Paul - False Apostle?

As I've had some time off over the holiday season, there's been more opportunity for me to listen into what IWWB are saying via their weekly broadcast bible studies. The majority of it is just mundane hoo-ha about how they're being setup to be the future world-leaders and so must be persecuted, lied about and hated of all men - all of which I've covered many times before. Nothing new there! 

However, listening in on the tail end of a study titled: "Blessed First Resurrection PT2," the fellowship discussion turned towards whether Paul the Apostle was truly a real apostle, or an impostor bringing a false gospel.  

Firstly, here is the discussion in mind, edited by myself to get rid of long pauses:



Before I get into the obvious contradictions that exist between Paul's writings and others within the New Testament, it is worth making a few notes on what is said by the IWWB brethren - 

Firstly, you'll note that Mitch Kuhn expresses surprise multiple times ("really?") at the notion of Paul being considered a false apostle. This just tells me that brother Mitch is extremely poorly read when it comes to church history. Now I'm not claiming to be an expert myself, but it is obvious, given prior statements Mitch has made that he is simply unfamiliar with scholarship as it pertains to the New Testament. He would prefer, it seems, to wallow in ignorance and dress it up as "the gift of faith."

Secondly, Mike Vinson's pronouncement at the end of the discussion had me literally laughing out loud. I kid you not. Like Mitch, Mike really does view the bible as a "history book" with factual information of literal events that actually took place. This is commonly referred to as "biblical inerrancy." 

If you take a listen, Mike says quite plainly the following: "and you really would need to throw Jesus out too because he met him on the road to Damascus and sent him off to do what he did..." As a point of context, Mike said this because someone prior had said that if Paul was a false prophet, then by default, much of the New Testament writings would be undone. 

What these sincere but extremely ignorant men fail to realize is that their paper idol, the bible, is not one complete book, written in some kind of relay-running form, with each author signing off and then passing the baton onto the next eager scribe. No - far from it. Instead, what you have are various authors writing with a particular agenda and audience in mind and like it or not, contradictions exist within the text that reveal very human struggles and contentions. This becomes clearly obvious within the context of the New Testament, and certainly, over the issue of Paul's apostleship.

With that in mind, let's take a look at some obvious bungles that lie (no pun!) within the scriptures. Most of the information presented here has been taken verbatim from Neil Godfrey's excellent website Vridar, and in particular, this post. Ironically, Neil is a former World Wide Church of God member who, instead of burying his head further in the bible and starting another WWCoG splinter group, came out of the labyrinth and in the process, gained some real world perspective on matters.

The Silent Witness?

Firstly, bear in mind that Paul seemingly knows nothing of the gospel accounts and fails to mention anything pertinent to the life of Jesus Christ. Paul says nothing of the supposed virgin birth, and repeats not a single line of anything Jesus is purported to have said within the gospels. If you are interested in exploring this matter further, can I recommend the work of Canadian writer Earl Doherty. 

Doherty is well known as one of the recent progenitors of the "Christ Myth Theory," the idea that a mortal man was an after-the-fact consideration, and one that came much later within the evolution of the Christian religion. For whatever it is worth, I find myself leaning that way, but I don't hold to it as a religious dogma. 

On his "Jesus Puzzle" website, Doherty states the following:

Do the New Testament epistles tells us anything about the Jesus of the Gospels? Are the epistle writers aware of such a man, and do they have any knowledge of the Gospel story? 

New Testament commentators have long remarked, frequently with some perplexity, on the dearth of references in the early Christian correspondence to details of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. "The early church lost all interest in the earthly career of the man they turned into God." This has been the standard method of explaining the extensive silence on the human Jesus to be found in the canonical epistles

Be sure to head over to Doherty's site if this topic interests you further, it's certainly an intriguing hypothesis put forth, and one worth becoming familiar with.

