Right Divider
Body part
He's not too bright, usually engaging in illogical and irrational "arguments".
It seems that he is so anti-MAD to the point of disparaging Paul's unique ministry at every opportunity.
Answering old threads thread Part II
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
It seems that he is so anti-MAD to the point of disparaging Paul's unique ministry at every opportunity.
I was referring to the scripture you provided, which, if I recall correctly, was NOT Acts 2:1-4.
Not even close.
I'm not saying he was made the pope. I'm saying he was given the keys to the kingdom (of Israel).
People such as Idolater wrongly conflate this with being made pope.
Is not Acts the word of God?
Why even bother including Acts 1:15-26?
But not one of the Twelve Apostles, apparently, because that must be Paul...
Do you see the problem yet?
You're coming to Acts 1 with the a priori assumption that Matthias was not the one to replace Judas, that Paul was, and so you end up interpreting scripture accordingly.
You're eisegeting, not exegeting.
On the other hand, if you simply read scripture in order, Acts 1 before Acts 9, Peter lets God decide who should replace Judas, and Matthias is appointed as a result, and then one year later in Acts 9, Paul is chosen to be apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13).
As far as Peter and the rest of scripture is concerned, he was.
No, not "to Israel." To the children of Israel.
Paul, for SEVENTEEN YEARS, hardly ever went to Jerusalem, or Israel as a whole, for that matter. One visit after three years (post-conversion) to Jerusalem where he stayed for 15 days with Peter, and then fourteen years later for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The churches of Judea didn't know his face at all.
So clearly he was not sent to Israel. If he was, then he failed miserably, and by God's very instruction, if it really was His instruction.
No, Paul was sent to the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, and his ministry is perfectly in line with this, where he is recorded multiple times going to the Jews first, THEN the Gentiles afterwards
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God in me.
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 1:15-2:10 - New King James Version
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went...
Which would make sense if you had one person go to Israel, and twelve (or eleven) to the rest of the world...
But that's not what happened at all! Twelve stayed in Israel, while only one went out into the rest of the world.
The balance makes no sense if it was just a matter of division of labor! ESPECIALLY given Daniel's prophecy of weeks!
Scripture is the one delineating between the Twelve's and Paul's ministries.
Thanks.
Because things were moving very quickly at that time. The end times were upon them, according to Daniel's prophecy of weeks. It was only a few days between Christ's ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and that was to have kicked off the final week of the prophecy.
The Twelve (the then eleven) WERE the leadership in the church at that point. It wasn't until afterwards that the church grew.
Yes, Paul was an apostle chosen by God, thus his title.
This is also in line with my position. As you said, "if it doesn't contradict either position, then it can't be used to affirm one over the other." Paul had the same authority as an apostle as the twelve in Jerusalem. The difference is the scope of his ministry. They were told to go out from Jerusalem and that they wouldn't even be able to go throughout all the cities of Judea before Christ's return. Paul was told to go to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (not "Israel" specifically)
Such is the case here.
And Peter asked God to choose, and Matthias won the lottery (so to speak), and that was a full year before Paul was chosen!
So what's your point?
Now there's 13 Apostles, all chosen by God.
Again, "if it doesn't contradict either position, then it can't be used to affirm one over the other."
The problem is that it "seems" to be but isn't.
You don't seem to know what "a priori" means.
A priori is a latin phrase that means "from what is earlier."
In this context, it means that you're bringing to the text baggage that you assume to be true, and then use that assumption to establish your beliefs.
Your a priori belief is that Paul is the one who replaced Judas, not Matthias, and therefore interpret scripture in light of that belief. Another term for it is eisegesis, or reading your beliefs into the text.
The problem is that that's not what Scripture teaches.
It teaches that Peter, who was given authority by Jesus, while he and about 119 others (about 120 total...), were waiting for the Holy Spirit to come, asked God to pick between two men who fit the criteria he put forth (which he had the authority from Jesus to do) to replace Judas.
