Fallacies used against Paul

[doug yowell]

Which of the disciples told you guys that Paul and Luke were fakes? Did you recieve a vision from Jesus revealing this? Since your theology rejects pretty much all of the NT (as well as all of recorded church history), what authoritative source of information do you cite as evidence of this great hoax?

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Modern usage equals Historic usage

This fallacy assumes that words have the same meaning today as they had in Paul’s day. This fallacy can be heard in statements like, “Paul had no authority to call himself an Apostle.”

When we use words that have been adopted into English from a foreign language, we are sometimes not aware that the term had a more general meaning in the original language. For example, in English the word apostle usually refers specifically to the twelve men chosen by Jesus to be given special training and religious authority. So when Paul calls himself an apostle, we tend to interpret it as Apostle (with a capital A) and it sounds to us as if Paul is making himself one of “the twelve”. But in the Greek of Paul’s day, the word apostle had no special religious significance. Any messenger or servant sent by a person of authority to act as his agent could be called an apostle. During the centuries when the Church misappropriated the authority of “the Apostles,” the term picked up connotations that were not present when Paul originally used the word.

[Dr. Rich]

Rev. 2:2 That's all there is to it.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Consensus determines correctness

This fallacy is often heard on both sides of theological debates. It assumes that the majority opinion is the correct opinion. This fallacy can be recognized in such statements as, "Most commentators agree that the book of Hebrews was written to convince Jewish Christians to not return to Judaism," or "No recognized scholars would support the notion that Paul taught the Gentile believers to observe Torah."

Although the majority opinion should be considered carefully, other evidence should also be weighed into the equation such as, "How could Jewish believers have been tempted to return to Judaism when all the historical evidence shows that they never left Judaism in the first place?" and "Could the opinion of those scholars be influenced by the fact that they are unwilling to uphold the Torah themselves?"

[Dr. Rich]

The majority will not be the 'few' found in Rev. 3:4 and those who are righteous, know and practice the truth found in Rev. 14:5.

[Musicman1228]

Fallacy: Consensus determines correctness

This fallacy is often heard on both sides of theological debates. It assumes that the majority opinion is the correct opinion. This fallacy can be recognized in such statements as, "Most commentators agree that the book of Hebrews was written to convince Jewish Christians to not return to Judaism," or "No recognized scholars would support the notion that Paul taught the Gentile believers to observe Torah."

Although the majority opinion should be considered carefully, other evidence should also be weighed into the equation such as, "How could Jewish believers have been tempted to return to Judaism when all the historical evidence shows that they never left Judaism in the first place?" and "Could the opinion of those scholars be influenced by the fact that they are unwilling to uphold the Torah themselves?"

I agree with this 100%. The consensus (majority opinion) within the Christian church is that Paul is a legitimate apostle of Jesus. So by your own words you agree that the majority is not always correct, and that the minority just may have something worthy to be considered; in this specific case that Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Yet because you firmly believe that Paul is who he alone says he is and the majority believes this, therefore those of the opposition must be wrong.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Misunderstanding proves Lack of Clarity

This fallacy claims that if a passage in Paul's writing can not be easily understood by modern readers it is because Paul's thinking or writing was muddled. Thus an attempt is made to hold Paul responsible for the reader's ignorance about the situation that Paul was addressing in the original context, as well as the reader's ignorance of the nuances, idioms, irony, and humor of the original language.

Those who use this line of logic think that instead of writing his letters in a style that would be easily understood by the original recipients who were familiar with Paul and the specific issues he was addressing, Paul should have addressed his letters to a more general audience and provided complete explanations that could be understood by people from all cultural backgrounds and in all periods of subsequent history.

[doug yowell]

Those who use this line of logic think that instead of writing his letters in a style that would be easily understood by the original recipients who were familiar with Paul and the specific issues he was addressing, Paul should have addressed his letters to a more general audience and provided complete explanations that could be understood by people from all cultural backgrounds and in all periods of subsequent history.

In this case I think the logic(???) goes more like,"I like Jesus' message. I can't understand much of anything that Paul espouses. Therefore, Paul, and any other Bible writer, must be heretical quacks, and the entire Christian world hapless spiritual dupes."

[Gary K]

In this case I think the logic(???) goes more like,"I like Jesus' message. I can't understand much of anything that Paul espouses. Therefore, Paul, and any other Bible writer, must be heretical quacks, and the entire Christian world hapless spiritual dupes."

Yup. Peter speaks to this directly.

IIPeter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: They were Simpletons

Another fallacy that has been used in the debate about Paul is the assumption that the folks Paul was teaching were so stupid that they could easily be fooled by deceptions that are now obvious to modern readers of the New Testament who value Torah. This fallacy can be heard in statements such as, "Paul taught things that were clearly contrary to Torah," and "By participating in a Nazarite vow Paul fooled the Jerusalem congregation into thinking he was Torah-observant."

