- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,075
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
It is my view that to a certain extent, the editor of this website,
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/
a veritable font of error, who is unfortunately believed by many members if this forum, can be legitimately accused of deliberate dishonesty. I do not male such an accusation lightly on the basis of "Judge not, lest ye not be judged;" I refrained from making it in the thread regarding Matthew 28:19, in which the gross error of thenauthor of that article could simply be attributed to ignorance of textual criticism and Biblical scholarship.
However, we see. very unfortunately, evidence of some degree of manipulation on the part of the editor of that site elsewhere. And this manipulation, this reliance on what I personally regard as a dishonest approach to conducting polemics, in my opinion is relevant on the basis of "by their fruits ye shall know them."
In this article, St. Paul is rubbished for saying "All cretans are liars," and then directing the appointment of a Cretan elder:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/527-cretans-are-all-liars-but-select-one.html
And yet here, we have St. Paul preposterously accused of Paganism on the basis of, among other things, quoting Epimenides:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/300-pagan-influences-in-writings-of-paul.html
Now, what is this, other than low rhetorical chicanery? St. Paul on the one hand is criticized for suggesting that a blameless elder be appointed for the Cretan church, on the basis that since all Cretans are liars there cannot be one (a point ignoring original sin, the salvific, transformational force of the Holy Spirit and so on), with the red herring that this "means" St. Paul's writings are not literally the words of God (who actually believes that. anyway?), whereas on the other hand, henis criticized for quoting a well known ancient paradoxical pun on the basis that this is somehow "Pagan."
I ahould note before proceeding that Epimenides, who was a Cretan philosopher, engaged in a famous bit of wordplay in classical antiquity by cheekily suggesting "All Cretans are liars," and St. Paul was referring to this. In referring to it, St. Paul was making no more concessions to Paganism than I would make if I quoted Gaius Julius Caesar ("Veni, vidi, vici.")
So which is it then? Did St. Paul intend to say that all Cretans actually were liars, and then contradict Himself by suggesting a blameless liar be appointed, or did he seek, as is suggested elsewhere, to endorse Paganism or promote Pagan thought by quoting Epimenides?
Or, rather, more probably, is the author simply hurling any possible accusation against the holy Apostle, in order to discredit him, firstly, by seeking to accuse hum, devoid of the Epimenides context, of contradiction, and then secondly, in light of Epimenides, holding him to a rhetorical double-standard the author himself ignores?
I consider this to be intentionally misleading assasination of character: a grave accusation, but one which I feel is proven by default when one party makes two mutually exclusive accusations against another. St. Paul cannot have both contradicted himself while concurrently referring to a known logical paradox by way of a pun; the paradox of a Cretan saying "All cretans are liars" and then discrediting himself was the whole point. So I consider that the editor of that site is simply engaging in what amounts to uncharitable mudslinging: he makes all possible accusations against St. Paul in the hope that one should stick, with a view to convincing simple Chrisrians ignorant of logic who fallaciously accept errors like "if even ONE accusation is true, Paul was not a true apostle," and so on.
Thus I consider this a compelling reason why Christians should reject the teachings contained on that website, as dishonest, misleading, and un-Christian, in addition to being in many cases demonstrably fallacious or historically inaccurate.
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/
a veritable font of error, who is unfortunately believed by many members if this forum, can be legitimately accused of deliberate dishonesty. I do not male such an accusation lightly on the basis of "Judge not, lest ye not be judged;" I refrained from making it in the thread regarding Matthew 28:19, in which the gross error of thenauthor of that article could simply be attributed to ignorance of textual criticism and Biblical scholarship.
However, we see. very unfortunately, evidence of some degree of manipulation on the part of the editor of that site elsewhere. And this manipulation, this reliance on what I personally regard as a dishonest approach to conducting polemics, in my opinion is relevant on the basis of "by their fruits ye shall know them."
In this article, St. Paul is rubbished for saying "All cretans are liars," and then directing the appointment of a Cretan elder:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/527-cretans-are-all-liars-but-select-one.html
And yet here, we have St. Paul preposterously accused of Paganism on the basis of, among other things, quoting Epimenides:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/300-pagan-influences-in-writings-of-paul.html
Now, what is this, other than low rhetorical chicanery? St. Paul on the one hand is criticized for suggesting that a blameless elder be appointed for the Cretan church, on the basis that since all Cretans are liars there cannot be one (a point ignoring original sin, the salvific, transformational force of the Holy Spirit and so on), with the red herring that this "means" St. Paul's writings are not literally the words of God (who actually believes that. anyway?), whereas on the other hand, henis criticized for quoting a well known ancient paradoxical pun on the basis that this is somehow "Pagan."
I ahould note before proceeding that Epimenides, who was a Cretan philosopher, engaged in a famous bit of wordplay in classical antiquity by cheekily suggesting "All Cretans are liars," and St. Paul was referring to this. In referring to it, St. Paul was making no more concessions to Paganism than I would make if I quoted Gaius Julius Caesar ("Veni, vidi, vici.")
So which is it then? Did St. Paul intend to say that all Cretans actually were liars, and then contradict Himself by suggesting a blameless liar be appointed, or did he seek, as is suggested elsewhere, to endorse Paganism or promote Pagan thought by quoting Epimenides?
Or, rather, more probably, is the author simply hurling any possible accusation against the holy Apostle, in order to discredit him, firstly, by seeking to accuse hum, devoid of the Epimenides context, of contradiction, and then secondly, in light of Epimenides, holding him to a rhetorical double-standard the author himself ignores?
I consider this to be intentionally misleading assasination of character: a grave accusation, but one which I feel is proven by default when one party makes two mutually exclusive accusations against another. St. Paul cannot have both contradicted himself while concurrently referring to a known logical paradox by way of a pun; the paradox of a Cretan saying "All cretans are liars" and then discrediting himself was the whole point. So I consider that the editor of that site is simply engaging in what amounts to uncharitable mudslinging: he makes all possible accusations against St. Paul in the hope that one should stick, with a view to convincing simple Chrisrians ignorant of logic who fallaciously accept errors like "if even ONE accusation is true, Paul was not a true apostle," and so on.
Thus I consider this a compelling reason why Christians should reject the teachings contained on that website, as dishonest, misleading, and un-Christian, in addition to being in many cases demonstrably fallacious or historically inaccurate.
Last edited:
