Correcting Craig Blomberg on Matthew 5:22: it;s not *usually* wrong, but *always* wrong, to insult another person

Jesus forbade his followers from referring to each other as "fools" and the like:

 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matt. 5:21-22 NAU)

Craig Blomberg says there must be an implied qualification of "where unjustified" to the v. 22 prohibition on calling another a "good-for-nothing".  Blomberg cites to Jesus himself labeling certain others with similar language as the reason to read at qualification into 5:22:

Jesus illustrates his point that not just murder but also anger is sinful in two additional, parallel ways. First, he considers those who accost their fellow believers with the epithet “Raca” (a quasi-swear word in Aramaic). The expression probably meant something like empty-headed.33 So too those who call someone a “fool” commit a sin. This word (mōros) carries overtones of immorality and godlessness as well as idiocy. As with the commands against anger, both of these prohibitions against the use of insulting names undoubtedly carried the implicit qualification of “where unjustified,” since Jesus himself uses the term mōros in 23:17, 19 (in direct address) and in 7:26 (in indirect address) when the label is accurate. Some have seen an increasing severity of judgment as Jesus progresses from the terms “judgment” to “the Sanhedrin” (the Jewish supreme court) to Gehenna (“fire of hell”)—a reference to the valley south of Jerusalem in which children were slaughtered in Old Testament times and traditionally associated with a perpetually burning garbage dump in later centuries. But given the close parallelism among the first clauses of each illustration, the entire sentences should probably be taken as largely synonymous. All three metaphorically refer to the danger of eternal judgment.
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 107). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

I maintain that common sense refutes Blomberg on this point:

First, Jesus doesn't say the offender would be put on trial in the court for hurling such names at another, he says the offender would be guilty before the Court for saying "raca" and guilty enough to go into fiery hell for calling another a "fool".  Apparently, insulting another in that society was prohibited either without exception, or if exceptions were allowed, Jesus didn't allow for them.  The immediate context thus supports an absolute interpretation and the burden of proof is on any who would say the immediate context supports a relative interpretation.

Second, by saying "where unjustified" Blomberg gives the genuinely guilty offender an alibi:  he's not in the wrong because the person he insulted really was a fool.  Does Blomberg seriously believe that Jesus would approve of Christians fighting amongst themselves on whether or not a specific Christian deserved to be called a "fool"?  Does the immediate context of Jesus' mandate suggest any such exceptions or caveats? Of course not.

Third, the fact that Jesus called others fools provides no contextual backdrop, as Blomberg thinks Jesus is God.  Just because God does something doesn't necessarily mean Christians should imitate it, such as when God inflicts a terrible sickness on a baby and causes it to suffer for 7 days before killing it:

 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:15-18 NAU)

So without more, a mere "Jesus did it so why can't I do it too!" doesn't provide automatic justification for Christians to imitate it.   Jesus also died and raised himself from the dead, allegedly...does that mean Christians should do this too? Jesus also forgave sins not committed against him.  Can Christians forgive the sins not committed against them?  Catholics say yes, how about you?

Fourth, the NT comes to us from the first-century honor/shame societies of the Jews and Romans.  Had God decided not to start Christianity until 1980, and got pregnant some teen girl named Mary living in Tacoma Washington that year, it is beyond question that the NT arising from this circumstance would contain none of the honor/shame bullshit that it does, as Tacoma in 1980 wasn't an honor/shame society or city.  If that raises problematic questions as to how much of the 1st century NT ways of doing things that God wants modern day Christians to imitate/obey, that's Blomberg's problem, not mine.  If God transcends culture, then we have to believe that the honor/shame crap in the NT has more to do with the people involved in Christianity's origin, and less to do with the God who arbitrarily chose which exact culture and time-period in which to start that religion.  

Seems pretty clear to me that if Jesus was born and raised in Tacoma Washington in the 1980's, and then gave his Sermon on the Mount in 2000, it would be stripped of all honor/shame baggage that sermon currently has.  The bible does not require us to imitate the social realities of dead cultures.

Fifth, Blomberg is an inerrantist, and so he must reconcile what he has to say with the rest of the NT, and unfortunately, there are passages that impose on Christians an exceptionless mandate to avoid insulting words, behavior:

8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
 9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. (1 Pet. 3:8-9 NAU)

Sixth, most Christians, at least in developed countries, were not born and raised in honor/shame cultures, and therefore, dealing with them today the way people were dealt with by 1st century Jews could be psychologically harmful.

Finally, Jude v. 8-10 contradict Blomberg's idea that an insulting accusation is allowed where it describes the target truthfully.  The devil is obviously deserving of many truthful railing accusations, but not even Michael the Archangel dared to accuse the devil with such condescension:

 8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:8-9 NAU)

Well, Mr. Blomberg?  If Michael the Arch-angel had called the devil and foolish stupid idiot moron, would that be an accurate description?  If so, how do you explain Mike's failure to call names even where justified? Could it be that you were too quick to conclude Christians are morally justified to imitate just anything Jesus did?

Like most apologists, Blomberg may say that those outside the church are fools if they know what's being taught and reject it, since he thinks there can be no reasonable skepticism of the gospel, but unfortunately, Christians and especially their leaders are to maintain a good relationship with non-Christians:

 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:7 NAU)

How could Timothy have maintained a good reputation with those outside the church, if he exercised that right you believe he had (i.e., to label as fools all those who know the gospel but reject it anyway)?

1st century Christianity was a high-context society, so that the mandate to maintain a good reputation with unbelievers more than likely included even specific unbelievers who lived nearest too Timothy, and thus were well aware of, but still rejected, the gospel.

For all these reasons, Blomberg is incorrect to read an implied "where unjustified" caveat into Matthew 5:22.  Jesus didn't want his followers calling anybody "raca" or "fool", ever.  

Correcting James Patrick Holding on Matthew 18 and church discipline

Plenty of Christian scholars think rambo apologetics is total bullshit, including specifically Holding's incompetent insult-fests.


 12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matt. 7:12 NAU)

So perhaps Holding seriously wants his critics to insult him with cartoon videos that help incompetent buffoons mistake entertainment for education?

Holding, in yet another cartoon video (telling us about the mentality of the people he takes money from) argues that Jesus' command in Matthew 18 about how the Christian should react when sinned against by another Christian, does not apply to the situation of the Christian sinning against a non-Christian.

Here's the text in dispute:

 15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.   (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

Here are the problems with Holding's interpretation:

Before I even get started, how about the Golden Rule?  "Do unto

First, as usual, Holding sets forth his interpretation in a cartoon video that appears to have been created for not much more purpose than for Holding to see some type of real-world realization of his mental fantasy that he is far superior to his critics.  In this video, Holding pretends to be the "judge", I am characterized by the ugly and stupid sounding criminal headed to jail, and Holding's interpretation of Matthew 18 becomes the basis for this fool judge to send me to "debtor's prison" where I am bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate.

(!?)

Second, Holding's cartoon presentation is obviously geared to impress gullible idiots, it is not geared to impress academics or scholars, and thus is a valid basis for accusing him of being more worried to keep fleecing his idiot followers by dancing to their juvenile tune, than being worried to make persuasive argument in a serious context.

Third,  sure, Matthew 18 isn't talking about the specific case of Christians sinning against unbelievers, but nothing in the bible is specifically talking about Christians living in 2018.

Can Holding think of any bible passage that gets closer to the issue of Christians sinning against unbelievers, than Matthew 18? Or did the all-knowing God of classical theism think that Christians weren't capable of sinning against unbelievers?

Fourth, what is Holding's advice to Christians who are guilty of having slandered an unbeliever in a way justifying a libel lawsuit? Since Holding didn't dare attempt to get my two lawsuits against him dismissed on the merits (i.e., arguing that his factual allegations about me were true), Holding's answer to this particular dilemma will be interesting.  One thing we can be sure of, Holding doesn't think he should be held morally or civilly accountable for violating Romans 13 and libeling another person in modern day America, which has laws allowing the defamed person to sue for damages.  Perhaps Holding will now do a Looney Tunes video on how only idiots think America's laws against defamation and libel fall under Romans 13, because those laws make illegal the type of shaming that God approved of in the bible.

Fifth, Holding twice offered to settle my first libel lawsuit against him.  Some might argue that an especially pretentious trifling asshole like Holding would never attempt such a thing if he seriously felt the lawsuit in question was the stupendously frivolous thing he trumpeted it to be.  The point is that Holding, at the time he offered to settle, apparently thought some damn thing or other in the bible applied to the situation of a modern-day Christian being sued by an unbeliever.  If so, then apparently Holding doesn't need to be convinced that a bible passage is directly addressing problems between Christians and unbelievers, before he will be willing to apply their reasoning to his own problems with unbelievers.

Sixth, now the question is:  If Matthew 18's reasoning shouldn't be applied to the situation of a modern-day Christian libeling and thus sinning against an unbeliever, then does Holding seriously think that because the bible doesn't directly address that situation, his god finds it morally good for Holding to run away and hide from the merits of legal accusations against him?

If a Christian stole the life-savings of an unbeliever, would Holding argue that there is nothing in he bible requiring the Christian to pay the money back, given his black and white fundy view that the bible also doesn't specifically require Christians to rebuke other Christians who have sinned against third-parties?

Seventh, did Jesus's teachings harmonize or contradict?  If they harmonize, as Holding would insist given his absurd obsession with "inerrancy", then Jesus required Christians to love their enemies:

 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 NAU)

Nothing could be more obvious from Holding's obsessive reactionary stance against me that he and his followers view me as an "enemy", they think my lawsuits against Holding were frivolous and therefore I was "persecuting" him through the Court system, they also think my blog exposing his homosexuality and other obvious moral failings constitute similar "persecution", and both he and they view me as "evil" and "unrighteous".

Meaning, Jesus puts Holding under a duty to "love" his enemies, one of which is me, a person he says is evil.  Now all that needs to be addressed is how Jesus defined the specific sort of "love" he wanted the disciples to express toward evil people who persecute them.

Let's indulge Holding's dogshit obsession with inerrancy:  Jesus and Paul surely must have agreed on what constitutes "loving one's enemies", right?

10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
 11 not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
 12 rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer,
 13 contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
 16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.
 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
 20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:10-21 NAU)

To make sure Holding and his followers further breach the existing fracture that already divides them from the conservative inerrantist Christian scholarly community, I supply below a lengthy quote from inerrantist evangelical scholar R. H. Mounce, writing for the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary:

12:17–21 The natural impulse is to return injury for injury. But retaliation for personal injury is not for those who claim to follow the one who told his disciples to turn the other cheek and go the second mile (Matt 5:39, 41; cf. Gal 6:10; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). Instead, believers are to be careful to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone (cf. Prov 3:4). The early church understood the necessity of having a good reputation with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7). Although it is imperative that believers take pains to do what is right in God’s sight, it also is important that what we do, as long as it does not violate Christian ethics, is well thought of by the world (cf. 2 Cor 8:21). In so far as it is possible, we are called to live at peace with everyone. Wickedness is to be opposed and righteousness lauded, but Christians must be careful not to allow their allegiance to God to alienate them from the world they are intended to reach with the gospel. Jesus pronounced a blessing upon the peacemaker (Matt 5:9), and the author to Hebrews wrote that we are to “make every effort to live in peace with all men” (Heb 12:14).

Christians are never to take vengeance into their own hands (v. 19; cf. Lev 19:18). Rather, we must allow the wrath of God to follow its own course. After all, it is written: “It is for me to avenge. I am the one who will repay.” Christians are not called upon to help God carry out divine retribution. God has promised to “pay back trouble to those who trouble you” (2 Thess 1:6). He has no need of our help or advice. Genuine trust will leave everything in his hands. Rather than to take revenge we are to feed our enemies if they are hungry and give them something to drink if they are thirsty. In this way we will “make him feel a burning sense of shame” (Moffatt). Verse 21 summarizes much of what has just been said. Instead of allowing evil to get the upper hand and bring defeat, win the victory against that which is wrong by doing what is right. Bruce comments, “The best way to get rid of an enemy is to turn him into a friend.” Our most powerful weapon against evil is the good. To respond to evil with evil is not to overcome it but to add to it. Believers are called upon to live victoriously in a hostile world by continuing to live as Jesus lived. Right will inevitably prevail against wrong. God is on his throne, and though all is not right in this world, he is the one who will avenge the wicked and reward the righteous.

Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 240).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Because America has laws allowing lawsuits for defamation/libel, it is clear that, without argument that such secular laws contradict the bible, Romans 12, supra, is requiring today's Christians to do what is right in the sight of modern America (i.e., to refrain from libel and slander).  Maybe Holding will be sure to remind his readers, while he is contradicting Mounce, that Mounce is a "moron" for seeing things differently than Holding.

What's worse, most conservative Christian scholars see nothing in the bible justifying ceaseless vitriolic attacks on bible critics, so that Holding's doing this means he isn't just contradicting what's right in the sight of all men, he lives in contradiction to what most genuinely born-again and thus Spirit-filled conservative Christian scholars think is the right way.

The Samaritans were bitter enemies of the Jews in the first century and before, so it is significant that Jesus teaches that the Christian's "neighbor", whom the Christian is supposed to "love", is a Gentile and a bitter enemy of the Jews:

 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"
 27 And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
 28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."
 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
 30 Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.
 31 "And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
 32 "Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
 33 "But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,
 34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
 35 "On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.'
 36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?"
 37 And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."   (Lk. 10:26-37 NAU)

Inerrantist R. H. Stein says Jesus' teaching here requires Christian love to transcend natural and religious status:

10:33 But a Samaritan. The term “Samaritan” is in an emphatic position in the sentence. Jesus deliberately chose an outsider, and a hated one at that, for his hero in order to indicate that being a neighbor is not a matter of nationality or race. The mutual hatred of the Jews and the Samaritans is evident in such passages as John 4:9; 8:48... Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.So great was Jewish and Samaritan hostility that Jesus’ opponents could think of nothing worse to say of him than, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” (John 8:48; cf. also 4:9)...Jesus and Luke sought to illustrate that the love of one’s neighbor must transcend all natural or human boundaries such as race, nationality, religion, and economic or educational status.

Stein, R. H. (2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 317-319).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers

Holding, being a fundy trapped in the very black and white thinking he trashes everybody else for, will trifle that I have "missed" the fact that this bitter enemy of the Jews showed a kindness to the disciple.

No, I haven't missed that.  I showed a kindness to Holding in suing him twice for libel, so I'm not really that much different from the otherwise hated Samaritan who similarly showed kindness to a Christian.

