By Keith Thompson
I was recently directed to a debate between Christian apologist Cris Putnam and a man named
Jeffrey Daugherty that had the
following thesis: “The message of Jesus Christ was changed by the Apostle
Paul (who was not a true apostle) in order to create a structure to control the
general populace of the Roman Empire, setting the stage for the New World
Order.” This is the theme
of a book Daugherty wrote as well.
In the
debate mention was made of a “fact sheet” Mr. Daugherty was willing to send to
those who emailed him and requested one. Therefore, I requested one and
obtained it. This “fact” sheet gives the arguments he used in the debate and
which serve to supposedly validate his position that Paul was a false apostle,
distorter of Jesus’ message, spy for Rome, etc. In this presentation we will
critique these arguments and test Daugherty’s theory.
Before we
begin it is befitting to give some background information about Daugherty.
According to his website bio, after a divorce he left
Charismatic, Pentecostal Christianity to follow his understanding of Jesus’
statement that “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you”
which, according to Daugherty,
involves the idea that we are divine as well as a rejection of idea that men
are born sinful (i.e., original sin). So no one in the Bible except Paul taught
original sin, allegedly. The preface of Daugherty’s
book as well as the endorsement on the cover were written by George Noory who
is a radio host for Coast to Coast AM. Noory endorses ufos, bigfoot, goblins
and things of this nature.
Daugherty’s
arguments from his “fact sheet” will be in red
My
responses to him will be in black
Argument #1 - Matthew 24:23-26:-Jesus says that
false prophet will claim to have seen him “in the desert.”-Acts 9-Paul
claims to have seen Jesus in the desert.
This is a big stretch.
What Jesus was actually warning about were false prophets claiming Jesus’
second coming would happen in the desert or that its nature would include Him
being seen by people in “inner rooms” (Matthew 24:26). However, as Christ
explains, the nature of His second coming after the tribulation would be like
lightning coming from the east and shining as far as the west (Matthew 24:27).
Neither in Acts 9 nor anywhere else does Paul claim to have seen Jesus’ second
coming. In fact Paul warns about those who claimed the resurrection (and hence
Jesus’ accompanying second coming) already took place (2 Timothy 2:17-18). In
Acts 9 Paul was simply affirming Jesus came to him in a post-resurrection
appearance, something other non-Pauline New Testament books that Daugherty approves of also talk
about. For example, in Matthew 28:9-20 Jesus appeared to the women and
disciples after his resurrection. Or one could mention Jesus’ post-ascension
appearance to the apostle John in Revelation 1:12-18.
Argument #2 - Matthew 7:15- Jesus warns of “ravening wolves”
in sheep’s clothing. -Romans 11:1- Paul boasts of being a “Benjamite”. -Genesis
49:27-”Benjamin is a ravening wolf.” -Paul only person identified
as Benjamite in the New Testament.-Logo of Tribe of Benjamin is a wolf.
In his debate Daugherty claimed Jesus’ first century Jewish
audience would have immediately associated Jesus’ mention of ravening wolves
with the tribe of Benjamin because of Genesis 49:27. However, when Genesis
49:27 depicts Benjamin as a ravenous wolf it is a positive thing denoting
victorious conquest of its enemy, not an insult (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis,
ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2,
[Zondervan, 1990], p. 278). So when Jesus spoke about false prophets being
ravenous wolves, he wasn’t taking a shot at Benjamites like Paul or the tribe
of Benjamin, but simply saying false prophets also will try to conquer
believers as workers of iniquity (Matthew 7:23). Paul was just the opposite of
one who promoted iniquity. He was one of the most outspoken teachers of
holiness in the New Testament (see Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 etc).
Moreover, if Jesus was so opposed to Jews of the tribe
of Benjamin like Paul and indicated they produced false wolves, why does the
New Testament give the same support to the tribe of Benjamin that it does to
the other tribes? Revelation 7:8 says: “12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph,
12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.” Also, why does the New Testament nowhere warn of them? What is more,
Jesus doesn’t warn of a singular false prophet who would corrupt the church as
he should of if Daugherty’s
theory about Paul’s supposed massive corruption was true. No, instead Jesus
warns of plural false prophets. And there were many false prophets who tried to
corrupt the church: Nicolaitans, Docetists, Antinomians, Charismatics,
Gnostics, Judaizers and many others. In his commentary John Gill made a
persuasive argument that when Jesus referred to false prophets in sheep’s
clothing who were actually wolves, this was a way of identifying the Scribes as
false prophets since, according to Mark 12:38 and other ancient Jewish
literature, they enjoyed wearing long robes made of sheep’s wool to appear to
be holy. Thus, if this is correct Jesus was exposing the scribes who appeared
to be as innocent as sheep wearing sheep’s clothing but were actually wolves.
