Showing posts with label Bruce Malina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Malina. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

James Patrick Holding disqualified by the bible from the office of Christian "teacher"

James Patrick Holding, formerly Robert Turkel, is known for little else on the internet than aggressively defending the bible as god's inerrant word.  www.tektonics.org.



And yet he has made statements that would get him kicked out of any conservative or fundamentalist church.  In 2008 I debated him at theologyweb.com, and I remarked that I caught Holding somewhere else talking like an atheist about the bible, and that therefore he would need to employ his tried-and-true "I-was-just-being-sarcastic" excuse to "explain" it to his buddies.

Holding, surprisingly, confirmed that he wasn't being sarcastic, but genuine.  That is, Holding confirmed that he really doesn't care whether the bible is the word of God or not.  Here's the relevant part of the exchange:
-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding, I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 
Naturally, the owner of theologyweb (who is also Holding's buddy), got rid of this embarrassing blooper, but thankfully it is still preserved by the wayback machine, which is thus an example that a godless secular machine has more concern for actual historical truth than Mr. Holding himself.  Check out the link.

So ask yourself: Where does the bible allow Christian teachers (which office Holding wants his paying admirers to believe he legitimately holds) to have such apathetic (uncaring) attitude toward the divine inspiration of the scriptures?

 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NAU)
I can buy that Jesus allowed for mere "salvation" of those who didn't take any position on the inspiration of the scriptures.  What I cannot buy is that Jesus or Paul would have this liberal attitude toward Christian teachers. What are the odds that Paul would have approved of so-called Christian teachers in his churches who didn't care whether the scriptures were inspired by God?

Holding has been publicly endorsed in the past by genuinely qualified Christian scholars like Craig Blomberg, Gay Habermas, and Daniel Wallace.  One wonders what these conservatives would think if they knew Holding took such a shit attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible?  They might muse that the only reason Holding makes such a big deal out of bible inerrancy is because it gives him something to bitch about, nothing more.

Email Holding sometime and ask him where the bible approves or allows for Christian teachers, as he supposes himself to be, to have such apathetic attitude toward the divine origin of the Scriptures.

His email address is: jphold@att.net
His residence address is: 2609 Greywall Ave, Ocoee, FL 34761

The fact that Holding is a closet-homosexual and that the bible scholars he quoted for years to justify his insulting demeanor toward critics, say he gives Christianity a bad name and have twice disowned him professionally and morally in no uncertain terms, provides sufficient probable cause to believe that Holding is no more a genuine Christian than Robert Tilton or Benny Hinn. 

In the real world we label such conflicted clowns with cognitive dissonance (willingness to hold two mutually contradictory positions on a matter despite knowing they contradict each other).

Saturday, May 27, 2017

The bible scholars who condemn Holding for his childish name calling

I've already shown in prior posts that Holding's favorite bible scholars, those of the "Context Group", think Holding gives Christianity a bad name and they say that his use of their scholarship in his most intense effort to show biblical justification for insulting one's critics, was an "obvious perversion" of their work and of the NT itself.

This blog will be dedicated to providing the world with the news that Holding's worshipers don't wish to know, that well-qualified Christian scholars see no justification in the bible, whatsoever for modern-day Christians to verbally besmirch and shame their critics.
==================

As a result of my libel lawsuit against Holding, I forced him to reveal private emails he had sent and received from his friends and lawyers, which showed him libeling me like crazy.  In several, Gary Habermas expresses that he is glad that Holding is allegedly no longer engaging in "strong comebacks."


James White, Ph.d, is a 5-point Calvinist, author of many books,  and has been doing public debates with Christians and others for years.  When he critiques Holding in his article "How not to do exegesis", he disagrees with Holding's choice to start resorting to ad hominem attacks, and calls Holding a "nasty apologist", whom White will be glad to wash his hands of for good:
The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner. 

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 July 19, 2017:  In April 2015 I emailed Daniel J. Kirk, Ph.d, who was then with Fuller Theology Seminary, asking whether he saw any biblical license for modern day Christians to insult their critics.  He said Christians who do that today are mindlessly imitating cultural norms that no longer apply, and sound like people who cannot be reasoned with:


 On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.comwrote:
Hello,

I am having some issues with a brother who tries to justify his public insulting of atheists by appeal to the social science work on the bible done by the "Context Group".
When this brother preaches to unbelievers, and they challenge something in the bible, he insults and belittles them.
I have tried to fulfill the Matthew 18 obligation to go to him in private, but he responds that in light of the social science work on the New Testament performed by the Context Group, the statements in the NT that seem to prohibit arguing or insulting those who criticize Christianity, must be interpreted in light of the honor/shame culture which produced them, which means the example of Jesus and Paul in insulting their critics publicly, is to be followed by Christians today.  He thus concludes that he has biblical justification to continually return "insult for insult". When I remind him that us modern-day Christians do not live in first-century Mediterranean lands, he just laughs and says we are bidden under 1st Corinthians 11:1 to imitate the ways of Paul and Christ.

I would like to know:

1 - Are you familiar with the work of the context group, and if so, how familiar are you with it?

2 - Do you find anything about the Context Group's scholarship on biblical honor/shame issues, which would support the argument that modern day Christians are biblically justified to insult those who criticize Christianity?   I have tried to email various members of the Context Group with this question, but the email addresses available on the web are either dead, or they are simply not responding.

3 - Can you think of any scholar of the NT who would support making the public insulting of skeptics, an exception to the "do not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24?

4 - Do you feel there are any verses in the NT that prohibit modern-day Christians from publicly insulting those who publicly criticize Christianity?  I can buy that the NT allows a bit of witticism, but the brother whom I speak of literally "calls names" and uses euphemisms referring to the buttocks and spanking, among other such imagery, to describe what it was like for him to win an argument with an unbeliever (!?). I would have thought his whole demeanor was a simply case of the "filthy talk" that Paul prohibits, but maybe I just don't know enough about honor/shame mentality in ANE cultures to justify criticizing this brother?

Thank you for your time,
Barry Jones barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 5/4/15, Daniel Kirk <jrkirk@fuller.eduwrote:
From: Daniel Kirk <jrkirk@fuller.edu
Subject: Re: your opinion of challenge/riposte
To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, May 4, 2015, 1:32 PM
Barry, It sounds like you are up against someone who is not going to be reasoned with. There are verses that talk about acting in such a way that people see our goodness and honor God. Not sure those will help, though. The idea that the "context group" gives this kind of license is somewhat absurd. As you point out, the point of studying context is to learn about context--what worked and was assumed in theirs does not work and is not assumed in ours. We have to be faithful to the place we're called, not mindlessly imitating cultural norms that no longer apply. Peace,jrdk
---- J. R. Daniel Kirk
Associate Professor of New Testament
Fuller Theological Seminary
Menlo Park, CA

When Holding found out about this, he said my communication with Dr. Kirk was a good reason to report me for stalking, and since he was addressing me, his mortal enemy, he cannot seriously have expected me to take this as hyperbole or sarcasm, especially not since later he accused me of criminal stalking:
On Thu, 5/7/15, jphold@att.net <jphold@att.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: Fuller Theological Seminary thinks you are 'absurd'
To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015, 4:49 AM

Sounds like good reason for me to report you for stalking!

Again, in April of 2015, I emailed similar questions to D.A. Carson.  He replied that trying to dissuade today's Christian who goes around insulting others is a waste of time since the view of such a person will not be easily "corrected", that some Context Group work is exaggerated, they do their work as functioning atheists despite some of them being Christians, and that the NT does not support modern Christians going around ceaselessly excoriating their critics:


On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.comwrote: Hello,
I am having some issues with a brother who tries to justify his public insulting of atheists by appeal to the social science work on the bible done by the "Context Group".
When this brother preaches to unbelievers, and they challenge something in the bible, he insults and belittles them.
I have tried to fulfill the Matthew 18 obligation to go to him in private, but he responds that in light of the social science work on the New Testament performed by the Context Group, the statements in the NT that seem to prohibit arguing or insulting those who criticize Christianity, must be interpreted in light of the honor/shame culture which produced them, which means the example of Jesus and Paul in insulting their critics publicly, is to be followed by Christians today.  He thus concludes that he has biblical justification to continually return "insult for insult". When I remind him that us modern-day Christians do not live in first-century Mediterranean lands, he just laughs and says we are bidden under 1st Corinthians 11:1 to imitate the ways of Paul and Christ.

I would like to know:

1 - Are you familiar with the work of the context group, and if so, how familiar are you with it?  From what I can gather through google books, they say much about honor/shame mentality in the biblical times, but they never draw the conclusion that modern-day Christians should publicly insult those who publicly criticize Christianity!  Did I miss something?

2 - Do you find anything about the Context Group's scholarship on biblical honor/shame issues, which would support the argument that modern day Christians are biblically justified to insult those who criticize Christianity?  I have tried to email various members of the Context Group with this question, but the email addresses available on the web are either dead, or they are simply not responding.

3 - Can you think of any scholar of the NT who would support making the public insulting of skeptics, an exception to the "do not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24?

