Demolishing Triablogue, part 5: The Virgin Birth and Mark 6:3

Jason Engwer argues that the failure to mention Joseph as Jesus father in Mark 6:3 is more consistent with the theory that there was something peculiar about Jesus' birth, than with any other theory.

NAU  Mark 6:1 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him.
 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?
 3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.
 4 Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household."
 5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. (Mk. 6:1-5 NAU)

Engwer's biggest oversight is Mark's failure to say anything explicit about the virgin birth, if indeed Mark says what he does in 6:3 because of a scandal that ultimately arises from Jesus being born of a virgin.

Engwer will say Mark didn't feel the need to repeat what his originally intended audience already believed or accepted, but on the contrary, early patristic testimony asserted that Mark's purpose was no less than to repeat for his church, at their request, what they heard Peter preach.  From Eusebius, H.E. 6:14, Schaff edition:

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Marks had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

So Engwer cannot explain Mark's failure to explicitly mention the virgin birth on the theory that Mark trusted that his readers already accepted this doctrine.  Because they were already converts and a church, they clearly had accepted all major teachings Peter gave them, yet Mark is precisely repeating for them in written form that which they previously heard and believed.  So Engwer's presumption that the author of Mark either knew about or accepted the virgin birth story, but for some mysterious reason never quite got around to mentioning it, is quite strange:  The virgin birth, if true, would certainly strongly support, at least for Christians, their belief that Jesus was the promised messiah.  Yet Engwer would have the reader believe that Mark never thought such a strong supporting bit of history/doctrine worthy to be explicitly mentioned?

Engwer wastes his readers time arguing for such a trifling thing, because Jesus, when presented with an opportunity to say something good about his mom or his birth, declined to do so:

27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."
 28 But He said, "On the contrary (Greek: men), blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (Lk. 11:27-28 NAU)

Louw-Nida indicate that in the Greek, "contrary" signaled disagreement with the former speaker:

89.128  μενοῦν ; μενοῦνγε: relatively emphatic markers of contrast - 'but, on the contrary, on the other hand.' μενοῦν: μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες 'on the contrary, those who hear the word of God and keep it are happy' or '... fortunate' Lk 11.28. For other interpretations of μενοῦν in Lk 11.28 , see 89.50 and 91.8. μενοῦνγε: μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ 'on the contrary, who are you to talk back to God?' Ro 9.20.

So Jesus was not simply reminding people of the higher priorities, he was disagreeing with the female speaker's assumption that the blessedness of his mother had any relevance to anything concerning the gospel.

Oh, did I mention?  Jesus also never brought up the subject of his birth.

I answer Engwer in point by point fashion here, since he or somebody at Triablogue is apparently too frightened of my scholarly answers to them and have banned me, while dishonestly leaving up their replies to me. 

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Posted by Jason Engwer at 5:31 AM

Jesus' Childhood Outside The Infancy Narratives (Part 5): Mark

Mark's gospel, like Matthew and Luke, has John anticipating Jesus' ministry before it begins (1:2-8).

As in the other gospels, Mark has John popularly received early on (1:5). See my comments earlier about the significance of John's reception.

Mark's accounts of the calling of the disciples (e.g., 1:16-20) are similar to what we find in Matthew. See my earlier comments in my post about Matthew's gospel.

The infancy theme of Jesus' background in Nazareth is mentioned by Mark (1:24).

Mark 1:24 neither expresses nor implies the least little bit about Jesus' infancy, it merely indicates that somebody believed Jesus to have been from Nazarteth, whether he was actually born there is hardly at issue:

 23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
 24 saying, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are-- the Holy One of God!"
 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be quiet, and come out of him!" (Mk. 1:23-25 NAU)

 Conservative Inerrantist Evangelical scholar J.A. Brooks says absolutely nothing about Jesus' infancy in his commentary on Mark 1:24:

1:24 The questions sought to put Jesus on the defensive and force him to justify his action (cf. Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chr 35:21). The second sentence, however, could be an assertion rather than a question: “You have come to destroy us!” The demon tried unsuccessfully to oppose Jesus by employing his name. Note how the demon spoke through the man, sometimes for himself and sometimes for demons in general. “Holy One of God” probably is a messianic title, although there is very little attestation for that. In the Old Testament God is usually the Holy One. Here the title implies that Jesus has a special relationship with God. In v. 24 the demon acknowledged the true identity of Jesus (cf. v. 34)—something the disciples were slow to do. In fact, only at the crucifixion did a human being confess Jesus as the Son of God, and he was not one of the disciples (15:39).

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 51). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Asserting that the demon spoke the true identity of Jesus, does not constitute evidence either way on Jesus' infancy.  And it doesn't matter if the reference shows somebody thought Jesus was "born" there, Jason's purpose in the article is not to establish that Jesus was born in Nazareth, but that Jesus was virgin-born.  Nothing in Mark 1:24 supports any concept of virgin birth.

Other Christian scholars see nothing about Jesus infancy in this passage:

“The Holy One of God” (ὁ ἃγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ). The demon addresses Jesus as “Jesus, the Nazarene.” After asking about the purpose of Jesus’ coming, the spirit then demonstrates his knowledge of Jesus’ true identity, “The Holy One of God.”

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 57). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Engwer continues:

The theme of Davidic ancestry is present as well (10:47-48, 11:10, 12:35-37). Again, keep in mind the implication of a Bethlehem birthplace.

Even granting Jesus was born in Bethlehem, this does nothing to speak to his being born of a virgin.  Do you  believe Josephus when he says a cow gave birth to a lamb, merely because he correctly mentions Jerusalem and the Temple?  Probably not.

