Jack Wellman is dishonest

Jack Wellman is a pastor who apparently did graduate work at Moody Bible Institute and has a website dedicated to "equipping" Christians for spiritual warfare. See here.

Yesterday, I received an email notification that Wellman had posted to Patheos an article explaining what Jesus meant when conditioning entrance to the kingdom of heaven upon having greater righteousness than the Pharisees had.  Matthew 5:20.  See here.

Yesterday, I posted a reply to that article, pointing out that Wellman ignored the immediate context, and that more respect for immediate context would have led to the conclusion that Jesus was teaching a legalistic form of salvation.  The reply was scholarly and did not break any rules.

I accused Wellman of acting like a Jehovah Witness in how quickly he ignored the immediate context and tried to mix Isaiah and Paul into Matthew 5, all because of his trust in "biblical inerrancy". 

Somebody deleted that reply.

So today I posted another reply, substantially the same.  Again, no breaking of any rules.  And again, somebody deleted it.  And now, the person doing the deleting flagged my reply "spam":





While there's always the possibility that it was somebody other than Jack Wellman who deleted my replies, it is certainly reasonable to suppose it was Wellman himself.  The irony is that one of the replies there, from "Pud", is far more acerbic and insulting than my reply was, yet his posts from 3 years ago are still viewable.

What does it say about a "Christian" who allows insulting replies to his article to remain viewable, but who deletes scholarly rebuttals that directly attack the arguments in the article?

Reply to Jonathan Morrow's defense of Matthew's authorship

This is my reply to an article by Jonathan Morrow entitled

How Do We Know Matthew Was the Author of the Gospel of Matthew?

3 Reasons Why Matthew Was Not A Forgery of the Early Church

We live in a culture that has questions about the Bible. And that’s OK–because questions, if the goal is truth, will lead to a stronger faith.

But it could also be 'bad', as questions, where the goal is truth, can also lead to apostasy, such as becoming an atheist...or at least giving up on bible inerrancy and adopting a less extreme form of biblical inspiration.  And since questions logically impede one's decision for Christ, the failure to repent immediately upon hearing the gospel, was believed by the gospel authors to automatically signal the hearer's assured condemnation: 

 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn. 3:18 NAU)

 Apparently then, those who hold off accepting Jesus, because they have "questions" are defined in the bible as being under the present condemnation of God, thus implying their basis for questioning arises from their rebellious spirit and not an honest desire for knowledge.  As a fundamentealist yourself, you need to rework the part of your article that renders questions "ok" or "permissible".  Or become a liberal and deny the fantatical position espoused in John 3, supra.

I have seen this time and again. (But how we question the Bible is critically important)

But as Christians we also are called to respond to challenges which threaten to undercut our faith (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15).

 Those bible passages legitimately raise the objection as to why we should assume there is any Holy Spirit conviction going on when a Christian makes argument to defend the faith.  Crediting the convicting to the Holy Spirit here is about as gratuitous as the attorney who tells the jury "There's lots of evidence in favor of my client's innocence, but the only way you can appreciate its force is if the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to it."

And in case you haven’t noticed, the Bible is a BIG target so there are lots of challenges!

    Our goal is to say (and defend) what the Bible says—no more and no less.

Then this article is going beyond your stated goal, as you admit that the proposition that Matthew authored the gospel now bearing his name, is not technically made IN the bible.  So perhaps you could have spent God's precious time more efficiently by scrapping the defense of something that isn't even "biblical" and defending something that is biblical, but which skeptics viciously attack, such as Paul's credibility.

The Skeptical Challenge of the Authorship of the Gospels

Skeptics like to raise doubts and new “hidden” or “lost” information about the Gospels. Why? Because that is where all the information about Jesus is. And if you can undermine confidence in biblical authority there, then that weakens the overall authority of Christianity. Why? Because Christianity rises or falls with Jesus.

 On the contrary, like Mormonism and other obviously false cults, Christianity rises or falls based on how successfully the local upstarts can convince the laity that their claims about ancient historical events are true.  Given that most people's eyes turn into question marks when asked to spell "historiography", I'm not surprised that false claims about what happened in history are still capable of deceiving masses of people.  I suppose that if everybody had the level of knowledge about historical methodology as professional historians possess, the number of people who go around pushing the resurrection of Jesus as a true historical event would be similar to the number of professional historians who go around pushing the resurrection of Jesus as a true historical event.

Here’s the basic argument of the Bible skeptic meant to raise doubt:
    “Did you know that we don’t know who wrote the Gospel of Matthew? In fact, this Gospel is anonymous–(i.e., there is no formal claim to authorship within the document itself). The early church for political reasons wanted to exclude certain writings it didn’t like and so used an Apostle’s name (i.e., Matthew) to generate authority so this version of Christianity could win.”

 Then you are very close to misleading your readers, as you are merely refuting a very superficial type of gospel authorship skepticism.  It would be akin to me "refuting Christianity" by showing how stupid it is to allow people to play with live rattlesnakes in church.  That might refute those particular Christians, but would hardly operate to successfully broad-brush Christianity proper as false.  So when you refute the retarded skeptic whom you are quoting, you aren't refuting the serious scholarly skeptics, whose arguments you don't even get near touching in this article.

One of the new challenges in this generation is that arguments like this used to stay locked up in stuffy ivory towers. The effect was that everyday Christians never encountered them. Enter social media and youtube. Now these “sophisticated” arguments are available for the masses. And in our culture with a general distrust of authorities, conspiracy theories are then off and running.

How do we respond?

3 Reasons Why the Apostle Matthew Wrote the Gospel of Mathew

New Testament Scholars like Darrell Bock, D.A. Carson, and Michael Wilkins (among plenty of others) have done a lot of excellent work.

 So have other conservatives like Craig Blomberg, who specifies he is setting forth his case for Matthew's authorship "tentatively":

When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition…Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author…But again we present these conclusions tentatively. Little depends on them.

