Logic in the Scriptures: Invalid Inferences

1. Will John die or not?

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following (the one who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he who betrays You?) Seeing him, Peter said to Jesus, Lord, and what of this one? Jesus said to him, If I desire that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me. Then this saying went abroad among the brothers, that that disciple should not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him, He shall not die, but, If I desire that he remain until I come, what is that to you? (John 21:20-23)

What is the invalid inference and why is it invalid?

The invalid inference: John is a person who will not die. A similar inference appears in the otherwise excellent Voice of the Martyrs film entitled “Jesus: He Lived Among Us.” The Latter Day Saints Church (Mormons) also teaches that the apostle John will not die (Nephi. 28:6–7; Doctrines & Covenants 7)
Reason: Ignoring the text
This inference is invalid because the sentence from which it is derived is in the interrogative mode and not the declarative mode. Only sentences in the declarative mode can confer a meaning that is propositional. Furthermore, only propositions are true or false, hence, the proposition that John is a person that will not die cannot follow from the interrogative: If I desire that he remain until I come, what is that to you?

2. To whom much is given, much is required. Really?

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:42-48)

“If I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense,” he said. “But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ – President Barack Obama

What is the invalid inference and why is it invalid?

The invalid inference: People that are extraordinarily blessed are people that should pay more taxes.
Reason: Ignoring the context
This inference is invalid because there is nothing in the context of Luke 12:42-48 that suggests Jesus is referring to wealth or taxes; the context is the judgement at the return of Christ. Specifically, this passage’s purpose is to convey that there are degrees of punishment (for the unbeliever) which are based upon the knowledge of God that each one has received. Therefore, this verse has absolutely NOTHING to do with one’s wealth and everything to do with what that person does with the knowledge of God that their lifetime has afforded them with. For more information see (To whom much is given, much is required. Really)

3. When the Last Day is not the last day

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48)

“At the last day” – not 7 or 1007 years before the last day as Hunt believes.  Jesus says: “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words. That very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” (John 12:48) Hunt needs to accept the word of Jesus when He says “at the last day.” Jesus says: “The hour is coming when all who are in the graves will hear my voice and come out. Those who have done good will rise to live and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” (John 5:28-29) Hunt inserts 1000 years between Jesus’ call and ignores the word “all”. See 2 Peter 3:10-13 for a description of the last day. The rest of the Bible agrees with Jesus not Hunt. – Mike

What is the invalid inference and why is it invalid?

The invalid inference: The Last day spoken of in scripture is literally a 24 hour day
Reason: Ignoring the greater context
In scripture, or any literature for that matter, the greater context is defined as any information that is not within the proximity of a particular word or sentence but still influences its meaning. In Revelation 20:4-15 there are a series of events that are revealed in a chronological order: first, there is a resurrection of those saints that died during the great tribulation (Rev 20:4), secondly, there is the 1000 year reign of Christ (Rev 20:6-7), third and finally, there is the resurrection of the unbelievers (Rev 20:11-15). The first event in Revelations 20 is what John 6:40 refers to, while, the third event is what John 12:48 refers to. Both of these events occur on the last day, but we are also told that these events are separated by a second event that lasts precisely 1000 years; therefore, the last day that is referred to in both John 6 & John 12 must be a non-literal or figurative day that represents a much longer period of time.

4. Jonah and the whale.

And Jehovah had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.  (Jonah 1:17)
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale‘s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  (Matthew 12:40)

What is the invalid inference and why is it invalid?

The invalid inference: A whale is the fish that God prepared to swallow up Jonah.
Reason: Hasty Generalization
Which fish is great enough to have swallowed Jonah whole and allow him to dwell inside it for three whole days? Of all the big fishes out there in the ocean, it is easy to see how someone could generalize that the whale is among the the biggest (if not the biggest) of the fish family but is this sufficient warrant to conclude that the great fish spoken of in Jonah 1:17 must have been a whale? Some bibles, children’s books, etc. have hastily generalized that the great fish was in fact a whale but this conclusion is not a necessary one since there could have been (and still are) many other “great fish” in the ocean. Also, the other passage in scripture that refers to this event, Matthew 12:40, uses the term whale to describe the fish that swallowed Jonah but the Greek word kētos from which the word whale is interpreted mainly means huge fish and does not necessarily have to mean whale so it seems like some of the interpreters out there (including my beloved KJV interpreters) are also guilty of making a hasty generalization.