And a high estimate of Jesus' character, with its implications for Jesus' childhood, is present in Mark (1:24), as in the other gospels.

Correction, the story has a story character that gave a high estimate of Jesus.  Trying to establish the historicity of such high estimate by blindly buh-leeving the account is about as stupid as arguing that Donald Trump is a good politician because one of his enemies once said something good about him.

The belief of Jesus' own family that he was crazy, and their refusal to believe his miraculous claims, have more weight than Mark's hearsay quotation of a demon-possessed man:

 20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." (Mk. 3:20-21 NAU)

 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. (Jn. 7:5 NAU)

 Inerrantist Brooks is quite explicit that "his own people" in Mark 3:21 means "family" and that they thought Jesus was acting like a crazy person to the point that they intended to take him by force:

3:21 In the Greek text the subject of the first two clauses is literally “those with him.” The KJV and RSV (1st ed.) interpret this to mean “his friends,” the NASB and NKJV “his own people,” and the RSV (2nd ed.), NRSV, NEB, REB, and NIV “his family.” In view of vv. 31–32 the last of these is certainly correct. The idea that Jesus’ family opposed him troubled some ancient copyists who changed the text to read, “When the scribes and the rest heard.” The concern of Jesus’ family was not likely limited to his physical needs (v. 20); they probably were more concerned about the family’s reputation because in their estimation Jesus was acting in a fanatical and even insane way. The same verb is used in Acts 26:24 and 2 Cor 5:13 and means literally to stand outside of oneself. The verb translated “to take charge” means to arrest in 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, etc. Evidently they intended to seize Jesus and force him to return to Nazareth with them.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic).

Engwer continues:

Jesus' mother, as in the infancy narratives, is named Mary (6:3).

I don't see how the infancy narratives getting the name of the mother right is supposed to lend any credence to their mythical elements.  There is nothing about getting somebody's name correct that suggests the author is intending to assert only historical facts.  1st John was written in part to combat a proto-gnosticism in which some heretics got the name of Jesus right, but got the theology wrong.  Thousands of Christian Jews got Paul's name correct, but apparently trusted in an allegedly false rumor about him, Acts 21:18-24.

Jesus has siblings (6:3), and Mark describes them in a way that corroborates the infancy narratives, as I explained when I discussed Matthew's gospel.

All that need prove is that the infancy narratives have expanded upon less mythical facts in the earlier Markan gospel.   And the fact that most scholars agree that Luke and Matthew are borrowing material from Mark anyway, means the "corroboration" is useless because it isn't independent.

The people of Nazareth in Mark 6:1-6 seem to be aware of some unusual circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth. Joel Marcus writes:
    In Jewish sources the father's name is normally used to identify the son even when the father is dead (see e.g. Do'eg son of Joseph in b. Yoma 38b and Jesus son of Jesus in the Babatha archive; cf. Ilan, "Man," 23 n. 3). Contrary to this custom, Jesus is designated [in Mark 6:3] by his mother's name rather than his father's. Both Matthew and Luke revert to the usual pattern, Luke 4:22 reading "the son of Joseph" (cf. John 6:42) and Matt 13:55 "the son of the carpenter."…

Sure is funny that when inerrantists can find some support for their theory in the Talmud, they reference the Talmud as if the support is beyond question.  But when others point to statements in the Talmud to the effect that, say, children as young as 3 are suitable for sexual relations, then suddenly, the inerrantists remind us of what an unreliable grab bag of contradictory convoluted traditions the Talmud is.

 Indeed, the relevant portion from the Talmud says the saying was uttered by a Rabbi "Rabina"

Rabina raised an objection: The story of Doeg b. Joseph whom his father left to his mother when he was a young child:

It was this same "Rabina" who asserted that Gentile girls become "suitable for sexual relations" at 3 years of age:

  Said Rabina, “Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety.”     From Abodah Zarah 36B-37A:

Will somebody trifle that Rabina was faithful to the historical truth about the Jewish custom of calling sons after their fathers even after the father died, but was conveniently not faith to the truth about Jewish customs in his pedophilia?

    Ilan ("Man") has shown that a matronymic could be used when the mother's pedigree was superior to the father's, but that can scarcely be the case here, since Davidic descent was the most important of all, and Jesus was a Davidide on his father's side…

Jesus was Davidic because of his mothers' side too according to most scholars:

The problem would have been insoluble had it not been for the wisdom of God. The solution lay in the genealogy of Mary, recorded in Luke 3 (vv. 23–38), which goes back through Nathan to David. Through Mary Jesus is physically an heir of David, and through Joseph He receives the legal right to the throne (while sidestepping the physical curse upon that line). “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33). Because of His miraculous conception our Lord receives title to the throne of David in the Kingdom of God. Dying without a son (cf. Isa. 53:8), He carried that title to the right hand of God. It is most interesting to note that since the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70 it has been impossible to reconstruct the Davidic genealogy. The only reliable genealogies we have are those in Matthew and Luke, and they point incontrovertibly to Jesus of Nazareth as the virgin’s son—the divinely promised King of the Jews.

"The Virginal Conception of Our Lord  in Matthew 1:18-25  —  David J. MacLeod*  

The Emmaus Journal. 1999 (electronic ed.). 

EMJ—V8 #1—Sum 99—30.  Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

 That Luke records Mary's genealogy was a position taken by many in the early church.  See Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture, by Jaroslav Pelikan.  Paul David Younan says the genealogy of Matthew traces Mary back to David.  So let's not get too cocky about how Joseph is so important to establishing that Jesus descended from David.

Calvin thought Luke was tracing Mary's ancestry back to David:

But we have not yet replied to their objection, that the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with Christ. The common and well-known reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary also is included, because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected, on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the arguments on which that assertion rests are frivolous.