Argument #3 - Revelation 2:2-The Apostle (founder) of the
Church of Ephesus was tried and found to be “false”. -Ephesians
1:1 Paul identifies himself as the Apostle to the church at Ephesus.
Revelation 2:2 does
not say the Ephesians found the apostolic founder of the Church of Ephesus to
be false. Rather, it says they “have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and
found them to be false.” There is a big difference. Daugherty is adding to the text. Moreover, Paul didn’t
found the Church of Ephesus. As Grant Osborne notes, “The church was apparently
established by Priscilla and Aquila, who had been left there by Paul in A.D.
52, and they were aided by Apollos (Acts 18:18-25). . .” (Grant Osborne, Revelation, eds. Robert W. Yarbrough, Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Academic, 2002], p. 109). The fact is
Revelation 2:2 does not say the Ephesians found Paul to be false, or the
founder of their church false, only that they tested certain people and found
them to be false and not apostles. To claim this refers to Paul is eisegesis,
that is, reading things into the text that are not there, not exegesis, that
is, drawing things out of the text that are there. Contrary to Daugherty’s false claims Paul actually warned
the Ephesian Church in Acts 20:29 that wolves would come into the church and
that they would need to be on guard because of this. So Paul accurately
predicted Revelation 2:2’s statement that the Ephesians found certain people to
be false and not apostles. Moreover, the context of Revelation 2:2 shows these
false apostles were antinomians (e.g. 2:2’s mention that they were “evil
ones”), something Paul was not. As Paul says in Romans 8:13: “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if
by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (see also
Paul’s commands to obey God’s rules and live holy in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). So
Paul was not in view contextually as one the Ephesians found to be false,
antinomians were. No first century biblical text states Paul was false.
Argument #4 - Only one of 177 mentions of Paul by others than
himself that calls him an apostle.
All “apostle” means is one who is sent as a
representative of another and bears the authority of the sender (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Volume 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], p. 421). Many people in
the New Testament describe Paul this way without using the word “apostle.”
Also, out of all the mentions of James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament,
he is only called an apostle once (Galatians 1:19). Does that mean he was not a
representative of Christ with Christ’s authority? Moreover, the students of the
apostles outside of the Bible (i.e., the apostolic fathers) identified Paul
with the word “apostle.” For example, Polycarp mentions “Paul himself, and the
rest of the apostles” (Polycarp, Letter
to the Philippians, 9). Clement mentions “the
blessed Apostle Paul” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 47). Ignatius says: “I do not, as
Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles” (Ignatius, Letter
to the Romans, 4). The fact is Paul was an apostle, though not one of the
original twelve (something he never claims to be).
Argument #5 - 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul admits “they which are in Asia
have abandoned me.” Ephesus is in Asia.
Daugherty is mistaken about his Bible reference. He
actually means 2 Timothy 1:15 not 2:15. Moreover, all Paul is saying is while
imprisoned in Rome for the second time because of his gospel labors, no one in
Asia would visit him in prison or not be ashamed of his chains. The next verse
proves this when it says, in contrast to v. 15, “he [Onesiphorus] often
refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains.” So, while Asians like
Onesiphorus were not ashamed of Paul’s chains and would visit him, no one else
from Asia did. Thus, in his depression, Paul exaggerates by hyperbolically
interpreting this as all Asians “abandoning” him. This was because, as William
Mounce notes, “. . .the Asians did not want to be associated with a state
criminal, perhaps because they feared suffering the same fate. . .” (William D.
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, ed. Ralph
P. Martin, Lynnn Allan Losie, Word
Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46, [Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2000], p. 494). Nothing
in the text says the Asians stopped believing he was an apostle or that he was
a spy creating a new world order etc. This is again absurd eisegesis – reading
things into the text that are not there.
Argument #6 - Where are all Paul’s other churches in Revelation? Did they all have their candlesticks ”removed” according to Revelation 2:5 for not rejecting the false apostle Paul like the Ephesians, Paul’s only church included, did?