New American Commentary
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew, p. 43

 Given Blomberg's status as a world-authority on the gospels, and his status as a fundamentalist or conservative who accepts biblical inerrancy, and his prior books about the historical reliability of the gospels, his admitting to presenting his case for Matthean authorship "tentatively" would be alone sufficient to reasonably justify the skeptic to strike this gospel from the list of alleged resurrection "eyewitnesses".  If you were on trial for murder and the prosecutor's only evidence against you was an affidavit whose authorship had generated just as much scholarly disagreement as exists in the case of Matthew (i.e., there's no reliable way to tell which parts are from the eyewitness and which parts were added or changed around by later and anonymous redactors), and if the prosecutor admitted to the jury he was only "tentatively" arguing that the alleged eyewitness was the real author of the affidavit, wouldn't you ask the court to drop charges on the grounds that there is simply no way a reasonable jury could find an affidavit of such questionable "authorship" sufficient to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yeah, you would.

Here is just a short summary of the evidence for why we can be confident that Matthew, wrote the Gospel of Matthew, even though this Gospel is technically anonymous.

(1) First, regarding Matthew, “there is no patristic evidence that anyone else was ever proposed as the author.”

That's called the argument from the uniformity of tradition.  But many scholars insist that the only reason the tradition is uniform is because the later fathers were doing little more than repeating what 2nd century Papias said, which, if true, robs your argument of force, since in that case its not 10 ancient guys testifying to the same thing independently, it's one guy's opinion being cut and pasted by 9 other guys.  Guthrie:

 This evidence points to an unbroken tradition that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and advocates of any hypothesis which disagrees with this must suggest an adequate explanation of so consistent a tradition. The usual explanation is that later Church Fathers were merely reiterating Papias’ original mistake, or at least confusion, over what Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic.

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). New Testament introduction.
Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.). [The master reference collection].
Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

And indeed, if Papias is everything you think he is, you will never disconnect his influence from the later fathers who mention Matthew's authorship.  Would we not expect the later fathers to gain much of their knowledge about such issues from the fathers who preceded them?  

 Morrow continues:

 (2) Second, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Origen all affirm Matthean authorship.

But the fathers who mention the language Matthew wrote in, never say it was Greek, they always say it was Hebrew.  If it is historically true that Matthew authored a second original in Greek before he died, you would expect the later church fathers, who desire to tell the reader the language Matthew wrote in, would have no less desire to mention the Greek than the Hebrew, especially in their own day when the Hebrew was archaic and the Greek version of the gospel was mandatory for preaching.

(3) Third, the literary evidence reveals that Matthew was the most popular Gospel in the earliest period of the church and it was circulated widely.

 Lots of early Christian works enjoyed popularity despite authorship you'd say was non-apostolic authorship.  Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel to the Hebrews, etc.  

2 Objections to Matthew as Author

There are two common objections to his authorship.

Then you need to up your game.  I have more than 300 separate objections to Matthew's authorship.  I'm surprised that you completely avoid dealing with the obvious objection:  Papias' unreliability and the fact that his famous statement can just as easily be translated and understood in a way that significantly distances Matthew from the Greek gospel now bearing his name.

First, it is argued that Matthew, an apostle himself, would not have relied so heavily upon Mark, who was not an apostle, when composing his Gospel.

 And since you cannot find any 1st century examples of a true eyewitness author depending as heavily upon hearsay accounts as Matthew depended on Mark, this skeptical objection's force is not abated by anything you argue below.  Unless you can defeat Markan Priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis, your apostle's extensive quoting hearsay accounts to tell the world what he himself experienced, remains authentically unexpected.  If you saw a car accident along with your grandma, what would you tell the police when they asked you to make a staement?  Would you refer them to somebody else's edited version of your grandma's version?  Obviously not.  The fact that you saw it yourself means you either give your own version, or the cops become reasonable to be suspicious of your claim to be an eyewitness.  It really is that simple.

But since we have very good evidence that Peter stands behind Mark’s Gospel, Matthew would have had no issue utilizing the recorded testimony of Peter.

You are assuming Peter is "the" source behind Mark's gospel, when in fact even conservative Christian scholars think Mark's sources included far more than just the notes he allegedly took during Peter's sermons:

 Furthermore, the traditional units betray little evidence of being simply mental or written notes based on Peter’s preaching from his first–hand witness, a conclusion that impugns part of Papias’s testimony but does not necessarily disparage the veracity or the value of the traditional units.... Consequently, for the most part, one can only speak generally and tentatively when seeking to delineate between tradition and redaction. This conclusion does not dispute Mark’s use of traditional materials or the availability of multiple sources, but it does mean that one cannot precisely reconstruct or always identify the exact content of his source or sources.

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

 Furthermore, you haven't solved the problem:  there's not much difference between the problem of an alleged eyewitness author extensively using hearsay, and an alleged eyewitness author making extensive use of the hearsay version (Mark) of another's (Peter's) alleged eyewitness account.  Once again, if the author of Matthew was an eyewitness apostle, we would no more expect him to hide behind the hearsay version of another eyewitness's version, than we'd expect him to hide behind a purely hearsay version.  Matthew's extreme reliance on Mark remains inconsistent with what we'd reasonably expect of a real "eyewitness", especially if his memory recall was magically put into turbo-mode by "divine inspiration", another assumption about Matthean authorship that fundies insist on, and which they likewise cannot reasonably demonstrate.

The other common objection is that the Greek is too good to have been written by Matthew. However, Matthew was likely trilingual (Aramaic, Greek, and Latin) by growing up as a Jew in the region of Galilee, and as a tax collector he would have been required to know Greek well.

 None of my objections to Matthean authorship argue from the goodness of the Greek.  Dismissed.

Does it Matter if Matthew is the Author?

Yes.  The only resurrection testimonies that come down to us today from the NT in first-hand form would be (generously assuming traditional authorship) Matthew, John and Paul.  So the more reasonable skepticism of Matthew's apostolic authorship is, the more reasonable skeptics are to strike Matthew from this list of witnesses.  Reducing thecase for Jesus' resurrection from 3 witnesses to 2 witnesses is profoundly injurious, given that you need every last bit of evidence you can possibly get your hands on anyway.

I'm gonna change my life and start focusing on invisible issues of sophistry and theology, leading me into possibly psychologically harmful relations with "fundies", because the case for that religion draws from TWO "eyewitnesses" supplemented by a smattering of equally problematic hearsay? 

I don't think so.

