Fallacies used against Paul

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: All or Nothing

According to this fallacy, all of Paul's writings must be rejected if anything contrary to Torah is found in Paul's life or in his writings. This fallacy is used in conjunction with the "Suspicion as Guilt" fallacy to bring all of Paul's writings into question so that they can only be used to condemn Paul, but not to exonerate him.

If this fallacy were true, we would have to reject all the writings of King David and King Solomon because in addition to their other mistakes, they both multiplied wives to themselves, which is contrary to Torah (Deut. 17:17). We would also have to reject the writings of Moses because Moses neglected to have the Israelites circumcise their sons during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness (Josh. 5:2-8). Moses is the one who wrote the command to circumcise baby boys, so his actions contradicted his own writings.

When this "All or Nothing" fallacy is put into practice it has a cascading effect because once you reject the writings of an author you also have to reject the books and writers who have endorsed the rejected author. If you reject Paul's writings you would also need to reject Acts and 2nd Peter because they both endorse Paul's ministry. And Luke would have to go because he wrote Acts. If we rejected the writings of David and Solomon we would also have to reject all the books that quote them or endorse them. If we reject the writings of Moses, we would also have to reject all of the books and authors who endorse Moses. That eliminates most of Scripture. We would also need to reject Jesus himself because he endorses both David and Moses.

[Dr. Rich]

Ron, have you ever left one rotten potatoe in a bag for some time? How about the yeast on Passover? Jesus had a policy of NO LIES! (Rev. 21:8 and 22:15)

Sure mistakes were made by many, but just as King David messed up, He asked God to forgive him and it was. But he still had to deal with the consequences of his actions.

[wayfinder]

Matthew 12:32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad ; for the tree is known by its fruit.

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good ? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

35 "The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good ; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.

36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

I do not reject Paul's salvation theology because of His actions. I agree that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Moses, Aaron, David, and Solomon, to name a few, lived less than saintly lives. If God spoke to them and instructed them to write down everything He said, than their written word is the words of God. These words of God are the standard by which all claimants to God given authority must be held to. Anyone teaching a different "law" or or "gospel", than that which was given to God's prophets or apostles, must be discarded. A wolf in sheep's clothing may look like a sheep and act like a sheep and sound like a sheep, but is still a wolf, and has only one purpose in mind, that is, killing sheep. Jesus made clear that it is our words that will determine our discission in the judgment. Our words come from our heart and show who and what we really are.

Matthew 12:34 NAS

"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good ? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

[doug yowell]

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.

This, of course, begs the question. You have offered NO Scriptural witnesses to discount the testimony of either Paul, Luke, or Peter. You simply assert that they (I noticed you forgot to include Peter's validation)were lying and expect everyone to believe that you are telling the truth. Yet you continually use Luke's testimony as factual historical evidence to prove that Paul was not who Luke said he was. How bout making up one story and sticking to it rather than using the whack-a-mole Biblical extraction method? If Luke's historical account of the early Christian church is good enough to use against Paul it's also good enough to defend him against slanderous and false accusations.

[doug yowell]

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.

The problem with your analogy should be obvious. There are no Jesus' eyewitnesses against Paul or Luke.Neither your claims against most of the NT writers or the claims of the Psuedo Writings can qualify as eyewitnesses against anything that the NT writers recorded.The fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians and even Bible critics find cohesion amongst the NT writers further weakens any charges against them (not that it would matter to you).

[Guest]

Doug is right Rich...

[ClubV12]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that some are carrying the "all or nothing" principle a bit to far out.

People make mistakes, like Moses. But to me that doesn't require that I throw out what ever "light" he may have brought forth. Or to say it another way, throw out the baby with the bath water.

Even Balaam prophesied and that was significant to the Magi centuries later, and yet, he clearly made some substantial mistakes.

However, when a person bearing "new light" mixes truth with error what do you do with that? Pick and choose? Study the material to find the good parts? In this modern age when I go to a web site proclaiming "truth", as it becomes clear the source is a mixture or truth and error, I stop right there. At that point, I do throw out the baby with the bath water! I won't waste another minute digging for some hidden truth or new light when it becomes clear the source is contaiminated.