Calvin, J. (2000). Calvin's Commentaries (electronic ed.). 

electronic ed. (Mt 1:18). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

R.A. Torrey agreed:

1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact.

Torrey, R. (1998, c1996). Difficulties in the Bible : Alleged errors and contradictions. 

Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4:

Isaiah He says: “Hear me, and ye shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” adding “the sure mercies of David,” in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of Mary, He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse.

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

  Engwer continues:

    These alternate theories being found wanting, and given the hostile nature of the confrontation, it is likely that the use of Jesus' mother's name is a slur against his legitimacy, as Stauffer ("Jeschu") and S. Wilson (Strangers, 188) among others argue. This aspersion would correspond to the tendency in later Jewish traditions to portray Jesus as a bastard (see e.g. Origen Against Celsus 1:28-32, 39, 69; b. Sanh. 67a), a pattern that may already be reflected in John 8:41. Ilan, though disagreeing with this exegesis, cites an interesting parallel, the derogatory designation of Titus as "the son of Vespasian's wife" in 'Abot R. Nat. 7 (B), which implies that he is illegitimate (see Ilan, "Man," 42-43 n. 86, and cf. Saldarini, Fathers, 68 n. 15). McArthur ("Son of Mary") argues against the implication of illegitimacy in Mark 6:3 that "son of Mary" is an informal reference, not a formal genealogical expression, and that there is nothing necessarily unusual or derogatory about an identification by the mother's name in such informal contexts (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 17:17; Acts 16:1). But Mark 6:3 comes closer to being a genealogical formula than the parallels cited because of the extensive list of other male family members. McArthur's theory, moreover, does not explain the apparent embarrassment of Matthew and Luke at Mark's term

You don't know that it was embarrassment that led Matthew or Luke to read a bit different.  Matthew says:

 54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
 55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matt. 13:54-58 NAU)

 If indeed it is true that Matthew is here showing "apparent embarrassment" over Mark's more terse "son of Mary reading, then we have to ask why Matthew felt embarrassed by this reading.  Did he think he discovered a slur in the crowd's quoted language that Peter's interpreter Mark had missed? 

Does that sound like Matthew thought Mark wrote inerrantly?  Indeed, why else do Matthew and Luke change Mark's wording, if they thought Mark's choice of wording was inerrant?

Why should the teller of the virgin birth story feel the last bit embarrassed by an earlier gospel author reporting that Jesus was merely "son of Mary"?  Did Matthew perceive that this was not a mere sign that the people perceived something peculiar about Jesus' birth, but that they had good reason to believe Jesus was an authentic naturalistic bastard fathered by somebody other Joseph?

Furthermore, Metzger holds that there are early and wide textual variants in which the crowd in Mark 6:3 does mention Jesus' father Joseph, so apparently even early scribes felt Mark's choice of wording would likely be taken as contrary to the similar statement in Matthew 13:35:

6.3 te,ktwn( o` ui`o,j {A}

All uncials, many minuscules, and important early versions read, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary …?” Objection was very early felt to this description of Jesus as carpenter,11 and several witnesses (including p45) assimilate the text to Mt 13.55 and read, “Is not this the son of the carpenter, the son of Mary …?” The Palestinian Syriac achieves the same result by omitting o` te,ktwn.

 There is no reason why the emphasis on Jesus' mother throughout the gospels cannot simply imply that Joseph was dead by the time Jesus began his ministry.  Engwer is crazy to try to squeeze so much out of one phrase in Mark 6:3

Engwer continues his rebuttal to MacArthur:

or reckon with the hostile context of our passage

Maybe he doesn't, but there is hostile context in Matthew 13:55 too.

In my post on Matthew's gospel, I mentioned that we should take note of how themes in the infancy narratives are connected to other concepts.

Yeah, like themes in Greek mythology are connected to other concepts.  Big deal. But thanks for making clear that you aren't talking to skeptics.  You are clearly addressing only those who already believe and therefore need far less argument to cross the line and assert the historicity of Jesus' virgin birth.

If an early Christian source applies passages like Isaiah 11 and 52-53 to Jesus, how likely is it that he didn't also think Jesus fulfilled a Christmas passage like Isaiah 9?

Isaiah 9 was allegedly a prediction of Christ's ministry to the Gentiles.  If the gospels are historically reliable when they assert Jesus had a significant ministry to Gentiles:

  45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere. (Mk. 1:45 NAU)

12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee;
 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.
 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 15 "THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY THE WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES--
 16 "THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED."
 17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:12-17 NAU)

 15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
 16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 18 "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
 19 "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
 20 "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
 21 "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE."
 (Matt. 12:15-21 NAU)

...and if the apostles really heard the resurrected Jesus commission THEM to preach to Gentiles (Great Commission, Matthew 28:19), then what are the odds that Peter and the church would, shortly after Jesus ascended, regard the salvation of Gentiles as some shocking unexpected theological development they'd never have guessed without a special divine revelation to Peter, as they do in Acts 11:18?

Or does Engwer think such questions as his beg too many presuppositions to be answered?  If Engwer can safely assume the first-century Christian knows doctrine B because he knows doctrine A, why can't skeptics similarly argue that Acts 10-11 is false history, on the ground that Peter surely knew doctrine B (Gentiles could be saved) because he knew doctrine A (Jesus taught Gentile salvation)?

Mark often refers to the theme of Messianic prophecy fulfillment, even opening his gospel with it (1:2-3). Since Isaiah 9 and Micah 5 are two of the most explicitly Messianic passages in the Old Testament, how likely is it that Mark didn't think Jesus fulfilled those passages?