A Tale of Two Conversions

In the Book of Acts (9:1-30) we read the following:

Paul was persecuting the church until he was struck down by a divine call on his way to Damascus, he was then baptized in Damascus by a lowly disciple (Ananias), and after some time ("many days") he fled to Jerusalem because of Jewish persecution. 

Further, Paul's contacts in Jerusalem were limited but only on first arriving. Barnabas then acted as his Janus-like gateway by taking him to the apostles – who, we learn elsewhere in Acts, were led by Peter and James. Brethren then took him away to Caesarea and then to Tarsus to protect him from the Hellenists.

In sharp contrast, within the epistle to the Galatians (1:13-24), we read a different story:

Paul used to persecute the church until Christ revealed himself by revelation "in him," after which he then went to Arabia. Only after he had been in Arabia did he return to Damascus. After three years in Damascus he went to Jerusalem because he wanted to see Peter. His contacts in Jerusalem remained limited — the Judean churches did not see Paul.

He met Peter (staying with him a mere 15 days) and James only, and Paul then returned to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

Looking at them like this, side by side, the stories vary and it seems the author of Acts was keen to place Paul within the auspices of church authority. Paul on the other hand tells the story quite differently, and points out several times that his authority was not conferred on him by any man, but came rather from God alone:

Galatians 1:1,11 - Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)... I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.

It should also be noted that for whatever reason, Paul really wants the reader to know he is an apostle. Is it vanity? Or insecurity? Perhaps sheer arrogance? Who knows. 
But whatever the case, Paul seems particularly taken with the title, despite the admonition of Christ that his disciples not use vain titles (Matt. 23:9 - "call no man father") and rule over each other as the gentiles do (see Mark 10:42). 

Moreover, of the 22 times that Paul is referred to as an apostle, all but 2 come from his own hand! That in and of itself should tell you something.

The Jerusalem Road Trip

According to the Galatians letter, the reason Paul went to Jerusalem was to see Peter (Cephas). And he made this journey three years after his conversion. That smacks of both independence (the 3 year wait) and equality (seeking a personal meeting) between the two apostles.

The narrator of Acts has a different plan for Paul. He does not of his own volition decide to go and see Peter face to face. Rather, he is forced to flee Damascus because of persecution, and when he escapes to Jerusalem, he does not seek out Peter nor any of the apostles, but merely the other "common" disciples.

And the three years wait is reduced to a more modest "many days" before reaching Jerusalem, too.

So in Acts Paul does not seek out Peter, nor even go to Jerusalem, of his own volition. This, and the change from "three years" to "many days" serves to dilute the independence factor that is stressed so pointedly in Galatians. 

Acts further challenges the theme of independence found in Galatians by portraying Paul as seeing his place with the disciples, not the apostles.

Nevertheless, to explain knowledge of Paul’s meeting with Peter, the narrator brings in Barnabas to introduce him to the apostles. Peter is not singled out at all, although the reader is well aware that Peter would be included among those he met. 

But above all, it is not Paul who can, like an equal, walk up to Peter and introduce himself. He must be led to the apostles by the good graces of Barnabas. The author of Acts could not make Paul’s status to the apostles any clearer — nor more contrary to what Galatians implies.

Galatians also emphasizes the shortness of Paul’s stay in Jerusalem. It was, we are told, only fifteen days. There is no such time limitation intimated in Acts.

Second Jerusalem Meeting

In the book of Acts (15:1-16:3) we read the following:

Brethren arrived in Antioch from Judea, causing a dispute in the church. Paul and Barnabas were sent by the churches to Jerusalem to seek a resolution to the conflict. Peter spoke and James also spoke (as the leader with the final decision) and issued the decree to settle the matter harmoniously. Back in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas separated as a result of a disagreement (over John Mark) and Paul circumcised half-Greek Timothy, in order to please the Jews.