Where in Revelation 2-3 is the Jerusalem Church
of which James was bishop, and of which Daugherty doesn’t seem to
have a problem with? Is its absence in Revelation 2-3 proof it also had its
candlestick removed? No. John didn’t write to many churches because his purpose
was only to write to these seven churches of Asia. That’s what John says in
Revelation 1:4: “John to the seven churches that are
in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to
come.” His purpose was not
to write to all the churches in the world. That would be quite a long letter.
That’s why other churches Paul founded like the ones in Corinth or Thessalonica
were not mentioned. Moreover, contrary to Daugherty, Paul founded many of the Asian
churches John wrote to. Acts 19:10 affirms because of Paul “all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both
Jews and Greeks.” So since John mentions various Asian churches Paul founded, Daugherty’s
argument that John’s failure to mention churches Paul founded as being good
churches is refuted.
Argument #7 - Paul would have to be the thirteenth apostle.
How is this possible when the following verses say there are only twelve? Revelation
21:14, Matthew 19:28
Actually the New Testament broadens
“apostle” from the twelve (Mark 3:14; Acts 1:2, 26) and those who helped
historically found the church (Ephesians 2:20; Rev. 21:14) to others outside
the twelve like Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the brother of Jesus (Galatians
1:19) and others (Romans 16:7). Paul was not claiming he was in the group of
the twelve. Daugherty just doesn’t
realize according to the New Testament one can be an apostle without being one
of the original twelve. Again, an “apostle” just means one who was sent as a representative of another who bears the
authority of the sender (Kittel’s
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1964-1976], p. 421). Others besides the original twelve fit these criteria.
Nowhere does the New Testament say there could not be other apostles outside
the twelve.
Argument #8 - In Paul’s first conversion story in Acts 9:11 he goes
to “the house of Judas.” Also in his first telling of the story in Acts
9:7 all the men with him hear the voice from heaven, but in his
retelling in Acts 22:9 he changes the story and says they did not hear
the voice. Why? Could it be that the men refuted Paul’s earlier story?
It seems Daugherty thinks Paul
went to Judas Iscariot’s house or that the fact Paul went to a house of a man
named Judas has some superstitious significance. However, at this time Judas
was already dead. So why would Paul go to Judas Iscariot’s house? If he thinks
there is a superstitious significance, he needs to realize Judas was a very
common name in the first century. Paul most likely had a Jewish companion or
acquaintance named Judas whose house he was resting at (David G. Peterson, The
Acts of the Apostles, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament
Commentary, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009], p. 307). One of the twelve apostles
apart from the betrayer was named Judas the son of James (Acts 1:13). The author of the book of
Jude’s real name was Judas as well. So Paul going to a house of a person named
Judas, a very common name, really proves nothing.
Now, in regards to Paul first saying the men
heard the voice in Acts 9:7 but then saying the men did not hear the voice in
Acts 22:9, Daugherty’s theory is incorrect. Gleason Archer already explained
this:
“Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb ‘to hear’ takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: ‘I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me,’ NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case” (Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, [Zondervan, 1982], p. 382).
So no, Paul did not change his tune because the
men in question allegedly refuted his initial story. That is not found in the text
at all.
Argument #9 - In Acts 19:10-16 Paul declares that his mission was
announced to him by Ananias, but in Acts 26:16-18 he changes the story
and says Jesus told him directly. Why? Did Ananias recant as
well? Did Paul just lie?
Daugherty
again mistakes Bible references. He means Acts 9:10-16 not 19:10-16. Moreover,
there is no contradiction here. Paul recounts in Acts 26:16-18 how on the road
to Damascus Jesus appeared blinding him and announcing his apostleship to the
Gentiles. In Acts 9:10-16, however, Ananias is not told by Jesus to
announce to Paul his mission, but simply to lay hands on Paul so he would get
his sight back. Ananias did not announce to Paul his mission at all. Paul
already knew about it. Here is Acts 9:10-20. Notice nowhere does Ananias
announce to Paul his mission contrary to Daugherty’s assertion. Jesus explains to Ananias Paul’s mission. But
Ananias does not explain it to Paul:
Acts 9:10-20 reads:
Act 9:10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." Act 9:11 And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, Act 9:12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight." Act 9:13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. Act 9:14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name." Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. Act 9:16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." Act 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Act 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; Act 9:19 and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. Act 9:20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God."