The almost universal tendency to think of 1st-century believers as being less intelligent than modern believers probably stems from several sources-- reading and watching too many dumbed-down Bible stories, our cultural arrogance, the latent anti-Semitism taught by Christianity, and the obscuring effects of 20 passing centuries. Have these influences given us an unwarranted feeling of superiority over the believers of Paul's day? What makes us think that Paul's original listeners and readers would have been fooled by teachings that wouldn't fool us today (now that we value Torah)?

The congregation in Jerusalem was led by Jesus' apostles who had been filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Those leaders described their congregation as "many ten thousands who believe and are all zealous for the law." (Acts 21:20) Compared to that congregation, most of us have just started dabbling in Torah. Many in the Jerusalem congregation had been filled with the Spirit at Pentecost. Many were present when Jesus taught, died, and ascended. Some had probably been healed by Jesus himself. They had met daily in the Temple to praise God, and had sold their possessions to share among the believers. They had seen Ananias and Sapphira drop dead when they lied to Peter. Many members of the congregation had been persecuted for their faith.

How long would that Spirit-filled congregation be fooled by Paul if he hadn't actually been following Torah? Would Paul lie to the congregational leaders, knowing that others had been struck dead while doing that very thing? Would that congregation (that was zealous for Torah) suggest that a person who had actually been teaching against Torah pretend to be specially devoted to God by going through the motions of the Nazarite vow? Is that what we would recommend for someone who was actually teaching against Torah today? Ananias and Sapphira had been going through the pretense of devoted generosity when they died. What could Paul have gained by pretense? If Paul had been teaching against Torah, wouldn't a congregation that was zealous for the Torah have judged Paul according to Torah?

The other congregations of believers spread throughout the regions where Paul worked were similar to the Jerusalem congregation. Devout Jews from all over had traveled to Jerusalem for the Feasts at Pentecost (Acts 2) and also for the Feasts during Jesus' ministry. They returned to their home synagogues with the good news of Jesus. In Acts 15:21 James tells us, "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." These people knew Torah long before they heard from Paul. What makes us think these people would be fooled by Paul if he were blatantly teaching things contrary to Scripture?

People who learn Paul's writings before they learn Torah may be fooled into thinking that Torah has been abolished, but people who learn Torah before they hear Paul's writings wouldn't be easily fooled. Every congregation where Paul taught had members who knew Torah before they knew Paul. (Even today, groups like Jews for Jesus have little success among those Jews who know Torah.)

[Dr. Rich]

No matter how one twists, dances and spins the words of Paul, it is clear and a fact that Paul's gospel is not the same as the gospel Jesus taught.

Here, try this: Name ONE person who said they were OF or sent by Jesus and that Jesus was the Christ who led MANY people astray (deceived them) and is still doing that today? Please someone, try that. Jesus' concern about this shows that this warning was given for the disciples and for those who would read and believe in those words.

[doug yowell]

No matter how one twists, dances and spins the words of Paul, it is clear and a fact that Paul's gospel is not the same as the gospel Jesus taught.

Clear and factual to who (whom?),178 people in the entire world? Obviously not to the billions of people who read or heard both of their gospels. Not to Martin Luther,Augustine,Ellen G. White,John Newton,William Carey,or Mother Teresa,ect...ect...ect... What seems clear and factual is that 99.99999999999999999999999% of Bible readers recognize the unity of the New Testament record.

[doug yowell]

Here, try this: Name ONE person who said they were OF or sent by Jesus and that Jesus was the Christ who led MANY people astray (deceived them) and is still doing that today? Please someone, try that.

Joseph Smith

[Dr. Rich]

Sorry Doug, but Joseph Smith was not around when the disciples were living. Jesus gave this warning THREE times in Matthew 24 alone--FOR His disciples. Come on Doug--or anyone, try to answer the question correctly. Name someone who was alive during the time of the disciples who's words have deceived many and keep on doing that. This person is who was used to sow the bad seed (tares) right along with the the good seed (wheat) that Jesus sowed and placed into the same book by His eyewitnesses. Because no one knew the difference, the seeds sprouted and grew together and no one could tell the difference until just before harvest.

The reason people have not discovered the difference since the Catholic Church was formed, is because truth ceased to exist during this time, all the way up to the present. Read Rev. 12 and you will see that the Woman (the Holy Spirit) fled to the wilderness. Why? because NO ONE during this time (dark ages) knew the truth between Jesus' words and the writings of Paul. Do a search on the net on this issue and you will find that many are now finding this big difference. Only those who refuse to put the eyesalve on in order to see (Rev. 3:18) the difference will be those found in Rev. 12:17. Sure, the number is only a few compaired to all of the christians, but that number is right now grouwing all over the world.