5. Three days and Three nights

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  (Matthew 12:40)

What is the invalid inference and why is it invalid?

The invalid inference: The amount of time Jesus will spend in the heart of the earth are three literal days and three literal nights.
Reason: Equivocation
Equivocation is an error in reasoning where two distinct definitions of the same word or phrase are confused for one another. Of course, most words and many phrases have more than one meaning, but context determines which meaning is in scope. If the phrase “three days and three nights” is taken literally to mean seventy-two hours then there would be a contradiction with the many places in scripture that state that He would rise (or that He rose) on “the third day” (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 20:19; John 2:19; 1 Corinthians 15:4; etc.). The scriptures in Matthew 28:1 and elsewhere indicate that Jesus was crucified on Friday (before the Sabbath) and rose on Sunday, so the first of the three days was already coming to an end when the countdown to the resurrection began.  In the Jewish parlance, the phrase “day and night” is an idiom that can refer to any portion of a day or night. In fact, it is used this way at least 3 other times in scripture (See 1 Samuel 30:12-13; Ester 4:16; Ester 5:1; Judges 14:17-18, Matthew 27:63-64 etc.). So, since we know that Christ also said that He would rise from the dead on the third day (Luke 9:22), we understand His utterance in Matthew 12:40 as an idiomatic one, not a literal one.

Advertisements

To whom much is given, much shall be required. Really?

Imagine that you are a student in your freshman year at college and you are among a group of high achievers called the ‘A group’ that are consistently earning straight As in all of your course work. You are the envy of the freshman class and all the college professors marvel at how you and this group of high achievers are able to effortlessly, it seems, attain to these consistently high grades while the majority of the class is struggling to get by with some Cs, but mostly Ds and Fs. It doesn’t matter that some of the folks that are in the A group are naturally gifted while others just have a ridiculously efficient work regiment, all members in this group always achieve high grades and it is very evident to all onlookers. Then suddenly, in walks the President of the college declaring:

I’m going to take a portion of those in the A groups’ grades and give it to those at the very bottom who need this help to survive academically. After All, you guys should be willing to give something up as people who’ve been extraordinarily blessed academically, you should be willing to give up some of the good grades that you enjoy, and,  I actually think this is going to make academic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’

What would you do? Is this a sound argument? What right does the President have to muck with your grades, after all, he didn’t earn them, did he? He does not own your grades, does he?

This analogy may not be a perfect representation of the “wealth redistribution” argument; in fact, all analogies break down at some point; however, I believe it is a good illustration of the difficulties that lie in the belief that one entity has the right to exact “social justice” on behalf of whomever they deem to be society’s victim. (see Did God give the government the right to redistribute wealth)

In a recent news article (Obama says his policies are extension of his faith) President Obama claims that the biblical God endorses his attempts to redistribute the wealth of those that are “extraordinarily blessed” to help those that are poor. One of the methods that he has proposed to achieve this goal is to implement “fairness” in the tax code. The president claims that his “fairness” agenda which aims to enact punitive policies against the wealthy, stems from the biblical passage that states: ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’

Of the many problems that arise from this article, one of the most glaring is President Obama’s unapologetic eisegesis of the Luke 12:48 (But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more) bible verse. He completely takes the verse out of context to make a point that is not mentioned or supported by the text. The particular idea that President Obama would have us believe is supported by this verse of scripture is: there is a biblical mandate for the government to force those with more money to pay more taxes. That the President would dare suggest such a thing without studying to ensure that such a conclusion is approved by scripture underscores the glaring disconnect between our president’s policies and the intent of God’s word. This verse has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes or money. Furthermore, God isn’t into forcing people to do anything, let alone, paying taxes. The bible is clear that the involuntary transfer of a property title from one party to another, without receiving title to other property in return (i.e. paying taxes) is not a good thing. This is deducible from biblical passages such as: 1 Samuel 8:10-19, Matthew 17:25-26. However, the bible commands us to pay taxes so as not to offend those in power (Matthew 17:27). Similarly, in Matthew 5:44 we are told to do good to those that hate us, but no one would argue that it is therefore perfectly fine for those persons to hate us.