About as likely as Matthew thinking Mark's language was inaccurate.  Compare "could" do no miracle (Mark 6:5) with Matthew's theologically easier "did not" do any miracle there (13:58).

You apologists think Daniel 9 is an exceptionally powerful apologetic since it allegedly shows somebody in 600 b.c. predicting something about Jesus with amazing precision, but despite NT authors liking the idea of the OT predicting Jesus, nobody in the NT makes anywhere near the big deal out of it that you do.

One of the problems with critics of the infancy narratives is that they're too focused on what a source like Mark explicitly tells us.

That's because you enter dangerous territory when you try to draw conclusions from an author's alleged inferences or silence.  Mark's failure to explicitly mention the virgin birth, however, is so significantly unexpected that it screams out for an explanation other than his alleged acceptance of it.

Much of the relevant evidence is of an implicit nature.

Which might explain why your arguments are shockingly unpersuasive to any except inerrantist fundamentalists.

Mark doesn't say much directly about Jesus' childhood.

Probably because he didn't think anything about Jesus' childhood had significant relevance to the gospel message.  Again, Jesus replies in opposition to the women who brings up the subject of his mother, Luke 11, supra.

His gospel is derived from what Peter taught, and Peter's apostolic work was focused on what occurred from the ministry of John the Baptist onward (Acts 1:21-22).

Which is precisely why there's no need to assume Peter believed anything about the virgin birth story.

Peter would typically begin his public teaching with John and Jesus in their adulthood,

No, Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14 ff neither expresses nor implies anything about John the Baptist.  You are asserting patterns merely because, by your own admission, you detected Peter doing something in a single bible passage.  Peter's doing something once does not establish a pattern.

so Mark started his gospel there. But there are some implications for Jesus' childhood in what Mark tells us, even though he wasn't focused on the subject.

And what you overlook is that if Mark himself believed what you think he did (i.e., Jesus was born of a virgin, this is why there was a scandal about Jesus father or childhood), then Mark's failure to explicitly assert something in favor of the virgin birth is a screaming silence that suggests the assumption is wrong, and it is for another reason that he fails to explicitly assert any virgin birth matter.

Something else should be said here about the gospels and other early sources in general. Once Jesus begins publicly teaching and performing so many miracles, his adulthood overshadows his childhood.

No it doesn't, there was a lady who directed his attention to the blessedness of his mother, giving him the perfect opportunity to explicitly assert something about how his mother possessed any type of special uniqueness, yet Jesus opposes this female speaker and directs her away from the subject of his mother.  Luke 11:27-28, supra.

When Jesus was standing before people, teaching them and performing such a large number and variety of miracles in their midst, why would he spend much time pointing them to a far smaller number of miracles that occurred a few decades earlier, when he was a child?

Maybe for the same reason Matthew and Luke did when they did their preaching on the virgin birth?

Why would the New Testament authors and others involved give much attention to his childhood?

Ask Matthew and Luke, they can explain how it is that something in Jesus' childhood retained its historical importance despite Jesus himself becoming the center of attention.

Just as Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah's childhood are far outnumbered by predictions about his adulthood,

Yup, you aren't talking to skeptics.  There are no OT prophecies about Jesus' childhood, unless you are talking in the useless-for-apologetics sense of typology.

it makes sense for matters pertaining to Jesus' childhood to only occasionally come up during his adult ministry.

On the contrary, it makes sense to assert that the virgin birth stories of Jesus are late inventions, and we normally expect the earlier account to be less encumbered with embellishments, which appears to be exactly what happened here.

Tough Questions Answered: Do the Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion in Acts Contradict Each Other?

This is my response to an article by "Tough Questions Answered", entitled

Do the Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion in Acts Contradict Each Other?

Posted: 26 Jul 2017 06:00 AM PDT

The conversion of Saul/Paul is so important to the author of the Book of Acts that he presents the story three times (Acts 9, 22, 26).

Or there were several different versions of that story, which the author sought to harmonize.

Each version is different, and this fact has led some critics to say that the accounts are contradictory. But is that necessarily the case?

Contradictions don't have to be the case "necessarily".  Historiography is an art, not a science, and contradictions can be properly inferred from circumstantial evidence, its why juries often choose to disbelieve an alibi witness.  It is not true that the alleged contradiction has to be proven with absolute certitude, since no position about an ancient historical matter, where not corroborated by other disciplines, can be proven with absolute historical certitude anyway.  If certainty isn't needed to harmonize, certainty also isn't needed to show contradiction.

First, we must note that there are several common elements in the three versions:

    Saul is on his way to Damascus to gather up Christians.

    He sees an intense light.

    The Lord asks why Saul is persecuting him.

    Saul asks who the speaker is.

    Jesus reveals that it is he.

What are the differences? Darrel Bock, in The Gospels and Acts (The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible) , writes:

    The biggest differences in the accounts have to do with whether the men traveling with Saul see the light and hear nothing (22:9) or stand speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one (9:7). . . . Another difference is that Ananias does not appear at all in the Acts 26 account. . . . Another key difference between the accounts is that Saul does not mention his call to reach the Gentiles in the account given in Acts 9, whereas he shares this detail in Acts 22 and 26.

Bock then argues that each of these differences can be reconciled.

About the different experiences of the men traveling with Saul,

    The elements at play here can be reconciled (Witherington 1998, 312– 13),

 But just because the wording "can" be harmonized, doesn't mean the wording really is in harmony.  Defense attorneys often succeed in persuading juries that a perceived contradiction in their client's testimony can be harmonized, but that hardly demonstrates that the testimony was truly harmonious.

as for instance in the following way: The men hear a sound, but it is not intelligible to them;

The very idea that a person could speak to you loud enough to be heard by your traveling companions who all speak the same language, but they could not "understand" what was being said, is total bullshit.  We see the same dreck in John 12:29.  The extreme likelihood that this story is fable, outweighs whatever benefits you think are gained by harmonizing them.  You may as well show you can harmonize several different accounts of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Gee, a lot of good that would do!

they also see a light but not Jesus himself.