Let me make one last point: Our goal is to say (and defend) what the Bible says—no more and no less. In the case of Paul writing a letter that bears his name, we are compelled to defend his authorship as a matter of biblical integrity. However, when it comes to the four Gospels, there is no one specifically to defend (i.e., because it is technically anonymous).

 Which is another argument against apostolic authorship of Matthew.  The example from Paul and most other NT authors is that the author is willing to say IN the document what his name is.  So the Matthew author's unwillingness to do so is not subject to only one reasonable interpretation (i.e., maybe his audience already knew who he was, he didn't need to repeat the obvious.  Well gee, Paul's churches knew who he was, but by divine inspiration still felt compelled to "state the obvious" anyway).  It is just as reasonable to conjecture that the apostolic signature doesn't appear in Matthew because the author wasn't an apostle.  Or Matthew wrote it, but like lukewarm Christians today, might have wished to help the church in some way, but was reticent to just dive headfirst into the role...reasonably suggesting he was something less than "amazingly transformed", thus impeaching to some degree his statements about Jesus rising from the dead.

You also fail to mention that among the late and contradictory accounts of Matthew's death, several give no hint that it was anything more than an uneventful natural death, no implication he was "martyred"...also suggesting he became disenchanted with the whole business, and, while remaining a part of the movement, stopped being the Jesus-freak he once was, also hurting the credibility of his resurrection testimony.

Finally, the Matthew-author quotes no more speech from the risen Jesus than what would take about 20 seconds to recite orally.  If Acts 1:3 is true and this risen Jesus taught Matthew and the other 10 disciples things concerning the kingdom of God over a period of 40 days, that sounds like the risen Christ had far more to say than 20 seconds worth of speech...even if the actual speeches happened less often than 8 hours per day for each of the 40 days.  So the shockingly short quote of the risen Jesus in Matthew either suggests the author's knowledge of the risen Christ's sayings was far less than what we'd expect for "Matthew", or, the risen Christ didn't say much more than what Matthew records, and Acts 1:3 is exaggerating historical reality.

I say that the Matthew-author's obviously intense desire to quote the pre-crucifixion Jesus' sayings at length is reasonably expected to manifest itself also in the case of the post-crucifixion Jesus' sayings.  The author's belabored obsession with the pre-crucifixion Christ contrasts sharply with "his" far shorter account of the post-crucifixion Jesus, reasonably justifying skepticism, either in that the resurrection narrative wasn't authored by the same obsessed person who wrote the bulk of the gospel, or it was the same apostolic author, but he lost much of the zeal for his faith before authoring the resurrection chapter, and that's why he appears to care far more to document the pre-crucifixion than the post-crucifixion Jesus.

The reasonableness of those skeptical theories cannot be overthrown merely because you can always dream up some sort of logically possible theory that favors bible inerrancy or tradition.  You either show your theory to be more reasonable than mine, or you lose in your attempt to "defeat" the skeptical view.  

If you think my skeptical views can be reasonable, I wouldn't really hit you this hard.  But since you appear to be a fundamentalist, which thus implies you think any and all skeptical theories of gospel authorship are devilish attacks upon the wordagawd, you cannot afford to allow for theories opposite to yours to be the least bit reasonable...all that would do is involve you in helping the devil mock the Christian faith!.  

So you either demonstrate my theories to be unreasonable, or you fail to demonstrate that my theories are unreasonable.  You don't demonstrate a skeptical theory to be unreasonable by merely pointing out that your own opposite theory is reasonable.  Reasonableness can often be equally present in two conflicting theories, such as when reasonable educated mature respectable members of the jury hear the exact same evidence and are unable to agree on the verdict.  Only a fool would pretend that this is always because there is some mentally defective or dishonest person in the jury that is being unreasonable.  Evidence is not usually so perfect in quality and quantity as that.

If I cannot demonstrate your theory to be unreasonable merely because my own contrary theory is reasonable, then fairness dictates that YOU aren't showing my theory to be unreasonable merely because your own contrary theory is reasonable.  I'm keenly aware of the epistemological "shortcuts" fundies typically employ in their clever efforts to make it seem the only reasonable theory is the theory favoring biblical inerrancy/reliability. 

As a thought experiment, let’s say it was somehow discovered that Andrew wrote what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew in the 1st century? Would that mean that there is an error in the Bible? Actually, no, because no claim of authorship was technically made in this document (the same logic would hold for the book of Hebrews)

 Then you are admitting there are more important issues that you could have devoted God's precious time to defending, than who authored the gospel now bearing Matthew's name.

So the bottom line? We have good reason to believe that Matthew is the author of this Gospel.

And you've now been given several justifications for saying skepticism of Matthew's authorship is reasonable.

An Open Letter to Craig Blomberg

While I normally would not quote in public forums something somebody told me in confidence over email, at the same time, I have very little respect for conservative Christian bible scholars who in their professional and publicly known judgment do not approve of foul-mouthed Christian "apologists" of today, but who also, hypocritically, refuse to do their Christian duty to rebuke such Christians when opportunity knocks.

Between 2003 and March 2015, I had endured thousands of insults from James Patrick Holding and his friends over at theologyweb.com.  I was routinely told that those bible verses that appear on the surface to condemn slandering others, are either a) only forbidding slander of other Christians, or b) do not apply to the situation of the person publicly criticizing Christianity.  During this time I found a website that was dedicated to preserving Mr. Holding's sordid internet history of highly charged verbal abuses and juvenile sexually inappropriate mockery of others.

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.