Anyway, for those that care to know the truth, the context of the Luke 12:48 verse that President Obama quotes is not about taxes or wealth management; it’s about the judgement that occurs when Christ returns. Specifically, this verse’s purpose is to convey that there are different degrees of punishment (for the unbeliever) which are based upon the knowledge of God that each one has received. Therefore, this verse has absolutely NOTHING to do with how governments should calculate taxes and everything to do with what a person does with the knowledge of God that their lifetime has afforded them. According to Dr. Henry Morris of the New Defender’s Bible Commentary, in the Luke 12:48 parable: “[b]oth servants represent lost sinners, and both are punished, with neither saved. The intensity of suffering, however, is inflicted in accordance with degree of sinfulness in relation to degree of light received or truth known.” For example, “those born in Christian homes, in Christian lands, with abundant access to Bibles, churches, and schools, as well as other privileges, will be evaluated more critically than those” unbelievers who perished without such advantages.

Of course, Romans 1:18-20 conveys the idea that the innate knowledge of God possessed by each and every person is sufficient to condemn that person at the judgement should they decide to do nothing with that knowledge. There are no exemptions for the blind, deaf, dumb, or the mentally challenged, so this knowledge is not a knowledge that is gained through the senses, rather, it is already implanted into our minds at birth. This knowledge is what renders all men inexcusable should they choose to leave this world in a state of ignorance or unbelief (disobedience). Consequently, if all (of the unsaved), by default, are subject to condemnation for this innate knowledge, of how much more condemnation shall they be thought worthy of, who in addition to this innate knowledge were immersed into a society inundated with churches, bibles, Christian schools, Christian organizations, Christian friends, Christian neighbors and Christian websites? Therefore, to whom much is given, much is required.

One may ask in response, can’t we extrapolate a generic principle from this saying of Christ and apply it to financial stewardship? The answer is NO! We do not arrive at principles about financial stewardship by extrapolating verses that have nothing to do with financial stewardship. For Christians, the bible is our unreformable starting point; therefore, if God doesn’t explicitly mention a similar principle (i.e. to whom much is given much is required) in regards to financial stewardship elsewhere in scripture, and if this principle cannot be deduced by good and necessary consequence from the verses that comprise the Luke 12:48 parable, then we haven’t any justification for arbitrarily extrapolating a financial principle from this verse in scripture that is tethered to an entirely different context. Scripture is not a wax nose. We could just as easily require the reader to extrapolate a Luke 12:48 principle that applies to those that are stewards of excellent class grades or excellent health. Neither of these extrapolations would have scriptural warrant.

Of course, one could easily use President Obama’s own hermeneutics to demonstrate the absurdity of his hermeneutics, in fact, I’m fortunate in this quest since the verse that he chose to take out of context has a counterpart somewhere out there just waiting to be equally misused. For instance, in Matthew 25:29 (For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath) it appears that I have found all the justification I need to argue that the bible supports taking from the poor and giving to those that are rich. This, of course, is not the intended context, but there is no way President Obama could ever accuse me of taking this verse out of context without incriminating himself. Therein lies the problem with being fast and loose with the scriptures. I guess when the President takes time off from accusing God’s word of being inferior, it’s only to twist those same words to support his unbiblical ideas of social justice and wealth redistribution. Incidentally, I find it ironic that on the one hand, Obama scoffs at the idea of using God’s word to influence policy, then on the other hand (i.e. Obama says his policies are extension of his faith), he claims that his fairness policy is the result of scripture. That this unfortunate propensity to flip-flop should befall President Obama will not surprise those that are familiar with his other about faces (i.e. he was against homosexual marriage but now his views are “evolving”, letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide after promising sanctions as a candidate, redefining his grounds for abortion under public duress etc).  I also consider it ironic that the other bible verse that President Obama quotes; Proverbs 31:8 (Speak for those who cannot speak; seek justice for all those on the verge of destruction), is one of the most galvanizing verses for those that espouse the rights of the aborted babies (who incidentally cannot speak for themselves and are ever imminently on the verge of destruction) yet it’s being used as a proof text for taxation and wealth distribution by arguably the most pro-death president in our country’s history. If you want real social justice, just wait until Christ returns to enact justice on all those that have ignored or disobeyed His word (2 Thessalonians 1:8). It is only then that you will see true social justice. Until then, President Obama needs to stop handling scripture in such a sloppy manner; otherwise, folks will keep doubting whether his profession of faith is genuine or just socially/politically convenient. Of course, if the idea of social justice had any merit, one would wonder why Christ has to come back to straighten up the world, in the first place.