Hence, either Daugherty is ignorant
when he claims Ananias announced to Paul his mission, or he is lying. Either
way Daugherty is incorrect again.
Argument #10 - The name ‘Saul of Tarsus’ literally translated to
‘The Man From Hell’. ‘Saul’ is the same as ‘sheol’ and Tarsus was long thought
to be the gate to the underworld.
This is false. The English word
“Saul” is shaw-ool' (שׁאוּל) in Hebrew.
However, the English word “Sheol” (meaning Hades) is sheh-ole' (שׁאול) in Hebrew. These are different words
contrary to Daugherty’s assertion. In
regards to Tarsus, it does not mean “gate to the netherworld.” No professional
lexical material I possess says such a thing. Daugherty is probably thinking of
the Greek word Tartarus (Τάρτσρος) which was the
Netherworld in Greek thought. But this is not the same as the city Tarsus (Ταρσός) Paul was from. Again, these are different
words.
Argument #11 - Luke 1:68-73 contains an intentional omission that
identifies ‘Saul’ as an enemy that hates the new believers. When
compared to the Old Testament introduction to Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22:1 you
see the omitted name of “Saul”.
Or
could it be the name “Saul” was omitted here because mentioning King Saul of
the Old Testament is not relevant to the New Testament use of this text? Luke
is just explaining the fulfilment of hope that the House of David was expecting
which is mentioned in those Old Testament texts. Why jump to a conspiracy
especially in light of the fact that New Testament writers often omitted part
of an Old Testament text they were quoting that was not relevant? Consider
James’ quotation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18 where James leaves out the
reference to Edom in his quotation of that text. Does that mean there is a
conspiracy with Edom and James? No, it was just not relevant to quote that
part.
Argument #12 - Acts 20:4-6 shows Paul was a spy. Those verses
say that a man named “Pyrrhus” accompanied them to “Troas” or Troy. “Pyrrhus”
was the name of the most famous spy of the day, popularized in
Plutarch’s Pyrrhus, the Fool of Hope. “Troy” is mentioned because
in Homer’s telling of the Legend of the Trojan Horse one of the spies
inside the horse was “Pyrrhus”. King James Version omits “Pyrrhus” but NIV,
NASB, AMERICAN STANDARD, DARBY translations all have it.
Acts 20:4-6 does not say someone named “Pyrrhus”
accompanied Paul. The man who accompanied Paul there was Sopater the Berean,
son of Pyrrhus. Moreover, he didn’t accompany Paul to Troas. Verse 5 says he
and others went on ahead to Troas without Paul waiting for him there. If Daugherty can’t even get these
simple facts straight, why should we believe his conspiracy theories? Now, vv.
3-4 indicate Sopater represented the
churches of Macedonia which is why he and others accompanied Paul while there.
So Sopater was part of that church community as a leader. Pyrrhus of Epirus who
Plutarch wrote about, on the other hand, was a Greek general and king who died
in 272 B. C. So obviously Daugherty is not claiming Paul and the Pyrrhus Plutarch wrote about knew each other. The argument seems
to be because Paul was accompanied in Macedonia by a man who was the son of
someone named Pyrrhus that this somehow means Luke was telling us Paul was a
spy. However, the Pyrrhus Plutarch wrote about was not a spy, much less the
most famous spy of the day contrary to Daugherty’s assertion. Plutarch mentions one incident where Pyrrhus sent spies during a war situation, but that doesn’t
make Pyrrhus a spy or most notable for spy activities. He was known as a Greek General and king. Daugherty has to stretch this to make his
point convincing.
In regards to Troas supposedly being mentioned because Homer
wrote about Troy and a spy named Pyrrhus who was in a
Trojan Horse, some comments are necessary. Troas Alexandria (the full name of
the city mentioned in Acts 20:5) and Troy (what Daugherty mentioned) were two
different cities. Second, Homer’s Iliad
does not mention a man named Neoptolemus
who was also called Pyrrhus as being one of the Greek soldiers in the
Trojan Horse, later sources do. However, with that said, in that story the men
in the Trojan Horse were not really spies. They just got into the city of Troy
by hiding in the wooden Trojan horse so that late at night they could sneak out
of it and open Troy’s gates letting the Greek army in to take over the city.