 On the same day, I logged into theologyweb.com and sent a PM to several other members, quoting these comments from Blomberg and arguing that they show that Holding's view on riposte is contrary to the view of properly degreed evangelical scholars and is therefore more than likely false.  This PM was preserved for posterity by Tweb member "Bill the Cat" for his genius idea of quoting it in full and nominating it for one of Holding's "screwball awards".  For brevity I've removed the PM my quotes from Blomberg's email to me, as it has already been revealed above:

Today, 08:15 PM #257

Bill the Cat

Proud Papa of 3

Join DateJan 2014

LocationCentral VA

FaithChristian

GenderMale

Posts4,836

Screwball to Bud for this PM:

Originally Posted by B&H

Hello,
Holding recommends, with one caveat about bioi (not applicable here) the scholarship on the gospels from Craig Blomberg. See http://www.tektonics.org/books/nthistbooks.php
On April 21, 2015, I emailed Craig Blomberg the following:
beginquote--------(deleted)
endquote-------------
Read his last sentence carefully. I asked whether Craig was familiar with Malina's and Rohrbough's "context group" work, and if so, whether he thinks any of it could reasonably be construed to support modern-day Christians insulting critics of Christianity. You don't have a lot of choices here in your predictable attempt to atomize and parse to death Craig's response in your attempt to turn Craig's contempt for riposte into something other than blunt disagreement with Holding. Craig is a foremost scholar of the gospels, so when he says "No, I know nothing about Malina and Rohrbaugh’s work that would justify what you describe", he likely wouldn't have said that if the truth be that he actually has little familiarity with Malina and Rohrbough's work in the first place. If that were the case, an honest scholar like Craig would have admitted he didn't have enough familiarity with Malina and Rohrbough to answer that particular question. Your predictable excuse that maybe Craig doesn't keep up with context group work wouldn't wash either. Malina wrote "social science commentary on the gospels", and Rohrbough wrote "social science commentary on the gospel of John", two works that any foremost gospel scholar like Craig would likely familiarize himself with.
So because Craig chose to say he doesn't know of any work by those scholars that would justify the insulting rhetoric behavior I describe in my email, Craig more than likely means that he is familiar with context group work, and despite this, cannot think of any part of it that would justify Holding's insulting demeanor.
You are free to predictably argue that because Craig is neither perfect, nor God, his review and conclusions from context group work may have missed something, but that speculation will have no more force than saying because Holding is neither perfect, nor God, Holding's reviews and conclusions from context group work may have missed something.
Context group scholar Malina has already stated that Holding is being "silly" to be using honor/shame mentality in modern-America:
Email to Malina----------
"There is an apologist(internet and some articles for Christian Research Journal) who cites your writing as justification for what reasonably appears to be abusive comportment with opponents. The only thing he actually cites is the last line in the following paragraph, taken from a short article."
"'Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor claims: "...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public.[42]"'"
"He's educated, thorough, and really very clever at times but something wrong is lurking there."
---------Malina's reply----------
"It sounds as though the person you refer to is using my description of behavior in the Mediterranean world of antiquity to sanction his behavior in the 21st century. If that is the case, then he is being silly. We live neither in the 1st century nor in the Mediterranean."
"People have been citing the bible for centuries in the name of some 'My Will Be Done' project (or religion). That some are doing this with my writings is no surprise."
from http://the-anointed-one.com/quotes.htm
Richard Rohrbough was a co-founder of the Context Group and said that modern Christians insulting others has nothing to do with the bible ‘one way or the other’, that Holding deserves no respect, doesn’t deserve to be given the time of day, should be ignored, is equal to KJV Onlyist Peter Ruckman in being a ‘boor with no manners’, he says inerrancy is a purely modern notion that makes no sense at all, and that Holding “needs serious help”. http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/....html?t=253929
If two major scholars of the context group are saying Holding's use of their work is "silly" and that he gives Christianity a bad name, then the greater probability is that scholar Craig cannot find any Malina or Rohrbough work to support Holding precisely because there is none to be found in the first place, and in that case, it is Holding's belief that context group work supports him, which is the "silly" position that gives Christianity a bad name.
a copy of this email will be PM'd to other ardent supporters of Holding.

 Needless to say, Holding's buddies at Tweb banned me for this (and yes, they were technically correct to ban me anyway because I had been previously banned and broke that rule by signing up again.  The reader should realize that I loudly wail and cry every night in deep despair over having been banned from Tweb).

Settling Dr. Craig's view on modern Christians who routinely insult others, is important, because after I made clear to him that an apologist he publicly endorsed (James Patrick Holding) had viciously libeled and defamed me in a disturbingly obsessive way, Dr. Craig consciously chose to avoid responding to me, and in his later private emails with Holding, neither expressed nor implied that Holding's libeling of me was contrary to basic NT ethics.

 On July 5, 2015, I emailed Blomberg with cc to scholar Danial Wallace, providing a detailed and comprehensive explanation of Mr. Holding's libels against me and his defiant juvenile-delinquent attitude toward the whole matter, and requested that they communicate with him in the spirit of Matthew 18:

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

What follows is the full text of such email:

On 7/5/2015 9:49 PM, Barry Jones wrote:

    Mr. Blomberg and Mr. Wallace,

    

    This email is a good-faith attempt to get third-parties who might exercise spiritual leadership over James Patrick Holding, to peaceably resolve a problem Holding has started and which has now spun completely out of control to the point of criminal behavior also justifying a civil lawsuit.  Holding has maliciously defamed and libeled me at his own website tektonics.org, and the same at theologyweb.com.

    

    I address this to Wallace because he favorably reviewed Holding's book, and appears to be a mature Christian scholar who would realize that apologetics can get so out of control that it can bankrupt a ministry all because somebody doesn't know how to bridle their own tongue.

    

    I address this to Blomberg because of Blomberg's interpretation of Matthew 5:25, 40 in the New American Commentary, in which Blomberg takes a position totally consistent with the intent of the language Jesus uses about what Christians should do when sued or are about to be sued.  Mr. Blomberg, when I emailed you a few months back asking about biblical justification for modern-day Christians to go around insulting people, I was talking about James Patrick Holding.  Not only does he regularly insult, defame and belittle those who criticize him, but he also doesn't care about any Christian scholarship that says his manners are out of biblical bounds.  He is the perfect definition of a loose canon.

    

    Holding has publicly posted various defamatory and false statements about me on his commentary forum theologyweb.com, each allegation accusing me of something that is an immorality.  He calls me "skepticbud" and says I file multiple frivolous lawsuits, and that he is warning other readers about me "for their safety" and calls me "mentally unstable."  See it all at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka

    

    He does the same with an "internet predator alert" that he devotes exclusively to defaming me.  Note that at no time in the "secret identity" thread, nor in the original version of his "internet predator alert", does he give my full legal name.  The original version of the internet predator alert is attached hereto as "skepticbud", using Holding's original title.

