James Patrick Holding posted this point by point answer to another critic, and I show how fucking absurd Holding's logic is
tektontv1 day ago
All of these whines seem to designed to avoid engaging real arguments rather than answering them. It also hoists itself on its own petard repeatedly.
Empty rhetoric that any fool could use, but I'm sure your followers do what you do, and mistake rhetoric for actual substance.
>>>"1. The vast majority of Jesus nation didn't accept him, despite the miracles he may have done.
So? the vast majority of the Egyptians, Moabites, Canaanites, etc never accepted Judaism in spite of the miracles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, etc.
Probably because the Egyptians, Moabites and Canaanites never had any reason to think Moses, Joshua or Elijah could do real miracles.
>>>So accepting the claims of small cult (of Jesus) is less rational than accepting the decisions of vast majority of the people back then.
You mean like Judaism, the small cult that came out of Egypt to found what, politically speaking, was a puny and insignificant nation?? Do tell.
That wasn't a rebuttal.
>>>2. The Old Testament doesn’t prove Christianity, because we do see that Jews explain the same verses completely different. When you have more than one way to interpret something, it can't be a proof.
I don't know what he means when he refers to the OT "proving" Christianity. I would never say it does.
Then you never read 2nd Timothy 3:16. It is talking about the OT when it says the scripture is profitable to the Christian for "doctrine", and apostle Paul curiously grounds doctrine always in the OT, never on the words of Jesus. Paul's allegedly grounding completely obvious common sense on something Jesus said (1st Timothy 5:18) is less about grounding something and more about telling the world just how little Paul thought of the pre-resurrection Christ.
>>>3. Christianity is no valid more than Islam or other religions, because that if God changed the religion so drastically (Old Testament commandments does not required anymore, and so on) - why stay there? Let's accept that God came again to Muhammad, or Joseph Smith.
Non sequitur.
No, your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur: he wasn't arguing that God surely did change religions. he was only arguing that it would be reasonable for a person to believe that was the case. The only time "non-sequitur" can validly apply is when the critiqued argument was saying a certain conclusion "necessarily" followed. You'd be surprised at how often apologists say "non-sequitur" to a skeptical argument, when in fact the argument is not about what is necessarily true, but what is reasonable to believe.
>>>4. The trinity sounds absurd when you believe in monotheistic God, in comparison to the way Judaism see their God.
Too bad this dumbass never heard of Trinitarian precursors in Judaism like hypostatic Wisdom.
Except that Judaism's hypostatic Wisdom is equally absurd as Trinitarianism, unless you kick the Christians out of the room and stop pushing the personification of wisdom so literally. But the jury will find it interesting that with the remark "dumbass", the world's smartest Christian apologist cannot stop insulting people. Download the 534-page Complaint here, then start at page 486. There's about 35 pages of proofs that Holding lied when he testified under oath that he has "never deliberately intended to insult anyone by his communications", a statement that both he and his lawyer choose to leave unqualified.
>>>>5. Judaism apologists disprove Christianity proofs easily. As Judaism is non-missionary religion, they have no motive to religion debate everywhere. That’s why most of the "proofs" over internet are one sided and you miss the Jews real point of views in the matter.
I smelled the elephant he hurled but I don't see it.
Then read 2000 years of church history, that's how long the Jews have failed to be impressed by Christian arguments, so apparently, the OT statements that NT authors use to prove something about Christianity, are not quite as rock-solid as the tearful inerrantist on Sunday morning would like to think.
>>>Most people are not resisting to Christianity or any other religion because they are evil or stupid or stubborn. There are many rabbis, priests, Muftis and others that knows the truth and can win any debate.
Basically this guy has nothing but slogans to offer.
That would hardly matter. I could kick your fucking head off in a debate about bible inerrancy and Jesus' resurrection, and the most you could do about it is post a defamatory cartoon video to YouTube. Then YOU accuse other adults of having the mentality of a two-year old (!?)
By the way, Mr. Holding, if you are so fucking serious that God approves of you calling your enemies "dumbasses", do you plan on calling ME a dumbass when you take the witness stand in front of the jury? It doesn't matter if the earthly judge prohibits this, the true Christian obeys the higher spiritual moral where it conflicts with an earthly secular rule. Acts 5:29, "we must obey God rather than men", so you can forget about pretending that Romans 13 requires that you obey secular authorities. The earthly judge would be violating your idea of higher spiritual ethics in telling you to address me in a courteous manner.