4 - Do you feel there are any verses in the NT that prohibit modern-day Christians from publicly insulting those who publicly criticize Christianity?  I can buy that the NT allows a bit of witticism, but the brother whom I speak of literally "calls names" and uses euphemisms referring to the buttocks and spanking, among other such imagery, to describe what it was like for him to win an argument with an unbeliever (!?). I would have thought his whole demeanor was a simply case of the "filthy talk" that Paul prohibits, but maybe I just don't know enough about honor/shame mentality in ANE cultures to justify criticizing this brother?>
Thank you for your time,
Barry Jonesbarryjoneswhat@yahoo.com 
--- On Tue, 5/5/15, Carson <carson.aa@gmail.comwrote:  
From: Carson <carson.aa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: your opinion of challenge/riposte
To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 7:22 AM
Dear Mr. Jones,  
The Context Group is a collection of biblical scholars who study (mostly) the New Testament using social-scientific methods, such as sociology, anthropology, and the like. Whatever their personal beliefs, they do their work as functioning atheists (even though some of them are not personally atheists). One of the things they emphasize, partly rightly and partly in an exaggerated way, is the role of shame in the first century as opposed to guilt. Those of us who work in East Asian countries sometimes today see something of the same shame-culture.  

I would argue that in the Bible, sin generates both guilt and shame. The West has in recent centuries emphasized the former; East Asian countries emphasize the latter. Both categories are biblical, and both are rightly addressed in the gospel.  

If someone were really concerned to operate within a shame culture, it seems to me they would be wise not to bring shame on those they are addressing, but to bring truth with Christian integrity and love. To bring someone shame in a shame culture is among the unkindest things you can do.  

Biblically, there are clearly some places where both Jesus and Paul excoriate opponents with a certain amount of animus designed to elicit both shame and guilt. I think it is possible to learn when and why they do so. In other instances, however, many passages demonstrate that their more common demeanor was rather different. For example, Jesus is the one who will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoking wick.  

Frankly, I would not waste much time trying to convince your friend. It sounds as if he has adopted a pretty rigid stance that will not easily be corrected. Instead of spending your energy trying to correct him, spend your energy trying to bear faithful and fruitful and loving witness to the wonder of the gospel to those who do not know Christ.
With all good wishes, Yours faithfully,
D. A. Carson
Research Professor of New Testament
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015  
DAC:da

Again, in April 2015, I emailed to bible scholar Craig Blomberg the following questions about whether the bible supports modern-day Christians who insult and belittle their critics:
    From: Barry Jones
    Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:57 PM
    To: Blomberg, Craig
    Subject: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

    What is your opinion of modern day Christians who persistently insult critics of Christianity?
    
    I noticed that you yourself never attempt to characterize your winning some debate about the bible, by using euphemisms that describe the sexual parts of the human body, and you never use insulting rhetoric, when you communicate with unbelievers or heretics who criticize the faith.  Are these things missing from your demeanor solely by reason of personal preference/choice, or are they missing because you believe that the bible without exception forbids Christians acting like that?
    
    How would you respond to the argument that "because Jesus and Paul insulted critics of Christianity, this is license for modern Christians to do the same?"
    
    It is my opinion that when 2nd Timothy 2:24-26 says "the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all...", the "all" includes unbelievers who criticize and attack Christian faith.  Do you agree or disagree, and please provide your reasons.  Some Christians have given me what appears to be very tortured exegesis in the effort to argue that this passage is consistent with their daily ceaseless persistent foul-mouthed insults against skeptics and atheists.  They say I only disagree with them because I don't know enough about honor/shame cultures or the ANE to speak on the subject.  I'm certainly no scholar, but I don't see anything in the scholarly literature about the ANE or honor/shame cultures, that would justify saying this passage is consistent with modern day Christians who routinely insult and belittle atheists and skeptics.
    
    Are you familiar with the work of the "Context Group" (i.e., Malina, Rohrobough, etc)?  If so, can you think of any contribution to biblical studies they ever made, which could reasonably be taken to support the idea that the New Testament approves of Christians who daily and routinely insult their critics?  I certainly appreciate their work, and most of it is not even hinted at in standard protestant commentaries, but I also cannot, for the life of me, find anything in their works that would suggest biblical justification for modern-day Christians routinely insulting unbelievers who attack Christian faith.
         Thank you,
         Barry Jones.
 Dr. Craig replied that those who act like this today, do a fair amount of damage to the Christian cause, and that he is not aware of anything in the Context Group scholarship of Malina or Rohrbaugh which would provide justification for modern Christians to insult and belittle those who publicly criticize Christianity:

From: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:14 PM

Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26



A thorough study of the NT discloses that Jesus and Paul consistently reserve their harshest criticisms for the religious insiders to their movements (Pharisees, Judaizers) who are overly conservative and should know better but are unexpectedly solicitous to outsiders in hopes of wooing them into the kingdom.  Unfortunately some modern-day Christians precisely invert those priorities and usually do a fair amount of damage to the cause in the process.  No, I know nothing about Malina and Rohrbaugh’s work that would justify what you describe.
I responded with a few follow-up remarks and further questions:

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
To: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

Mr. Blomberg,

Thank you for your response.

Just a few quick followup questions:  How familiar are you with the work of Malina and Rohrbough on the subject of honor/shame cultures?

Is it your opinion that there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament justifying those modern-day Christians who routinely insult and belittle the atheists who criticize Christianity?

How exactly would you respond to the argument that, because Jesus and Paul insulted those who criticized Christianity, this constitutes license for modern-day Christians debating atheists, to imitate this behavior today?

Can you think of any Christian or non-Christian bible scholars who have ever opined, either publicly or privately, that the New Testament justifies modern-day Christians in insulting those who oppose Christianity?

What is your opinion of an interpretation of a bible verse that has indirect scholarly support, but no direct scholarly support from any bible scholar?  Is it pretty safe to conclude that such interpretations are so unlikely to be correct, that we can safely dismiss them without argument?  It is my opinion that because there is so much scholarship out there, the idea that one person should come up with an interpretation of a passage that seems to have been missed by every single bible scholar on earth for the last 200 years, is so far fetched that they are on the order of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the "cult" stuff claiming to see things in the bible that everybody else has somehow missed, and we do far better for believers and unbelievers to simply dismiss immediately such interpretations.

I once had a Christian attempt to get away from the "do not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24-26, with the following argument:  that passage is not addressing Christian conduct taking place in public forums, or places where the speculators are trying to spread their ideas, it is instead addressing one-on-one relationships.  Do you agree with that interpretation?  does the "all" in the phrase "but be kind to all" include unbelievers who criticize Christianity?  If so, can you think of any biblical exceptions to the rule requiring Christians to be kind to unbelievers who criticize Christianity?

As a foremost authority on the gospels, can you think of any gospel passages that, in your opinion, absolutely prohibit today's Christians from insulting those who oppose Christianity?

What is your opinion of the argument that, even if we cannot initiate the name-calling, we are allowed to return insult for insult when and if the atheist critic we deal is the one who starts the name-calling?

Do you believe that modern-day Christians who routinely resort to harsh insulting language against critics of Christianity, are clearly sinning with this kind of talk, or would you rather say that the circumstances the Christian is in when using  insulting rhetoric, decide whether the name-calling constitutes sin?
 Blomberg's final reply indicated that he felt negativity was to be reserved solely for ultra conservative Christians who need to be rebuked, and that any bible interpretations that lack support from any bona fide scholars are likely false:
From: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

I answered several of these  questions explicity or implicitly in my previous response.  I don’t care to expand on it much  One can never make absolute statements about Scripture never justifying insulting behavior.  The Twelve are to shake the dust off their feet for those who reject them.  But, in general, we do much better to be positive, except to the ultraconservative Christian who needs to be rebuked. Interpretations that no bona fide scholars anywhere support are likely to be suspect because detailed scholarly studies will have canvased them already.
From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
To: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26
thank you for your time.
 Mr. Holding's magnum opus, that Christians of today have biblical authority to go around ceaselessly insulting their critics with shameful belittling vituperation, is not agreed to by ANY "bone fide" legitimately credentialed Christian scholar.  So under Blomberg's own criteria, we have full rational warrant to be suspicious, at the least, that Holding's view of the matter is false, and yet, true to form, Holding prances around like an attention-deficit peacock, screaming at the world how obviously correct he is and how "dumbass" and "moronic" anybody who disagrees with him is.

See my open letter to Blomberg, asking how he can reconcile his reasonable normative view with his continuing to show sympathy to Holding after my lawsuit exposed Holding's egregious unChristian libels and defamation of my character (such as accusing me of crimes I did not commit, to the point of him filing a frivolous police report against me, which the investigator refused to take seriously.)

Unbilbical responses by James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel

James Patrick Holding is an internet apologist who, for he better part of 20 years, depended heavily on the work of the Context Group for a proposition that no other bible scholar agrees with him on:  that the bible justifies modern-day Christians to respond with sneering vituperations, insults, riposte and condescending language to anybody who would publicly attack Christianity.  The Context group has twice disowned Holding on this account, with co-founder Richard Rohrbaugh specifying that Holding's insulting language means he gives Christianity a bad name, needs serious pyschological help, and no scholar in the Context Group, nor any other, would wish to associate with Holding.

Don't miss Rohrbaugh's latest email to me, quoted in that blog post:  Rohrbaugh said Holding's magnum opus in attempting to biblically justify his dirty invective toward critics (an article by Holding that uses Rohrbaugh's own scholarship to support such conduct) was an 'obvious perversion' of Context Group work in general, Rohbaugh's work in particular, and a perversion also of the whole New Testament.