    

    Notice also, he calls it an "internet predator alert".  A google search for the phrase "internet predator" returned hits for nothing but links related to men convicted of sexually molesting children.  What are the odds that Holding, with a master's in library science, and 20 years of debating his religion on the internet, honestly 'didn't know' that "internet predator" is a phrase on the internet used nearly exclusively about pedophiles?

    

    Did you get what Holding is doing?  He entitled his article "internet predator alert" so that anybody who searches google for "internet predator", as they usually would to find out something about people who sexually molest children, will discover his defamatory article about me in the search hits.  He probably thinks that because he doesn't directly say I'm a pedophile, all is well.   He has a rather nasty legal surprise coming his way.

    

    Although Holding has now updated the internet predator alert to include my name (http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm), this doesn't change the fact that the original version, attached to this email as a document, stood in the public sphere for most of June 2015 without having included my real name.

    

    You may be asking:    What is wrong with his accusing you of immoralities in an article that doesn't reveal anything about your real name?

    

    Because Holding lives in Florida, and Florida Statute 836.02 requires the accuser asserting immorality in another, to give their full legal name within said article or published work, and failure to do so is a misdemeanor.  see http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0836/Sections/0836.02.html

    

    This misdemeanor can be enhanced to felony under the other statutes cited therein, namely 775.082 or s. 775.083, if prejudice can be shown.

    

    I'm not done listing the false allegations of immorality Holding has libeled me with.

    

    Holding has publicly accused me of causing his email address to be signed up to receive gay, pornography and other unsolicited subscriptions:    

    "Since Bud is still signing me up for pornographic newsletters, it's time to teach him a lesson. The Predator Alert is now updated."  See Post # 45 at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka/page5    

    In post # 48 at the same link, Holding uses language that necessarily proves that the the action he accuses me of (signing up his email to receive gay porn without his permission, a false accusation) is criminal.  He says "And those folks just might be taking some action against you....how are jails in your area, Bud? Comfy?"  Why would he ask me about jails, if he didn't believe what he was accusing me of was criminal activity?

    

    Worse, in Post # 53, he reveals that its not fun when the unsoliciated email is already a subject he likes, its only "fun" for him when something shows up in his email that he doesn't like:  " Ha ha!  He's slowing down...only signed me up for one in the last hour, and it's one I might actually want (Baker Books). Come on, Bud...it's no fun if I WANT it!"  See Post 53 at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka/page6

    

    What kind of Christian falsely accuses somebody of illegal use of email, then taunts them in gleeful fashion to keep doing it because of the "fun"?  What kind of Christian does this while himself defining the "fun" as criminal activity that could send somebody to jail?

    

    In this case, that would mean that Holding, allegedly a morally conservative Baptist and Evangelical, finds it "fun" that somebody keeps signing him up to receive gay pornography.

    

    Maybe now you aren't quite so enchanted with "the hardest hitting apologetics site on the internet"?

    

    In Post # 56 at the same link, theologyweb.com owner/moderator John "sparko" Sparks, not only asks Holding for my address, but ends the request with a deviously smiling smilie, making it clear that he intends to put his knowledge of my home address to uncivil or illegal use  "Do you have an address for him? I might be down in his area this weekend. "

    

    Could reasonable persons seriously disagree on what this type of language is implying?

    

    Since Holding thus acts in a way that makes laughable any idea that he subjects himself to any local pastor, I call on others whom he likely holds in high regard, to do some things that you are commanded to do in the bible anyway:

     

    1 - Discuss with Holding the way Jesus' legal advice (Matthew 5:25, 40) applies to the modern-day Gentile Christian.  Remind him that the 'context group' scholars also don't have anything to say about this bible passage that would facilitate Holding's aggressive legal remorselessness.  I expect nothing from him but an insulting taunt to just "bring it on".

    

    "Jesus’ second illustration of the urgency of reconciliation pictures an out-of-court settlement between fellow litigants. These verses offer good advice at the literal level of legal proceedings, but in light of vv. 21–22 they obviously refer primarily to the spiritual goal of averting God’s wrath on Judgment Day before it is too late to change one’s destiny. As a metaphor with one central point of comparison, the details of vv. 25–26 must not be allegorized."

    Matthew 5:25---Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

    Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 108). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    

    2 - Begin the Matthew 18 process of moving toward inevitable repentance/excommunication.  Would any fool argue that if a sinning brother is not living near their local congregation, he must be somebody else's problem?  I already revealed that Holding appears to be subject to nobody's authority but his own since he bounds around on the internet like a toddler with a loaded shotgun.  I wouldn't be addressing you if I know who his local pastor was.

    

    3 - Mr. Craig, you specifically say in the New American Commentary on Matthew 5:38-42 that    

    "Each of these commands requires Jesus’ followers to act more generously than what the letter of the law demanded. “Going the extra mile” has rightly become a proverbial expression and captures the essence of all of Jesus’ illustrations. Not only must disciples reject all behavior motivated only by a desire for retaliation, but they also must positively work for the good of those with whom they would otherwise be at odds."    

    Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that Holding chose to expose my real identity and defame me, for no reason whatsoever beyond pure retaliation for my having notified his theologyweb buddies that although Holding quotes the Context Group with great approval, Context Group co-founder Richard Rohrbough said Holding gives Christianity a bad name, and that the Context Group as a whole wants nothing to do with him.  See Post # 907 at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6136-Does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia/page91

    

    All of Holding's accusations about me are either false, or presented in a way so as to give a false impression.  I am not mentally unstable, I am not a danger to anybody's safety, I am not a stalker or cyberstalker, and I did not sign up Holding's email to receive anything, still less to receive  gay pornography.  However, rest assured that I will be subpoenaing his email server to find out from what IP the alleged misuse of his email originated from.

    

    I recently emailed Holding as follows:

    -----------------

    Hello again,

    You boast that you can post 'link after link' showing me embarrassing myself in public.

    Please provide me with those links, or at least provide references identifying the material which you believe shows me embarrassing myself in public.

    Barry

    -----------------   

Holding responded in a way contradictory to all those verses in the bible that forbid retaliation and instigation:    

    -------------------------------

    From: J. P. Holding <jphold@att.net>

    To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

    Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:13 PM

    Subject: Re: mentally unstable?