Is it possible therefore I may have missed some important truth? I don't think so, there is so much to study I simply won't waste my time on questionable material.

While I do not understand every passage in the bible, nor does anyone in my opinion, THAT is a source I will take on faith. If it appears there is truth mixed with error, I conclude it is only because I do not understand the connection. But the source remains valid. Not so with the writing and preaching of man, when THEY depart, even partially, from the bible, for the most part, I'm outta there!

Which is mainly why I avoid the very many controversial web site's espousing this or that truth very cleverly disquised with subtle error. Often, not so subtle, more like "in your face" and substantial error. Those are easy to spot, not that dangerous. It's that mixed multitude close to the truth that is the real danger.

Dr. Rich's web site(s) are pretty far out of the realm of truth in my opinion.

[wayfinder]

Doug your faith is unshakable, I can see that. Your standard is the Bible (sola-scriptura) and that is fine. If you don't want to consider any witness outside of the scripture so be it. As I said, the Bible is a compilation of scriptures, put together by a committee authorized by Constantine, a pagan Roman emperor. Quite naturally they would not put in evidence, that which would call in to question, Paul's gospel, particularly because thay were "gentile" Christians and he was the apostle to the gentiles. I could give you a mountain of evidence to show where Paul's gospel contradicts the testimony of Jesus, but I really don't believe that would change your convictions.

In Revelation 2:2 we are told that the Son of God commends this group because they don't tolerate "evil men" and "put to the test" those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. It is very appearent to me, that Revelation is written primarily for the "last generation", so what would you suggest we use to determine who these false apostles are? We do ourselves a disservice if we look to the Bible to come right out and tell us who they are, why would the compilers include obvious contridictory material? What must be done to expose these evil men, is to compare their testimony to the testimony of Jesus and when you do that it is easy to see who is a true apostle and who is not.

[wayfinder]

Quote:

Dr. Rich's web site(s) are pretty far out of the realm of truth in my opinion

Clubv12, that is an easy statement to make, why not show that the information on the website is a lie!

[Dr. Rich]

Ron, you should (if you have actually researched the issue) know by now that 2nd Peter is highly questionable that the disciple Peter wrote it. However, even IF he did, John 21:18 points out that Peter was told by Jesus that when he gets older that someone else would guide him. Could this be the clue that shows us that Peter did not accept the role of being the rock that THE WAY was built upon, but that James, the brother of Jesus took his place and Paul even confused Peter somewhat?

Try this; put yourself in Peter's shoes. He was told to go to the whole world, not just to the Jews, but Jesus Himself. Then along comes this totally evil man who, by his own words, says he met Jesus and was given the job of going to the Gentiles. Huh? And then this EVIL man produces a different gospel than what the disciples were preaching??? If you can't see the problem here then I doubt if there is anything more anyone can do for you.

[Dr. Rich]

One of these days we shall see who's understanding is correct Richard. Hang in there my friend! I pray that when the time comes for the shaking that you move toward the words of Jesus.

[ClubV12]

Dr.Rich web site:

"...why not show that the information on the website is a lie!"

Any web site that maintains Paul is a liar and a fraud is confused and cannot declare the truth. Well, that was easy.

Moving on...

[Musicman1228]

Club V12,

How juvenal of you. I guess this establishes your credentials as an authority on Paul and we should simply bow down to your expertise and dictates. All Dr. Rich asked of you was to show how and why you think this web site or any other web site that goes against your thinking is incorrect or untruthful.

Ron,

Each one of the fallacies you cited in favor of Paul can be easily turned to prove that Paul is false. I and others have attempted, in a sincere and honest manner, to show where we find fault with the gospel according to Paul. You may honestly and sincerely not agree with our assessment but this does not automatically make you right and us wrong - or visa versa. I have not personally belittled you for your view point, and you have not belittled me. We are having an important discussion the endpoint of which may be years coming. The point is that we both understand each other's view point a little better and can respect each other even in our disagreement.

