used as a complete Textbook of Pauline Theology. Those who use this fallacy often find fault with Paul because he didn't give adequate coverage to certain topics in his letters. This fallacy can be heard in statements such as, "Paul had almost no knowledge of the historical Jesus" or, "Paul did not teach people the importance of keeping the Law".

Consider this: the vast majority of Paul's teachings were never recorded because they were done in person, face to face. Paul taught diligently for decades but all we have of his teachings are a handful of letters that can be read through in a few hours and the brief account of his ministry recorded in the book of Acts. Paul's epistles contain less than 0.1% of his total teachings. What we know about Paul's whole ministry is comparable to what a person would know about a feature-length movie like "The Sound of Music" after studying just 0.1% of the movie (that's less than 11 seconds) and reading the condensed version of the book. With such limited knowledge a person couldn't make valid judgments about what was missing from the movie.

All of Paul's letters were written to congregations and people who had already been taught extensively by Paul or by leaders who knew Paul, so there was no need for Paul to include in those letters everything he had already taught them in person. Among the things that Paul did not include in his letters are his basic discipleship program for new believers and a complete explanation of his theology.

[wayfinder]

Romans 10:4 NAS

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:10 NAS

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse ; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM.

Galatians 3:13 NAS

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "-

Isaiah 51:7 NAS

"Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law ; Do not fear the reproach of man, Nor be dismayed at their revilings.

Romans 9:31 NAS

but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

Galatians 2:21 NAS

"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Galatians 3:21 NAS

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God ? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

Deuteronomy 30:10 if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.

11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'

13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'

14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

John 15:10 NAS

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love ; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

Revelation 14:12 NAS

Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

[John317]

Romans 10:4 NAS

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

What does this verse say? What does it mean?

Consider the context of the Romans 10.

[Dr. Rich]

Fallacy: That we need more than the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses to understand salvation.

Fallacy: That the gospel of Paul was the same as the gospel of Jesus Christ. Truth is, Paul never heard the words of Jesus and was not taught by the disciples so it was impossible for him to teach the same thing as Jesus taught.

Therefore: Trust the words of Jesus and obey, for there is NO other way.

[Gary K]

Fallacy: That we need more than the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses to understand salvation.

Fallacy: That the gospel of Paul was the same as the gospel of Jesus Christ. Truth is, Paul never heard the words of Jesus and was not taught by the disciples so it was impossible for him to teach the same thing as Jesus taught.

Therefore: Trust the words of Jesus and obey, for there is NO other way.

Hmmm.... You sure about this? Jesus said, if they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, then they won't be persuaded even though one rose from the dead.

I see you either don't believe in the mission of the Holy Spirit, or don't believe that Paul was used by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. Does that mean it was impossible for Paul to know what Christ taught? And how about you? You didn't hear Christ's words personally either, so how can your words be taken as truth? By your own words you condemn yourself to irrelevancy.

The other consequence of your words is that you don't believe God is great enough make sure the Bible is a faithful represenatation of the truths He wants us to know. You believe God has allowed it to be populated with falsehood. You too seem to believe in a very small God.

[Gary K]

Ron,

You've done a very good job of layine out the logical fallacies used against Paul. Nice thread.

[doug yowell]

Fallacy: That we need more than the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses to understand salvation.

Fallacy: That the gospel of Paul was the same as the gospel of Jesus Christ. Truth is, Paul never heard the words of Jesus and was not taught by the disciples so it was impossible for him to teach the same thing as Jesus taught.

Therefore: Trust the words of Jesus and obey, for there is NO other way.

"Then last of all He was seen by me also..." "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you..." "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said,"Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work I have called them to." "And remember the words of Jesus,that He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of mine to bear my name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." (and Dr. Rich)

Therefore: Trust the words of Jesus and obey, for there is no other way.

[doug yowell]

I see you either don't believe in the mission of the Holy Spirit, or don't believe that Paul was used by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. Does that mean it was impossible for Paul to know what Christ taught? And how about you? You didn't hear Christ's words personally either, so how can your words be taken as truth? By your own words you condemn yourself to irrelevancy.

The other consequence of your words is that you don't believe God is great enough make sure the Bible is a faithful represenatation of the truths He wants us to know. You believe God has allowed it to be populated with falsehood. You too seem to believe in a very small God.

I think that would be spelled with a small g.

[doug yowell]

Ron,

You've done a very good job of layine out the logical fallacies used against Paul. Nice thread.

I concure.Very clear indeed.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: English Words equal Greek Words

This fallacy assumes that an English word carries the same meaning as the Greek (or Hebrew) word it was translated from. This fallacy is usually involved when you hear something like, "Paul taught a religion of faith without obedience."

For some words, English does not have an equivalent word to what was written in Greek or Hebrew. The word "faith" is one important example. In English, "faith" is something that exists primarily in a person's mind alone. However, in Greek (and Hebrew) the word "faith" also carries the meaning of "faithfulness" or "faith-ing", which is the action component that goes along with the mental component. Those two components of faith cannot be separated-- like two sides of the same coin. You can see this concept of "faith with faithfulness" clearly exemplified in Hebrews 11 where all the people of faith are commended for what they did as a result of their beliefs, not for what they believed in their minds alone.

It is easy to misunderstand Paul's message if we read it with only the English meaning of "faith". However, when we read Paul's writings with the original "faith-with-faithfulness" meaning, we get a better idea of what Paul's writings meant to the original readers.

