“Venerable Arahant Culapanthaka became an arahant with the help of a cloth. This does not mean that the rag is the truth.“
Well, that is a bit of a stretch of argument, same with Pothila – I think you using those arguments in the wrong way. Still, they are irrelevant to the actual situation as their situation and story are different, by stretch I mean you trying to make the argument as you take two different things and try to make them look like they are the same while they are whole other things and positions are not relatable to what you are saying. Those Bhikkus were in a very unique scenarios that had nothing to do with what you trying to convey through those arguments.
Trying to buy people to “your side” and sugarcoat things will not be good in the long run as it creates false expectations in the long run. If people care about what is true it will not matter what they are in the context of religious manner, spiritual, or whatever. If a person does not have the qualities to become a “real” Buddhist you do not convince anyone to do so. Dhamma is not really “missionary” but I understand the position of Bhikkus in the modern day, they need to do “something” to bring people to their place which is not bad – especially in the case if promoting real things.