Having settled the fact that Holding's childish name-calling stems from nowhere but his own immature brain, and having settled that Holding exhibits about as much fruit of spiritual growth as a dead alligator, this blog will be updated regularly with linked references to language used by Holding, which his own favorite scholars condemn him for using.  I also include here Holding's homosexual phrases ("butt" normally wouldn't be considered homosexual by itself, but the person using that word, Holding, finds far more significance to male butts than simply metaphor, as his closet-homosexuality shows.

Keep in mind that I have emails between Gary Habermas and Holding.  Holding therein says he doesn't desire to engage in the "strong comeback" anymore, and Habermas expresses gladness to hear this possible sign that Holding, after 20 years of juvenile delinquent idiocy, is starting to experience something remotely approaching spiritual growth.  The following is a growing list proves that Holding was lying to Habermas, and probably only told the lie because he did want to lose Habermas' endorsement after copies of my two libel lawsuits.

The following people have asserted that Holding is sinning with his insulting sneers:

Dan Wallace
Gary Habermas
Craig Blomberg

================================

Holding calls others who disagree with him "morons":
 04-11-2017, 02:05 PM Thread: A Response to Brent Landau by jpholding
Landau: Yet another moron sifting sound bites.
 Holding cannot suppress his desire to put visuals of him spanking other man, into the heads of his followers:
Tors reminds me of Farrell Till. Especially the mile-long rants. (Can you imagine if TektonTV had been around while I was still spanking Till?) 
 At his own youtube channel, Holding responds to my academic critique of him, by calling me a "moron",

tektontv6 days ago 
That's all you're good at all right. You can go now, moron.
=================

Mr. Holding made rather weak unsupported arguments in a video he made to address the skeptical contention that according to Numbers 31 and Deut. 21, the ancient Hebrews allowed adult men to get married to prepubescent girls.

I replied to that video with critique.

Holding responded to me, indirectly, with yet another cartoon video in which he uses a disheveled looking bum as his caricature of me, he asks questions of this character, and he has me begin all of my answers with a retarded sounding "duh".  Holding throughout the video insults me as follows:
  • "fundy atheist moron", at 3:40,
  • says at 8:00 that my level of brain damage is high
  • at 9:00 calls me a stupid fundy atheist.
  • at 10:20, suggests that I am too over-sexed to know that marriage at an early age might not have immediately allowed for sex.   This shows, once again, his inability to avoid filthy talk.  He could have made the same point with the same force without the sexual innuendo.  
  • Calls me a moron again at 12:38
================

Over at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm3JyGz-dBQ&google_comment_id=z13hvntxynaqf3lw204cd1eruvvjwzdb2wo0k
Holding engages in the following insults:

+tektontv Too bad your attempt to humiliate backfires every time.  You're so unintentionally hilarious!
9
tektontv
Too bad you're too stunned and stupid to explain HOW! Deal with it, suckahs! :D
 
So, still waiting for an explanation of how it "backfires" to show that one of you poor dolts gave an idea from a highly credentialed Biblical scholar an "F". Should I put a kettle on while I wait? Or is this some made up rule that if someone pretends their feelings are hurt, they get a free pass to say something really stupid and it becomes true?
 ----I respond: Holding's own sneer "backfires", since he has used the work of Context Group scholar Richard Rohrbaugh to justify Holding's infamously juvenile need to constantly insult and demean anybody and everybody who disagrees with him.  The problem being that the Context Group, speaking through Rohrbaugh, has Holding gives Christianity a bad name, needs serious pyschological help, and no scholar in the Context Group, nor any other, would wish to associate with Holding.
 
 tektontv2 years ago
ROFL! Sorry you're so stupid and embarrassed, Mikey, but I gave citation in an article which is referred to in my videos. As for all the rest of that, you don't have any evidence of "translation differences" etc etc etc, you're just throwing dust in the air to cover your embarrassing gaffe at handing one of the most respected scholars in the world an F! You wouldn't have asked anything -- you didn't need comments to ask, there's PMs, email, etc etc etc. You answer questions on your channel, so let me ask, what gumball machine did you get your M Div out of? :D
 ---I reply:  Holding called this man an atheist, but this man responds that he is not an atheist:
My name is Mikenna, not Mikey.  I'm sorry that you're unable to tell the difference between the two names.  But hey, I'm not expecting much from you.  *Pats*  You lost the moment you resorted to ad hominems and insults. Ta ta! (Just an FYI...) I'm not an atheist. ;) So you're wrong AGAIN in that nice little "I win because I have /now/ provided my sources and made a rebuttal video and called someone stupid and an atheist!" --------I reply:  Mikenna expressed disdain for somebody mocking his name, but no, Holding responds right back with the same juvenile sneers:

+Mikenna MacLachlan Oh yes you're not one today. Just like you're a Biblical scholar....but not anymore...Mikey. :D Keep suffering the embarrassment of giving Sloyan an F.

 I reply:  Holding refuses to admit he called it wrong in labeling Mikenna an atheist


And see, once again you prove not just that you have no respect for people who are not of your faith (which is kind of going against what your own faith teaches, but hey, cherry picking for the win, right?), but no social skills.  If you wish to talk to someone, refer to them properly, or ask if they have a nickname if you have trouble spelling their name properly.   And sorry, still not an atheist.  Closest thing to describe me would be a skeptic.  But again, not expecting you to be able to tell the difference.   Enjoy your little world of hate and discontent, I'm going back to my studies.
6
tektontv
Yes, I know, making up a new category to avoid the obvious, Mikey. I still want to know where you got your M. Div....Lucky Charms box? It must also be where you got your fantasy ideas about respect. :D

 I reply:  notice that Holding characterizes Mikenna's desire to be addressed in a respectful way, as coming from Mikennas "fantasy ideas about respect".  Yeah, not wanting your opponent to engage in name puns and other insulting invective is just fantasy.  Holding's mind is one big fantasy, in his one live videotaped debate with atheist Richard Carrier, Holding did not ever shame or insult Carrier?  Why not?  Has God decided that Christians of today can only fulfill their biblical duty to shame others, over the internet?  Or is Holding just a chickenshit hypocrite, and only insults his opposition when there's little likelihood he'll have to answer in real time in front of real people, as the situation was with Jesus in the first century?
==================


Update, December 27, 2017

Apparently, Holding just cannot shake loose the homosexual virus.  He absolutely cannot resist speaking about the greasy ass of other men.  This one comes from his "Fun with Flat Earthers" soliloquy:
Sure, Phil, just keep pressing that panic button and other fundies won’t bother to examine your claims too closely as you slide down that slippery slope with grease on your backside
Thank you, Mr. Holding.  If you didn't put in my mind the image of a man with grease on his ass, I'd probably not have understood the point you were making.  Is this the part where you tell all of conservative Christianity's legitimately credentialed scholars how wrong they are to find your language unacceptable?

For those who say this kind of language doesn't imply homosexuality on Holding's part, you need to recognize the homosexual history Mr. Holding has evinced for 20 years, also documented and linked here at this blog.  Straight guys can probably talk like this once in a while and not imply their own homosexuality, but Mr. Holding has a long history of being enamored with men's asses, to the point that he was forced in shame to remove from one of his blogs fictional stories about cartoon characters shoving their heads up their own asses.

One might expect that if he wasn't gay, his sexual metaphors would implicate female sex organs just as much, but no, with Holding it's always male-oriented.

Stay tuned for further updates.







Stuff James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, deletes, updated regularly

Holding has a video where he tries to duck the obvious charge that his debating foolish questions is forbidden by Titus 3:9, over at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0PYUhL97IQ