Some would argue that, given how utterly out-of-control Holding's mouth was at the time I filed the two lawsuits against him, my doing so was a kindness to him.  After all, he was genuinely guilty as charged (which is why he didn't dare attempt to seek dismissal on the merits), and I sought punitive damages in both cases, and the legal purpose of punitive damages includes deterrence and to educate:

The arguments for punitive damages have generally been delineated as these four: compensation, punishment and deterrence, revenge, and promotion of justice. Long, Punitive Damages: An Unsettled Doctrine, 25 Drake L. Rev. 870 (1976).   

In Florida, the rationale is that of punishment and deterrence: 

Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded as punishment to a defendant and as a warning and example to deter him and others from committing similar offenses in the future.

Barr v. InterbayCitizens Bank, 96 Wash. 2d 692 - Wash: Supreme Court 1981

citing Miami Beach Lerner Shops, Inc. v. Walco Mfg. of Fla., Inc., supra at 236.

While I am not a deadly threat to Holding, it isn't really that hard to figure out where some shit-talking fool lives.  See here.

That even Holding is aware his shit-talking campaign was likely to induce people to murder him is proven from the way he expressed his genuine fright that I would try to murder him in a courtroom, in an email to his lawyer that Holding didn't think would ever see the light of day, even though the only basis for his fear was my having filed the lawsuit against him (i.e., my anger over his shit-talking):

From: J. P. Holding <jphold@att.net
Sent: " Tuesday, October 06, 2015 3:17 PM
Subject: I think this guy wants to kill me!

 Seth, I really need some input on this. If he weren't 3000 miles away I'd go buy a gun right now to protect myself and my loved ones.

 I'm serious. This is getting scary. He has borderline personality disorder, and I've worked in a prison with a mental health unit full of guys like this. He also had a restraining order put on him 20 years ago by his thenwife, over a domestic violence issue. For years now he's had this "thing" about getting me in front of my church, or in a live debate, or in some way confronting me in person. I didn't think much of it before, now it's starting to take on a darker light. "The last thing I ever do on earth"???? There's no way I can be in the same room with this guy. He'll try to strangle me with his bare hands!

 What do I need to do? Motion for protection order? Declaration to the court expressing my concerns?

From : Raphael

ΤΟ : jpholding

mossrose

One Bad Pig

Sparko

Date : 2015-10-O6 19:39

Title: Re: I think Bud wants to kill me!

[OUOTE=jpholding--|No, I'm serious. I thought about this last message he sent me where he says he wants to get me in front of jury if it's the last thing he does on earth. He's had this "thing" to debate me in person since 2008 and now trying to get me in a courtroom no matter what, even if there's arbitration???No way I'm getting in the same room with him unless he's sedated or under heavy guard. I knew inmates like this, worked in places with psych inmates and a mental health unit. And then there's the fact that his ex-wife had to put a domestic violence order on him.

 See the blog piece where I originally quoted these.

See also the last part of his email to Gary Habermas, where Holding says I'm a "crazy" similar to the dangerous psychos in a prison ward.

See also Holding's "Internet Predator Alert", where Holding himself falsely assumed, despite criticism and despite my own contrary clinical diagnosis showing no such tendency, that my borderline personality disorder made me dangerous.  Wisely, Holding, despite being the type of pretentious obsessive asshole that would never extend critics any mery, took this Alert down before the first lawsuit was dismissed.

Addendum, 8/18/2015: “Dangerous”
 Doscher denies that he is dangerous because of his mental instability. Once again, clinical sources disagree with his claim.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342993/“Individuals with borderline personality disorder are diagnostically and clinically characterized by self-harm behavior, as indicated by the criterion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, “recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.” However, individuals with borderline personality disorder can display externalized aggressive behavior, as well. In an area characterized by considerably less research, empirical evidence indicates that individuals with borderline personality disorder may exhibit physical violence toward partners, physical violence toward known but nonintimate individuals, criminal behaviors that embody externalized violence (e.g., property damage), and, on very rare occasion, murderous behavior (either of family members or anonymous others through serial killing).”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790397/

-------------

So it is reasonable to argue that in light of Holding doing his best to put himself on a deathlist, it was "loving" of me to attempt to get him to change his ways through a means that most mature civilized adults think is valid and possesses significant likelihood of deterring him from running off at the mouth.

Finally, Holding's black and white fundy view that Matthew 18 doesn't obligate Christians to rebuke other Christians for sins against unbelievers, is opposed by somebody who used to publicly endorse Holding, Dr. Craig Blomberg, who said, commentating in Matthew 18:

There are times, of course, when it is both appropriate and necessary to correct believers for sins affecting third parties, but this can easily turn into meddling.
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 278). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The fact that Gary Habermas tactfully told Holding, in a conversation about my lawsuits,  he is glad Holding is allegedly backing off of the "strong comebacks" indicates that Habermas believed it was proper for him to address Holding about the language that landed Holding in Court, and that Habermas believed he didn't involve himself in this third-party dispute to the point of "meddling".

Maybe Holding will say Habermas is a "stupid moron" for thinking this way?

Craig Blomberg's commentary on Matthew 5 demolishes Holding's entire purpose of ministry:

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 NAU)

Blomberg opines that these passages are requiring Christians to be loving and gentle toward those who mistreat them:

Almost all people look after their own. The true test of genuine Christianity is how believers treat those whom they are naturally inclined to hate or who mistreat or persecute them. Whatever emotions may be involved, “love” here refers to “generous, warm, costly self-sacrifice for another’s good.”52 “Greet” (v. 47) refers to more than a simple hello, namely, heartfelt “expressions of desire for the other person’s welfare.”53 People who so love and greet their enemies and pray for their persecutors thus prove themselves to be those, as in v. 9, who are growing in conformity to the likeness of their Heavenly Father (v. 45).

52 Carson, “Matthew,” 158.

53 R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 99.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 114).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

From Holding's utterly reactionary cartoon videos that appear to be the only way this internally conflicted clown can see any real-world fulfillment of his desire to get rid of me, it is clear that Holding thinks my blog exposing his immoralities and my libel lawsuits against him (which he says were frivolous) constitute "mistreating" him, and he never had any problem seeing "falsely accused" as "persecute" until he found out that such belief would require him to "love" me.

For all these reasons, it would appear that Matthew 18 obligates a Christian in the know to involve themselves in third-party disputes where another Christian has sinned against an unbeliever.



https://www.ligonier.org/blog/how-should-christians-respond-attacks-and-insults/

Challenge to James Patrick Holding: I'm willing to discuss the truth-claims of the Christian faith

James Patrick Holding makes the following comment in an article he wrote attempting to justify Christians using satire and sarcasm when dealing with critics:

There are certain people who has (sic) no desire whatever to discuss the truth-claims of the Christian faith. His sole goal, so it seems to me, is quite simply to ridicule Christianity and Christians...

First, there are also certain people who "has" no desire whatever to discuss the rebuttal position to Christianity taken by skeptics.  His sole goal, so it seems to me, is quite simply to ridicule bible criticism and critics.  Guess who I'm talking about.

Second, since you do nothing but try to smear me with libels that you've continued even after you were sued twice for libel by me (and like the honest Christian you are, parted with more than $21,000 so a non-Christian lawyer could employ a legal trick nowhere justified in the bible, which would help you escape having to answer on the merits), it would appear that you think I have no desire whatsoever to discuss truth-claims of the Christian faith, and that my sole goal is to ridicule Christianity and Christians.

You'd be wrong.

Your inflated ego is the only reason why you mistake my ridiculing of your own hypocrisy and moral failings, as a general desire to just kick the shit out of anything that dares to name the name of Christ.  I have good friends who are Christians.  They've know for years that I'm an atheist, and while we sometimes talk about it, I don't nag them.

