The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[Hammster]

As I have already established this simply isn't true. The term translated as Lucifer in the Tanakh is heylel meaning 'shining one.' In Isaiah 14 it is clearly a reference to the King of Babylon. According to wiki:

"It the Vulgate) (uses the same word four more times, in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning"), Job 38:32("the signs of the zodiac") and Psalms 110:3 ("the dawn").[46] To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

It would seem that evangelical Christians are as confused about Lucifer as Mormons are.

Not confused. Two names used to identify the same person.

 

[Hammster]

Any particular reason why you insist upon going the "shock value" route instead of the "full explanation" route?

Not shock value. I just pointed out the difference between the view of Mormonism and orthodox Christianity. If some folks are shocked to find out the Mormon view, so be it.

 

[smaneck]

Not confused. Two names used to identify the same person.

Evidence?

 

[Hammster]

Evidence?

Not relevant here. All that's relevant is that Ironhold and I agree.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But now you're changing the goalposts. Fidelity = faithfulness. Why wasn't Paul faithful to Christ's teachings? Why did he fail? Because we are all faulty and we all fail, perhaps? Yet so many judge on the basis of their own perfection (not naming you as one of those.)

I kinda have the internet, I don't need anyone to post scripture.

Saint Paul was faithful to Christ's teaching, he says so himself in his second letter to saint Timothy when he writes:
I have done my best in the race, I have run the full distance, and I have kept the faith. And now there is waiting for me the victory prize of being put right with God, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me on that Day---and not only to me, but to all those who wait with love for him to appear. (2 Timothy 4:7-8) So we need not speculate on saint Paul's fidelity even though he also acknowledges that he tries to do what is good and finds that he fails. He obviously tried and kept trying and had a measure of success even if it may not have been the perfection that complete obedience brings.

 

[smaneck]

Not relevant here. All that's relevant is that Ironhold and I agree.

Well, I have provided the evidence that the reference to Lucifer is actually the King of Babylon. If anyone is confused about this they can read Isaiah 14 for themselves:

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

[Hammster]

Well, I have provided the evidence that the reference to Lucifer is actually the King of Babylon. If anyone is confused about this they can read Isaiah 14 for themselves:

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Okay.

 

[Hetta]

even if it may not have been the perfection that complete obedience brings.

So you believe that people can be perfect?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you believe that people can be perfect?

I can't say I've ever met a perfect person but I do believe that Blessed Mary, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Enoch were each perfect in their own specific ways. The Lord in every way, Blessed Mary as a human being, Enoch as a man before the covenant of the law was given. Job too is called a "man that was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and turned away from evil." So I am reluctant to assert that absolutely no human being has ever been called perfect in the holy scriptures.

 

[Hetta]

I can't say I've ever met a perfect person but I do believe that Blessed Mary, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Enoch were each perfect in their own specific ways. The Lord in every way, Blessed Mary as a human being, Enoch as a man before the covenant of the law was given. Job too is called a "man that was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and turned away from evil." So I am reluctant to assert that absolutely no human being has ever been called perfect in the holy scriptures.

But these are not ordinary people. It's not healthy to aspire to perfection.

 

[smaneck]

Saint Paul was faithful to Christ's teaching, he says so himself in his second letter to saint Timothy when he writes:

Except Paul didn't write 2 Timothy:

2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html

 

[MoreCoffee]

Except Paul didn't write 2 Timothy ...

Does it matter? The point is that he is represented as saying it and that is what matters. Personally, I am more inclined to accept the traditional authorship attribution than the more recent speculative view about who wrote what in the new testament.

In brief I think that "Except Paul didn't write 2 Timothy" is an irrelevance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But these are not ordinary people. It's not healthy to aspire to perfection.

Why is it not healthy? Aspirations often exceed one's actual capacity but that doesn't make them bad. One ought to reach for something better even if one actually obtains a little less than the aspiration.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

It really isn't taken out of context. This specific wording was used to determine who was a false prophet, but it has much further reaching implications. Christ talked about good and bad fruits all the time. Remember? Pruning the tree and making the fruit good?

Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Luke 8:15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

And the fruits of the spirit? Remember them?

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

The subject of good/bad fruit is addressed in many places in the bible, including the verses you have quoted, and elsewhere.

The verse in question about wolves in sheep's clothing has a context that shouldn't be ignored just because the qualifier (fruit) used to determine a false from true prophet is mentioned elsewhere. If it were so, why warn about false prophets at all? Why not just warn against all people who display bad fruit on their tree?

In my experience, many Christians completely isolate the qualifier or test to that which it is supposed to apply to...making it so that anyone who displays bad fruit in their eyes and who also makes a religious claim to being a Christian is among the wolves and not the sheep. This misapplication also frequently applies to their beliefs, not just their actions.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, it is easy, and yes, it does imply a reliable test. The reliable test is the teaching of Christ. A Christian need not be shy about affirming that Christ actually did teach explicit things about human behaviour and that when a person (Person A) acts contrary to the teaching of Christ then their action is not a Christian act. What more do you need?

Show me this reliable test, with specifics, not general statements.

 

[A New Dawn]

The subject of good/bad fruit is addressed in many places in the bible, including the verses you have quoted, and elsewhere.

The verse in question about wolves in sheep's clothing has a context that shouldn't be ignored just because the qualifier (fruit) used to determine a false from true prophet is mentioned elsewhere. If it were so, why warn about false prophets at all? Why not just warn against all people who display bad fruit on their tree?

In my experience, many Christians completely isolate the qualifier or test to that which it is supposed to apply to...making it so that anyone who displays bad fruit in their eyes and who also makes a religious claim to being a Christian is among the wolves and not the sheep. This misapplication also frequently applies to their beliefs, not just their actions.

That was the context of that particular passage. It would be strange to broaden the admonition to include dozens of other non-passage-relevant variants. But that does not mean it's application is limited. If fruit was so important that it was spoken of numerous times in scripture, then one would think it would bear watching.

 

[morningstar2651]

If something isn't in the Bible, it isn't in the Bible, no matter who's interpretation you are using. There is a difference between interpreting a scriptural passage differently, and having a teaching based on nothing in the Bible.

Different denominations accept different books as canon.

This wikipedia page has a handy dandy table that shows which books are accepted by which denominations.

Are Catholics not Christian because they consider the Book of Wisdom to be canon?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Show me this reliable test, with specifics, not general statements.

Try the sermon on the mount (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) and the passage I mentioned before Matthew 25:31-48.

 

[morningstar2651]

Ask God.

He says you don't. Good talk.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

That was the context of that particular passage. It would be strange to broaden the admonition to include dozens of other non-passage-relevant variants. But that does not mean it's application is limited. If fruit was so important that it was spoken of numerous times in scripture, then one would think it would bear watching.

Remember this next time you display some bad fruit and someone brings up the wolf in sheep's clothing as a response to it. If you think for a moment about the nature of a wolf, or wolves, and what they do and how they do it, you might understandably think the response of bringing up that verse is overkill. I know I would.