    Sure you don't know, "Barry".

    I'll tell you for a cost of 33 million dollars. How's that sound?

    Now shut up and keep out of my way. Everything about you is out in the open and can be shown with a simple link. I don't need to write a word about it -- all I need to do is post link after link after link of you embarrassing yourself in public records.

    ------------------------------

   Notice, it was on June 9, 2015 that Holding said he didn't need to say anything himself, his links about me would do the job of showing me embarrassing myself in public records.  However, a few weeks after June 9, Holding updated his "internet predator alert" and did not just provide links, but plenty of his own defamatory words, despite his prior admission that he didn't need to say anything.  http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm

    

    A better example of a modern Christian who couldn't bridle his tongue to save his life (James 1:26) could not be imagined.

    

    I once forwarded to Holding the comments by a Fuller Theological Seminary professor against modern Christians using shame-riposte.  His first response was to threaten to report me for 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

    #yiv5566510580 v\00003a* { }   

    

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

    ------------------

Holding's next reply was to tell me that I have certain sexual obsessions:    

    ----------------

     Re: Fuller Theological Seminary thinks you are 'absurd'

    YAWN  See a psychologist about your sex obsessions.

    http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm  Still comes up first in a search! :D

    ----------------- 

   When I received D.A. Carson's response to my email about modern Christians using insult in their "ministry", I forwarded this to Holding.  Yup, you guessed it, Holding would not respond to any of the points, he simply shot back something about my lying about having been a brother:    

    -----------------------

    From: "jphold@att.net" <jphold@att.net>

    To: barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

    Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 5:54 PM Subject:

    RE: D.A. Carson says you are a waste of time

    

    You lied by saying you were a "brother".  That will look gret on th e Predator Alert!

    ----------------------      

    So you are probably starting to agree with me that Holding is an extreme case who dismisses scholarship at a whim, for whom more extreme measures than simply private talking need to be taken.

    

    I take no joy in asking you to do your Christian duty here, but when you read the evidence I gave you, which is only the tip of the iceberg, you will understand why common sense says my personal communication with Holding will not do anything more than fuel the fire and make him feel spiritually vindicated for having taken such a big crack at me.  The fact that his actions violated both civil and criminal law appears totally lost upon him, despite the fact that he researched the law just before revealing my full name and defaming me some more.

    

    Before you counsel him, I suggest you peruse commentaries on the excuse of the apostles to defy secular authority, "We must obey god rather than men" (Acts 5:29).  I think that merely means that Christians have a biblical right to oppose secular authority where it clearly contradicts a biblical mandate.  I also think that since Holding's defamation of me is nowhere supported in scripture and everywhere condemned by it (the 'example' of Jesus and Paul insulting their opposition only provides indirect argument, the more direct argument is what the bible verses say, which indicate their specific governing of Christian conduct, such as 2nd Timothy 2:24-26.

    

    If Holding takes down or modifies any of his prior comments about me (I just saved very recent copies for comparison), the only reason he would do so is because he thought they were in violation of law, thus helping me prove that he did indeed violate at least civil law with those original postings. If Holding doesn't take down or modify anything he said about me in the past, that will just add more damages to the lawsuit, since he had no excuse earlier anyway, and now has even less.

    

    And in case you didn't know, I still suffer from two emotional disorders due to childhood trauma.  Holding knows this due to the court record he found admitting to same, and exploits it solely for the sake of spite, without so much as asking me about it.  How ironic that the person with the emotional disorder is the one trying to resolve things peaceably, and the Christian who insists he is free from all mental disorder and indeed empowered by the Holy Spirit,  is the one who has gotten so out of control that third-parties need to step in, and likely won't be successful despite application of clearly biblical principles.

    

    Holding's irresponsible research is seen most graphically in his exploitation and selective quoting from my prior lawsuits.  If he would have bothered to ask me, I could have explained to him the legal basis for my prior lawsuits.  Only an idiot thinks that the Court dismissing a case, or the higher courts affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss, proves the lawsuit had no merit.  Our highest federal and state courts very often overturn the order of a lower-level appeal court.  And since they have the power to reject review of any case they please, many legally incorrect rulings by the lower courts remain uncorrected.

    

    As an example, I worked for Swift trucking in 2007, they sent me to shippers that did not have a truck scale.  Unfortunately, the truck itself doesn't have a scale on it, and the law against overweight trucks starts applying immediately outside the exit gates of the shipper.  When I received one too many overweight tickets because of this, along with my employer telling me bluntly to drive illegally, I quit and sued for wrongful constructive discharge.  Although there is plenty of proof in the record that my boss told me to drive illegally, the only thing that came out in the court opinion was that the law regulating truck weight does not require the employer to provide me with a way to scale my load before driving on a public road. Before I quit, I endured emotional distress in driving such unscaled loads, since there was no way to ensure they were of legal weight before reaching the shipper 10 or more miles down the road, and an illegally overweight load is a safety risk to the driver and other traffic.  Holding, knowing none of these details because of his shoddy research (the briefing of litigants is available to anybody for a small charge) and his willingness to believe the first thing he sees, did not ask me about any of this, and simply asserts in knee-jerk fashion that Swift's refusal to send me only to shippers who had truck scales onsite is ridiculous, http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm   when in fact employers requiring employees to act in illegal fashion is the very definition of the wrongful-constructive discharge exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

    

    I now address Mr. Holding.    

    Mr. Holding, since you now anticipate litigation from me, you are ordered, by me, to preserve any and all communications from you or to you, whether by email, internet-based or otherwise, whether public or private, that talk about me, including any past such communications you still have.  I will subpoena the ISP of tektonics.org and of theologyweb.com to find out whether anybody suddenly got rid of their email or web-based private messages on or after today.  If you think the letter of the law means you can ignore this demand, you are wrong for two reasons:  1) if you destroy evidence after you anticipate litigation from me, that's called "spoliation", and can cause the judge to instruct the jury that they are free to infer that the reason you destroyed that evidence is because you knew it would help me justify my case against you;   2) Craig Blomberg clearly held Jesus' comments in Matthew 5:25, 40 to require Christians to be more generous in dealing with their legal opponents, than simply what the minimum requirement is under the law.  Please employ your masters in library science to the full, and get back to me when you find any published scholar seriously asserting an interpretation that disagrees with Blomberg's.  Here's a real kicker that you didn't see coming: stop telling me what the verse doesn't mean, and tell me what obligations it DOES place the modern-day Gentile Christian under.  Or maybe you suddenly became a dispensationalist, and now you can just dispense with any pre-Cross teaching of Jesus that you don't like?  Not so, keep Matthew 28:20 in mind.