If you were more interested in scholarly dialogue than in creating attention-deficit cartoons to keep your juvenile delinquent supporters happy, you might have found out that while I am an atheist, I don't see anything about believing in Jesus and doing the whole "church thing", without more, that would justify skeptical attacks. Indeed, my atheism would counsel that if human beings conjure up some method to enhance their group survival in ways that don't increase the potential for psychological abuse, I say "more power to you."

I am willing to have a debate or discussion with you about any Christian truth claim you wish.  If you wish to get suggestions from me, I'll be happy to explain for you in step-by-step fashion why I say

• You didn't believe in the interpretation of Matthew 5:25, 40 which you now say you adopt, until after you found out the typical conservative Christian evangelical interpretation adopted by nearly everybody else would require you to do something you didn't want to do.  Then suddenly, you came up with your rather convoluted desperate wrangle.
• Speaking of wrangling of words, I'll be happy to explain why I think your entire ministry constitutes the exact sort of "wrangling of words" that is prohibited in 2nd Timothy 2:14.
• The NT provides us with no eyewitness reports of Jesus' resurrection, and I say this after having extensively reviewed all the stuff from Habermas and Licona, as well as your own amateur book on the resurrection and your website articles on gospel authorship.
• The best explanation for why Jesus' own family members didn't believe his claims during his earthly ministry, is the explanation that says they had greater and better access to truth about Jesus himself than did those who attended his shows.
• Your inerrancy-driven efforts to sanitize Numbers 31:18 of any implication of sex within adult-child marriages, fails on both biblical and historical grounds.
• God in the bible declares himself responsible for causing, not merely allowing, men to rape women.
• Your efforts to find the female's consent to sex in Deut. 21:10-14, fail. You see things that don't exist.
• Your interpretation of Romans 7:7, driven more by concerns of inerrancy than by hermeneutics, renders Paul's chosen word οὐκ superfluous.
• Using bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic (i.e., tossing out any interpretation, no matter how contextually or grammatically justified otherwise, solely because it would contradict some other biblical statement) is irrational.
• Jesus' Gentile-gospel contradicts Paul's Gentile-gospel.
• The open-theist interpretation of Genesis 6:6 has more support from the grammar, immediate context, and larger context of Genesis than does the inerrantist-driven "anthropomorphism" interpretation. Your God makes mistakes.
• The New Testament never expresses or implies that a teacher's intellectual superiority outweighs their moral failings.  The NT is quite consistent that if a teacher has certain moral failings, he will be disqualified from that office even if he is the smartest Christian on earth.  That's exactly why I argue that your ministry is unbiblical.  

No, Holding, your cartoon responses to me on some of the above-mentioned subjects, are not a substitute for scholarly back and forth point-to-point discussion.

If you think I'm wrong on the point, I'll be happy to have a discussion with you about why your cartoons are better at entertaining than educating.

If you don't believe live cross examination is superior to written rebuttal, I'll be happy to explain why I believe it is.

I remember that even back in 2003, you hated being cross-examined; you ceaselessly but intentionally misconstrued simple questions as "one-dimensional" in your deceptive effort to pretend you had objective reasons for refusing to answer such questions, despite the fact that this puts in you rather uncomfortable company.  Criminal defendants who are guilty as charged, also hate with a passion those simple one-tiny-step-at-a-time questions they know they'll be forced to answer in direct fashion should they take the stand. 

You'll have to admit to your gazing followers that 

• unless you have a phobia of speaking in public (refuted by some of your videos and your debate with Carrier in 2011) or 
• you have a physical or circumstantial disability that prevents you from being cross-examined live in-person the way it is done in court, or 
• you have good arguments for saying even properly conducted and fair live cross examination is more likely to muddle the issues, than is answering by written reply, or
• you are genuinely frightened that live cross examination will unearth weaknesses in your arguments otherwise normally left covered up by your written and cartoon replies;

...that you are shit out of plausible excuses for refusing to be cross-examined live.  You either employ one of the first three excuses, or your followers start suspecting that the fourth is the real reason you dodge live cross examination the way gazelles dodge lions.

I think this is the part where you do a whole new series on why American Courts of law have been hurting the cause of justice in allowing Defendants in civil trials to be cross-examined live and in depositions, and how the jury should need nothing more than copies of the parties' written discovery questions and responses, and the Court's legal instructions, to properly decide the facts.  All this putting people on the stand and live cross examination does more harm than good.

Amen?

J. Warner Wallace says: you should step into the ring...but not if your opponent is too educated

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

The Apostle Peter Called Us to Be “Responsive” Christians

Posted: 24 Jan 2018 01:48 AM PST

If you’re like me, you feel a sense of duty and responsibility as an ambassador of Jesus to share the Good News with others;

And if they are not like you, you cannot find anything in the NT condemning Christians who don't feel themselves called to be evangelists or apologists or bible teachers.

the Great Commission calling to make disciples.

The Great Commission actually requires that Jesus' followers not simply teach "the gospel" to new converts, but to require new followers or convert to "obey" all that Jesus had taught the original apostles:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

And since it was obviously Matthew's author who recorded this, and since it is obvious that the vast majority of Matthew's gospel concerns all that Jesus taught before he died on the Cross, it is clear that Matthew's author understand this part of the Great Commission to require Jesus' disciples to teach future converts to "obey" all those pre-Cross teachings.

That's where you fail, Wallace.  You seem to think there's no need to teach Gentile converts about leaving their gift at the altar in the Temple and go be first reconciled with their brother (Matthew 5:23 ff) since, obviously, obeying that teaching of Jesus was rendered impossible by Titus' destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70.  That's where you falter, thinking that surely Jesus doesn't require his followers to do the impossible, when in fact you don't have the first clue as to whether such a text requires you to interpret it in light of later events, or whether it implies that Jesus, at that point in his career, had no suspicion that future events would render many of his teachings impossible to obey.  You just blindly assume Jesus is God, therefore, any answer that gets God out of trouble, is surely preferable to an answer that would put you out of your attention-whore business.  That's right, you fucking hypocrite, you put yourself at the center of attention by your acts of telling others to focus on Jesus.  So when I call you an attention-whore, your history of telling others to focus on Jesus is precisely the justification for such.  Especially in light of the fact that your "cold case Christianity, case-maker" bullshit is nothing but a modern-day marketing gimmick that, once again, requires you to put yourself front and center.  Yes, I extend that criticism to every Christian who obsessively puts themselves in the media spotlight the way you do, including attention whore apostle Paul.

At the same time, you may not feel like an accomplished or gifted evangelist.

And that might be because God doesn't want them to do that kind of shit.

Don’t feel bad, it’s a common sentiment. Peter’s admonition has comforted and guided me over the years in my efforts to share the Gospel with others: 

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 

Peter is talking to all of us who call ourselves Christians.

If you can find exceptions to Jesus' statement in Matthew 28:20, expect other Christians to see exceptions to 1st Peter 3:15.

We have an explicit and specific responsibility.

Yes, to give an answer to those who ask.  Nothing here about confronting those who don't ask.

While not every Christian may be a gifted or called evangelist, all of us have a responsibility to become competent Christian Case Makers.

Translation:  all of us have a responsibility to purchase the Case Maker marketing gimmicks of J. Warner Wallace, and a duty to stop listening to skeptics who accuse him of selectively applying only those facets of American jurisprudence that help him while ignoring those that put him in the toilet.