It THEN teaches that Paul, a year later (in line with Jesus' parable of the barren fig tree in Luke 13) was chosen after Jesus cut off unbelieving Israel (as described in Romans 11) and turned to working with the Gentiles
No one has said he was a different type of apostle.
What we've been saying is that Paul was an apostle to a different group, and had a different dispensation than the one given to the twelve that makes his ministry separate from theirs.
Because you say so?
The context is choosing a replacement for Judas, to fill his office which was left open by his suicide.
No such context is ever given for Paul.
Paul was an apostle, yes, but he was not the replacement for Judas.
Note the parallel between verse 26 and verse 17.
Matthias was numbered with the eleven.
Judas "was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
Because you say so?
Twelve apostles ruling on twelve thrones, in a city with twelve foundations and twelve gates, ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel...
Twelve is practically synonymous with Israel in the Bible.
Yes, they were limited to Twelve Apostles.
Other people could be apostles, but they wouldn't have the same authority as the Twelve, since they would not be ruling over the twelve tribes on twelve thrones. The casting of lots in Acts 1 was to determine whom God had chosen to fill the empty throne. The lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
But according to you, he wasn't one of the Twelve Apostles...
You seem to be making a distinction without a difference.
Which he had the authority to set, given to him by Jesus, and who asked God to show His choice between the two who fit those criteria, in humility.
God either showed His choice by having the lot land on Matthias, or He had no particular preference and let the choice be made by the casting of the lots itself and the lot fell on Matthias by chance, or the twelve were impatient and didn't wait for God's timing.
The latter seems unlikely, given what they prayed in Acts 1:24-25.
But he wasn't Judas' replacement.... according to you.
Again, distinction without a difference... all because you're trying to hang onto the notion that Paul was Judas's replacement instead.
Again, "if it doesn't contradict either position, then it can't be used to affirm one over the other."
The problem here is that you're assuming Paul was hand picked by Christ to replace Judas, simply because of the fact that he was hand picked, while ignoring the fact that Peter and the others had already, through prayer and the casting of lots in accordance with scripture, asked God to show who He had chosen to replace Judas.
There's a different reason for Christ to hand pick Paul that makes more sense, that being authority flow.
If Paul was not hand picked by Christ, then he would not have the same level of authority as the twelve, and thus his ministry would be subject to theirs, which meant that any conflicts that would have arisen between what he taught and what the Twelve taught would have had to have been settled in the Twelve's favor. But this isn't the case. Most if not all the conflicts of doctrine that arose as a result of Paul's ministry were settled in his favor, contrary to the teachings of the Twelve, the biggest issue being circumcision of the Gentiles, which the Jerusalem Council agreed they were not required to do so.
Note that Paul was not immediately told to start preaching.
He was first told to go to the second of three Ananiases mentioned in scripture (each one represents a different state of Israel throughout Acts, by the way), where Ananias the disciple laid hands upon him to (symbolically) transfer authority away from Israel and to Paul.
Well, that's just the thing. Derf comes off to me as stubborn but not stupid. Generally speaking, it seems to be that when he posts things that have no real substance, he knows it. He, for whatever reason, feels like simple arguing is just as effective as actual rational debate, or, at the very least, he is himself just as convinced by impassioned arguments as he is by dispassionate rational debate and so has no hesitation when it comes to engaging in it. This is not unique to Derf, of course. It happens to be true of nearly everyone.
Most regular people in western society today are far worse. It isn't so much that they don't want to engage in dispassionate reason, its that they don't know that's there's even a difference. When they hear what you and I recognize as sound reason, they react to it in terms of what you and I would call personal opinion. They literally do not see the difference.
You would think that the tiny subset of the population that shows up to discuss ultimate truths on a debate forum would know the difference but that is often not the case, which is why there are so many people on my ignore list. Derf, however, does not seem to me to have this particular mental dysfunction. He had demonstrated the ability to make an actual argument that deserves a substantive response and so he isn't a mindless twit, which is what has me confused about his being hung up on this argument from silence idea. It makes me think that he actually does think that you're making an argument from silence for some reason and I'd love to know just what that reason is.