However, by contrast, the letter to the Galatians (2:1-21) informs us:

Paul was inspired by God to go to Jerusalem and he took Barnabas with him to discuss privately the gospel he preached with the Jerusalem leaders. Paul did not circumcise the Greek Titus to please the "false brethren." Paul addressed James, Peter (Cephas) and John, and there was harmonious agreement. Peter and others arrived in Antioch from James in Jerusalem causing a dispute (with Paul) in the church. Paul disputed sharply with them, and with Peter in particular. In this Antioch dispute, Barnabas sided with Peter and separated himself from Paul.

Not Known To The Disciples?

Paul in Galatians emphasizes that he never mixed with the churches in Jerusalem and Judea but liaised exclusively with the Peter and James. He presents himself as an equal of the apostles and in no way of a lesser rank, and also as one who has no calling to preach to the Jews. His remit is to the gentiles only. Peter’s and Paul’s commissions do not overlap.

How does Acts explain the failure of the Jewish churches to meet with Paul? By declaring they were afraid of his reputation as a persecutor. They refused to see him, not trusting his attempts to see them. But Acts wants to portray the church as a harmonious new Israel where all, Jew and gentile, are one in Christ. It attempts to gloss over the evidence of unresolved divisions. 

So after Paul is introduced to the apostles through Barnabas, the narrative is able to inform us that Paul was able to go freely in and out among all in Jerusalem. Paul preaches to Jews first, but also to gentiles. 

Conclusions

It is obvious when you look closely at the accounts of Acts and Galatians, that both authors wrote with a different agenda and purpose in mind. Paul's is somewhat polemic, and he seems especially eager to establish his own authority, independent of the apostles. 

The author of Acts meanwhile, wants to portray Paul as submitting to the auspices of the church and so fills in the narrative with this perspective in mind. 

How IWWB remain so ignorant of these differing accounts is quite simple - they refuse to believe they exist at all! In the mind of Mike and Mitch and the other key "elect," the bible is one complete book. Mike has even admitted on his website, that if contradictions do appear, it is only because he as yet does not understand what is being said. 

Here are some quotes from Mike that display his mentality on the subject of contradictions:

To the natural man God's Word is full of contradictions, and when you are faithful to those words of God, you too will be accused of contradicting yourself by the very people who "oppose themselves."

Only those who are now being judged can read and hear. Both 'read' and 'hear' mean 'to understand.' It is only those who read and understand how all of these apparent contradictions are actually great hidden truths which the world "cannot receive" that are "hearing a great voice as of a trumpet."

Mike is a sincere man, no doubt, but his attitude and his mindset simply do not permit him the use of his god-given reason. When you elevate the words of men to that of a god, your ability to distinguish truth from error is severely diminished, to say the least. 

In closing, I must again tip my hat to Neil Godfrey of Vridar for all of the concise information provided above, namely under the subheadings. As mentioned before, I've largely grabbed this verbatim off his website and dropped it in here. Do check out Neil's site if you have the time, it is well worth it.

To cap it off, here is Paul again, emphasising his own authority, and doing his best to downplay the authority of the apostles - Galatians 2:6,7,9:

But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favouritism to no man - for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Mike Vinson = Satan 2.0?

Mike Vinson has again landed himself feet first into a contradiction and a paroxysm of self-defeating logic. Seemingly, without even realizing it, Mike has outed himself as the next incarnation of Satan, (the accuser, no less!) by effectively stating that he will be using the bible to manipulate and control people in the supposed post-millennial age.

Answering a question on his IWWB website, Mike addresses the concern of a reader about how the so-called "Lake of Fire" will work, and more importantly, since Satan and his henchmen will be contained within this framework also, who will there be to try and to test humanity, as Satan has done in the past? Who will be the new accuser? 

Before I get into the failure of logic on Mike's part, it is worth nothing (for those not in the know) that Vinson and his IWWB group teach a bizarre form of Christian Universalism, one in which even Satan himself will be saved and reconciled to God. IWWB pseudo-elder Mitch Kuhn has said in the past, that prior to joining Mike's WWCoG splinter group, he experienced dreams about hanging out with a redeemed lord Satan in the afterlife. 