[wayfinder]

Matthew 10:25 NAS

"It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household !

Matthew 18:3 NAS

and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Clubv12, Obviously you see no need to believe what the Son of God taught. Children have no paradigms or convictions, no strongly held opinions or assumptions. Have you wiped your knowledge slate clean and become as a child, teachable? I would say no.

Matthew 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first ?"

11 And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things ;

12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

13 Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.

It was the theology experts of the day that did not recognize John the Baptist as the promised "prophet Elijah". Do you think it will be any different when the endtime "prophet Elijah" appears, I think not.

[ClubV12]

Mountain out of mole hill here...

It's pretty simple. If you can't accept Paul as an inspired by the Holy Spirit author of the bible, that's a huge red flag there is something seriously wrong with your theology.

Thats just my opinion, but I can assure you, that is also the opinion of the bulk of christians in all denominations. I understand you don't care "what the majority" thinks. I understand you may even consider being outside the majority as evidence you are correct (being the narrow gate that salvation is). However, just because the majority believes something doesn't automatically make them wrong. In this case, I will stand with the majority because they just happen to be right! Paul is indeed an inspired author of the bible.

You guys are certainly welcome to your opinion on the matter, but I think it's important to note there is another side to this issue that "isn't buying what your selling."

[Ron Amnsn]

Fallacy: Allegations as Guilt

This fallacy assumes that if a person was accused of something in the past, they must have been guilty. In Paul's case it is assumed that since he was accused of teaching against Torah, he must have been guilty of teaching against Torah.

Allegations do not prove anything. It is easy to make allegations against a person, even if they are not at all guilty, as was done to Joseph by Potiphar's wife.

[Ron Amnsn]

This last fallacy is more often heard among those who have a respect for Judaism than among those who view Judaism with disdain.

Fallacy: Modern Judaism equals 1st-century Judaism

It is a fallacy to assume that the 1st-century Judaism that Paul was dealing with is the same as modern Judaism. This mistake is evident in claims such as, "Judaism never taught that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah" and "Paul teaches a type of atonement that is foreign to Judaism." or "The Jews have always done such and such."

There were more than a dozen different sects of Judaism during New Testament times. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two most prominent sects. Other sects within Judaism included the Zealots, Herodians, Hellenists, Essenes, and the followers of Jesus known as "The Way".

Two factors that caused Judaism to change after the time of Paul were Judaism's reaction against the spread of Christianity and the tendency to define Judaism as distinct from Christianity. These factors have caused modern Jewish scholars to deny beliefs that were part of Judaism in earlier eras. It is true that Jewish scholars today unanimously insist that the servant of Isaiah 53 refers to Israel as a people, but that has not always been the case. Tim Hegg of TorahResource.com has collected quotations from early Jewish sages showing that some of them did indeed teach that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. He has also found quotations from early Jewish literature that use the story of Isaac on the altar to teach about atonement in a way that is strikingly similar to what Paul teaches about atonement in relation to the death of Jesus.

People who are opposed to Paul's writings sometimes latch on to materials prepared by anti-missionaries (enthusiastic Orthodox Jewish people who oppose the work of Christian missionaries among Jews). Care must be taken to ensure that those materials are accurate. Some anti-missionaries believe their work of preventing Jews from accepting Jesus as the Messiah is of utmost importance and that dishonesty can be used as a valid tool to accomplish that goal. Anti-missionaries sometimes participate in Messianic Jewish discussions online in order to sow seeds of doubt and draw people away from Jesus. Followers of Jesus have at times unwittingly repeated the anti-missionaries' inaccurate allegations against Paul as if they were true.

[doug yowell]

One of these days we shall see who's understanding is correct Richard. Hang in there my friend! I pray that when the time comes for the shaking that you move toward the words of Jesus.

Ya mean like, "other sheep I have which are not of this fold"?

[doug yowell]

Matthew 10:25 NAS

"It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household !

This is exactly what you're doing to the apostle Paul!