Right Divider
Body part
Derf oscillates between seeming to be a reasonably intelligent person, but then stoops to shear stupidity in some posts. It's pretty hard to get a bead on his thinking. But his stubbornness is right out front in most cases.
My take on his "argument from silence" is that he thinks that anything that is not explicitly written (any deduction whatsoever) is an argument from silence.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
@Clete
The above is decidedly an argument from silence, don't you think? RD admits he doesn't know Jesus did something (gave His disciples instructions on how to replace Judas), then suggests a time frame when He might have done so, then claims it is reasonable to deduce (his terminology) that Jesus indeed did so.
The silence is obvious in RD's admission, suggestion, and deduction. Especially the deduction. If scripture were explicit on the point, "deduction" of it would be unnecessary. Now, I don't agree that such is deducible from the info given, and Peter's explanation tells us this. He quotes Psalms 2, if I remember correctly, but not Jesus. If Jesus had so recently (which instructional period ended less than 10 days before) given instructions, why quote Psalms at all. Peter was justifying the action they were about to take because no instructions were given.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
It is reasonable to believe that Jesus' teachings about the kingdom included.... TEACHINGS ABOUT THE KINGDOM (i.e., how to get back to twelve judges when there were only eleven).
It's entirely possible that Jesus explained the meaning of that Psalm with regards to Judas' replacement.
The great irony here is that it is YOU that is making the argument from silence. YOU are claiming that BECAUSE there is no explicit scripture (i.e., silence) saying that Jesus told them, THEREFORE Jesus did not tell them. That is THE argument from silence!
Last edited:
That is not what it means to make an argument from silence. I suspected that this was what was happening. I'm actually revealed a bit as well because it means that you aren't just making things up out of whole clothe, which, obviously, would be far worse than simply making an error.
RD has made a reasonable conjecture about what Jesus may have taught the Twelve, which he is not dogmatic about by the way, based on the evidence given in scripture. That's the opposite of an argument from silence because the part that the bible is silent about is a conclusion, not the premise. RD is not presenting his conjecture about what Jesus may have taught as evidence for his doctrine. If either of you are doing that, it's you, not RD. Indeed, that's sort of the point RD is making in the portion of his post you cited. He's making the specific point that, because of the bible's silence, the point can be argued in either direction. That, by itself, is enough to tell you that he isn't making an argument from silence.
So, I don't feel like that communicates it very well and so let me give you a great example of what an argument from silence looks like. Take the Church of Christ, for example. They refuse to use musical instruments during their worship services. Why? Because, they say, there is no explicit example in the New Testament of a worship service where musical instruments are used. That's the entire reason. That single idea is their whole argument. They go straight from the silence of scripture on a particular topic to an affirmative teaching based on the premise of the bible's silence.
"Thus the Churches of Christ abstain from the use of musical instruments in their worship assemblies because the New Testament contains no instructions commanding the church to use musical instruments in such a setting." - Kyle Rye - Pastor of Buford Church of Christ in Buford, GA
THAT is a classic, textbook, example of an argument from silence where the bible's silence is it's used as premise for an affirmative teaching.
Derf
Well-known member
Except that most no-instruments churches (I have no experience with the CoC) also use the regulative principle of worship, where they feel that only those thing God specifically commanded for His worship may be included in His worship. I dont agree with them, but it is more than an argument from silence. However, I will admit that it is at least partially an argument from silence, and since RD's argument included the assertion that Jesus COULD HAVE given instructions for the replacement of Judas, but no such instructions are related to us as coming from Jesus, it is most definitely an argument from silence--by your very example. Thank you for that.
Right Divider
Body part
Again, NO it's NOT. No matter how many times you make that false claim, it will never be true.