What does the the name "Satan" mean? Literally, Satan means "the accuser." Various scriptures highlight this role of accusation:

Revelation 12:10 -Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

Zechariah 3:1 - Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.

1 Peter 5:8 - Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

This constant accusation that Satan undertakes, is certainly not held in a positive light within the scriptures. In contrast to Christ, who accepts the downtrodden and the social outcast with love and forgiveness, Satan simply delights in pointing out faults and waving them before all and sundry. 

The woman caught in adultery (John chapter 8) is a perfect scenario that highlights this: 

John 8:10 - When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are thine accusers? Has no man condemned thee?

Note the word "accusers" in the above scripture? This is the ancient Greek word katēgoros (Strongs #2725) and it is used elsewhere in the New Testament, namely Revelation 12:10, quoted above, which I will do again here - 

 For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses (Greek: katēgoros) them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

However, it seems that Mike has no qualms about stating that he and his wide-eyed altar boys and girls will assume the Satanic role of the accuser, in the lake of fire, as he states plainly and succinctly:

Since "every man's works will be tried by fire", and since that "fire" is God's words in the mouth of His angels, the only conclusion to draw is that those in whose mouths is that fire will be the adversaries of Satan and his angels... This "fire" that is the adversary of Satan and his "carnal minded... angels" is the word of God in the mouths of the angels of God, His elect. The carnal mind is by nature the adversary of the mind of God, and the mind of God is by nature the adversary of the carnal mind..

Mike certainly doesn't seem to see it, but in truth, all he is saying is that he believes he will be bible-thumping Satan and anyone else who doesn't agree with him in this so-called lake of fire. Really, that's no different to what Mike does now except, in the millennium, Mike is under the impression that he will have attained God-like celebrity status! 

Moreover, in Mike's mind, virtually all of humanity and Satan, will be Mike's captive audience, unable to escape the ravings of him and his IWWB foot-soldiers. 

I don't know about you, but quite honestly, a literal lake of fire would be preferable because this scenario sure sounds like hell on earth to me. Seriously, if I had to sit through even 15 minutes of a Jennifer Wells worship session? Or listen to IWWB plagiarize a Beatles classic? No thanks!   

Lord, have mercy I pray thee...

Speaking of Witchcraft?

It seems that no matter how hard they try, Mike and his elders invariably trip themselves up again and again when it comes to their own doctrines. I have referred to this in the past, using metaphors such as "falling on their own sword" and "hanging themselves" because these figures of speech aptly sum up what is taking place. 

What is even more amusing though, is that Mike and his disciples appear to be totally unaware of this fact. One would think that those who profess to have absolute spiritual truth straight from the mind of God would know when and where they have missed the mark, but alas - this appears not to be the case!

Only a few days ago, I was listening to IWWB quasi-elder Mitch Kuhn's latest study titled "Blessed First Resurrection" and somehow, the discussion turned towards witchcraft, of all things. 

An IWWB disciple named Victor had this to say, about the topic:



Here is a transcript of the dialogue:

"Speaking of witchcraft... and I think I read an article in Mike's website that witchcraft is making something instantly, out of nothing or magic y'know when you look at the definition in the King James... the word witchcraft there... it's magic and it's making something out of nothing and the way I see it, it's... side-stepping the process that we're talking about you have to go through. Babylon you know, is still teaching smooth things, it's easy to be saved, it's just a 10-second prayer..."

Mitch Kuhn then chimes in and says: "Absolutely, that's the magic potion Victor. You know, you just take a Christian and you add water and a 10-second sinners prayer and poop, you're saved..."

When I initially heard this, I was amazed that IWWB vice-president Mitch Kuhn actually agreed! But it seems that Mitch didn't really think twice before putting his stamp of approval on what brother Victor had to say. That's not really surprising considering Mitch's powers of logic. I should also point out that Mike Vinson was present on the study and did not, at any-time, object to what was being said or add to that particular point. 