That’s not a spy. A spy claims to be someone they are not in order to get in tight
with a group or place. These men did not claim to be people of Troy. Hence,
they were not spies. They were just used to open Troy’s city gates.
With respect to the KJV supposedly omitting the
name Pyrrhus in Acts 20:4 because the translators allegedly knew of a
conspiracy, that is absurd. The KJV calls him Sopater of Berea and not Sopater
the Berean, son of Pyrrhus as other translations do because the Greek
manuscripts the KJV used, namely the Textus Receptus, did not contain it. It
wasn’t a conspiracy. Copyists accidently omit certain things all the time. This
is called scribal oversight. Only people with an axe to grind would strain this
into a conspiracy.
In sum the reason serious historians do not buy
into these kind of theories is because all they are are examples of unreliable
pattern searching. And as we have shown, the assertions are wrought with many
errors. Pyrrhus was a common name and that’s why someone with that name appears
in the book of Acts.
Argument #13 - Acts21:40-It is a military absurdity that the Romans
would allow a captive prisoner to address a crowd, especially in a foreign
language. They would allow a spy to do so, however.
No, there was no military danger in allowing
Paul to address these Jews in the Hebrew language, since, they had just
finished trying to murder Paul (Acts 21:31) and the Romans, using logic, knew
Paul would not be able to get such hostile people to do anything militarily in
his favor if allowed to address them. The reason the commander allowed Paul to
speak here was because Paul first convinced him he was not an Egyptian
revolutionary (Acts 21:38), then impressed him with his courteous composure
amidst troubles, and finally stated he was a citizen of a major and important
Hellenistic city (Acts 21:39). Therefore, there is no reason to posit some
conspiracy about Paul being a spy. That is just not what the text affirms at
all. It is perfectly logical that Paul would be allowed to speak here in order
to try to calm the situation and also better inform the commander of what
exactly the problem between Paul and these Jews was – i.e., the gospel.
Argument #14 - Acts 6:2-4- Luke exhaustively shows
that deacons do business and pointedly says they do not preach. Yet, just six
verses later we have the deacon Stephen preaching! Luke uses this glaring contradiction
to show that something is wrong here.
The emphasis in Acts 6:2-4 is not so much that
deacons could never preach, but that it was not appropriate for apostolic
preachers to serve tables and neglect the ministry of the word of God. Thus,
initially Stephen was selected to be a deacon. However, that does not mean his
role could never change. In time, both Stephen and Phillip changed their roles
and joined in on the outreach. There is nothing controversial about this and I
do not see how it proves Luke wanted to show something was “wrong.” That makes
little sense.
Argument #15 - Acts 7 is a word-for-word
description of the stoning of Apostle James, which Luke closes the account by
showing that it is all “laid at the feet of Saul” showing that it was Paul
that killed James with his own hands.
Actually Acts 7:59 explicitly says Stephen was
here stoned, not James. If Daugherty is absurdly suggesting the account is really about James and
not Stephen then he has problems since in Josephus’s report of James’
martyrdom, all Josephus says is James was stoned by the high priest Ananus for going against the Law (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9). That’s
it. Very short. He does not give a detailed word-for-word description similar
to Acts 6-7’s account of Stephen’s death. Moreover, if we look at Eusebius’s
account taken from Hegesippus and Clement of Alexendria, James is first thrown
off the temple of Jerusalem, stoned and then clubbed in the head breaking his
skull. This is totally different from Acts 6-7’s account of Stephen’s
martyrdom. So, the idea that Acts 6-7 is a word-for-word description of the
stoning of James is false. The extra-biblical material concerning James’ death
is not at all the same but very much different. Stephen, on the other hand, was
brought before a council by the scribes and elders for teaching things like
Jesus would destroy the temple, he gave a long Christian speech interacting
with the Jews with questions and answers, he saw a vision of Jesus and the
glory of God, and he was then rushed by the Jews, expelled from the city and
stoned before which he asked Jesus to receive His spirit and not punish his
enemies. Nothing in the accounts of James’s death is like that at all. Daugherty is clearly making things up.
Argument #16 - Acts 8:1 shows that Paul, after
killing James, went on to murder many other believers well after his
‘conversion’ in the desert on the road to Damascus and his going to “the house
of Judas”.
