Lastly, I refute the completion of the fallacious Tu Quoque attack on Ray Comfort.
“And finally, …” the narrator quotes Michael B. pulling a proof-text from a _gospel_. Those are so filled with mutual and even internal contradictions, … I can’t even… . [Bolan, pull it together!]
The gospels are NOT reliable witnesses: they were written after legendary development accumulated, possibly even the legend that Jesus had been a real, flesh and blood and bone man in history. They were written for motivations that go beyond those of Paul.
Because of these features, SOME Christians hold that the law no longer applies, AT ALL, and some Christians that SOME of the law applies, and some even hold that ALL the law applies, and each of those positions can be supported by citing Christian scripture. Michael over-generalizes, by ONLY identifying the latter two, “Christians deny [that] the law, and the imputation of sin, passed away in A.D. 70”
Michael B., then, seems to evaluate or interpret Paul’s doctrine by the crap from the gospels, which is improper, because his work preceded those, besides them not being worth anything as evidence.
So, to evaluate his rebuttal of Ray Comfort, over all, he makes fallacious arguments to make premises that he, in turn, uses to accuse Ray C., insinuating, I think, that Ray C. is a hypocrite, that Ray C. is wrong in his approach. This overall strategy is _itself_ a fallacy, known as Tu Quoque. That Ray C. is a sinner, of the kind he tries to convince others that THEY are, does not establish that the method of Ray C. is wrong.
Of course, I won’t commit the Fallacy fallacy, claiming that, because Michael B. failed to support his thesis, that his conclusion (or implication) is wrong. I happen to agree that 1) there is no “sin” against “god” [only to oneself, to one’s own standards, and against other humans… and maybe against other species, and 2) Ray Comfort is wrong in his method.
However, I do disagree with presupposition he used, that the Bible teaches that salvation was only for Israel.