Once again, the dependence of the story upon miracles reduces the significance of showing harmony in the accounts. Sure is funny that, if the story be true, we hear nothing in history about those traveling companions converting, which they likely would have, had they believe Paul's interpretation of the experience was valid.

Only Saul sees someone in the light and is able to discern a speaking voice in the sound. Saul’s companions experience something less than the full event, which means that the appearance is neither an entirely private vision nor a fully disclosed public event. It is a public event whose details are for one man alone, Saul of Tarsus.

Which is precisely why the account is unbelievable, rendering pointless any effort to show the different accounts of it can be harmonized. 

John Polhill, in Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary , agrees with Bock:

    Paul’s traveling companions served as authenticators that what happened to Paul was an objective event, not merely a rumbling of his inner psyche.

Paul's traveling companions aren't doing the talking.  This is LUKE REPORTING what they said, as such it is hearsay, and must be evaluated as hearsay, not as if it was their own first-hand account.  And Luke's willingness to whitewash church history dishonestly just to make Paul look better (Acts 15, Jesus never requiring Gentiles to be circumcised would be the natural answer to the Judaizer question, but the apsotles instead avoid Jesus like Paul did, and like Paul, cite to the OT and their subjective ministry experiences to answer the Judaizers...yeah right!) doesn't motivate one to trust his hearsay reports where they clearly are intended to popularize Paul.

They heard a sound, but they did not see the vision of Jesus. Acts 22:9 says that they saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke with Paul. The two accounts are not contradictory but underline the same event. Paul’s companions heard a sound and saw a light. They could verify that an objective heavenly manifestation took place. They did not participate in the heavenly communication, however, neither seeing the vision of Jesus nor hearing the words spoken to Paul. The revelation was solely to Paul.

Once again, assuming your harmonization scenario works as well as you think it does, the argument against miracles and Luke's historical dishonesty render pointless any attempt to harmonize different accounts of edifying fiction.

Regarding Ananias being left out of Acts 26, Bock writes, “This may be in part because the book has already mentioned him in detail twice, in Acts 9 and 22. Luke chooses not to be redundant on this detail, and so he provides a telescoped account.”

If a "may" can justify you to declare a successful harmonization, why can't "may" justify a skeptic to declare a successful showing of contradiction?  Is there some law of the universe that says speculation can only be successfully invoked by fundamentalist Christians hell-bent on defending biblical inerrancy?

Regarding Saul not mentioning his call to the Gentiles in Acts 9, “Ananias notes in 9:15 that Saul would be called to a Gentile mission, so we probably have another example of telescoping. Another possibility is that Luke chose not to note this detail in his third-person narrative because the Gentile mission had not yet taken place, but this argument is somewhat weakened by the mention of the mission to Ananias. In any case, Saul’s not mentioning his Gentile mission in Acts 9 is simply an outcome of Luke’s literary choice, the exact reason for which is not clear.”

Which means the possible reason that the accounts are lies remains on the table, which sufficiently refutes the inerrantists who think the possibility of lying is off the table. 

Cold Case Christianity: Did the Apostles Lie So They Could Die as Martyrs?

 This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Did the Apostles Lie So They Could Die as Martyrs?

Posted: 28 Jul 2017 01:25 AM PDT

 129A few years back I spoke with Bobby Conway (the One Minute Apologist)

 Nothing spells "shallow research" quite like "one-minute apologist".

What would you think of an atheist bible critic who called himself the "one-minute bible critic"?

 and answered the question, “Did the disciples lie about the resurrection of Jesus?“As a skeptic, I believed that the story of the Resurrection was either a late distortion (a legend) created by Christians well after the fact, or a conspiratorial lie on the part of the original Apostles.

Then that was your error as a skeptic.  Given what we know about religious fanatics, its likely that the apostles felt that they had experienced visions of Jesus, and these subjective beliefs eventually morphed into stories of a bodily raised Jesus in the 20 years between Jesus' death and the writings of Paul.  Many of Benny Hinn's followers are telling stories of his miraculous healings the very next day after his "crusade" came to their town, but you find nothing compelling about the mere fact that the miracles were reported very early after the event at a time when they could be possibly falsified, agreed?

It wasn’t until I started working homicides (and homicidal conspiracies in particular) that I decided an Apostolic conspiracy was unreasonable. I’ve written a chapter in Cold Case Christianity describing the five necessary elements of successful conspiracies, and none of these elements were present for the Apostles. But even more importantly, the Apostles lacked the proper motivation to lie about the Resurrection.

You are a fool to assume that what a person is willing to say in public, always represents what he personally believes.  If the apostle authored gospels and epistles, that's no more indicative of their honesty about their true convictions, than the fact that Benny Hinn wrote "Good Morning Holy Spirit". 

My case work as a homicide detective taught me something important: there are only three motives behind any murder (or any crime, or sin, for that matter). All crimes are motivated by financial greed, sexual lust (relational desire) or the pursuit of power.

No, if somebody in the neighborhood guns down the recently paroled pedophile who recently moved to town, they aren't doing that for financial greed, sexual lust or pursuit of power, they are doing it to achieve a moral justice that cannot be achieved in the legal system.

If the Apostles committed the crime of fraud on an unsuspecting world, they were motivated by one of these three intentions.