While the context of the discussion appears to be the 10-second sinners prayer and a simple confession of faith in order to convert a new believer, there is no denying the direct statement that witchcraft is tied to "making something instantly." Mike is adamant that Christ is taking time to do his work within the IWWB disciple (he calls this an "aion"), and is absolutely insistent that the PROCESS takes time. Hmm...

However, this statement and position is what has inadvertently undone one of Mike Vinson and IWWB's sacred cow doctrines - that of literal 7 day creationism, also sometimes referred to as "young earth creationism" or YEC for short. This theory posits that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and that events recorded in the biblical text are meant to be interpreted literally, meaning that the 7 days of creation are in fact, 7 literal 24-hour time periods. 

It is amazing to me that Mike clings to this doctrine when in many, many other instances, he teaches that the biblical text cannot be taken literally and that it must be interpreted as metaphor and parable, and what he calls "spiritual language." Mike will even quote the apostle Paul from 2 Corinthians 3:6 "for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." 

Mike will also use his "it's all spiritual" mantra to rationalize the bible out of any historical or internal contradictions it may present. However, on this particular point, Mike is stubbornly insistent on maintaining his fundamentalist roots and ideals.

Congruent with this, Vinson has seen the need to label anything contrary to the YEC position, such as evolutionary process, as an "insidious lie" of the adversary and on many occasions, has spoken out against such theories. Vinson frequently refers to anything that is apart from his fundamentalist dogma as: "an insidious attempt by the adversary" and "godless theories." He'll also quote frequently quote this scripture, which references "science falsely called."

On his website, Mike has made the following statements when he has been queried about alternate theories that arise from a non-literal reading of the Genesis text. 

The former things from the beginning went for out of God's mouth, and He did them suddenly. The Hebrew word for suddenly means instantly, it does not mean millions of years.
Which doctrine magnifies God's work which men behold? Which is the greatest God, the God who has to learn how to go about creating this physical universe, or the God who does it all instantly, in six days consisting of six evenings and six mornings?

Quote taken from here. Ahem, did you take note of Mike's use of the word instantly?

This, on the other hand, is true and you can take it to the bank: 

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So "the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them" was made in six days [instantly], and anyone who says otherwise is simply lacking in faith that God's Word can be trusted.

That quote has been taken from here. Again, Mike is emphatic that his position is truth, and that all others are simply lacking faith. 

But when you compare Mike's position to that of the IWWB disciple Victor, who made the statement that witchcraft was creating things instantly, without going through a proper process, you can see the cracks beginning to appear between the two doctrines.

Again, let's compare the two statements and positions: 

IWWB disciple Victor and Mitch Kuhn: 

Witchcraft is making something instantly, out of nothing... It's making something out of nothing... Side-stepping the process...

MIke Vinson:

The former things from the beginning went for out of God's mouth, and He did them suddenly. The Hebrew word for suddenly means instantly, it does not mean millions of years ... Which is the greatest God, the God who has to learn how to go about creating this physical universe, or the God who does it all instantly, in six days consisting of six evenings and six mornings?

Looked at side by side, this spiritual blunder amounts to an epic fail in terms of consistency and "maintaining a pattern of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13). 

Mike can't have it both ways, although I am sure, if you were to take him to task on this, he would insist that he can. Make no mistake, Mike Vinson will proverbially piss down your back while smiling at you, and insisting that the sensation you are feeling is the rain. 

The bottom line is that it would seem that either Vinson is wrong about YEC or alternatively, he is openly admitting that there exists an alarming double-standard within his own peculiar statement of faith. 

Did God microwave the earth and the solar system, and everything within the universe instantly? If he did, then according to IWWB, that's witchcraft and he side-stepped the process. Or, did God take thousands or millions of years to form the earth, using a process? In that case, Genesis cannot be taken literally and Mike is wrong on his YEC creationism dogma and doesn't truly have the "mind of Christ" as he claims. 