I responded there as follows:
First, the NT makes perfectly clear that to be a "teacher" is a grave solemn thing because you will receive the greater judgment (James 1:17).
Second, any of your followers who care the least little bit about the authority of the bible for themselves, are forced to agree with it that if you are "morally" disqualified from office, then your intellectual abilities to fulfill that office become moot. A man might be a good pastor, but he should still be defrocked if he fails the moral tests in 1st Timothy 3 and elsewhere. That's why, despite Tag Haggard otherwise being a good leader for a megachurch, he was defrocked when his homosexuality was exposed to God's spiritually alive people, by spiritually dead secular media. The idea that you should retain an office in Christianity because you can perform its functions, despite your failure to fulfill the moral qualifications the bible requires you to fulfill, is decidedly unbiblical.
Third, you are a closet homosexual, and if true, that should be more than plenty for serious bible believers to say you have disqualified yourself from the office of teacher regardless of whatever intellectual acumen they might think you otherwise have. See my growing blog post resurrecting all the homosexual comments made by you within the last 20 years, including Christian apologist Steve Hays who also had to complain in a debate with you that you have an unsavory appetite for homoerotic illustrations and an interest in his anus. See my expose "James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, is a closet-homosexual at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/ But if your followers don't have sufficient maturity to recognize that God cares more about your moral failings than He does about your intellectual abilities (which would seem to be the case given that you couch your apologetics in terms of cartoons, also telling us how it is that you can continue receiving donations despite your unChristian sordid criminal history on the internet...for more information, google "Robert Tilton" and "spiritual blindness") ...please provide the names of any Christian graduate of any seminary, or bible/Christian college, or bible/Christian university, who have published commentary on Titus in physical books, not merely on the internet, who agree with your specific contention that the four descriptors Paul gave (foolish questions, genealogies, contentions, strivings about the law) were attributes of one and the same "particular heresy of the period" as you so characterize it (time-code 0:58 - 1:04).
Clarify whether you also apply your insult of "dumb" to the many other commentators who understand Paul's 4 descriptors to encompass the broad range of separate and distinct issues that would qualify as things in disagreement with Paul's teachings. Your choice to use Youtube doesn't facilitate serious compilation of scholarly sources (that's why you chose Youtube as your platform, anybody that can cite the scholars against you, will be accused of spamming and flooding the tiny little sector you willingly crammed yourself into) but here' s just one example:
 "3:9 Of course, there are always traps to be avoided in the Christian ministry. In Paul’s day there were stupid disputes over clean and unclean foods, Sabbath regulations, and observance of holy days. Arguments arose over genealogies, both angelic and human. There was bickering over intricate regulations that had been superimposed on the law. Paul was disgusted with them as being unprofitable and useless. Servants of the Lord in our day may take Paul’s advice to heart by avoiding the following tangents: Pre-occupation with methods rather than with spiritual realities. For example, the ancient debates over whether to use fermented wine or grape juice, leavened or unleavened bread, a common cup or individual cups—as if these were important questions in the Bible! Quibbling over words. Majoring on one truth, or even one aspect of a truth, to the exclusion of all else. Allegorizing the Scriptures until they become absurd. Theological nit-picking that edifies no one. Wandering from the word into political by-paths and into Christian crusades against this and that. What a tragedy to spend precious time on these things while a world is perishing! MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Tit 3:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson." 
Explain why you do not provide the reader any analysis of the grammar or immediate context of Titus 3:9, when in fact grammar and immediate context are far more crucial to the meaning of the disputed words, than is your opinion about the social context this was written in. Or did I forget that the reason you've reduced your apologetics to cartoons is because the only people that find your stuff compelling are none other than Christians whose maturity is on the level of a 5 year old child, who tunes out anything halfway serious? The reader is encouraged to go to theologweb.com and decide for herself what level of spiritual maturity most of Holding's worshipers are at.
And you can email me at barryjoneswhat@gmail.com if you'd like proof that Holding has recently been attempting to delete his sexually perverted comments from his prior articles. Explain to your readers why you didn't even mention, let alone attempt harmonization with, other similar statement of Paul that condemn your entire internet history to hell in one fell-swoop, and otherwise argue that Titus 3:9 is a generalization not limited to a particular heresy...stuff like "wrangling words" 2nd Tim. 2:14, (Greek: logomacheo, to strive with words), which in the context is generalized, the immediate context does not require defining the wrangling solely in terms of the essentials of the faith that Paul mentions in the context.
If God went back in time and purged history of all communications that involved wrangling of words, you would evaporate, along with everybody's memories of you.
Explain to your readers why Context Group co-founder Richard Rohrbaugh said your magnum opus in showing biblical justification for Christians to demean and insult their critics (located at www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php, in which you quote Rohrbaugh) said this article "obviously perverts" a) ALL Context Group work, b) the New Testament itself, and c) Rohrbaugh's own work in particular, here's his email:
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <rbaugh@lclark.edu>
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
I glanced at the stuff on the website.  It is obviously a perversion of both the NT and ALL Context scholarship, including mine.  But... respond?  Not worth my time. RLR

sourced at http://lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.blogspot.com/2016/04/context-group-disowns-james-patrick.html Rohrbaugh was saying even worse about Holding in 2008, such as that he "gives Christianity a bad name", see http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthreadc69e-2.html?t=253929 and I'm keeping a copy of this post to use against you at my blog after you predictably delete it, no doubt out of your concern to "provide things honest in the sight of all men" Romans 12:17.
====================

 Holding made several responses,which he then deleted.  Exactly who LucasM1 was originally responding to, cannot be known, but he ends up arguing with Holding regardless:

tektontv6 days ago 
That's all you're good at all right. You can go now, moron.










 Lucas M replied: 
"An immature AND hypocritical comment doesn't deserve a respectful reply."      
May 18, 2017

 tektontv replied: 
"I'd say this vid is worth at least $21,000 in laughs."      
May 17, 2017

Update:  July 9, 2017:

Holding, consistently with his homosexual interest in other mens' asses, already documented here, just cannot resist causing his Christian followers to get filthy mental pictures.  He has recently posted a video that says any atheist work that gets wrong the Tactian reference to Jesus, is not worthy to be used to wipe one's ass with (video at 0:45 ff)

Update: July 27, 2017:

In a 2008 debate I had with HOlding, which Theologyweb tried to suppress, which remains preserved by wayback, Holding shows once again how much he likes the idea of him spanking other men:



Me: Maybe the schoolyard bullies were correct after all, and we should resort to our kindergarten understanding: the kid who insults and bullies the most, is faster, stronger, smarter and better than us?
Holding: In this case, that would be wise. The case here, however, is one of a bully -- YOU -- being paddled by the principal -- ME.











stay tuned for more updates.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel) prioritizes heretical scholarship above Christian scholarship

In a prior post, I quoted an email exchange I had with Holding's alleged scholar-hero Richard Rohrbaugh, indicating that Rohrbaugh thinks Holding's article attempting to justify modern-day Christians to insult their critics, as being an "obvious perversion" of Rohrbaugh's work, Context Group work and a perversion of the New Testament itself.

Notice that Rohrbaugh explicitly denied that the bible has God's words:

From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
      Barry,
 A lot of questions...  Some quick answers:
         If a biblical author approves of insulting language and attitude does that mean it is a good thing?  No.  It means that author was mean and insulting.  Period.  Are such comments "from God"?  No.  The Bible is a human product.  It is not God's words, it is the words of its many authors.  They were like us: some were wise and thoughtful, some were vindictive, blind and short sighted.  The ancient Hebrews left us all sorts of stuff which THEY found meaningful.  Some of it has proven so to people everywhere for over 2000 years.  Other stuff they left us is less than worthwhile.  There are lots of bad characters in biblical stories.  Why should we imitate them?
While Holding can scream all he wishes that one can be a good bible scholar without believing the bible is God's inspired word, many conservative Christians who share Holding's core beliefs about the physical resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the historicity of the Virgin Birth, and the bible being "inerrant", would seriously question the morality of his heavy reliance on scholarship that denies the bible to be God's word.  They would complain that one essential New Testament criteria for good scholarship is conformity to Paul's beliefs that the scriptures are the inspired word of God:
 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:14-17 NAU)
 Jesus certainly thought the scriptures were God's word:
 14 And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district.
 15 And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all.
 16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.
 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
 18 "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
 19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."
 20 And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
 (Lk. 4:14-21 NAU)
  38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (Jn. 7:38 NAU)

 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), (Jn. 10:35 NAU)

I'd like to ask Holding:

1 - You have been belittling skeptics for years due to their attempts to justify their belief that the bible isn't the inspired word of God.  Do you believe there are any good justifications for denying that the bible is the word of God, yes or no?  If yes, what are they, and how does that admission impact your public image as a defender of the bible as the word of God?  If no, then why doesn't Rohrbaugh's agreement with atheist skeptics that the bible isn't god's word, make him equally worthy of the scorn you heap on everybody else who adopts the same view?  Mr. Objectivity never played favorites, did he?

2 - How do you justify your choice to use scholarship of Christians who deny the bible has God's words, in light of apostle Paul's belief that his words in his NT writings came from God?
 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
 39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
 40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. (1 Cor. 14:37-40 NAU)
3 - Didn't Paul say those who do not agree with the words of Jesus, are sick in the head and create unnecessary havoc?
 3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
 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. 6:3-5 NAU)
4 - Some of your published books have been endorsed by lights such as Gary Habermas, Michael Licona and Craig Blomberg.  Do you suppose they would have aligned themselves with you publicly had they know the true extent to which you depend on the kind of Christian scholarship that denies the divine authenticity of the bible?  What are the odds that Blomberg would ever write a Forward to a book by Bishop Spong?

The Context Group has THRICE disowned James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel)

 Update July 14, 2017:  In 2008, I posted to another discussion forum several quotes from Holding, showing how highly he lauded the Context Group and Richard Rohrbaugh in particular. This was to prepare the reader for the quotes from Rohbaugh showing that he thinks Holding gives Christianity a bad name and needs serious psychological help.

Finally, after nearly 10 years of my relentless advertising of this attack on Holding's integrity, my efforts are starting to pay off:

Holding, after allowing his most comprehensive article defending the "fuck you" style of apologetics he promotes (where he quotes Rohrbaugh in support), to go unchanged for nearly 10 years, he has finally been forced to add a few explanatory paragraphs to the beginning of the article, and in doing so, betrays that he recently got clobbered with strong evidence that I was correct all these years; the Context Group really does view him as a genuine piece of shit scumbag.  See last section of this article entitled "The Third Disowning" for the update.
=========================

 Update: July 19, 2017:  Holding, apparently having discovered my commentary on his first update, updated his comments once again.  I respond to his latest at the end of this post, under the heading "He Tried".
=========================


 James Patrick Holding, since 1998, has built a nasty reputation around himself as a Christian apologist, by ceaselessly demeaning and insulting anybody and everybody, including Christians, should they dare disagree with his opinions about bible.  Atheist John Loftus documented in 2009 that Holding indiscriminately insults other Christians just as often as he does atheists.