As a matter of fact Acts 8:1 says nothing of
Paul killing James. It refers to Paul, as a Pharisee before his conversion,
supporting the execution of Stephen. This was not after his conversion. Stephen
was stoned in Acts 6-7 and based on the evidence most scholars date this event
to A.D. 34-35. Paul was converted later in Acts 9 and scholars date his
conversion near the same time but shortly after, that is A.D. 34-35 (D.A.
Carson, Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New
Testament, [Zondervan, 2009], p. 368; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical
Commentary, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998], p. 90). James, however, according to the evidence, died way later
in A.D. 62 (Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, [Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], p. 157). Where Daugherty gets the idea Paul was converted at the time of the stoning
of Stephen/James we are not told. Acts doesn’t say this. No New Testament book
says this. Josephus doesn’t say this. No one does.
Argument #17 - Paul was under constant attack by
the Apostles in the New Testament for being a liar. So much so that he
had to write over and over that he was not lying: Romans 9:1,
2Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:19-20, 1Timothy 2:7.
Daugherty provides no proof the
twelve apostles accused Paul of being a liar. The texts he cites do not say
that. In regards to Romans 9:1, the context shows Paul wanted to refute a
natural concern Jews might have had about his gentile mission. He explains his
concern for the salvation of the Jews is in no way deterred by his stress on
Gentiles not being under Mosaic Law for salvation (Romans 9:3-6). Therefore, in
v. 1 he explains he is not lying about his concern for the Jews just because he
is also committed to the salvation of Gentiles. Thus, what we do not have is
Paul defending himself from the twelve apostles calling him a liar (something
not in the text at all), but rather he is anticipating Jewish scepticism about
his concern for Israel in light of his commitment to Gentiles being saved apart
from Law. He was explaining the message Gentiles are justified apart from the
Law is not anti-Jewish and that God still loves the Jews. The truth that
Gentiles are not justified by the Law is not just a Pauline doctrine, but was
taught by Jesus himself. In John 3:16 Jesus says whoever believes inherits
eternal life. In John 5:24 Jesus says those who believe have eternal life and
do not come into judgement. In Luke 18:9-14 Jesus explains how the Pharisee who
depended on his Mosaic works was not justified, but that the Gentile tax
collector who came to God with the empty hand of repentant faith was. Moreover,
in Acts 15:9-12 Peter
says hearts are cleansed through faith and salvation is by grace, not Mosaic
works. We can go
through each text Daugherty cites and prove they have nothing to do with the
twelve apostles saying Paul was a liar. It is natural that on crucial gospel
issues with a potentially skeptical audience, a person will want to stress or
prove he is of the truth.
Argument #18 - Paul admits
that he lied in Romans 3:7, and that he used “subtilty” [sic], which is in
the Greek, “fraud” , in 2 Corinthians 12:16.
The context is vital and it refutes Daugherty. In Romans 3:1-8 Paul is actually posing hypothetical questions to himself from an anticipatory unbelieving Jewish interlocutor’s/objectors perspective (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996], pp. 180-181; Leslie C. Allen, Romans, New International Bible Commentary Based on the NIV Translation, ed. F. F. Bruce, [Zondervan, 1979], p. 1322; Everett F. Harrison, Romans, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, ed. Frank E. Gaebelen, [Zondervan, 1976], p. 36.) Paul then answers these objections as a Christian. This is to help the Roman Christians better understand his teaching in dialogue format. Hypothetical Jewish objections to his teaching are found in vv. 1, 3, 5, 7-8a. Paul’s Christian answers to these objections are found in vv. 2, 4, 6, 8b.
Thus, Daugherty has confused v. 7 as Paul’s position or a statement
from him indicating his mindset, when in reality it is a verse which is meant
to be read as a Jewish interlocutor’s/objector’s objection to Paul which he
goes on to answer. The reason Paul, as a hypothetical unbelieving Jew, asks if
since through his lie God is still glorified because God judges the liar and
receives glory, why the Jew or sinner is still punished for lying, is because
Paul just got finished teaching unfaithfulness or sin ends up revealing the
righteousness of God through judgement (vv. 3-5). Thus the argument to Paul is:
why shouldn’t I just lie or sin since everything just ends up glorifying God in
the end (i.e., since sin leads to God’s judgement which brings glory to God and
shows God’s righteousness)? Paul’s answer in v. 8 is, “some people slanderously
charge us with saying [this]. Their condemnation is just.” Thus, some falsely
take this fatalistic approach as a logical conclusion of Paul’s teaching.