It seems Mike is caught between a rock and a hard place, yet again. Checkmate!

Fallacious Birthday Bashing

One of the tipping points for me leaving the IWWB cult some years ago, was the absolute insistence from Vinson (and his trained chimps elders) that a birthday was strictly off the cards and further, cause for dismissal from the fellowship completely.

The only real biblical ammunition Vinson could bring to bear on this argument was of course, Galatians 4:10. Vinson insists this verse of scripture must be interpreted within whatever culture the believer finds themselves in, even though Paul was obviously using it in the context of a believer attempting to justify themselves through observance of Judaism and Mosaic law-keeping. But apparently, according to Vinson, birthdays and literally every other commemorative day is out the door for those living in western societies, who truly want to follow Jesus.

However, Vinson can't only settle for Galatians 4:10. Having set himself up as a spiritual leader of the only group preaching truth in the world today, he must of course convince his doting acolytes that this doctrine of birthday embargo is scattered throughout the word of God. He's done this in the past, by using vague references within the Old Testament but it appears that he saves such tit-bits for email communication only.

One of the things I took Vinson to task on before I left the group was that when he was presenting his assertion that birthdays were off the table, he frequently resorted to multiple fallacies within the context of his arguments. Primarily, he used what was not in the bible as the basis for supporting his argument. Vinson also liked to ask inane rhetorical questions in bible-studies, again, about matters that are not addressed in the biblical text, and which he has no verifiable way of knowing. However, don't imagine that these factors will stop the likes of Mike Vinson! One of his go-to lines was this: "Do you think we'll be celebrating Christmas in the millennium? I don't think so, not if the elect are in charge, I don't think so!"

Note what Vinson did here? He asks a question that he can have no way of knowing, or providing evidence for, and then conveniently, provides the answer to this question. Without a doubt, this is an outright fallacy in that Vinson is loading the question to serve his religious agenda.

A fallacy, by its very definition, is an argument that uses poor reasoning. By using what is not in the bible as a supporting argument, Vinson is employing the "argument from silence" fallacy, sometimes also called "negative proof." While I have exposed Mitch Kuhn's poor reasoning skills before, I've not really picked apart Vinson's in any great detail. Partly because he makes so many stupid statements that its hardly worth taking the time, but also because Vinson almost always undoes himself with his actions after-the-fact. 

However, when I heard Vinson's latest attempt to proof text his birthday doctrine, I felt it was a chance to give him some air time. 

Firstly, here is the most recent audio of Mike hawking his anti-birthday agenda:



Vinson says the following:

"The 3 times that birthdays are mentioned... In every case, someone died. That's significant. It's significant that someone died every time a birthday is mentioned in scripture... To me it speaks volumes that Christ does not let us know when he was born. He doesn't let us know when ANY BODY in the bible was born - not a single person!"

Firstly, Vinson does his utmost to associate a birthday with evil, or death, and this is obviously an attempt to muddy the waters and convince his disciples that birthdays are the work of Satan. 

However, the fact is that the bible itself is full of death, and dying. Even a cursory read of the biblical text reveals this simple fact. Those who obediently obeyed God (that's if you chose to believe the text!) faced death, dying and all manner of evils. Using Vinson's logic, we ought to conclude that a person is best off not following the bible, or obeying God's instructions because "it's significant that someone died" when they did so. 

Paul received lashings, beatings and bites from snakes. Poster boy for obedience, Jesus Christ, was crucified and beaten severely before the fact for his efforts. Peter was allegedly crucified upside down and the first martyr, Stephen, was stoned to death. Therefore, applying Mike Vinson's logic, you needn't bother obeying the bible because "it's significant" that these things took place. 

The truth is, Mike Vinson only uses this argument because it has been lifted straight out of the WWCoG / Herbert W. Armstrong school of mind-control, and as mentioned in other blog postings, Vinson cannot help but cling feverishly to these teachings like the proverbial shit to a blanket. 