What makes him somewhat unique is his claim that the bible provides license to a modern-day Christian to use extreme condescending insulting "riposte" to publicly shame anybody who publicly criticizes Christianity. 

See his magnum opus to that effect.

While it's still in the research stages, I plan to post an article hitting Holding from an angle he never expected:  there are psychological reasons why a person obsesses about something, hence there are psychological reasons Holding obsessively insults his critics.  the bible authorizes Christians of today to do many things, but Holding doesn't obsess over them:  The bible instructs the disciples to evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20), but Holding has made it clear, several times, that he doesn't do apologetics to convince people to convert, but to make current believers feel secure that their faith can be intellectually justified. Therefore, "because the bible says I can" does not explain Holding's compulsive need to spit and hiss at anything and everything that opposes him.  I insist that because psychology convincingly explains why kids and adults in general engage in name-calling, Holding is a human being too, and thus, the psychological reasons that explain why other people do this, suffice in Holding's case too.  We cannot deny that he gets a thrill out of talking shit, so it makes sense to ask why he is that way.  I think we'll find that, despite using Christianity as a cover, the reason Holding is attracted to verbal abuse is purely naturalistic: we find that some non-Christians have equal desire to verbally abuse others, so Holding cannot escape the facts that "the bible tells me so" is mere pretext, and that his motive to besmirch others runs no deeper than his genetic predispositions and environmental conditioning.

The whole idea that he only does this because he thinks it is godly, is total bullshit, human beings always fill a real or perceived void in their heart/mind when they obsess about anything, sex, gambling, fighting, etc.  When we obsess, we experience a feeling of fulfillment...so without clear and convincing evidence otherwise, Holding's human nature argues that he experiences a feeling of fulfillment in verbally battering other people, and because this is so, his attempt to cite the bible as his motive, is a lie. He would be talking shit to his critics even if he wasn't a Christian.

 Indeed, we have to ask WHY ancient agrarian societies approved of honor/shame spitting matches, in light of the obvious fact that insulting the other man does not do anything to show that your position on a matter is close to the truth than his.  And the answer appears to be rank immaturity and the need to adopt an "us v. them" mentality of group survival in that collectivist society.  The more outsiders were kept at bay, and the more emotional ties the individuals had with members of their group, the more likely they would survive:


Notice, Holding starts out by appeal to the work of a Context Group scholar, Richard Rohrbaugh:
Let's begin with Scripture, and some observational notes from the sociological well of Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics.
The first disowning

In 2008, I had a debate with Holding at Tweb, in which he engaged is his usual unnecessary amounts of spite and invective.  I emailed Dr. Rohrbaugh in 2008, sent him a sample of Holding's highly insulting unnecessarily vituperative language toward me, and asked him in several different ways whether a modern-day Christian could justify using that kind of language from the bible.  Rohrbaugh replied that such words indicate Holding gives Christianity a bad name, he needs serious psychological help, he has no manners, and neither Rohrbaugh nor any other scholar he could think of, would wish to be associated with Holding.

I posted Rohrbaugh's answer to Tweb in my defense.  As predicted, Tweb, like any jailhouse lawyer or politician, invoked the trifling technicality that I didn't first get Rohrbaugh's permission, and thereby deleted the post (as if violation of their rule was more frightful to them than the obvious truth that their faith-hero Holding was proven to be a dishonest scumbag). But, asshole that I am, I knew that would happen, so I posted the same to the old FRDB boards, and it is thankfully still preserved in full.  Check it out.

 The second disowning

 I emailed Dr. Rohrbaugh in December 2015, provided him a link to Holding's "The Christian and Harsh Language" article (which has gone offline mysteriously one day after I threatened Holding with a third libel lawsuit:  www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php,"Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '<' in /home/tekton5/public_html/lp/madmad.php on line 6"  (extracted July 17, 2017)), and asked if he thought it made correct use of Rohrbaugh's scholarship.  Rohrbaugh and I replied to each other several times. He then replied in candid fashion that said article is an "obvious perversion" of ALL Context Group work, an obvious perversion of the New Testament, and an obvious perversion of Rohrbaugh's own scholarship in particular.

Here is the full text of my email to him, and his response is at the end.  I have highlighted the places where Rohrbaugh says things that totally contradict Holding's belief that insulting critics is proper for today's Christians. Rohrbaugh's ending comment could not have smashed Holding's hopes with any greater feverishness without employing cuss words:

  On 12/6/2015 4:27 PM, Barry Jones wrote:
Mr. Rohrbaugh,
I hope you are not too busy to answer email!
 I saw your video on bible canon and was intrigued by your view that Nahum should be excluded from the canon due, in part, to its insulting presentation.
 If an insulting demeanor is something the bible author approves of, doesn't that mean it is a good thing?
 How can we determine which insulting comments in the bible are really from God, and which aren't?
 For example, what reason do you assign for the biblical world being one of challenge and riposte?  Is that because God is really like that?  If not, what can we do to sift the "Jewishness" out of the bible so that we are left with how God really is, unadorned by cultural garb?
 I've battled KJV Onlyists who insult everybody like crazy, and insist that this honor/shame dialectic is also appropriate for use in modern-day America.  I don't think that makes sense, but what is your view?
 My personal opinion is that when Christians today constantly insult those who are outside the faith, they aren't doing it because it is "biblical", they are doing it solely because they have a sinful lust to argue, nothing more, but perhaps I'm not caught up on the study of biblical morality?
 Thanks,
 Barry Jones. 
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 6:39 PM

Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?

      Barry,

 A lot of questions...  Some quick answers:

     If a biblical author approves of insulting language and attitude does that mean it is a good thing?  No.  It means that author was mean and insulting.  Period.  Are such comments "from God"?  No.  The Bible is a human product.  It is not God's words, it is the words of its many authors.  They were like us: some were wise and thoughtful, some were vindictive, blind and short sighted.  The ancient Hebrews left us all sorts of stuff which THEY found meaningful.  Some of it has proven so to people everywhere for over 2000 years.  Other stuff they left us is less than worthwhile.  There are lots of bad characters in biblical stories.  Why should we imitate them? 

     Does God share the honor-shame outlook?  No.  But God does not share our outlook either.  The honor-shame outlook is NOT Jewish.  It was universal in the ancient world and still exists in much of the third world yet today.  We can find it in ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Israel etc.  It happens to be the cultural world in which the biblical writers lived and wrote, so why should we  be surprised that they wrote with the language and outlook of the time in which they lived?  Is it appropriate for us?  No.  We are not an honor shame society now (early America was) and never will be again.  No industrialized society on earth has ever been.  Only agrarian societies are honor-shame.

     How do we get the "Jewishness" out of the Bible.  You can't because it is THEIR story.  Moreover trying to do so sounds very like anti-semitism.  How do we have a God unadorned by cultural garb?  We can't.  We are finite humans.  We all have all the limitations of our own time and place.  We see somethings well and others poorly.  That is simply the human condition.  There is NO POSSIBILITY of culturally unadorned thought on religion or ANY OTHER subject on the planet.  So we Americanize Christianity.  Germans germanize it.  Africans africanize it.  There is no such thing as culture-free Christianity and never will be.       Naming ANY finite human version of Christianity to be culture-free is idolatry pure and simple.  It would make some version of us and our way of thinking the infinite, but human beings do not have the capacity to be divine.  Paul got it right: "we see in a mirror dimly."

 Richard

   

 On 12/7/2015 6:28 PM, Barry Jones wrote:
     Mr. Rohrbaugh,

    Thanks for your response.  I believe that your work on the social world of the bible is sorely needed in light of the "read the bible like a newspaper" stuff we get from most American commentaries and churches.  I was surprised very much to hear how Funk from the Jesus Seminar screamed at you because of your insisting that they consider the social context of the gospels before deciding which sayings go back to Jesus himself.  That just made me dizzy that such a qualified person could so staunchly resist the very relevant context issues.

    I have some other questions, no rush:

         24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,   25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,   26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.   (2Ti 2:24-1 NAU)

    Does the the "gentle" in 2nd Timothy 2:24 include any type of insult or "shaming"?  Or does 'gentle' there mean what we modern Gentiles think it means (in context...teaching in a patient way that does not involve insults or shaming even when instructing those who publicly criticize the faith)?

     You might be interested to know that your Social Science Commentary is being used by an evangelical apologist, who makes money selling books and promoting himself as an apologist, to establish that there is biblical justification for modern-day Christians to publicly shame/attack/insult those who publicly criticize Christian faith.

     For example, in the article where he acknowledges using your work as a guide, he gives the following advice to Christians who are interacting with different types of people:

        Private/questioner -- teach them.            
        Private/baiter -- avoid them.            
        Public/questioner -- teach them.            
        Public/baiter -- attack them.            
        This is in line with the much broader dichotomy between public and private discourse and encounter in the social world of the Bible.            
        Source: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

    Is there anything at all in any of your published writings, or the published writings of the other Context Group authors, that would support the above-quoted Public/baiter -- attack them conclusion?  Of course he doesn't mean physically attack, he only means "shame/insult/rebuke", etc.