However, Paul reveals that’s not his position and says those who attribute such
a teaching to him and other Christians will be justly condemned (see v. 8
again). Thus, the conclusion is that it is not okay to sin or lie even though
doing so results in God’s judgement (i.e., God’s glory and righteousness being
revealed). How one can then turn things around and make it as though Paul were
admitting to be a liar is inexcusable.
In summary, Romans 3:7’s mention of
“my lie,” when understood in context, in no way whatsoever has Paul admitting
to being a liar. That is a hypothetical unbelieving Jew’s objection/assertion
to Paul which he goes on to answer, not Paul’s own admission.
Paul is very clear in his writings
insofar as avoiding deception, lying and dishonesty is concerned. For example,
in Colossians 3:9 Paul says, “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you
have put off the old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9). Moreover, in
Ephesians 4:25 Paul states, “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let
each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members
one of another” (Ephesians 4:25). In Romans 3:13 Paul condemns using one’s
tongue to deceive.
Argument #19 -Josephus, in
Antiquities Book XX places Paul in Rome as a valet to Nero as
late as AD 63 and AD 66.
Since Daugherty only gives the book
number of Josephus’s Antiquities of the
Jews and not the chapter, it is difficult to locate where in this book
Daugherty thinks Paul is. The names “Paul” and “Saul” do not appear in that
book. He may be referring to Burrhus who is mentioned in chapter 8 of that
book. He is described as Nero’s tutor and secretary who wrote Nero’s Greek
letters for him. However, there is nothing in this chapter showing Burrhus was
Paul. Historians note Burrhus was a general who served Emperor Claudius in the
field and was then Nero’s adviser and secretary. With all these time consuming
tasks where did he get the time to master Jewish and Christian theology in
order to write, preach and debate with others about it? Paul scholars realize
just how theologically deep Paul’s epistles were and how acquainted he was with
the Old Testament. Therefore, it is untenable to contend Paul was Burrhus
because the latter would not have the time to master Judaic and Christian
theology, something Paul did. These are obviously two different people. No
serious Josephus scholar or historian claims Burrhus was Paul. We are dealing
with mere assertion on the part of Daugherty instead of a meaningful evidenced
case on this point.
Conclusion
In sum, it is clear Daugherty is incorrect about
his theory. He needs to repent of the lies he has made against a great saint of
God. Daugherty is clearly blinded by his error in a severe way leading to him
being a false teacher. God, who is absolutely sovereign over history as the
Bible explicitly states, ordained Paul’s epistles be in the Bible because they
are inspired. God loves His church and would not allow half of His bride’s New
Testament to be penned by a false apostle.
Also, Original sin is biblical, not just
Pauline. After the fall of man occurred in Genesis 3, Genesis 6 explains the
radical effects on humanity: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great
in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). Two chapters later we read: “…the intention of
man's heart is evil from his youth…” (Genesis 8:21). “Youth” in the Hebrew mind
did not mean 13-18 as it does in our culture. It meant from infancy to the
point of adulthood. Jeremiah 17:9 explains the natural corruption of man’s
heart: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can
understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). In Mark 7:21-23 Jesus explains man is not
naturally good, much less divine: “21For
from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality,
theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy,
slander, pride, foolishness.23All these evil things come from within, and they
defile a person.” Man being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) simply
means men were made to be God’s representatives on the earth who governed it on
God’s behalf (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis,
eds. James D.G. Dunn, John William Robertson, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003] p.
39).
Now, the message of Jesus was not that people
are divine and need to realize it, but that people are sinners in need of
salvation from their sin. In Matthew 20:28 Jesus said he “came not to be served
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In Matthew 26:28
Jesus said “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for
the forgiveness of sins.”
Daugherty’s idea men are divine is not something
Jesus taught. That’s actually a prideful belief of Satan and the real
antichrist. In Isaiah 14:12-14 Satan said he wanted to set his throne on high
and become like the God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:4 the actual antichrist is
described as opposing God and making himself out to be God. Daugherty is an
antichrist for teaching men are divine, Paul wasn’t.
This man Daugherty, is being used by the devil. He sells penis plaque remover. With a logo of a red Phoenix which is demonic. He lies and curses. Pray for him but stay away.
ReplyDeleteLmao Paul lies 3x in acts alone telling his vision story I caught you by deceit in Galatians I think so much shit about Paul
ReplyDelete