[doug yowell]

Doug your faith is unshakable, I can see that. Your standard is the Bible (sola-scriptura) and that is fine. If you don't want to consider any witness outside of the scripture so be it. As I said, the Bible is a compilation of scriptures, put together by a committee authorized by Constantine, a pagan Roman emperor. Quite naturally they would not put in evidence, that which would call in to question, Paul's gospel, particularly because thay were "gentile" Christians and he was the apostle to the gentiles. I could give you a mountain of evidence to show where Paul's gospel contradicts the testimony of Jesus, but I really don't believe that would change your convictions.

Sure it would. But you'd have to present evidence that came from the very sources that you reject. You point to the compilation of Scripture as being untrustworthy but you obviously find some portions of it worthy enough to create your "true picture" of Jesus vs. Paul.As Ron pointed out in a previous post you give God (the Godhead)no credit for being able to preserve the real historical and theological truths for future generations.Do you accept the OT as the inspired gospel story? Is that part of the Scriptures also demonically manipulated?

[doug yowell]

In Revelation 2:2 we are told that the Son of God commends this group because they don't tolerate "evil men" and "put to the test" those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. It is very appearent to me, that Revelation is written primarily for the "last generation", so what would you suggest we use to determine who these false apostles are? We do ourselves a disservice if we look to the Bible to come right out and tell us who they are, why would the compilers include obvious contridictory material? What must be done to expose these evil men, is to compare their testimony to the testimony of Jesus and when you do that it is easy to see who is a true apostle and who is not.

Rev. 2 refers to the church at Ephesus and Rev. is a general letter addressed to the churches in Asia.Who do you think started those churches? According to the historical account,Paul spent years establishing and strengthening the Ephesian congregation.Do you think it was really one of the original 12 apostles and Luke was trying to wrongly give Paul the credit? If Paul was the ultimate heretic that you paint him out to be then why didn't John or any other apostle point that out in the parts of the Bible that you accept as legit? 3 John identifies Diotrephes specifically by name as being a major troublemaker. If Paul was that much worse that why is his name omitted from John's warnings?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

In Revelation 2:2 we are told that the Son of God commends this group because they don't tolerate "evil men" and "put to the test" those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. It is very appearent to me, that Revelation is written primarily for the "last generation", so what would you suggest we use to determine who these false apostles are? We do ourselves a disservice if we look to the Bible to come right out and tell us who they are, why would the compilers include obvious contridictory material? What must be done to expose these evil men, is to compare their testimony to the testimony of Jesus and when you do that it is easy to see who is a true apostle and who is not.

Rev. 2 refers to the church at Ephesus and Rev. is a general letter addressed to the churches in Asia.Who do you think started those churches? According to the historical account,Paul spent years establishing and strengthening the Ephesian congregation.Do you think it was really one of the original 12 apostles and Luke was trying to wrongly give Paul the credit? If Paul was the ultimate heretic that you paint him out to be then why didn't John or any other apostle point that out in the parts of the Bible that you accept as legit? 3 John identifies Diotrephes specifically by name as being a major troublemaker. If Paul was that much worse that why is his name omitted from John's warnings?

What you have written is exactly the point Wayfinder was trying to make. It was Paul that founded the churches in Asia, including the first at Ephesus. This is why the prophecy in Rev. 2:2 identifies those people in the church of Ephesus as putting these apostles and prophets to the test and finding them to be false. Who else but Paul could this prophecy be speaking of? He was the apostle with the highest profile and would have to have been included in the apostles and prophets that were put to the test. As a matter of fact it went even farther than that according to Paul's own words, where he admits that ALL of Asia has rejected his gospel. WHY would this be and how could this occur if Paul's gospel was the true gospel as taught by Jesus?

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 2Tim. 1:15.

Apparently the people in Ephesus put Paul (among others) to the test and found him to be false when they compared him to the words and teachings of Jesus, and they rejected him. From there this rejection snowballed until ALL of Asia 'turned away' from his gospel. All I and others have done is what those people in Ephesus did; put Paul to the test against the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, the result of which is that I (we) found him to be false.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

One of these days we shall see who's understanding is correct Richard. Hang in there my friend! I pray that when the time comes for the shaking that you move toward the words of Jesus.