     You might be even more interested in how says that people who refuse to use riposte in modern American culture are sick and aiding and abetting that sickness:

          ""But we should be all things to all men and modify our approach for today's culture."            
             Then it's time to give up blood atonement too. No, modern culture has forbidden riposte as a way to prevent deserved criticism and to silence the critic. To that extent, the culture itself is sick and those who reject valid riposte are themselves aiding and abetting the sickness." (Ibid)

     Is he misrepresenting your work there?

     You might be wondering what kind of person this "apologist" is.  Here is a sample from his early work showing him responding to various people who disagree with his views, and to the best of my knowledge, he refuses to acknowledge that this was unChristlike:

                    "And you? You’re nothing but a sanctimonious ant with delusions of your own grandeur; you’re nothing but a modern day Hugh waving your swollen member around and knocking people over with it or else disgusting everyone by pointing to it and shouting to everyone to look at it."  ----http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84

                     ---------------wayback has archived this if you care to check to see whether this man was arguing in a context that morally or biblically justified such language.  https://web.archive.org/web/20050501231546/http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84    


                    "In your arrogance you missed it; you were so busy waving your giant pee-pee around that you bonked yourself on the head with it and didn’t even notice." -----""http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89

                     ---------------wayback has archived this if you care to check to see whether this man was arguing in a context that morally or biblically justified such language.  https://web.archive.org/web/20050501231540/http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89

     Swollen member?  Giant pee-pee?  Shouting at everybody to look at one's uncovered genitalia?

    The trouble with this guy is not that he is just "wrong", but that he manages to convince other apparently weak-minded people that he is a giant in the field of bible scholarship despite lacking any formal education in bible related matters.  He has a tax-exempt ministry and sells books about the world of the bible and "how to reconcile alleged bible contradictions".  I therefore do not think that simply ignoring him fulfills the Christian duty to positively identify false teachers and advertise a refutation of their teachings that mar the image of Christ.

    Having your work abused by others is probably something that deserves your attention and commentary, even if only to make sure that he doesn't mislead others regarding Context Group work.

    Thanks again for your time, and I hope to find more of your lectures on the internet!
      Barry Jones

From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
 I glanced at the stuff on the website.  It is obviously a perversion of both the NT and ALL Context scholarship, including mine.  But... respond?  Not worth my time.
 RLR
Since Holding since 1998 has been using Context Group scholarship to support his belief that the bible gives license to modern-day Christians to belittle their critics, and since it is abundantly clear from the mouth of the Context Group scholar and co-founder that this proposition is an obvious perversion of Context Group work, I have full reasonable and rational warrant to conclude that the world's smartest internet apologist engaged in nothing less than missing the forest for the trees for the better part of 20 years, hence justifying one's refusal to believe that Holding is the smartest internet apologist.

 The Third Disowning

 UPDATE July 14, 2017----------
Holding's magnum opus for defending his sneering "fuck you" style of apologetics, was archived several times by the wayback machine:

The first comes from a crawl done March 25, 2015

The several archived versions appear to be the same up to and including the crawl done February 2, 2017.
 
I had a sneaking suspicion that, with my relentless advertising of just how dishonest Holding is and how blind he is to obvious truth when it comes to his favorite vice of foul-mouthed "love", he would eventually be forced to modify his magnum opus, wherein he argues that Jesus wants Christians to talk shit to everybody who disagrees with them.

That day has come.  I kept up with Holding's activity through Google Cache, and lo and behold, I found the following added to his article according to a Google cache capture from July 11, 2017,

Holding has pre-pended the following paragraphs to that article, and I respond to each point below:
Printed from http://tektonics.org/madmad.php

The Christian and Harsh Language



There’s a particularly moronic notion that some people might come up with in response to what is below. They might ask if the Context Group (whose work I cite below) agrees with what I’m saying here, and think that actually is a meaningful question. It’s not.



The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them. What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today. To which I would say in reply, if they do disagree: That’s their problem, not mine.



Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a position I don’t agree with. I agree with their findings. I don’t agree with all of their applications of those findings. There’s a huge difference, and simple minds may not grasp that difference.



However, if any of the Context Group wishes to argue that such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their own business and look past the rarified confines of academia. Scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting atheist idiots like DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector. They’ve never engaged in forum debate with lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting Thomas Paine as an authority on the formation of the canon, or who have some sort of personality disorder and keep posting mile-long blog entries no one ever reads, or who have never done anything with their lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit around collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.



If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place for hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more. They are far from being my favorite Bible scholars; nor do I quote them the most on this website. I respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of the Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply that research.



With all that said, what place does satire and the like have - what place can it have-within the defense of a religion based on a God who is love?
I respond as follows:
There’s a particularly moronic notion that some people might come up with in response to what is below. They might ask if the Context Group (whose work I cite below) agrees with what I’m saying here, and think that actually is a meaningful question. It’s not.
Yeah, noting that the scholar doesn't interpret his own research the way YOU do, is a moronic observation.  We should never ask whether the author's use of a scholar's work applies it in a way opposite to the scholar's own application.  If I used Holding's apologetics arguments to prove atheism, the fact that I apply his research differntly than Holding himself applies it, is irrelevant.

By the way, Holding, since you are now telling the Context Group to mind their own business, given that you apparently recently discovered they think you are a real piece of shit...what prevents you from calling them "morons" and "dumbasses" the way you characterize everybody else who disagree with your basic beliefs?   You cannot cite to their expertise in the field, you talked shit to the properly qualified Hector Avalos and others for years (Carrier, Ferguson, Geisler, W.C. Craig, G.A. Wells, etc).  Your opponent having the proper credentials has never slowed you down in the past from hurling abusive epithets at them, why should it slow you down from asserting that Rohrbaugh too is a moronic dumbass for not applying his research results the way you do?
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them.
And you have failed, magnificently, to establish that God intended for modern day Christians to follow this ancient custom today, which is a severe problem on your part, since which parts of the bible modern Christians are obliged to follow, is a huge never-ending rat's nest of conflicting opinion within the church.  Reconstructionists say the U.S. Constitution should be replaced with the Decalogue.
What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today. To which I would say in reply, if they do disagree: That’s their problem, not mine.
So if Holding disagrees with me, that's his problem, not mine?  Will you allow others to dismiss criticism using use the exact type of rationalization that you use? Can we avoid your apologetics arguments by saying "if Holding disagrees with me, that's his problem, not mine"?

A more scholarly approach would say that if the Context Group draws conclusion from their research that are opposite to the conclusions YOU draw from their research, you need to either have a discussion with them, or present your reasons for saying their conclusions are faulty. We're waiting.  Assuring us that it is "their problem" with no attempt to explain where they go wrong in applying their own research,  just supports more and more the conclusion of apologist James R. White that you are strongly deluded about your own academic abilities.
Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a position I don’t agree with. 
 You call everybody else a moron when they publicly attack traditional Christian beliefs.  Rohrbaugh's view that Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon, was publicly made in the original speech and further publicized on youtube in a video that has since been removed.  Mr. Holding, why do you refrain from calling Dr. Rohrbaugh a "moron" or "dumbass" for this public attack on biblical "truth"?

Perhaps you refuse to extend your insulting epithets to them because that would make YOU look equally stupid for having depended so heavily upon their scholarship for the last 20 years?
I agree with their findings. I don’t agree with all of their applications of those findings.
So are they morons for incorrect application of their findings?   If a skeptic takes your research and applies it in a way that you yourself didn't apply it, is that skeptic a dumbass, yes or no?
There’s a huge difference, and simple minds may not grasp that difference.
Simple minds can buy that possibly Jesus' and Paul's rebuking spirit should be employed by Christians today.  Simple minds cannot buy that Christians today are properly imitating that rebuking spirit by talking like a porn-obsessed foul-mouthed homosexual juvenile delinquent, as you do, repeatedly.

Yes, Holding, you have the option of saying you no longer address your critics that way, but that would do you no good, since the questions would present themselves:  Ok...then why have you softened your approach?  Was it because you recently realized your foul-mouthed vituperation in the past had nothing to do with Christian love?  Did you soften your approach because the Holy Spirit, for mysterious reasons, only wants Christians younger than 45 to talk that way?  What exactly?  If your prior abusive speech wasn't sinful, then why have you departed from what is otherwise in your mind a way of addressing critics that is approved of by God?  Simple minds conclude that you don't talk like a demented teenager anymore because of nothing more than simple aging of the brain.  Most human beings simply lose their need to aggressively dominate as they age more and more.  Have fun trying to convince your worshipers that God doesn't change and yet wanted you to depart from what you thought was a perfectly godly way of rebuking your critics.  Sure is funny that God's mood becomes less and less aggressive as you age more and more.

Apparently you think the Context Group have simple minds, because your later comment that the Context Group should "mind their own business", being such an extreme 180 from your prior position of worshiping the ground they walk on, strongly suggests you've recently found out that they too fail to grasp this difference.
However, if any of the Context Group wishes to argue that such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their own business and look past the rarified (sic) confines of academia.
Then apparently God only speaks through you, since most Christians and Christian scholars do not think debating skeptics licenses them to talk in extremely filthy pornographic terms the way you do, as I document here at this blog.