Or like when mommy tells her 3 year old daughter to stay close or the Bogey Man will get her, the apostles were lying  to their followers, thinking believing such a lie would likely work more good than evil.  Scumbag homosexual apologist James Patrick Holding believes Christians can be justified to tell "honorable" lies.  From a theologyweb debate no longer accessible online:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6136-Does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia/page68

03-31-2015, 06:49 PM #674

jpholding

    Quote Originally Posted by B&H View Post

  Me:  So....do you have anything to say to defend against my argument that God, by ordering others to lie, as he did in 2nd Kings 22, is no less guilty of lying than the mob boss who orders a hit but doesn't actually pull the trigger?

Holding:  I guess you're too dumb to have heard of an honorable lie? Tell your master Kung Pu to beat you for not doing your social science homework.

 Wallace continues:

Most people will agree that none of the Apostles gained anything financially or sexually from their testimony,

And most people are stupid if they believe this, since while there might not be much sexual thrill involved in ministry, Paul was entrusted with enormous sums of money ostensibly to be conveyed to the Jerusalem church.  I don't have a problem with the idea that he delivered it, but I have a problem with the idea that Paul didn't stick his hand in the cookie jar.  Paul's attempt at fame enabled him to allegedly rent his own house for 2 years merely because his followers donated money to him, Acts 28:30.  I see no reason to classify Paul as any different than the thousands of insincere fakers who start ministries merely for the money.  Paul's stories of persecution are likely little more than tall tales.  And Paul's alleged willingness to cause such a stir that he becomes imprisoned, strongly suggest that yes, he had a naturalistic impulse to be the center of attention and to cause trouble, as can be seen anyway from his own admissions that before conversion he was an extremist Jew, hurting the Christians and imprisoning them.  He really was the type of guy who went to extremes for purely naturalistic reasons.

but some skeptics have argued the Apostles may have been motivated by the pursuit of power. Didn’t these men become leaders in the Church on the basis of their claims? Couldn’t this pursuit of leadership status have motivated them to lie? Wasn’t it a goal of early martyrs to die for their faith anyway?

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between Ministry and Martyrdom

The Book of Acts and the letters of Paul provide us with a glimpse into the lives of the Apostles.

They were also written by Paul's supporters or Paul himself.  I'd be just as impressed if Benny Hinn had one of his ministry partners send me a letter detailing miracles that happened when they were last in Uganda.  You don't care, and neither do I.

The Apostles were clearly pursued and mistreated,

That's what they say about themselves, and it was probably true to a certain extent, but so what?  Stupid people are known to cause trouble for themselves simply because they have a pathological need to stir up shit, despite being aware that they face consequences. 

and the New Testament narratives and letters describe their repeated efforts to avoid capture.

And Mel Tari describes many miracles in his "Like a Mighty Wind", so what?  He was known to be a swindler, and the fact that most of Paul's Galatian churches apostatized from him (Galatians 1:6) opens the door to the possibility that they found out Paul was a faker too.  And the fact that Paul's divinely appointed helper Barnabas (Acts 13:2) also eventually found the Judaizer position better supported than Paul's doctrines (Galatians 2:12-13) opens that door just a bit further.  And that door is kicked off the hinges with Paul's own admission that he would misrepresent his true theologicla beliefs if he thought doing so would make more converts.  1st Cor. 9:20-21.

The Apostles continually evaded capture in an effort to continue their personal ministries as eyewitnesses.

Wallace, are you trying to say something to convince Christians or skeptics?

If I couldn't convince you of Mormonism by quoting the book of Mormon to you, why do you foolishly quote the bible to skeptics who don't believe it? You constantly TALK about refuting skeptics, but your apologetics endeavors blindly presume the inerrancy of the bible despite the fact that this doctrine is not even believed by most Christians.

The New Testament accounts describe men who were bold enough to maintain their ministry, but clever enough to avoid apprehension for as long as possible.

And Benny Hinn says...and Kenneth Copeland says...and these guys have thousands of follows. 

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between a Consequence and a Goal

These early eyewitnesses were fully aware of the fact that their testimony would put them in jeopardy,

I don't deny Christians got in trouble for their faith, but I deny that the NT accounts of persecution are straight historical fact.  Paul knew the value of lying and exaggerating and misrepresenting himself, 1st Cor. 9:20-21 (how could he present himself as under the to the Jews, while not believing himself under the Law, and do this without misrepresenting his true theological beliefs?  Anything less than outright lying would be insufficient to convince the Jews that you really did believe yourself to be under the Law).

but they understood this to be the consequence of their role as eyewitnesses rather than the goal. That’s why they attempted to avoid death as long as possible. While it may be true that later generations of believers wanted to emulate the Apostles through an act of martyrdom, this was not the case for the Apostles themselves.

Have you never read the bible?  John 21:19, if authored by John as you presuppose, shows the first apostles regarded their death by persecution as a thing glorifying God. That's not going to disappear just because the apostles, afflicted with cognitive dissonance as they were, believed this while also attempting to escape death.

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between Fame and Infamy

It’s one thing to be famous, but another to be famously despised. Some of us have attained widespread fame based on something noble (like Mother Teresa).

You are a fool, Mother Theresa's fruits included just as many heartless capitalistic ventures as they did good works. 

Some of us have attained widespread fame because of something sinister (like Jerry Sandusky). The apostles were roundly despised by their Jewish culture as a consequence of their leadership within the fledgling Christian community.