But, Peter does more than call us to duty; he also provides us with a strategy.

Peter was talking to first century Christians, and the burden is on you to show that he intended his comments to be read by future generations of Christians, a task I've not seen any Christian scholar or apologist fulfill yet.  Since the Mt. of Transfiguration event did not include angels nor Jesus rewarding every man according to his works, it would appear that when Jesus says there are some standing there with him who will not taste death until he returns in glory (Matthew 16:28), Jesus intended for his hearers to believe his second coming would take place in the first century.  Because you push bible inerrancy, you are required to read Peter's admonitions through the the assumption that Jesus would return before the end of the first century.  Like I said, putting the burden on you to show that Peter intended this epistle to govern the lives and conduct of Christians who would live after Jesus comes back and restores justice to the world.

I think this is the part where you suddenly discover that "god" had lead you miraculously through the criticisms of a skeptic, to the glorious truth of Preterism.  You know, something, anything to avoid having to admit the false doctrine of bible inerrancy is false.

Peter asks us to be “responsive” Christians. He calls us to always be ready to respond to those who have questions about what we believe.

And God obviously fails in his responsibility to do his part to empower Christians to do such things.  You say God gave Adam and Eve freewill, so the creator of the universe allows human freewill to get in his way?  Your Calvinist brothers say God is the reason that any authentically born again Christian fails in his or her duty to to teach and preach.  So...given that bible inerrancy can't possibly be a false doctrine, did you suddenly discover that Calvinism is biblical?  Or are you somehow content to give lip-service to the notion that God has his own responsibility to empower Christians to teach and preach, and rely on your own self-serving speculations absolving God of blame when you look at today's Christianity and see what a fucking mess it is?

When I talk with other Christians about this notion of becoming a “Responsive Christian”, they sometimes worry that I am suggesting a fragile and meek form of Christianity that is timid and tentative; a form of the faith that is patiently waiting to respond, but afraid to make the first move.

the verse you supplied only talks about responding to those who "ask".  Not all unbelievers "ask".

This is not what Peter is advocating. As a boy, I remember watching the fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.

If you wish to convince the reader that your interpretation of 1st Peter 3:18 is correct, you must resort to Peter's grammar and immediate context.  These are valid tools of interpretation.  What you remember from watching unChristian boxing matches does not constitute valid hermeneutics.  And yet you cite to unChristian boxing in your effort to support the premise that Peter is not teaching that Christians need to wait for the unbeliever to make the first move.

I was a huge boxing fan at the time, and, like everyone else, I had been watching Foreman come up through the ranks, including his dismantling of Joe Frazier on his way to the fight with Ali. Foreman was a scary guy. He was a brutal puncher. He had a bad attitude. I was worried for Ali. In the first rounds of their fight, Foreman threw everything he had at Muhammad Ali. Hundreds of punches. Ali did something very unusual, however; he simply stayed on the ropes and let Foreman throw his punches. He took everything Foreman could offer for several rounds, until Foreman was exhausted. Then, Ali became the consummate counter puncher through the middle of the fight. In the late rounds of the fight, Ali eventually came off the ropes and became the aggressor, delivering a few concise, targeted punches that dropped an exhausted George Foreman to the canvas. Ali won one of the biggest fights of his life and Foreman was never the same. Ali learned the value of being a “Responsive Boxer”:
 Ali was the guy everyone wanted to fight
Ali was willing to enter the ring with Foreman
Ali took Foreman’s best and maneuvered Foreman into position
Ali delivered his best when the time was right

So in your view, if a Christian doesn't feel compelled to become a spiritual "boxer", surely this cannot be God calling them to a different type of approach, this is just their own freewill rebellion against biblical mandate.

As Christians, we could learn something about being “Responsive Christians” from the king of “Responsive Boxers”, Muhammad Ali.

A true Christian would find biblical examples better suited to Christian learning.

We can be proactive and reactive at the same time, even though this may seem like a contradiction. “Responsive Christianity” requires us to rethink how we have been living as Christians.

It also requires Christians to ask why God wasn't able to do this job you think needs doing, until you came along and decided to use Christianity as an excuse to draw attention to yourself.  We have examples of Christians who don't do that, such as most conservative biblical scholars...who do not employ the talk show circuit and turn what might be legitimate book sale activity into obsessive self-promotion the way you do.

And don't feel like I'm picking on just you.  Hank Hanegraaff, the fools at TBN and Daystar, James Patrick Holding, most "internet apologists" and all pastors of mega-churches are dishonest charlatans  for choosing the one method of teaching Christianity that just happens to require them to put themselves into the spotlight.
The more you use the media to focus people's attention on Jesus, the more you prove what an attention-whore you are, no different than apostle Paul.

It requires us to prompt those in our world to ask questions and then and be prepared to answer their questions:

A task you are woefully unprepared to handle, given that you made the wise marketing decision, also used by most politicians, to not respond to my criticisms, perhaps knowing you risk losing book sales if you try to defend your shit from informed criticism.

“Responsive Christians” live a life that causes people to ask questions
Every boxer knew who Muhammad Ali was. Ali placed himself in the center of the boxing world. As Christians, we need to recognize that all of us are being watched; all of us are causing others to ask questions. Think about that for a minute. People are watching us, and they are formulating silent questions about what they are seeing.

I do that too.  When I look at apologists like you, I ask myself "what's more likely, Wallace's primary motive in putting himself at the center of attention because he thinks doing so is the best way to get people to focus on Jesus?  Or his primary motive in putting himself at the center of attention is because of a purely naturalistic desire to make himself the center of attention?"

I’m just hoping that they are not looking at my life and asking questions like, “Why is he such a hypocrite?”

We are.  You lose.

or “Why is he so arrogant?”; “Why is he so angry?”; “Why is he so unfriendly?”

I don't accuse of those things.  You are too smart of a salesman to make the ill-advised choice to show anger.  Good salesman always associate their sales pitch with smiles, friendly gestures, and other bells and whistles constituting those marketing gimmicks you apparently think the Holy Spirit finds indispensable.

It’s my desire to live a life that causes a different set of questions. Questions like, “How is he able to handle hardship so well?”

Fallacy of loaded question, you don't handle hardship well at all, at least not ministry hardship.  You are an attention-whore and you appear hard-wired to suddenly go deaf whenever anybody suggests you are making Christianity more like a used case salesman's pitch, than you presenting it in the grave serious solemn way it was done by the early church fathers.

What are you gonna do next?

Create an amusement park with carnival rides for the kids where they cannot avoid viewing Christian propaganda while riding the Jesus roller coaster?

or “Why does he always seem to be at peace with his situation?”

No need to ask, the answer to that one is obvious:  you are happy with your having turned Christianity into a cash-cow that places the spotlight on yourself.

; “How is he able to stay so committed?”;

The way Paul Crouch stayed so committed.  Smart people don't get off the money train after it has proven to bloat their bank accounts.  Especially when that money train is enhanced by an egregiously unfair tax-exemption.

“Why is he willing to sacrifice his time and money?”

For the same reason any attention-whore is willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary so they can be put in the spotlight.

When we live a life that prompts the right kind of questions, God allows us the marvelous opportunity to answer these questions with the truth of the Gospel.

Your Calvinist brothers disagree, and say that you cannot do anything to thwart the secret will of God, even if you kill children, donate your ministry money to terrorists and commit adultery in the middle of a busy traffic intersection on national tv.  You are dishonest to coddle your ignorant followers' ignorant views of "freewill" in a way that makes it appear they can "help" god by acting a certain way and hinder the divine purpose when they act another way.