In 2008 when I posted Rohrbaugh's scathing criticism of you to theologyweb.com, you replied, in a post that your buddy John Sparks conveniently made disappear, that I was just a moron who was capable of manipulating scholars into agreeing with me.   

Theologyweb.com, 04-16-2015, 02:32 PM #925
jpholding
Quote Originally Posted by Bud Head
There are several problems with your attempt to wiggle out of this nightmare:
No, sorry, you missed the obvious one, because your ego got in the way:
Skepticbud aka YOU is a patent moron, which Rohrbaugh obviously detected immediately,
so he gave no genuine consideration to your request, as he has no time to deal with Internet wackos
who are interrupting his serious, scholarly work asking him to read their long and extended forum
postings detailing their personal problems.
By the way, Holding, can you quote anything you ever told any of your readers in the last 5
years, about Rohrbough's opinion of you?
(YAWN) Why? Should it make a difference? The old TWeb did have a huge thread about how
Rohrbaugh's views were distorted by another numbskull just like you who asked the same questions. I
imagine it's cached somewhere, if anyone cares what you think (they don't).
Is this the part where you suddenly discover that seeking an opinion from properly
qualified experts in the field likely won't prove much of anything at all?
No, it's the part where I point to a perfect example of how even morons can manipulate experts

to make them say what they want to hear.
So apparently, you've finally found confirmation, in a hard way, that I wasn't misrepresenting Rohrbaugh, nor did I manipulate him into saying what I wanted to hear, but that he seriously does think, for reasons independent of me, that you are a dishonest scumbag, no other theory can explain why you go from pretending the Context Group is the last word on the bible, to telling them to mind their own business. But we already knew that asking you to admit your mistake is perfectly pointless, given your belief in your own inerrancy.
 Scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting atheist idiots like DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector. 
Perhaps because, in disagreement with you, they think there are some NT passages that forbid today's Christians from communicating with such people.  Again, Holding, if the Context Group scholars misinterpret the NT, why do you refrain from calling them morons and dumbasses, the way you characterize other equally properly credentialed scholars who disagree with you, such as Avalos, Carrier, Matt Ferguson and others? 
They’ve never engaged in forum debate with lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting Thomas Paine as an authority on the formation of the canon, or who have some sort of personality disorder and keep posting mile-long blog entries no one ever reads, or who have never done anything with their lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit around collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.
Probably because the Context Group scholars disagree with your view that the NT authorizes Christians to ceaselessly wrangle words with those who are intent on opposing Christianity.  Perhaps they adopt the common sense interpretation of 2nd Timothy 2:14.

NOW will you call Rohrbaugh a moron for missing the obvious?  Or are you finding it exceptionally difficult to decide how inconsistent you'll let yourself be?
If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place for hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more. 
Why?  Stupid moron atheist bible skeptics don't represent the least threat to Christians, do they?  Or are you the type of person who calls the fire department every time somebody lights a cigarette?
They are far from being my favorite Bible scholars; nor do I quote them the most on this website.
 Irrelevant, I've been telling the world for years that Rohrbaugh thinks you give Christianity a bad name and that you obviously pervert his scholarship as well as the NT, and the overly defensive tone you now take indicates you recently confirmed to your chagrin that I'm telling the truth about this.

So are you going to apologize for mischaracterizing me all these years as "manipulating" Rohrbaugh to make those negative comments about you?  Or is it presumptuous of me to expect that Pope Holding Innocent III could possibly make a mistake?  The only reason God put Christianity on earth was to give James Patrick Holding a way to vent his purely naturalistic aggressive need to beat those who disagree with him.
 I respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of the Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply that research.
That's not the issue.  The issue is not whether you have a right to use their research, of course you do.

The issue is whether Rohrbaugh was correct in saying that your insulting demeanor makes you give Christianity a bad name, and whether he was correct to say your most comprehensive defense of foul-mouthed riposte constituted an "obvious perversion" of his work, Context Group work, and the New Testament itself.

We're waiting for you to do something you've never done before:  explain how motivating others to stay in the group via teaching them to insult and verbally abuse outsiders, is the more objective way to evaluate the truth-claims the group holds to.

A KJV Onlyist could also insult you in his church, causing his followers to slap their thighs, laugh and yell "amen" as they sit entertained, watching him shame and belittle you for disagreeing with KJV Onlyism...but that does exactly nothing to demonstrate that your criticisms are moronic, agreed?

If you can see the dangers of the honor/shame dialectic when those you disagree with use it, then there's a fair chance that those dangers are also lurking when YOU use it.  But your followers have to be open to the prospect that following you is immoral, before they'd care.  And given that their following you indicates they aren't true Christians, I have to conclude they are guided more by what feels good than by what's actually true.  They follow you for no further reason than some follow televangelists from the 1990's:  You are a funny clown who makes them feel good about what they already believe.


He Tried
Here are the updates in his update, and I respond to them point by point.  The places he added new language are underlined.

Holding's first update said:
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them. What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today.
To which I would say in reply, if they do disagree: That’s their problem, not mine.
Now it says:
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them. What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today.
I don't disagree with their interpretations. I disagree with their applications. I don't draw conclusions about those applications from their research. I do that on my own.
Thank you for confirming that you draw your applications of their research "on your own", because for 20 years previous, you lauded the Context Group as top-rate bible scholars.  Here's my documentation on you from 2008 which I posted to theologyweb at the time, which only survives now thanks to my having also posted them to another discussion board in 2008, knowing your buddies at theologyweb would delete the thread in their effort to keep Pope Holding Innocent III looking clean and shiny:
 First, notice how Mr. Holding lauds the "Context Group":


Quote:
"There exists a group today which seeks to restore "plain and precious things" to our understanding of the Christian Gospel and the Bible, and I stand behind their efforts 100%. No, I do not mean Mormonism. I am referring to a coterie of scholars known as the Context Group. This small but ardent group of scholars has an admirable goal: to reframe our understanding of how to read the Bible and to understand what it meant according to those who first wrote it. Using decades of research into ethnography and social psychology as a background, the Context Group has been slowly unraveling the ethnocentric and anachronistic work of western Biblical scholars whose imperious attitude has caused them to read the Bible through a modern lens and do violence to its meaning. We have featured some of their works here, including Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul and Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values. We have so far used the materials of the Context Group in various settings to refute the contentions of ethnocentric Skeptics."
(from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jsnorestore.html)
Holding lauds specific Context Group member Rohrbaugh:


Quote:
"Skeptic X of course knows as much about ancient Mediterranean social psychology and anthropology as he does about quark physics, so naturally when confronted with Malina and Rohrbaugh -- both respected authors who have written multiple volumes and great numbers of articles on this subject, and are members of what is called the Context Group, a collection of scholars specializing in this narrow field of interest -- he is reduced to barking like a chihuahua: "Oh, my God, did Malina and Rohrbaugh say this? Then it must be right." Darned straight it is, and Skeptic X hasn't got the wherewithal to say anything in opposition..."
from http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markmen_CC1-2.html
Another comment, this time from an article he wrote as damage control after a skeptic emailed Rohrbaugh about Holding's "collectivist" excuses for everything:


Quote:
"Malina and Rohrbaugh's coterie -- the Context Group -- have been filling in the missing links in Western Biblical scholarship with 20 and more years of research supported by over half a century of ethnographical and social studies. Their works have appeared in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals and books, while Stevie just bought his first coloring book..." (
from http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-5.html
Holding assures me that Rohrbaugh, among other scholars, has done decades of serious study into the bible:


Quote:
" I’ll be sure and tell Malina, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey and the rest of the Context Group how your genius has overturned their decades of serious study into the social sciences."
from http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...gh#post2455321
Gee, Holding, you never told the Context Group to mind their own business before 2017...why?

Was it because, in shamelessly unscholarly fashion, you cared more about using their work to support what you believe, than you cared in guarding against perverting their work, as Rohrbaugh now says you did?

If you think the Context Group is so infinitely smart about the ancient Semitic Mind, don't you think a scholarly approach to their conclusions would evince just a bit more pause and caution before publicizing how much you disapprove of their application of their own research?

Yes, a scholar can create research that she herself does not apply correctly, but that's usually the exception, not the norm, especially for Context Group schoalrs whom you think are so smart, they are creating a paradigm shift in American bible scholarship.  If we had to believe that scholars are just as easily capable of misapplying their own research, we'd have to conclude that Pope Holding Innocent III is also capable of misapplying his own research.  And since none of the Tweb goons who regularly donate cash to your cause think that is logically possible, fairness demands that you agree with the prior assessment, that the notion that a scholar has misapplied their own research, and done so for more than the more than 30 years that Malina and Rohrbaugh have been publishing, is the exception.  The notion that a scholar, especially somebody as infinitely smart as you laud the Context Group to be, correctly applies their own research (i.e., draws correct conclusions from it) is the norm.

So while it is not impossible that the Context Group misapplied their own research, you've demonstrated your lack of scholarly accumen and objectivity by informing the world that, when you finally couldn't deny it any longer, your first reaction to the Context Group's anti-fundamentalist view of scripture was that they need to "mind their own business".  A more scholarly person would have done what any scholar does, contact the other scholar, seeking to discuss their differences with each other, or seeking to attack each other in some peer-reviewed publication like JETS.  I think this is the part when you tell me that true scholars are always too busy to answer each other's objections.