David C. Pack, a HWA mini-me who calls himself "Pastor General" (and, who desperately wants to establish his movement as the pre-eminent WCCG splinter group!) has written on his website about the evils of taking part in a birthday. 

Surprise, surprise, what is Pastor General Pack's opening statement about birthdays? 
Here it is:

Birthday celebrations are mentioned in the Bible on three separate occasions and, in each case, something terrible occurred.

So you see, good ol' boy Mike Vinson isn't really promoting anything new here. He's just plagiarized a WWCoG doctrine, and had the arrogance to declare this, "the truth."  
His "teaching" has been lifted out of the WWCoG school of hermeneutics and Vinson's lazy and fallacious arguments are just copied verbatim from his WWCoG splinter-group contemporaries.  

What else has Vinson got? Well, the argument from silence/negative proof as previously mentioned. Vinson states: "To me it speaks volumes that Christ does not let us know when he was born..." 

Before I take on Vinson's fallacious argument, let's just check with General Pack again. Does he say something similar?

We have now established that the Bible records negative examples of birthday celebrations, while it is silent on celebrating, or even identifying, the birthdays of all of God’s faithful servants—including Christ.

Well shit. Does this not appear to be the exact same thing Vinson said? I guess it's just an amazing coincidence? No, Vinson again has revealed himself as merely replicating and appropriating the doctrines of his former church. 

Another Herbert Armstrong clone, Dr Bob Thiel (known as COGwriter, and who now runs the Continuing Church of God) writes about the evils of birthdays on his website, which apparently, is mostly a copy and paste from the LCG (wouldn't you know it, ANOTHER World-Wide splinter group) minister Rod McNair. 
Here is the quote:

What can we learn from Scripture about observing birthdays? Jesus Christ did not mark the anniversary of His birth, nor did He make reference to it in any such fashion. Nor did any of the Apostles so much as even mention Christ’s birth date or their own...

Again, you see that these WWCoG splinter groups all employ the same tactics and arguments and more importantly, take note that Mike Vinson differs not one iota from the likes of Rod McNair, Bob Thiel or Pastor General David C. Pack. 

Re the argument itself, if we employ this kind of logic, (basing our lives on what Jesus did not do, or make known) we would have to conclude that because Jesus never drank coffee, then clearly, that must be off the table too. And Jesus is never said to have smiled. I guess that's evil as well? Has to be, right? And Jesus isn't specifically said to have wiped his ass after taking a shit so, save yourself some money and do the same! 

Clearly, Vinson's fallacious and deceptive logic (as well as General Pack's, and the other fruit-cake splinter groups) doesn't stand up to scrutiny and only reveals him to be a professional cherry picker engaging in overt confirmation bias, who wants to twist the biblical message into his own self-made image. 

Lastly, Vinson fails epically when he says that nobody's date of birth in the bible was actually known. Really, I can't quite believe he came out with that! 

But think about it - If that were true, then how on earth could the dates for the ages of various characters throughout the text be known? For example, the pre-flood patriarch's are said to have lived for many hundreds of years. Adam is said to have lived for 930 years. How could this be known if his birthday and the counting of ones years was not undertaken? Isaac was apparently 180. Again, how can this be, if according to Vinson, Jesus never told us when anybody in the bible was born? 

This right here, is the fly in the ointment of Vinson's bogus and contrived arguments. 

The simple truth is that Mike Vinson is unable to critique his own beliefs because he is up to his ears in his own half-truths, lies and spiritual poppy-cock. He is a man living in a fantasy. He demonstrates no sound reasoning skills because he has abandoned these in favour of believing his own version of reality.

It is obvious that Mike Vinson is living in the shadow of the WWCoG. When you look closely at what he says, it is clear that the basis for his beliefs and his general arguments are simply verbatim / regurgitated World-Wide doctrines that are employed again and again by the splinter groups!