[doug yowell]

Sorry Doug, but Joseph Smith was not around when the disciples were living. Jesus gave this warning THREE times in Matthew 24 alone--FOR His disciples.

That's not what you originally asked. Check out your original question.

[doug yowell]

Come on Doug--or anyone, try to answer the question correctly. Name someone who was alive during the time of the disciples who's words have deceived many and keep on doing that. This person is who was used to sow the bad seed (tares) right along with the the good seed (wheat) that Jesus sowed and placed into the same book by His eyewitnesses. Because no one knew the difference, the seeds sprouted and grew together and no one could tell the difference until just before harvest.

Ok......hang on........I'm thinking..........uhhh.......I think I've got it......NO ONE!!

[Dr. Rich]

doug, I did too by the way I presented the question. Go look and you will see that I presented the FACT that Jesus was talking ONLY to His disciples and warning THEM not to be deceived. If you couldn't see that by reading the whole post then I appoligize for not making myself clear.

[Dr. Rich]

Yes, NO ONE during the dark ages AFTER the NT was composed and placed into the bible. But is is clear from Pseudo Homily 17-19 that Peter knew the difference when he question Paul and asked him why his gospel was not the same as what Jesus said and taught.

"But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman."

[doug yowell]

Yes, NO ONE during the dark ages AFTER the NT was composed and placed into the bible. But is is clear from Pseudo Homily 17-19 that Peter knew the difference when he question Paul and asked him why his gospel was not the same as what Jesus said and taught.

So you reject the testimony and validity of the New Testament in favor of the Pseudo Homily and are convinced that the PH is telling you the truth?

[Musicman1228]

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 1John 2:18.

Continuing on from where Dr. Rich left off I want to point out that the disciple John was a direct eyewitness to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and he was one of the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly that was called 'The Way'. You understand that Paul went to Jerusalem to try to explain 'his' gospel to the actual eyewitness disciples that were still in residence. We know with great certainty that this included John, Peter and most probably Matthew. And although James was the head of the Jerusalem council having taken over the position from Peter on the strength of a vision (unconfirmed) this particular James was not the eyewitness disciple, but was the younger brother of Jesus.

Paul spent some time trying to convince these brethren (Disciples) that his gospel, the on he had been preaching to the gentiles for fourteen years, was the true gospel because he (Paul) received it directly from Christ Jesus (Paul often reverses this name) in vision. This did not sit well with the true disciples of Jesus because they knew without a doubt what it was that Jesus taught them, and they saw great conflict between that and what Paul wanted to teach as the Gospel of God. In the following passage you can clearly see the conflict coming to a head between the Jerusalem council and Paul:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.   (2) I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.   (3) But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.   (4) Yet because of false brothers*(1) secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—   (5) to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.   (6) And from those who seemed to be influential*(2) (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.   (7) On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised   (8) (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),   (9) and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,(3) perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Gal. 2:1-9.

*(1)These were missionaries sent by the Jerusalem council to the churches that Paul had founded for the purpose of setting them straight as to which gospel was the gospel taught by Jesus Christ. (ref. Gal.1:6)

*(2)(3) Here Paul is speaking about the Disciples of the Jerusalem council, most notable Peter and John.

Paul had an arrogant and disparaging spirit toward the eyewitness Disciple and by his own admission did not use anything that he learn from them in his gospel, feeling it to be far superior the their gospel. This was not brought about by the true Holy Spirit, but by a spirit masquerading as the Holy Spirit. Again I call your attention to Gal. 1:6-9 as the strongest evidence to this arrogance. And since Paul had prayed for his boastfulness to be taken away (2Cor. 7-10),and the god to whom he prayed refused to take the boastful arrogance away from him he continued in his boastful condition throughout his ministry.

Paul WENT OUT from the Jerusalem assembly to preach a gospel that was totally different than the gospel the Jesus had taught to His own Disciples. By John's own words we see that the apostle Paul went out from them but was not one of them, because he did not continue teaching what these 'so called Pillars' were teaching as the gospel of the Kingdom.

Jesus even warned that this would happen in His own prophecy:

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray.   (5) For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. Matt.24:4-5.

And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.   (12) And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. Matt. 24:11-12.

Paul is the only 'apostle' that teaches that the Law has been put aside at the cross, that we are no longer under the Law but under grace. that where there is no Law there is no violation. Jesus knew who Paul was and what he would do in disrupting the dissemination of the truth throughout the world. He warned His own Disciples, and through them-us, that it is up to us not to be deceived. Jesus never guaranteed that any of us would be immune to lies dressed as the truth, as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Paul is the central and foundational figure in the effort of Satan to cause so much confusion and strife that it would become impossible to tell that which is true from that which is a lie. Satan knows that if he can keep this going long enough he has a chance to stay alive.