    

    If you don't respond by email with a reasonable settlement offer by July 08, 2015, 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, I will file my lawsuit against you, and I will do so also if we cannot agree on settlement.  I already have documents in place, ready to obtain a subpoena on theologyweb's ISP to figure out the IP of, and thus unmask the true identity of, Cow Poke, Christianbookworm and others who also defamed me.  I will sue them separately, they can get their own lawyers, and they have their crucified savior James Holding and his loud out-of-control mouth to thank.  If you hadn't spouted off so stupidly, these minions of yours likely wouldn't have become embolden to imitate your illegal ways.

    

    Please contact a lawyer for yourself as soon as possible, so that they can review the case, and then tell you why settling for around $15,000 is not only what Jesus would want you to do, but would be cheaper for you.

    

    If you don't have enough resources to pay a $15,000 settlement, get on the phone with your devoted disciples who think you died for their sins in a previous life, and remind them that I'll be coming after them to discover their true identity with legal subpoena, if you and I cannot settle.  YOU are the ultimate cause for them defaming me, so the mosquito that buzzes the loudest gets swatted first.

    

    Go ahead and research Florida statute 836.02, then you tell me whether you committed at least a misdemeanor crime by allowing your "internet predator alert" on me to stand for most of June 2015 without disclosing my full legal name.  You can no more undo that crime by appending my name to it later, than you can undo bank robbery by giving the money back later.

    

    I didn't say you were "convicted" of a crime, I said you "committed" a crime.  Big difference.  Lots of people commit crimes but are never convicted.  Like you.  And since you falsely accused me of the crimes of stalking, cyberstalking and unlawful use of your email (which you yourself said could land me in jail), I can get an award of presumed damages from the jury, even if I don't prove actual damages (i.e., defamation per se).

    

    Have a nice day,

    

HOLDING'S ONE-WORD REPLY, INDICATING SHEER LACK OF REMORSE.  HOLDING MUST EITHER HAVE A DYNAMITE DEFENSE TO MY LAWSUIT, OR HE REALLY IS SPIRITUALLY BANKRUPT.  IF WE KNOW A TREE BY ITS FRUIT...THEN...

-------------------------------------end of quoted email

 I could not have made clearer in that email the precise reasons why I think Mr. Holding's conduct violated the basic NT ethics that would be held by any conservative evangelical or "southern baptist", the denomination Holding has loosely associated himself with.

But Dr. Blomberg, in private email to Holding, falsely explained that the reason he didn't reply to me was because he had no idea what was going on.  (!?)

Yeah right, read the above email again, then ask yourself whether that would have been sufficient to convince a conservative evangelical scholar, who previously publicly endorsed Holding, that Holding had acted so contrary to his profession of faith that it implicated those bible verses that require you to disassociate yourself from "brothers" who persist in defiant reviling of others: 

 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]

During the first lawsuit I filed against Holding in 2015, I propounded several hundred Interrogatories and Requests for Production to him (the rules of the Superior Court where I sued him do not limit the amount of such discovery requests to 25, as the federal rules and Courts of other counties do).  In Interrogatory # 88, I asked him to reveal what conversations he ever had with Dr. Blomberg, where those conversations were about me:




Holding answered by producing printouts of his emails with Blomberg and others:








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

Notice, Dr. Blomberg characterizes my emails to him as "weird".  He is saying this on July 7.  But it was only two days earlier that I had sent that long email to him expressing my concerns about Holding.

That is, Blomberg wants Holding to believe that a detailed email that makes Holding's sins very clear, is a "weird set of emails".

 Notice also:  Blomberg says he hadn't replied to me because he knows "nothing whatsoever about all of this!" which shows definite dishonesty on his part, since my prior long email to him included links and references so that he could easily check and be sure that my representation of Holding as defying the basic ethics of his religion were accurate and not just uninformed ranting.  For example, I provided Blomberg the two links where Holding was libeling me the most, to repeat:

  See it all at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka

http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm

Does it make sense that a person of Dr. Blomberg's intellectual level (Phd. Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, he also wrote the Matthew-commentary for the inerrantist New American Commentary series, and of course, is author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels) would remain in a state of near total ignorance after reading my long email to him?

Yeah sure, maybe I could have been a bit more clear in my case that Holding is a scumbag who defiantly violates basic NT ethics and is in need of serious reproof?  What, did he need a 5 mile long email, 1 mile wasn't enough for him to "get it"?

A few emails later, Craig sinfully sympathizes with Holding...as if Blomberg, who earlier complained that a long detailed email wasn't sufficient to clue him in to the problem, was somehow able to understand from Holding's far shorter emails, just how false my accusations were:



If the reader doubts just who was guilty, they are reminded that despite Holding asserting before the first lawsuit that it would be ridiculously frivolous, he did not attempt to answer that lawsuit on the merits, but instead, after litigating the case for several months without a lawyer, paid a lawyer more than $21,000 to get it dismissed solely on jurisdictional grounds.

This was rather stupid on his part since if he would have continued litigating without a lawyer, he could have filed a motion to dismiss on the merits (i.e, arguing that none of his words about me were libelous or defamatory).  He could have appeared in court for the motion hearings solely by telephone since he lived 3,000 miles away, and if he had to attend jury trial, that would have required merely round trip travel expenses from Florida to Washington and back, probably less than $2,000.

That is, as usual, when Holding is forced to put his money where his mouth is (i.e, if yer gonna say the accusations of libel are false, prove them false on the merits in court, don't just prance around like a ridiculous peacock in front of your financial supporters), he suddenly isn't the fire-breathing truth-warrior his deluded followers think he is.