“Responsive Christians” go where people already have questions
Ali had to decide to get in the ring with Foreman; he had to decide to take the risk. As Christians, we sometimes need to decide to take a similar risk; we need to take advantage of the opportunities to “get in the ring” and to go where strangers are already waiting with questions.

But all smart people obey the naturalistic drive to stay away from certain death, which fully explains why you never come over to the boxing ring known as turchisrong.blogspot.com.  As soon as you dare attempt to take on the "ancient documents rule", you'll have to write a new book explaining why you think only some of the rules of evidence in American courts are good and others are unfairly predjudicial.  And since such a book would be foolish, you avoid the nightmare entirely by never stepping in the ring.

For which reason, you are about as credible as Benny Hinn, who himself also creates a lot of popularity while carefully staying away from critics the vast majority of the time.

There are places where people are already asking the important questions of life. University campuses, religious centers, libraries, etc. This desire to “get in the ring” is the motivation behind my own personal efforts to talk to people on college campuses and in places like Salt Lake City and University of California at Berkeley.

But being cross-examined live in real time, in-person by an informed skeptic, concerning the merits of your arguments, would also obviously qualify as "stepping in the ring".   Now explain to your readers why the form of stepping into a ring that would most closely scrutinize your arguments, is the type of ring-stepping you carefully avoid.

People here are already asking questions related to faith: “Is there a God?”; “Can naturalism explain our origin?”; “Why do Christians believe what they believe?”; “Why do Christians act the way they do?”. In these “question rich” environments, thoughtful Christians can help to provide some answers.

People have been asking those questions for centuries before you were born.

My own personal desire to reach those with questions is also the motivating force behind ColdCaseChristianity.com.

Which apparently has to be carefully understood to mean you don't have a desire to reach well informed skeptics who possess the most potential of causing your book sales to decline.  Frank Turek's arguments are no more compelling than yours, but at least he does get in the ring with the skeptics.

Around the world, thousands of Christians are now “entering the ring” with blogs and websites of their own.

So are well-informed bible critics, like me.

“Responsive Christians” help people ask the right questions
Ali maneuvered Foreman so that Ali had the best chance of making an impact in the fight. As Christians, we’ve also got to learn to direct our conversations in such a way as to have the greatest impact. All of us are constantly involved in daily conversations and interactions with our friends, coworkers and family. These are great opportunities to share those areas of your life that may prompt people to ask, “Why?”

That's true.  When I look at your Christian ministry and your books, I ask "why doesn't this guy respond directly to those with the most potential to kill his book sales?

We typically engage in conversations about the mundane aspects of our culture; we often avoid religious or political conversations. But by simply sharing the activities of our own lives, our efforts to serve those around us, our struggles that have been assisted by the hope we have in Christ and in the next life, we will create opportunities by ‘teasing’ out the questions all of us hold about life, death and purpose.

there is no biblical support for any such "teasing".  Jude 3 characterizes apologetics are needing to be done by "earnest contention".

We need to share honestly but strategically,

Yeah, because if you share via improper strategy, the creator of the universe, who is otherwise able to cause unbelievers to do whatever he wants by tractor beam from outer space (Ezra 1:1) won't be able to do his job as well as he'd like.

and then be patient to wait for their questions. By doing this, we can actually guide the conversation into the places where we can have the most eternal impact.
 “Responsive Christians” are prepared to answer people’s questions
When the opportunity presented itself, Ali made the most of it. As Christians, we will have similar opportunities.

You also have an opportunity to debate me any place, any time, on any subject of your choice, as well as respond to my blog-based criticisms.

This is perhaps the most challenging aspect of our lives as “Responsive Christians”. We need to be prepared. It’s seems odd to me that we have no hesitancy about preparing for school tests, work assignments, or even our next vacation. Why don’t we, then, understand the importance of preparing for our next contact with a non-believer?

Maybe because Christianity is a false religion, therefore, the vast majority of people who hold to it, having no basis to exhibit spiritual maturity, thus show no more spiritual maturity than the mental maturity that usually takes place for the purely naturalistic reason of aging?

It’s impossible for us to live as “Responsive Christians” if we aren’t even prepared with a response. Most of ColdCaseChristianity.com has been assembled to help you prepare yourself in the one area of Christian evangelism each and every one of us is called to embrace: Christian Case Making.

What bible version characterizes evangelism as Christian Case Making?  The J. Warner Wallace edition?

Peter provided us with a calling and a strategy: “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you…”  Let’s take the time to prepare ourselves, live a life that causes people to ask questions, go where people already have questions, and help people ask the right questions.

Jesus also promised to return within the lifetimes of his original disciples (Matthew 16:28), you cannot cite the Mt. of Transfiguration as any type of fulfillment since the Transfiguration event did not involve Jesus in rewarding every man according to his works (v. 28), and you cannot find any relief in preterism, which says the return of Jesus would be invisible and spiritual, because Acts 1:11 makes perfectly clear that Jesus' second coming would take place in the same manner that the disciples watched him go into heaven.

27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS (didn't happen at the Transfiguration).
28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:27-28 NAU)

Here's the Play-With-Words-and-Make-God-Say-Anything-You-Want translation of 16:28

28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man on the Mt. of Transfiguration."

11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11 NAU)

So at best, Peter did not expect his epistle to be read by Christians thousands of years later still waiting for Jesus to come back.

Thanks, Wallace, for your improper analogies to boxing rings and how much Christians should be willing to step in the ring.   You know perfectly well that your stuff is not convincing to those who specialize in bible criticism, including credentiled bible scholars and not just hobbyists like me...yet you never "step in the ring" with your greatest opponents.  Doesn't the Westminster Confession say that chief end of Man is to promote sales through marketing gimmicks?

James Patrick Holding's quietly deleted homosexual fantasies

 Update, April 25, 2018:  see end

Several people have asked whether Holding really did create fantasy fiction about cartoon characters shoving their faces into their asses.  Yes, he did, and that blog piece had him describing people banging their faces on Holding's kneecaps (i.e., Holding is an internally conflicted clown, with his genetic defects hard-wiring him for homosexuality, while having chosen to defend a religion that calls it a sin, hence, his homosexuality manifests itself in ways that are not as forthright as they could be).

That webpage conveniently disappeared shortly after it's existence was pointed out in my federal lawsuit against Holding.   The timing was no coincidence.

Fortunately, I preserved the entire page, with the disgusting parts underlined.  The following comes from

http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/greentrial.html

extracted in August 2015

Yes, wayback preserved this page, but did so in 2013 when it had different content, access that here.

Holding's pretentious trifling faggot fantasy bullshit runs afoul of the following bible passages:

 13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13 NAU)

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Eph. 5:3-5 NAU) 

 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Tim. 6:4-5 NAU) 

 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. (Col. 3:8 NAU)

-------at the end of the article, Holding can't resist indulging his gayness one last time, in describing his enemies has shoving their faces into their asses...again:





 It would appear that Holding is the "Sheila" who has the superior arguments (Holding once passed himself off in another chat forum as Sheila Rangslinger) and the "Mattchu" character is representing Farrell Till, John Loftus or any of a number of skeptics that have raked Holding over the coals in the past.

Notice also that he has the skeptic "Mattchu" bang his face into Sheila's kneecaps.  That is, Holding wanted his followers to envision a man banging his face into Holding's kneecaps.