Again, I am NOT arguing that something is true because it is missing from scripture.
You are just too darn stupid when it comes to this topic.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Nope. Then 1. and 3. are the same thing.
What if the Scripture says it? Does that make it so?
" ... your "Christ and then the Apostles and then those appointed by the Apostles and then those appointed by those bishops, etc" is literally Scripture. That's literally how it happened, in Scripture. The Scripture records the very beginning of the chain, which is a chain created by the imposition of hands. Today's bishops were made by bishops who were made by bishops ... etc., etc., etc. ... who were made by bishops who were made by the Apostles. It's a single unbroken chain of the laying on of hands, and it began in the Apostolic era and it was recorded right in the Bible."
Derf
Well-known member
Not by itself, no, but you are arguing that it might be true because it is missing from scripture, right?
There's another reason why I think Jesus didn't tell them how to appoint a replacement...because if they are specifically chosen by him ("you did not choose me, but I chose you"), then Jesus had plenty of time to choose Matthias personally before He ascended. Why take the time to teach a method that would only be used once, when it would be much quicker just to select Matthias?
Adding ad hominem hardly bolsters your argument from silence. This usually comes from a frustration that someone isn't acceding to your view, and not from any real assessment of intelligence. Yet such frustration is equally felt whether you've presented sufficient argumentation or not.
Right Divider
Body part
NO, that is exactly NOT what I'm claiming. It's hard to believe that you still think that. It's as if you don't even read my posts.
Again, just because scripture does not mention something does not mean that it didn't happen. That is NOT an argument from silence.
Now, on the other hand... YOU are making an argument from silence when you claim that Jesus did not give them instructions BECAUSE it's not documented in scripture. THAT is an argument from silence.
A bit of an appeal to the stone it seems to me. Perhaps Jesus just does not do things your way.
Perhaps Jesus wanted the eleven to demonstrate to others their authority to make these sorts of decisions.
The truth is not ad hominem.
You say some really stupid things. That makes me think that you're really stupid.
Or it's because the person that I'm attempting to have a discussion with has been consistently dumb.
Last edited:
I knew it! I KNEW that you'd say something idiotic like this! I mean literally idiotic stupidity!
I ALMOST posted it as a prediction but didn't because I didn't want to come off as being a jerk!!!
Can you not bother to even do a google search or something to see if maybe you've made a mistake? Is it some sort of emotional necessity for people around here to never move a single centimeter off their stupidity, no matter what anyone says?
If the silence isn't the PREMISE of the argument then you've not made an argument from silence!
That's all I should have said to you from the beginning. It would have given you fewer opportunities to figure out how to be an idiot in public.
Last edited:
I am so bored with this website!
You yourself called it a strawman argument you silly idiot!
Repeating your position doesn't make it so either.
Derf
Well-known member
It wasn't THE premise, but it was A premise of RD's argument. And a fairly important premise.
And, as you usually do, and as RD has done, when you start to lose an argument, you turn to ad hominem.
By the way, I did do a search, and it confirmed my position. To say Jesus could have taught them how to chose a replacement during the 40 days after His resurrection, when there is no evidence that He taught them that, is an argument from silence...about whether He taught them that. It might not be an argument from silence about whether Matthias was the actual replacement for Judas, but it is one trying to establish one of the premises on in which the other conclusion is based. You know well enough that logic involves multiple strings of premises and conclusions that are supposed to build on each other to reach a final conclusion.
You perpetual insistence on ad hominem as your final stroke of "genius" is telling.
No it wasn't Derf! You're wrong.
Nope! Not one single ad hominem is in any post I've made in the last year.
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what an argument from silence is and you don't know what an ad hominem is either.
Liar.
Except that there is evidence and the fact that there is no record of Him doing so IS NOT used as a premise even in your own depiction of his argument!
No, Derf! It isn't. You want it to be for some stupid reason but it just isn't the case!