[Dr. Rich]

Doug, 1Cor.15:5 is a false statment. There were only 11 disciples at that time and Jesus did NOT appear to Peter first. Since this is false, what else is false. I know you are not a professional investigator, but when a witness/suspect testifies to the same story three times and every time it is a different story, that, my friend, is a red flag to those of us who understand such things. Please read Paul's own words about his so called conversion and you will also find three different stories. Which one was the truth--if any?

Gal. 1:11-12: For I would have you know, brethern, that the gospel which was preached by ME is not according to man (Christs own disciples), for I neither received it from man nor was taught it, but I received it through a revelation....(who he thought was Jesus Christ).

Gal. 1:16 ...I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood...

Now read what it says in Acts 9 where Paul DID meet (allegedly) with Ananias. So how come (if this is real) Jesus didn't have Saul meet with one of His disciples? Who the heck was Ananias anyway?

Acts 9:19-20 "Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus and immeadiatly he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues saying "He is the Son of God".

So please tell me which stories is the truth; Paul's in Gal. 1 or Luke's in Acts 9?

[Gary K]

Doug, 1Cor.15:5 is a false statment. There were only 11 disciples at that time and Jesus did NOT appear to Peter first. Since this is false, what else is false. I know you are not a professional investigator, but when a witness/suspect testifies to the same story three times and every time it is a different story, that, my friend, is a red flag to those of us who understand such things. Please read Paul's own words about his so called conversion and you will also find three different stories. Which one was the truth--if any?

Gal. 1:11-12: For I would have you know, brethern, that the gospel which was preached by ME is not according to man (Christs own disciples), for I neither received it from man nor was taught it, but I received it through a revelation....(who he thought was Jesus Christ).

Gal. 1:16 ...I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood...

Now read what it says in Acts 9 where Paul DID meet (allegedly) with Ananias. So how come (if this is real) Jesus didn't have Saul meet with one of His disciples? Who the heck was Ananias anyway?

Acts 9:19-20 "Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus and immeadiatly he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues saying "He is the Son of God".

So please tell me which stories is the truth; Paul's in Gal. 1 or Luke's in Acts 9?

Hmmm.... Luke didn't sit at the feet of Jesus and hear His words either. Why do you take his word over Paul's on this supposed discrepancy. Aren't they both suspect according to your belief system?

[Dr. Rich]

Gary K, ubetcha! That is why I asked the question. And that is just another reason to trust only in the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses (John 14:26 and 17:17-20) Remember, Jesus was ONLY talking to His disciples when He said these words. One can only remember IF he first heard it before.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Culture defines Righteousness

This fallacy assumes that the accepted norms of modern society can be used to judge whether Paul had a valid ministry. This fallacy can be expressed in statements such as, "If Paul had been a real apostle he wouldn't have been so boastful," or "Paul didn't properly represent Jesus-- there's no evidence that he brushed his teeth and he probably chewed with his mouth open."

As a teenager, I took a personal dislike to Paul because of what I perceived as his boastful attitude. Later, when I lived in another culture I realized that culture is what determines whether or not certain behavior is considered boastful. In North America we are taught that false humility is better than speaking truthfully about our accomplishments and talents. However, in other cultures a person who does not speak up truthfully for themselves can be considered backwards and dishonest.

In our culture a person can establish their credibility or authority by displaying their diplomas and credentials on the wall, listing their degrees on their business card, or by holding some official position that grants them authority. In these ways a person can show that he has been "endorsed" by a respected institution of some sort. Such credentials and outside endorsements were not available in the Christian world of Paul's day. Paul had to establish his credibility and authority by what he did and said. It may sound boastful to our modern ears, but we can't use our cultural norms to judge a man who lived in a culture where a man was expected to vouch for himself when opponents made accusations.

[Musicman1228]

If it were important to display ones 'credentials' or 'diplomas' in order to establish their credibility in any specific culture, and if that credibility was important to disseminating the truth to the world then Jesus would have been a failure.

Paul said he was a follower of Christ Jesus, yet when push came to shove Paul did not have a humble spirit as did Jesus, instead opting for an arrogant display of his intelligence, and even going so far as to say (paraphrase) "that you need to become the kind of Christian that I am."

Jesus KNEW who He was, His Father had told Him both at His baptism and on the mount of Transfiguration. Jesus didn't need to display arrogance to get His message across. Paul was NEVER sure as to who he was, as he continually questioned his own motives and understanding of Scripture.

Ron, I'm sorry to say but your latest argument is specious and of no merit. If we must claim the cultural identity of a Bible writer in order to come to the truth then NO ONE will ever come to a complete understanding of Truth.

[wayfinder]

2 Corinthians 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.

9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

Matthew 12:25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste ; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.

26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself ; how then will his kingdom stand ?

27 "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.

It was these two texts that opened my eyes to the fallicy of Pauline salvation theology. Paul was distressed by a messinger of Satan, he called it a thorn in the flesh. He implored the "Lord" three times to cast it out. Paul testifies that this "messenger of Satan" was given to him to keep him from exalting himself. Paul was told by his "Lord" that this messenger of Satan was given to him, appearently by God. The Son of God stated very clearly that God does not use Satan, or messengers of Satan, to help him with a boastful apostle or any other situation some individual my find themselves in. I checked to try to find where Jesus may have refused to cast out a demon when asked to do this, I could not find one time. Never was anyone told that the demon was given to them to keep them from sinning or exaulting themself!

When I was in school (Bakersfield Adventist Academy)I was told that God has given us talents/strengths, and we are to use these talents in His service. Never was I told that God works through our weaknesses, it is Satan that uses our weaknesses to try to discourage and destroy us.