To ward off rumors that I only showed a little bit of this defunct webpage because I'm taking something out of context, that's bullshit, here's the full content of this juvenile faggot fantasy.  If Holding took it down, he has a Christian duty to explain why.  If he thought it was morally acceptable, why did it disappear completely?  If he thought the article needed correction or updating, why did he remove it completely?

If he noticed that it made him look more like a fag than he intended the public to know, he has a Christian duty to admit this blog piece was sinful.  But of course Holding's sin of pride causes him to mistake his mental processes for god's own presence.

When you get done reading this crap, you will have no illusions about why no legitimately credentialed Christian bible scholar wishes to associate with Holding.  Both Blomberg and Habermas have pulled their support too.

WEDNESSSSDAYSSES, JULY 4, 2007
The Jeremiah Duh-Lemma
In a world we all know, Mattchu is once again busy with his annual armpit inspection. It is the end of the year and it is time to do his inventory of fleas. As he does so, he hears footsteps behind him. He tries to hide by curling himself up tightly into a ball, with his head between his legs - so far indeed that it seems that his head is tucked into his buttocks. But it is of no use. Despite his best attempt, he is detected at once. He peeks one eye out from between his buttocks and groans. It is that stupid rabbit thing again.
 SHEILA: Happy New Year! I see you're celebrating in the usual place.
 MATTCHU: Grrr. What stupid rabbit want now?
 SHEILA: Well, we've been waiting to see if you'd produce something Mr. Holding hasn't answered yet. I mean, those last entries on the Trilemma and the Land Promise - you just didn't interact at all with his arguments which address what you say.
 MATTCHU (growling, rubbing head): Didn't knows about them - so sure me, dumb rabbitsses.
 SHEILA (shrugs): Not interested. I know all we'd get is your bills. (Pauses.) Anyway, I'm here about this, um...thing you wrote on Jeremiah 7:22. It's pretty stupid, as usual.
 Mattchu rises, and spite of past experience, runs screaming and pounding his fists into Sheila's legs. Mattchu just doesn't ever learn, it seems, and as before he just bounces off with no reward other than a pounding headache. The only difference is that this time, Sheila is not engrossed in the article she is holding; she sees him coming and watches, nonchalantly, and he bangs his face into her kneecaps. After he bounces off, she glances down critically and frowns.
 SHEILA: You bent a strand of my fur. Don't do that. It takes hours to groom this coat. (She brushes the strand back into place, then proceeds to read the article silently. Mattchu is still groaning and rubbing his injured forehead.) You know, dear, you really should take a hint from your own words. You say There are sometimes, where, honestly, I just cannot tell one way or the other, whether a solution is good or not. Well, doesn't this suggest to you that you need to shut up and learn more before you mouth off?
 MATTCHU (moaning): Uh uh.
 SHEILA: I didn't think so. But what's all this about Jer. 7:22?
 MATTCHU: HA! Holdingsses answer an interesting solution or an explanation that is may be good in terms of textual criticism but silly as an apologetic solution designed to salvage inerrancy.
 SHEILA: Inerrancy as you define it - in terms of your ultra-fundamentalist past - or inerrancy as he defines it, in terms of what readers of the time of the Bible would say?
 Mattchu stares stupidly for a few moments.
 SHEILA: You don't know the difference, do you?
 Mattchu shakes his head. There is a sound like a BB rattling in a boxcar.
 SHEILA: And look, dearie - all this rot about how it's hard to believe that any divine being would've let the solution be discovered as late as it was -- he's answered that before to you. You need to get over yourself and stop pretending God owes you something. You whine about this over and over and over again, as though God is obligated to cover your ignorance.
 MATTCHU: He do TOO owe me something! Butt kissing!
 SHEILA: Hmph. Looks to me like you can get John Loftus to do that for you if you really want it. (Sheila reads further.) Well, dear, first off, Mr. Holding doesn't dispute that Jeremiah was part of an anti-cultic faction was actually the theory of some well-respected scholars in the field. He knows that, likely better than you. In fact, I'm sure you didn't notice the further link to here in which Mr. Holding cited Hopper, and also showed why his argument was bogus. I don't suppose you actually care to defend this view, though, do you - that Jeremiah was part of some anti-cultic faction?
 (Mattchu shakes his head violently and backs off a step.)
 SHEILA: All right. And you failed to notice Mr. Holding's more detailed link, so shame on you. Now he also says, The simple answer to this notes that this is rather the use of hyperbole to effect a point. The purpose of this phrase is to show the relative importance of sacrifices, etc. in terms of inward attitudes. Indeed, were this not so, we would be constrained to ask how such an obvious "condemnation" of the sacrifices survived the so-called "cutting" since the very priests that Skeptic X accuses of creating the sacrificial law for their own benefit were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! But history knows of no such opposition to the sacrificial system in Israel; while the temple machinery was often corrupt (as in the time of Annas), there is no indication at all that the actual sacrificial practice was disdained. This isn't his whole answer to the likes of Hopper - you missed that - but what do you say to it?
 MATTCHU: Grah -- This is something I find a bit silly. Holding asks how such an obvious condemnation would've survived since the priests were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! This is almost like asking how could discrepancies exist in any part of the Bible since the early Church fathers would've known they existed and would've discovered them and tossed them out and since this didn't happen we can trust that they truly are inerrant.
 SHEILA (shakes head): No, dear, it's more complicated than that. You're missing the point again. The hypothesis is that there were two parties, pro-cultus and anti-cultus. We're talking about a strong rivalry between two major parties. Hopper and his friends hypothesize that loyalty to both parties was so strong that they HAD to include portions of Jeremiah, an anti-cultus prophet, to give themselves legitimacy. Now in a situation like that, you need hard proof that there was an anti-cultus party to begin with. Mr. Holding's last sentence is the most crucial there, and you missed the point because you were so busy drawing a false comparison. Mr. Holding is not talking about some absent-minded failure to notice. And your analogy to the Gospels still being in the canon in spite of discrepancies is not relevant, because there were not opposition parties over each Gospel. What we're talking about here is a case where the pro-cultus party is supposed to have won, and despite being careful enough to include parts of Jeremiah, was also evidently careless enough to leave this rather obvious anti-cultus verse. You can't have it both ways, dear. You can't posit a carefully-crafted conspiracy by the pro-cultus party while also arguing that they were careless and included a honking obvious anti-cultus statement. In essence you are saying they were careful when it suits your theory to say so, and careless when it suits your theory to say so. The theory is driving the facts. NOW do you get it?
 MATTCHU (scratching head): Duh....no.
 SHEILA (rolls eyes): I'm not surprised. Well, look - we can shift out all this rot about Ezekiel; that has nothing to do with Jer. 7:22. (She takes several pages out and throws them to the wind. Mattchu, horrified, runs after them screaming as Sheila continues to read. As he does, Sheila sighs.) Oh, please. More of this crybaby whining. "By what criteria do we determine whether a given passage is to be read "plainly" and when it is not? Come now, dear, this is ridiculous. Stop being lazy and stupid. It might surprise you to know that Mr. Holding is very much in support of the idea of tailoring translations for each culture - or at least providing deep explanatory notes. But that's still no excuse for you being lazy.
 But let's get to the point. You say you agree with Mr. Holding about the hyperbolic nature of teaching in that time. Right?
 (Mattchu, returning with papers stained with mud clutched in his hand, groans but nods agreement.)
 SHEILA: Now past all this whining about how God should allow you to be lazy, and all this whining about how you think this means God "hid" the solution - which Mr. Holding has called you down on before (though he does not think in this case that Whitney and the others did anything more than bring to the fore what other people already knew) - so you have any actual reason to say that Mr. Holding's answer is wrong?
 MATTCHU Uh....If Holding is right and Jeremiah 7:22 is a negation idiom and is fully consistent with the law of Moses in the Pentateuch, he is left with a serious problem- that of a prophecy in Jeremiah and other places where an eternal kingdom is promised to David and an eternal priesthood is promised as well!
 SHEILA (staring): Say WHAT? What the heck does one have to do with the other?
 MATTCHU: HA! In some places in the Hebrew Bible, an eternal throne is promised to king David. In 2 Samuel 7: 11-16, we find written:
 8"Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. 9"I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. 10"I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, 11even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13"He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14"I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15but My loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16"Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"
 SHEILA: Hold it.
 MATTCHU: WHAT? I is genius explaining something!
 SHEILA: Have you seen Mr. Holding's material on the word 'olam - which is the word usually translated "forever'?
 Mattchu stares blankly.
 SHEILA: Mr. Holding's study follows the conclusions of James Barr'sBiblical Words for Time -- which concludes that the word does not mean "forever" but "in perpetuity" or basically, "as long as". "Forever" in English implies something unconditional and unchanging, but as Barr showed, 'olam does not.
 So your argument that says that:
 Again, we see here the promise that "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne before the houses of Israel" and, interestingly, enough, the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Yahweh to perform burnt offerings. Yahweh compares the covenant with David to a covenant that he established with the day and night. If the former can be dissolved, then it's possible that the covenant with David and the priesthood can be dissolved. Apparently, the throne and kingdom of David were meant to be understood as being eternal as well as the sacrificial system. If Holding is right and Jeremiah 7:22 is consistent with the Pentateuch, he has an even bigger problem: not only is there an eternal throne to David which never materialized but Christ could not have ended the sacrificial system because Yahweh is promising that the sacrificial system is eternal and will last forever
 ...is wrong from the start. Mr. Holding has no dilemma as you say; it's just that as usual, you get your foot stuck in your mouth because you haven't read all that he's written. He's also addressed that point from Cross about the "unconditional" nature of the promises - in the Land Promise materials answering Till which you didn't interact with. It's right here, in fact - Mr. Holding quotes from the same place you do. And he answers why it is not a problem for him. All this means in this context is that the sacrificial system is in suspension. Sorry, dear - you've made a fool of yourself again.
 At this, Mattchu throws his papers into the air and runs, screaming, towards Sheila. She sighs and at the right moment, raises her knee and delivers a stunning blow to his chin. His head and chest arch backwards, and in amazing feat of acrobatics, his forehead becomes jammed between his buttocks. In this position he somehow manages to land on his feet, and toddles off, screaming curses against J. P. Holding.
 SHEILA (sighs): Well, that's the way it goes...either way, he ends up with his head in the same place.
 Posted by Sheilaat Fun time0 comments -- no one cares!