You are intentionally stupid!
NO! That is not an ad hominem! It's not even a debate tactic! It's just a statement of fact.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No, it was NOT! You just keep repeating a lie.
LOL. A fool that gets called a fool always cries ad hominem.
Again, for about the millionth time. You do NOT know what an argument from silence is. Your "research" has failed you.
An argument from silence is when someone claims that something is so BECAUSE there is no evidence for it (in this case, scripture). I am making NO SUCH argument.
And AGAIN, it is YOU what is making an argument from silence. YOU are claiming that BECAUSE the scripture does not document these instructions, they COULD NOT have been given. THAT is the argument from silence.
Duh.
Stop crying about ad hominem, you are a retarded moron parading around like you know something, when you don't.
Lon
Well-known member
:applaud: (I'm going to cut some)
True Derf, you've made a mistake. As nice as I can say, you've made a blunder in your use of terms. An 'argument from silence' is fairly specific. Derf: I've made a few mistakes. It was either Right Divider or Judge Rightly that corrected my use of vibrato (tried to save face, not as bad as you are, but I said 'his timber was off too!' "Bravado" was the term I was looking for. Take the correction?
Well, if it really hurts...
I could be wrong, but I 'think' you lost him, Clete.
Derf: "Silence" means 'absolutely nothing, no sound, not inkling.' Deduction, inference, etc. is never called 'an argument from silence.' Such is based 'on' something, not a nothing, thus cannot be argument from silence. Read up on it Derf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence So if I doubted Jesus' existence and let's say some particular Jewish historian never mentioned Him, and I say "See, so and so had no idea Jesus even existed!" that is an argument (presumption) from silence (the Jew had never said anything one way or the other whether Jesus existed). Conversely, any information about a topic, even if scant, is not 'silence' albeit 'little' information.
What you necessarily have to mean is rather "That is a deduction" or "It could rather mean.... (alternative idea supported from the scripture). Clete just yesterday called me on a deduction from the book of James. He didn't even say it 'couldn't' be possible but did question (rightly/justly) whether my deduction was strained. It was a good challenge and dialogue, honoring dialogue resulted. We do best for one another when we are accurate, and when we are not, take the correction. -Lon
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Then leave! lol!
"Silly idiot" lol?! You're the one who endlessly complains about how much of a trial it is for you to be on TOL Clete, and yet you keep, like St. Peter's dog who returns to its own puke, keep coming back, saying, "Thank you sir may I have another!" lol Clete! Either stop complaining, and stop calling people retarded idiots, or LEAVE. This isn't that difficult a choice, certainly any middle age man with an INKLING of intelligence can see what you need to do rn Clete! MAKE, A CHOICE. You either need to get down in the muck with the rest of us (which means STOP CALLING US ALL RETARDS (you ... retard, lol!), or just get out of here! One or the other!
I repeated that it's Scriptural. So it does.
I've tried. It's an addiction, I think.
Yeah, that was sort of heat of the moment thing and should not have been said. Had I been anywhere near a computer, I'd have deleted that half an hour after I posted it.
I'll do what I want to do and there's not one damn thing you can do about it.
Typically, if I call someone stupid or silly or idiot or whatever it is well AFTER I've tried repeatedly to get them to see reason. It is when they refuse to do so and start simply ignoring any argument I've made and/or repeating themselves as though doing so resets the debate somehow, that the name calling begins and rightly so, by the way, because debate has stopped and it isn't about trying to convince anyone of anything at that point.
People like yourself get you girly panties in a wad over me calling someone stupid but have no problem at all with treating me as though I'm stupid (i.e. by virtue of considering the arguments I've made not worthy of even responding to in any kind of substantive way).
Okay, so now this statement qualifies as simple flat out intentional stupidity. Live with it or endeavor to stop saying stupid things because I'm not going anywhere and couldn't care less about whether your feelings get hurt by the truth.I repeated that it's Scriptural. So it does.
Clete