Dr. Rich pointed out the Wheat and the Tares, and the fact that is only at Harvest time that the difference will be recognized. We are now in that time.

[doug yowell]

Paul spent some time trying to convince these brethren (Disciples) that his gospel, the on he had been preaching to the gentiles for fourteen years, was the true gospel because he (Paul) received it directly from Christ Jesus (Paul often reverses this name) in vision. This did not sit well with the true disciples of Jesus because they knew without a doubt what it was that Jesus taught them, and they saw great conflict between that and what Paul wanted to teach as the Gospel of God. In the following passage you can clearly see the conflict coming to a head between the Jerusalem council and Paul:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.   (2) I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.   (3) But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.   (4) Yet because of false brothers*(1) secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—   (5) to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.   (6) And from those who seemed to be influential*(2) (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.   (7) On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised   (8) (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),   (9) and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,(3) perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Gal. 2:1-9.

Usually error has a certain degree of validity but this view stands in condemnation of itself. You quote Paul's testimony in Gal.as evidence of his rejection by the "real" apostles and then conveniently refuse to accept the same testimony that clearly contradicts your claim.Paul clearly says that the James, Cephas, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship and commanded him to go preach to the Gentiles. You cherry pick words and phrases completely unrelated to your claims and then poo poo the clear testimony from the same source that speaks directly to your assertions.The witness of two or three are Biblically sufficient to establish truth. Luke validates Paul's claim as a legitimate apostle as well as testifying to the validation of the entire council of Jerusalem. Paul,himself, reiterates that historical claim. Peter later reinforces Paul's Scriptural authority. You can provide no (that would be ZERO)Biblical witness that names Paul as a fake. Your real attack is on the Bible itself. If the majority of the NT is bogus then there is no authority in the rest of it so why do you keep referring to it as a reliable witness to your assertions? Why not simply accept the Scripture as is and as being entirely inspired by the Holy Spirit? That way you wouldn't have to depend on psuedo writings to determine truth?

[Dr. Rich]

Doug Y, Paul clearly lied when he said and wrote that Jesus gave Peter the job of going to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

Matthew 28:18-20: And Jesus came up and spoke to them (the 11 disciples), saying: "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of ALL OF THE NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching THEM to observe ALL that I COMMANDED TO YOU; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Mark 16:15: And He said to them (the eleven disciples) "Go into ALL the World and preach the gospel to ALL CREATION."

This alone should cause one to step back and see that Paul was one of those spoken of by Jesus in His warning(s) found in Matthew 24.

[wayfinder]

Doug, I admire your determination to maintain and defend the "holy integrity" of the Bible. I would never think to throw out the entire NT, because if I did I would not have access to the testimony of Jesus. I would also agree with you about the Bible, if God were the One who gave it to us in it's present form. The Bible is a compilation of scriptures written by prophets, kings, scribes, people, and apostles and would be apostles. The compilers were committees, commissioned by pagan christian rulers, to establish accepted doctrine for the Universal Christian Church. These committees also gave us the Catholic creed and dogma. They gave us saints and popes and so forth. My decission to exclude the writtings of Paul because they are inconsistant with the testimony of Jesus, in no way dissmisses the words/Word of God.

You hold that Paul's own words used in defence of the authority and voracity of his ministry is proof that he was preaching the truth. And offer the testimony of Luke as a second witness to his God givne authority, Would be like using Brigham Young's testimony to validate the authority of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Luke was not a disciple of Jesus, not was he an eyewitness/earwitness to His ministry. It has been postulated that the "gospel" of Luke bears a closer resemblance to Josephus's writtings than to Matthew, Mark, or John.

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Suspicion as Guilt

This fallacy involves trying to promote suspicions up to the level of guilt. This fallacy is fairly obvious when it is used in its short form, which sounds something like this: "Paul would be highly motivated to lie in this situation therefore Paul is a liar." or "In this verse it seems as if Paul is telling people to disobey Torah, therefore Paul is guilty of teaching against Torah." This fallacy is a bit harder to recognize in its longer form, which involves presenting a large quantity of suspicious-looking evidence and then surmising something like this: "Someone who was truly innocent would not have so much evidence against them, therefore Paul must be guilty."

Suspicion can not be treated as guilt. It is easy to cast suspicion on a person, even if they are righteous. Because suspicion breeds more suspicion, it can accumulate at a remarkable rate. Nevertheless, suspicions piled on suspicions are still just suspicions. Under Torah a person can not be condemned on suspicions alone. Guilt can only be established on the basis of verifiable facts.

[Dr. Rich]

Ron, as to your last post, I agree. Can you now apply the same treatment to the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses? A non-bias jury would take the hearsay evidence from Paul and Luke and throw it out as being highly suspicious of tainting the real truth found in the NON-hearsay evidence from the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.