------------------------end

 Holding's sinful fixation with the anus shows up again:

This came from the People in Need of Preparation H:
You sir are a nasty and twisted person. Flush the bile out of your system once a day and before every public display and then maybe we can learn to appreciate your thoughts!

Taken alone, this might not indicate homosexuality, but it does in Holding's case because he has such a long and distinguished history of manifesting his unsavory appetite for male ass, even other Christian apologists have had to chastise him about it.  From a prior post:

Holding pushed his use of homoerotic illustrations to such extreme levels in his debate with Christian apologist Steve Hays, that Hays had to complain and rightly observe that Holding has a filthy mind:

 …As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind operates, his latest thread is charmingly headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.
…Defendant’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable.
…This is not the first time that Defendant has taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.    

 UPDATE:  February 23, 2019
Since I originally posted this, it came to my attention that the apologist who authored the above words, Steve Hays, issued a disclaimer, insisting that he was just kidding about Holding when saying those things.  I quote the disclaimer and provide a comprehensive rebuttal showing that Hays is a liar...he might be backpeddeling now, but back when he originally posted those words, he meant them with all holy sincerity.  See here.
-----------------------------

 So when such a person as Holding consistently makes reference to buttocks, anus, and the like, remember you are not dealing with the average heterosexual man who only occasionally talks like this, and that puts a different spin on his words.  Holding really is a fag at heart, but because he has a female wife, it's probably more accurate to call him a closet homosexual.  The great irony is that I'm an atheist critic of Holding and I find male homosexuality revolting.  Holding is allegedly an apologist who defends traditional Christian morality, and yet exhibits more signs of homosexuality than even some atheists.  How fucking sad is that?

Cold Case Christianity: If we can love god in heaven without freedom to sin, we don't need that ability here on earth

This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace who tried to get away from the serious theological problem of why we need freewill to love god here on earth, but we won't need freewill to authentically love god after we go to heaven.

#STRask - May 22, 2017

Melinda:
First question comes from evsp123 on Twitter. "If the ability to do otherwise is a requirement of love, then given our new natures, how will we love the Lord in the new Earth?"

Jim Wallace:
So I think it all comes down to the definition of what it is to have free agency. And if we pose it this way, the ability to do otherwise, it can put us in a conundrum 

Melinda:
Exactly. 

Jim Wallace:
But if we pose it in terms of the ability to do whatever it is you want to do. If you think practically, that is what free agency is. It's my being able to go out, and look at the set of options, and pick the one I want.

So what you are really doing is denying the libertarian notion of feewill, the one which Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig use to explain the problem of evil.  They say we have to have the ability to do the contrary, otherwise, our love of God would be forced, not free.  Along comes the skeptic and says if that is how you define authentic love, then the only way we could authentically love God after we get to heaven is if we retain our ability to sin.  Feel free to deny the libertarian notion of freewill, but just recognize that the consequences of doing put you at variance with other more experienced and more educated Christian philosophers.

Pick the action I want, that I freely want. So now if that's the case, if that's the definition of free agency, well now I can kind of figure out how this might be reconciled to the sovereignty of God. If in fact, heaven is not a place where I'm limited, so I can't make options, but is instead a place where my nature has been so entirely renewed that my wants are now different, then I'm not going to sin because I no longer want that. So now I'm still freely doing whatever it is I want, what's been changed of course though is I no longer want to do what I ought not do.

If there is a form of "freewill" that allows for us to authentically love god while also preventing us from desiring to sin, why didn't God just infuse Adam and Eve with such will. Had he done so, all this mess of sin in the world would have been preempted.

So this kind of compatibilist view that kind of finds a way to find free agency in a very practical way. Because that's how we experience it, right? We just know that free agency is what we want to do. So I think what happens here, is if you change the definitions in such a way to create a conundrum, then you've got a conundrum.

Giesler and Craig are professional Christian philosophers who hold that only the libertarian notion of freewill is sufficient to explain evil (i.e., we need the ability to do the opposite of love).

But if you look at the practical definitions of free agency, and I think that really is the ability to do what it is you want to do freely. Then it's really a matter of what do I want to do?

Melinda:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Jim Wallace:
And I think that's why I always say, no listen, you'll be able to do everything you want to do when you're in heaven. You won't feel restrained. Oh I can't do this, I can't ... No, you simply won't want to do wrong anymore because your nature will have been so utterly changed.

Why didn't God give Adam and Eve that superior nature in the first place, so that they could authentically love him while being yet guaranteed to never sin?