Or maybe you didn't intend your article to be "scholarly", but only "popular"?

We therefore have good cause for suspicion when you suddenly begin telling the world how you clash with them on how to apply their own research.
So what if they don't like my applications?
Ok...do you approve when skeptics dismissively turn away from your arguments by saying "so what if Holding doesn't like my applications?"  If skeptics have a scholarly responsibility to actually answer the criticisms you make, then fairness demands that YOU have the same responsibility too.

Gee Holding, when can we expect an article from you which cites the reasons why Rohrbaugh errs greatly when he says biblical insults didn't come from God and aren't appropriate for Christians today?

Will it be published around the same time that you answer my libel-lawsuit against you on the merits?  If the reader wants to see the horrible factual allegations I was willing to state against Holding in my lawsuit against him, they can contact me, and I will forward them the First Amended Complaint I filed in the Florida Middle District federal court last year.  While Holding escaped by technicality from having to answer those on the merits, NT ethical principles would demand that these things arguably legitimately question whether he is "saved" at all:
 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 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. (1 Cor. 5:9-11 NAU)
  9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Greek: loidoros), nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)
The Greek word for "reviler" is loidoros, and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says it refers to those who verbally abuse others:
449 
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]
B. W. Powers, Ph.d is Dean of New Testament and Ethics, Tyndale College, The Australasian Open Theological College (20 years).  This is from his 2009 Commentary on 1st Corinthians


              


Holding's updated update continues:
I would say in reply: That’s their problem, not mine. Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a position I don’t agree with, and it's not a matter of intellectual deficiency for Rohrbaugh to hold that view since the key facts (such as that Nahum has harsh language) are not in dispute.
 So if some skeptic agrees with Rohrbaugh that Nahum should be booted from the biblical canon, such skeptics are not "morons" for believing this way? 
Rohrbaugh's view on Nahum is a moral decision he makes based on his own preferences. I do think those preferences are absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch.
You also think that all skeptics whose bible interpretations you consider absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch, are themselves morons, a dumbasses, and deserving of having homosexual slurs and other sexually inapprorpiate vitriol hurled at them.

When can we expect an article from you which shows your consistency of thought, and publicly accuses some Context Group scholars of being morons and dumbasses, because like skeptics, some of their bible applications/interpretations are "absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch"?

What's the matter?  You can't stand to think of how embarrassed your followers would be if you admitted that for the last 20 years, you've been leaning upon the work of dumbass morons whose opinions about biblical matters are "absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch"?

Holding first said "simple minds":
 Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a position I don’t agree with. I agree with their findings. I don’t agree with all of their applications of those findings.
There’s a huge difference, and simple minds may not grasp that difference.
His updated update now adds "very" to it:
But the bottom line is: I agree with their findings, and I don't think they misinterpret the New Testament. However, I also don’t agree with all of their applications of those findings.
There’s a huge difference, and very simple minds may not grasp that difference.
 Then apparently, you must think Rohrbaugh has a very simple mind, because in his 2015 email to me, he did not say he disagrees with the way your "Christian and harsh language" article "applies" his research.

He said your article "obviously perverts" the following:  ALL Context Group work in general, his own scholarship in particular, and perverts the New Testament as well:
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
 I glanced at the stuff on the website.  It is obviously a perversion of both the NT and ALL Context scholarship, including mine.  But... respond?  Not worth my time.
 RLR
See earlier in this post for the comments I emailed to Rohrbaugh, which motivated him to say this.

Holding's update to the update continues:
However, if any of the Context Group ever wished to argue that such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their own business and look past the rarified confines of academia. Scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting atheist idiots like DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector. They’ve never engaged in forum debate with lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting Thomas Paine as an authority on the formation of the canon, or who have some sort of personality disorder and keep posting mile-long blog entries no one ever reads, or who have never done anything with their lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit around collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.
Then you must not have a life, since, you're obviously describing me as the one with the mile-long posts that nobody ever reads.  Why do you think of yourself as a nobody?  Cheer up.
 They also, not shockingly, never appeal to the Bible as authoritative justification for their views about modern behavior (because as the Nahum example shows, the Bible isn't their chief defining authority). They don't think Nahum is a good example for us. So of course the Bible isn't their final word as a moral guide.
And the fact that the bible isn't their chief defining authority, puts them in the same class as all those skeptics you deem "morons" and "dumb-asses", since the proof that the bible is the word of God is so clear, even those lacking formal bible education should be able to see it, amen?
  It's also relevant that they aren't out there like the fundy atheists peddling their views deceptively and in gross ignorance.
And once we remember that you talk this big because you dance solely for your admiring paying customers, we can dismiss it as the choir preaching that it is.  All I ask is that your worshipers wipe the floor dry after they've drooled at your having walked by them in all your baronial splendor. 
If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place for hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more.
So if you are consistent and fair, you'd launch this criticism against ANY Christian bible scholar who doesn't think there's a place for hard language today in those places that YOU use hard language.

And since you cannot find any properly credentialed Christian bible scholars who use filthy juvenile-delinquent language and homosexual ephemisms to crow about their argument victories to the world, what you are basically saying is that ALL Christian bible scholars need to get out more often, and that would necessarily include lights who have publicly endorsed you in the past, such as Licona, Blomberg, Habermas, Daniel Wallace, etc.

And especially Habermas.  As you know, after I forced you to reveal in Court your private emails with your buddies wherin you plotted lega strategies and libeled me some more, several of those emails make clear that Gary Habermas does not approve of your ceaseless shit-talking, which he characterizes politely as "strong-comebacks".

Then you lie to him by saying you don't know if it is your growing older or what, but you just don't prefer to engage in strong come-backs anymore.  You are a liar, you knowingly misrepresented yourself to Habermas when you said that.  Nobody with a solid 20 years history of filthy homosexual shit-talking obsessiveness, like you, ever stops delighting in ceaseless name-calling.  Apparently, you found out early in childhood that calling names was the only way you could satisfy your pathological need to draw attention to yourself and how great thou art.
They are far from being my favorite Bible scholars,
You couldn't name any bible scholars that ARE your favorites, for if you did, I'd simply ask whether they have seen the light, like you, and go around talking shit to impress their admiring customers, or whether they are like moronic dumbass skeptics who think Christians of today have no biblical justification for talking shit to their critics.  You will answer that said alleged favorite scholar disagrees with you about modern-day riposte, and there we are, again, asking how this could be one of your favorite scholars, when she takes a position that you label as moronic, dumb-ass, and against the clear evidence. 
nor have I ever worshiped the ground they walk on;
But Christianity tells us that everybody worships something, which, if true, can only mean that worship is not limited to singing praises...if atheists must worship something, you need to water down "worship" to the sense of whatever it is that you prefer to focus on the most in life; money, sex, power, fame, religion, witchcraft, selling cars, whatever.  If that watered down version of "worship" is the correct sense, then are worshiping the ground the Context Group scholars walk on, when you laud their work, as I documented earlier in this post, and you cannot escape that epithet merely because you don't formally sing songs of praises to them in turch.  And since you apparently didn't know, turchisrong.
nor do I quote them the most on this website. I respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of the Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply that research.
Yeah right, and I can use your research even if you disapprove of my views and the way I use that research.  Did you know that the research at tektonics.org supports atheism?  Your follows may think this is clearly stupid, and that's my point exactly:  when you apply a scholars research result to obtain the opposite conclusion they themselves reach, its more likely that YOU are the one getting things wrong, unless you can come up with clear and convincing evidence that they surely did misinterpret or misapply their research.

So, again, when can we expect you to publish an article giving the reasons why the Context Group is incorrect for saying your "Christian and Harsh Language" article is an "obvious perverson" of their work and of the New Testament?
For the record, no Context Group member has ever written to me about any of this.
If those scholars disagree so forcefully with your application of their research, sounds like the more scholarly thing to do would be to approach them in the attempt to either discuss or debate your disagreements, or perhaps do so in a formal Christian journal like CRI Journal, or JETS.
And if they ever did, I'd invite them to spend a few hours on YouTube and get some eye-openers.
You don't have the first clue what websites the Context Group scholars peruse.  It could very well be, and likely is, that they are perfectly well aware of how aggressively many atheists attack the Christian faith, and yet knowing this, they STILL do not think Christian's insulting atheists with sexually offensive slurs is action that can be reconciled with any sane view of NT ethics.

So the more scholarly thing to do would be for you to first make inquiry as to which Context Group scholars are aware or unaware of how aggressively some atheists at Youtube attack and insult Christanity, so that you may then speak from accurate knowledge when you assure the world that the COntext Group doesn't already know this stuff.
But I don't expect they'd waste their time anyway.
Given that Rohrbaugh said your application of his research was such an obvious perversion that responding to you wouldn't be worth his time, your expectation is probably justified.

Giving you another reason to call them dumbass morons, since at that point we'd also see that they also don't feel the least bit of spiritual compulsion to hiss and spit at today's bible skeptics.  If a person is truly born-again, exactly how long can they be blind to clear NT teaching?

If your own history is any example, I'd say they could miss the forest for about 20 years and still not recognize the clear teaching of the NT.  See earlier in this post, my comments about apostle Paul forbidding Christians to associate with specifically CHURCH MEMBERS who engaged in "reviling".

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...