I posted the following to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5zo6UOGl4k:
1st Corinthians 5:11-13 requires you to disassociate yourself from any so-called Christian "brother" who is a "reviler"
----11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)--(note esp. v. 13, Paul equates the "reviler" with the "wicked man" which Deut. 13:5 and 17:7 say should be removed from the congregation). So any attempt on your part to trivialize the biblical seriousness of Holding's sin, will under biblical logically be equal to trivializing the seriousness of sinful activity which god through Moses said requires the congregation to excommunicate the member.Holding is currently being sued in court because his "reviling" nature has caused him to commit libel (what the bible calls the sins of slander and gossip). A complaint that uses 534 pages to document Holding's sin of slander (including his numerous acts of lying under oath in court documents (perjury) can be downloaded for free here https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html....do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter. (Prov. 11:13 NAU)Jesus condemns slander, Mark 7:22Paul requires Christians to cease all slanderous activity, Ephesians 4:31Paul condemns abusive speech, Ephesians 5:4, Colossians 3:8Peter forbids slander, 1st Peter 2:.He also condemns "insult for insult", 1st Peter 3:9, which Holding has made a living out of for the last 20 years.Holding lauds the Context Group (or did before he found out they think he is a dishonest immoral perverter of basic biblical morality), and yet the Context Group thinks Peter requires modern Christians to avoid insulting the unbelievers who insult them: ... this is what John H. Elliott, chair of the Context Group, had to say about riposte when discussing the instruction given by Peter to the addressees of 1 Peter.-------------"First, the addressees are warned not to engage in the usual spitting match of riposte and retaliation. They are not to return "injury for injury" or "insult for insult" (3:9; see also the proscription of slander in 2:1), just as Jesus when insulted did not retaliate (2:23, echoing Isa 52:7and details of the passion narrative [Mark 14:61//Matt 26:63; Mark 15:5//Matt 27:12-14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9]). Rather, they are urged to bless their insulters (3:9c) and to disprove their slanderers with honorable and irreproachable modes of behavior within and beyond the community (2:12), for actions speak louder than words (3:1-2)."-------------------See my entire argument here:https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-fine-example-of-why-james-patrick.htmlHolding has never "blessed" anybody who insulted him or did him wrong. Every time he can be documented to reply to somebody speaking negatively about him, he violates the Context Group's view, supra, and simply bites back at his opponent with hissing and spitting and verbal abuse.Peter says the example Jesus left you was to avoid reviling others who revile you, 1st Peter 2:21 ff.If you wouldn't attend the church of a pastor who committed adultery every day and seriously denied that this was sin, why would you accept arguments from an "apologist" who lives in the sin of "reviling" every day?If you would speak out against any "Christian" who routinely engaged in the sin of theft, why don't you speak out against Holding for his ceaseless sins of "reviling" ?and slander?Holding wrote an article defending his stupid trifle that the bible allows Christians to hurl insults at skeptics who publicly attack Christianity, but I've refuted that article in point-by-point fashion.https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/06/new-reply-to-james-patrick-holdings.htmlWhat we can be sure you WON'T be doing is pretending that you seriously believe Holding's trifling sinful bullshit.
your thoughts on this ?
ReplyDeletehttps://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/mwie4v/child_sacrifice_among_canaanites_a_compilation_of/
these guys are saying that there is evidence that they burned live babies to death and even agree that jephta did the same to his kid.
The bible god's desire to burn kids to death is clear from Leviticus 21:9, where because she was having sex in her priest father's house, it is unlikely she was married and living in her own home, more likely she was in her father's house because she hadn't gotten married yet, implying she could be as young as 10.
DeleteFrank Turek pushes the most the notion that the kids in the Canaanite sacrifices were burned alive, and I provide a sound rebuttal to this. Basically, everybody seems to blindly assume that if a source says the child was placed in the fire, this must mean he was still alive. But some of the sources specify that the child's throat was cut before they were put in the fire, hence, the fire did not kill, it only performed the function of cremating a corpse.
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/10/frank-tureks-dishonesty-concerning.html
Apologists only insist the kids were thrown in the fire alive, because their bible says God commanded the Hebrews to slaughter these pagans, so apologists, intent to make god seem morally justified in the eyes of modern Christians, need to make it appear that the Canaanites were unspeakably immoral, so that his command that they be slaughtered wholesale won't seem so evil to the Christians. Well then, if the kids were not alive when thrown into the fire, then the Canaanites were not more evil than any other pagagn nation of the time, thus depriving the apologist of any way to rationalize the allegedly divine command to subject the Canaanites to a more merciless slaughter. With such rebuttal, we increase the likelihood that the skeptics are correct, and the divine atrocities in the OT did not come from any god, they are just post-hoc justifications by later and more civilized editors who want to tell the story of the ancient Hebrews and yet also whitewash some of the yucky parts.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/mvshao/did_the_canaanites_watch_their_infants_sizzle_to/
ReplyDeleteThanks for notifying me about this discussion, I didn't know about that particular discussion. But I've now posted my rebuttal to Chris at that website. He commits the same error as other apologists: he leaps straight from "placed in the fire" over to "still alive when placed in the fire", and I've now formally challenged him to produce the one ancient historical source that most explicitly specifies that the sacrificed kids were still alive when placed in the fire.
Delete