Regarding Obama’s plans of wealth redistribution, according to Dr. John Robbins of http://www.TrinityFoundation.org:

“No one can seriously deny that private property is one of the basic values of both the Bible and American society. It has been under heavy attack in the twentieth century by atavistic and criminal collectivists who wish either to abolish it or to redistribute it by political means. “Thou shalt not steal” applies to all, both rulers and private citizens. Rulers routinely violate the commandment by taxation, expropriation, and inflation.” – The Ethics and Economics of Health Care

As a result of the above, I strongly believe that President Obama’s ideas amount to theft. You may have the right to be jealous but you do not have the right to steal from the rich in order to enact the justice that your jealousy demands. If the rich have violated some law then the President has the authority to punish them for whatever wrong that they have committed but he does not have the right to alter their status by removing some of their property no matter how small. If the president wants to quote scripture he should start by adhering to the ten commandments, specifically the one that states “Thou shalt not steal!”

In conclusion, I have no problem with individual citizens giving to the poor and Christians should instinctively know that to do such is our (and NOT the government’s) prerogative and duty; however, I object to an immoral government (that thinks it is OK to kill babies but it’s not OK to have poor people) stealing other folks money under the guise of “fairness.” Of course, if the government were really concerned about fairness, the tax rate would be the same across the board and all persons would be required to pay taxes regardless of socioeconomic status. If we as a nation implement inept, socialistic laws that are doomed for failure, when things start falling apart, we do not have the right to start targeting the affluent merely because they are affluent. Besides, there exists no objective, non-arbitrary, definition for the word “fair” outside of a moral lawgiver who owns everything (and thus has the authority to enact standards); to date, the only moral lawgiver that fits this criteria is YAHWEH, the Almighty God of the Bible.

Logic in the Scriptures – A fortiori, Ad hominem and the Dilemma

The Principles and Methods of Christian Apologetics

The foundation of Christian theology and apologetics is propositional revelation alone, and if there is both written and oral revelation, written revelation is the foundation. All the content of apologetics, including the laws of logic, are found in propositional revelation. Apologetics rests on Scripture alone.

The methods of Christian apologetics may be divided into two parts, logical and rhetorical. The logical methods are sometimes stated, most often illustrated, by Jesus and Paul (and the other Biblical writers as well), as are the rhetorical methods. The logical methods include deduction in the forms of immediate inference, syllogism, and sorites; apagogic, sometimes called ad hominem, arguments (not to be confused with abusive ad hominem arguments) in which an opponent’s point of view is adopted for the purpose of demonstrating the logical absurdity of his view; dilemmas, and arguments a fortiori. The rhetorical devices include sarcasm, ridicule, kindness, courtesy, paradox, and questions. – The Apologetics of Jesus and Paul (by John W. Robbins)

Definitions

Ad hominen: An argument in which an opponent’s point of view is adopted for the purpose of demonstrating the logical absurdity of his view. Some forms of the ad hominen argument are: the Reductio Ad Absurdum and the apogogic argument. It is important that this is not confused with the abusive ad hominem which many erroneously equate with the ad hominem probably due to the fact that many reference books abridge, without warrant, the semantic range of the term “ad hominem” .

A fortiori: Arguing from the greater to the lesser or the lesser to the greater.

Rhetorical Question: A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered. In logic, the meaning of the complete answer (a non-elliptical answer) to a rhetorical question is a proposition. (e.g. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Answer: Yes, the life is more than meat and the body is more than raiment.)

Syllogism: Deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises; a major and a minor premise.

Dilemma: An argument requiring a choice between equally unfavorable options

Examples

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
(Matthew 6:24-34)

-A fortiori, Rhetorical Device

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
(Matthew 7:1-5)

-Ad hominem

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
(Matthew 7:11)

-A fortiori

And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
(Matthew 9:2-8)

-A fortiori, Ad hominem

What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
(Matthew 10:27-31)

-A fortiori

And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
(Matthew 12:9-14)

-A fortiori

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
(Matthew 15:21-28)

-Ad hominem

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(Matthew 19:16-17)

-Ad hominem

And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
(Matthew 21:23-27)

-Dilemma

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
(Matthew 22:15-22)

-Dilemma, Ad hominem

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
(Matthew 22:23-33)

-Contradiction, Reductio Ad Absurdum, Necessary inference (deduction)

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
(Matthew 22:41-46)

-Ad hominem