Ya mean like, "other sheep I have which are not of this fold"?

Doug, please read the whole verse and you will find that there is only ONE shepherd and ONE flock! It makes no difference what religion a person is today as long as when the truth is presented to them that they see it and come into the flock (Kingdom of Heaven). That truth is non other than the words of Jesus Christ (He is the true Shepherd). The words of anyone else (including Paul, Luke and EGW) can't be heard by the sheep in the FLOCK. Why? Because the sheep in the one flock only know the voice of the true Shepherd.

[Dr. Rich]

Dr.Rich web site:

"...why not show that the information on the website is a lie!"

Any web site that maintains Paul is a liar and a fraud is confused and cannot declare the truth. Well, that was easy.

Moving on...

How sad it is for you ClubV12 to close your eyes to the words of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses. The real truth is not about anyone else than Jesus Christ's words. According to your way of thinking, Muslems are correct to reject anything that is against their prophet. Christians have replaced the words of Jesus Christ with the words of Paul.

I am not blaming you for this deception as it was prophesied by Jesus Himself that MANY would become deceived. As Wayfinder correctly pointed out, the NT was put together by people who were pagan worshipers and gentile converts of the words of Paul. It's not hard to understand that anything they found written by anyone that would or could be against Paul's gospel, they simply could not allow that to be included in the bible/NT.

We, or most of us, know that the book of Revelation almost did not get included in the NT because it did not agree with the gospel of Paul because it is all about keeping the (all of) commandments AND the testimony of Jesus. So, what do you suppose they would have done with Revelation IF John had named the false apostles found in Rev. 2:2?

The same can be said for Rev. 2:18-26! Sure, Jesus knew who this woman was and her name, but IF Jesus would have actually named her, then who in their right mind would ever be deceived by her?

Yes, God did preserve the truth, but just as Jesus prophesied in Matthew 13, Jesus had to preserve the truth in a way so that ONLY those who used the words of Jesus to test everything else could and would know the real truth. All through Revelation Jesus is warning people that ONLY those with ears and eyes will know the real truth. Those who can't see and hear are those who refuse to put the TEST to everthing and everyone because they don't want thier foundation or belief tested by facts. After all, they believe ONLY because of 'faith', not believing that the Holy Spirit will and can guide them into ALL of the truth IF they seek the real truth and overcome sin.

[wayfinder]

Doug, The Bible is a wealth of information given to us so that we have access to the words of God and His Son Jesus Christ. The Bible also contains the words of the evil one, I know this because the are contradictions in teachings. I am not saying there are not discrepancies, there are, but I am not talking about discrepancies, I am talking about a teaching which stands in opposition to the teaching of God and His Son. If the teaching of Paul was not in the Bible we would not be having this particular discussion. God the Father and His Son, never promised to give us a scantified book without any aberrant teachings. When one observes to working of God there is a consistant and constant pattern, God Himself says He never changes, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Paul makes clear that he is the apostle to the gentiles and that the "gentile gospel" is different that the "Jewish gospel", which he calls "the Law". God's dealings with humanity are limited to His kingdom. He makes a covenant with His kingdom (the Ten Commandments). He teaches His kingdom who they are and what His expectations are. The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, is a message to His kingdom, with specific instructions on the preparation of His bride. The messages to the seven assemplies are specific to His kingdom. He did not have a kingdom after the 490 years expired in 33 CE, until the appearence of the third and final kingdom of heaven in 1844 CE. So the messages would only have specific application after 1844 and the investigation as to who are the false apostles would be accomplished after that time. I find that the parable of the wheat and tares explains the problem we find ourselves in in reguards to the Bible.

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables ?"

11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance ; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.

13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables ; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Doug, I think you can be honest with yourself, pray for discernment from the Spirit of Truth. I will pray for you also.