Then apparently you never read Acts 21, or if you did, you never bothered to ask yourself how Apostle James, leader of the Jerusalem faction of the church, could have ended up with a church filled with thousands of Jews, who converted to Christ but retained their zeal to do the law nonetheless.  How do you figure James managed that, given your assumption that he taught the same law-free gospel that Paul did, which said Christ was the end of the law?  Not only was James' church full of legalistic Jews, they trusted in an allegedly false rumor so much that James felt a speech by Paul would not be sufficient, he would have to make a substantial sacrifice of time and money doing what Jews do, to convince them the rumor was false:

 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
 22 "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
 23 "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. (Acts 21:18-24 NAU)

  Wallace continues:

If they were lying about their testimony to gain the respect and admiration of the culture they were trying to convert, they were taking the wrong approach.

Then Paul was a liar and took the wrong approach, because the Paul of Acts 21 who goes long with a Jewish vow and pays their expenses in doing so, also characterized his own Jewish heritage and its benefits as feces:

 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish (Greek: skubalon, refuse, feces, trash) so that I may gain Christ,
 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, (Phil. 3:4-9 NAU)

What would you think of the man who goes to a Mormon church, participates in all that they do, but when at home alone, he goes on the internet posting convincing reasons to believe Mormonism is dogshit? 

The Apostles only succeeded in gaining the infamy that eventually cost them their lives. This was obvious to them from the onset; they knew their testimony would leave them powerless to stop their own brutal martyrdom.

So?  Christians of today face equal persecution in Afghanistan, Arabia and North Korea, that hardly argues that their religion is true.  You will say it was different with the original apostles who would have known their claims were false, if they were false at all.  I answer that Paul's propensity to go from one extreme to the other (from jailing Christians to advocating for their cause) and his propensity to have bizarre experiences that left him unable to tell, 14 years after the fact, whether they occurred in his body or out of his body (2nd Cor. 12:1-4), refute you and lay a rational basis for saying at least PAUL was sufficiently delusional that he would not have been able to know whether his belief in Jesus' resurrection was true or false.  When this is combined with the fact that absurd esoteric experiences were allegedly common among the first Christians (Acts 2, tongues of fire, 1st Cor. 13-14, speaking in tongues), this whole idea you have about how the apostles surely knew whether their claims were false, is about as stupid as saying the Mormons, living in the age of the internet, and so capable of researching their own claims, surely know whether their claims are false.  Nope, people have a funny way of thinking the dumber something is, the more likely true it is.  Irenaeus would have not admitted how strong the Marcion and other gnostic heresies were, if humans of those times had some built-in motive to objectively verify things before trusting in them.  And the sins of Paul's Corinthian churches (1st Cor. 3:2 ff, 11:17 ff) support my contention that first-century conversions under the original apostles were no more likely to be genuine than 20th century conversions under Billy Graham at a tent revival.

As I examine the motives and consequences related to the testimony of the Apostles, I still find their martyrdom to be one of the most powerful evidences related to the veracity of their testimony.

The evidence for the martyrdom of each apostle is absurdly weak and inconsistent. Josh McDowell's son Sean wrote a doctoral dissertation evaluating the veracity of the historical evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles, and he acknowledged that most accounts were contradictory, ambiguous and late.  I am therefore singularly unimpressed with his ending comments wherein he finds them to be sufficiently credible to compel trust.

Think about it for a minute: twelve designated eyewitnesses traveled the known world to testify to the Resurrection.

The fact that we don't know jack shit about what most of the 12 apostles did after Jesus died (McDowell's thesis indicating the patristic traditions on them are late, contradictory and ambiguous), strongly suggests they actually didn't do anything worth remembering.  It is not likely that if the later patristic stories of their preaching and martyrdom are, the NT would have neglected most of the 12.   Even if the NT were written before some of these 12 did their preaching work, we'd expect if they were real apostles working real miracles and making many conversions, the NT would include 2nd century accounts about these matters for the same reason Acts mentions successful church planting in the first century.  It is irrational to claim that these garbled fantastic patristic accounts should be accorded our trust, and that those who remain skeptical are willfully blinding themselves. 

Not a single one of them recanted their testimony.

That's an irresponsibly couragous statement given the great problems of veracity and authentity of the sources as McDowell acknowleges.

And failure to recant by those in a position to know the claims were false, proves nothing either. Was Brigham Young in a good historical position to know whether Mormonism was false?  Yes.  Did he ever recant?  No.  You also overlook that the Christian religion provided another reason for people to group together, which would have made the difference between life and death during the famine of 41 a.d. ff.  Sometimes you stay even when you believe it is false, like so many Mormons who secretly know their religion is bullshit, but stay in it anyway beacuse of the enormous social benefits to be had from staying in such a group.

Not a single one of them lived longer because of their testimony.

Then apparently you didn't know that apostle John died as an old man.

Not a single one benefited financially or relationally.

yeah, we can be sure that when Paul took that big bag of money to the Jewish church (1st Corinthians 16:1-3), he surely didn't skim a bit off the top for himself.  Yeah right, and if we see Benny Hinn walking out of a hotel room with Paula White, we have a responsibility as good Christians to assume they were only talking in the room, until somebody can prove otherwise, god forbid that we should ever draw inferences from circumstantial evidence the way jurors do every day when convicting criminals.

These folks were either crazy or committed, certifiably nuts or certain about their observations.

Or they were religious fanatics whose true history, while likely including real persecution, was exaggerated by NT and patristic authors.

You don't think the book of Acts is lying to you about anything?  Ask yourself how likely it is that when the apostles were confronted with the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem, they didn't appeal to Jesus' authority.  Nothing in Acts 15 expresses or implies that the apostles attempted to refute the Judaizers on the basis of anything Jesus did, said or omitted to say/do.  How likely is it that Jesus could have had such a huge following as the gospels say (Mark 1:45, "large crowds" mentioned elsewhere), and yet the question of whether Gentiles need to get circumcised somehow never came up? The Book of Acts is having the apostles in Acts 15 answer the Judaizer controversy the way Pual would answer a theological problem (by quoting the OT) because the author of Acts is devoted to promoting Paul's viewpoint far more than in promoting actual historical truth.

Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation: James Patrick Holding fails to defend God's honor

I made the argument at this blog that in light of Paul's express wording in Romans 7:7 that he wouldn't have known coveting was a sin except this had been explicitly prohibited in Mosaic law, Christians cannot call something "sin" unless it has been prohibited in Mosaic Law.

I made that argument as part of my larger argument that the bible-god must approve of sex within adult child marriages, one of my arguments intended to show error in the bible (here, moral error, even by Christian standards).  The argument itself was:

Fourth, if Holding thinks Romans 7:7 is inspired by God, then Paul's language there giving criteria for identifying sin, is so strong it leaves no logical possibility of being able to identify sin where the Law is silent on the act:

 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. (Rom. 7:6-8 NAU)

Does Holding agree with Paul, that Paul would not have known coveting was a sin, except this act had been prohibited in Mosaic Law, yes or no?  If yes, then because the Mosaic law doesn't prohibit sex within adult-child marriages, Holding cannot have a biblical justification to call that act a "sin".  Holding will say the bible teaches we can know sin through our conscience, but the only reason our conscience tells us what sin is, is because God wrote his law on our heart, as Paul said:

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
 17 But if you bear the name "Jew " and rely upon the Law and boast in God, (Rom. 2:12-17 NAU)

In context, the "Law" that is on the heart of the Gentile (v. 15) is no different than the written Mosaic Law that is otherwise exclusive to the Jew (v. 17), and that contextual link cannot be undone by citing to commentators who think "work of the law" is something different than the "law".

-------------------------------
The full blog post where that argument was made is here.

Mr. Holding responds now with, you guessed it, another "cartoon" response, which apparently is the only way he can channel his aggressive spitefulness without committing a crime.  By living in dreamland, Holding can watch himself beat up those bad 'ol atheists and causes all the fantasy injuries he wishes he could inflict in real life.

Holding tries to counter by asserting, again, typically, without recourse to any scholarly commentary (why would God need a commentary anyway when he is posting his cartoon videos to YouTube?)

At :40, Holding says Paul is speaking in the past tense of his own experience.  He says this while flashing the following text:

                


First, Paul's wording is absolutist:  he would not have known coveting was a sin except the law had said "thou shalt not covet", and this directly contradicts Holding's belief that Paul could have known sin by conscience alone.  Paul did not say it would have been unlikely for him to have known such sin apart from the Law, but bluntly that he would not have known coveting was sin, apart from the Law.

Paul's choice of wording is absolute, it is inconsistent for a person who thinks there are more ways the the Law to recognize sin. If you don't need a car to go to the store, you don't say "if it hadn't been for my car, I'd never have made it to the store."

If Paul believed he could know sin by some way other than the law, then he erred by speaking in absolute terms in 7:7.

Second,  allowing that Holding is correct to say the bible teaches we can also know sin by conscience alone, all he gains is the ability to show that people can know by conscience alone that sex within adult-child marriages is sin...but that would not be sufficient to speak that moral opinion dogmatically.

You are imperfect.  What bothers your conscience doesn't decide how God feels and doesn't dictate how other people should think.  If sex within adult-child marriage is disapproved by God, you don't prove this by telling everybody how much the whole idea bothers your conscience.

So Holding simply creates further problem with his conscience argument:  How do you persuade the Christian brother that his conscience isn't reflecting God's morals, if your only basis for proving it is your own conscience?

If Holding is so sure that his bible-god thinks sex within adult-child marriages is sin, let him provide the following evidence:

1 - Biblical or historical evidence showing the minimum age ancient Hebrews thought a girl  must reach before a man could marry her.  Why does he automatically assume it would have been 12 years old just because that's what the Assyrians and Sumerians and Egyptians believed?  If you find out that I live in America, do you automatically assume I love mom, baseball and apple pie?  Why can't we adopt that age into our consent laws today, the stupid way Mr. Holding automatically assumes that the riposte of honor/shame cultures in the ANE automatically applies to Christian apologetics today?

2 - Biblical or historical evidence showing the minimum age ancient Hebrews thought a married girl living in the days of Moses must reach before her adult husband can have sex with her.  Holding, in his effort to avoid my argument, has said a man's getting married to a girl didn't automatically allow him to have sex with her, so I'd like to know what biblical or historical evidence he has that any ancient Hebrew man ever a) married a girl too young for sex, and then b) waited until his wife was older before having sex with her.  Don't tell me it was possible, because you've so far produced no evidence that any such thing ever happened, while most scholars are agreed that in the ancient world, marriage was the justification for sex.  I said marriage, not "betrothal".  I can buy that a Hebrew man would refrain from sex during betrothal, what I cannot buy is your speculation that even after "marriage", the Hebrew man would still refrain from sex until his wife was "old enough" for it.

3 - Why God was silent respecting this horrific crime against children, but spoke several times, clearly prohibiting bestiality.  Holding cannot say God expected us to use our common sense, otherwise, the fact that God specifically prohibited bestiality means God didn't expect us to know from "common sense" alone that sex with animals was forbidden or immoral. 

4 - Why we cannot classify this "sex within adult child marriages" thing as a non-essential based on God's screaming silence, and therefore, as a non-essential, make the argument that disagreement over this practice is not a sufficient reason to justify disfellowshipping or excommunicating someone.  Either explain that, or demonstrate that God's beliefs about the minimum age for girls to get married, is an "essential" about which liberality of opinion cannot be tolerated.