Later on I cc'd the following to Blomberg:

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

To: "taylor@westmont.edu" <taylor@westmont.edu>; Gary Habermas <ghabermas@liberty.edu>; Craig Blomberg <craig.blomberg@denverseminary.edu>; "dwallace@dts.edu" <dwallace@dts.edu>

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 12:16 PM

Subject: about James Patrick Holding

Mr. Taylor,

When I had earlier asked you about modern-day Christians insulting those who criticize Christianity, I was asking about James Patrick Holding, whom I intend to sue for defamation.  So since you didn't approve of such insulting, I assumed you would disapprove of Holding.

Holding has two problems:   he is being very obstinate in his unChristian behavior toward me, and for this reason it appears that he is not under the spiritual authority of a local pastor.

I've been cc'ing you, Habermas, Wallace and Blomberg in the effort to let Holding know that other mature Christians are being apprised of my efforts and his juvenile-delinquent reactions to me, so as to coerce him into reacting in a less obstinate manner, but Holding appears to be intentionally defiant of anything remotely approaching civil Christian conduct.  His responses to my emails indicate he thinks this whole litigation thing is some type of game, almost as if he is praying hard for God to cause me to sue him (!?)

I've asked him about Matthew 5:25, 40, but he is silent on this, probably because his immature behavior cannot be reconciled with what Jesus said about Christians facing lawsuits.

Do you have any recommendations?

How to begin the Matthew 18 procedure leading toward restoration or repentance, if Holding is just a fifth-wheel or loose canon with no acknowledgment of local pastoral authority?  Should other Christians announce on their websites that Holding is living in sin and unrepentant?

Would the bible justify the Christian leader to just turn away from this with a quick "not in my jurisdiction"?

Christian Doscher

So here's my open letter to Dr. Craig Blomberg:

Dr. Blomberg,

Before you knew that your friend J.P Holding had insulted me like crazy to the point of legally actionable libel (i.e., libel that Holding didn't dare attempt to answer on the merits in either of my two libel lawsuits against him, preferring instead to spend $20,000 in lawyers fees seeking dismissal on grounds other than the merits, that'a his idea of economically efficient litigation),  you gave me your honest opinion that 

• there is nothing in the NT that will justify today's Christians insulting their critics, 
• you are not aware of any Context Group scholarship published by Malina or Rohrbaugh that would justify such behavior, and 
• unfortunately there are some Christians today who, by insulting just everybody they meet instead of limiting such reaction to the ultraconservative hypocrites, do a fair amount of damage to the cause of Christianity in the process

May I assume that you don't know of ANY Christian scholarship, whatsoever, that agrees with Holding's belief that modern-day Christians have biblical license to insult and demean their critics?

The Context Group have THRICE disowned Holding for his misrepresentation of their work, so how's that for a solid start in justifying his already absurd view?

How is it, then, that you expressed sympathy to Holding  (i.e., "so sorry you're having to go through all this") for his having to deal with my libel-lawsuit?  Did you miss the part about him egregiously violating basic NT ethics?

Do you feel sorry for Christians whose defiant disobedience toward basic NT ethics is what landed them in civil court to answer charges of libel/slander?

Dr. Craig, did you know that Holding not only falsely accused me to others that I had beaten my wife, he admitted under oath in Court that his accusation was false...and that he still hasn't apologized?  What are the odds that it is the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit, and not his purely naturalistic hateful spitefulness, that dissaudes him from expressing such remorse?

Given Holding's history of gleeful resort to juvenile vituperation, do you suppose I'd have any reason to think Holding was the least bit sincere, should he miraculously someday try to apologize?

Did you know that Holding told others he was in possession of 7 police reports that he said showed that I had definitely not been a good boy?  Did you know that none of those 7 police reports express or imply that I was ever accused of, suspected of, arrested for or convicted of, any crime?

Dr. Craig, for what reasons do you insist that, despite all of Holding's 20-year history of viciously reviling anybody who disagrees with him, these revilings are somehow substantially different from those of the Christian "reviler" whom apostle Paul tells you to disassociate yourself from in 1st Corinthians 5:9-11, whom Paul also says shall not inherent the kingdom of God in 6:9-10?

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


              


If Powers is reasonable to interpret the prohibition on "reviling" as a prohibition on "vituperative insults and vitriolic invective", isn't it reasonable for me to assert that Holding cannot have been "mistaken about NT ethics" for 20 years, but that he has been willfully defiant of NT ethics for 20 years?

But if you think Holding's reviling history involves the same type of reviling that is condemned by Paul, supra, then why do you disobey Paul's requirement that you disassociate yourself with him? (I assume you haven't because Holding continues to assert that none of you ever pay any attention to what I say).

Do you say Holding has changed his ways?  Ok....so do you agree that the way he viciously hurled juvenile slurs and libels at people for 20 years (that basis upon which he can currently claim a certain level of popularity for his ministry) had constituted sin, yes or no?  How could a person who is properly qualified to hold the Christian office of "teacher" possibly get such a basic requirement of NT morality so wrong for so long, while hailing himself as a top Christian academic bible researcher?

Worse, Holding greedily ran after all those opportunities to revile, which can only mean he must have thought his conduct was approved of God.  What is the likelihood that you could be authentically born again and yet misunderstand a sinful act to be something that God approves of?  Are you sure Holding's error is sufficiently covered by the "mere mistake" damage control measure?  Doesn't a 20 year history of violating basic Christian principles more strongly suggest a wolf in sheep's clothing, than it suggests a smart academic who was honestly mistaken?

Did you know that Holding recently called me a lunatic in one of his online articles, and now that I've made known to him a third lawsuit is in the works, he has removed that article?  Today, July 18,2017, if you go to www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php, all you get at this time is "Parse error: syntax error, unexpected
 '<' in /home/tekton5/public_html/lp/madmad.php on line 6"

You might wish to ask God's most fearsome truth-warrior what exactly it was in the wording of that article, that made him fear that a libel lawsuit would so justifiably arise from it that it was best to pull it down as quickly as possible.

Then ask him, if he has always believed that his Internet Predator Alert on me, which was the basis for the last two lawsuits, really was legally protected non-defamatory speech, and really was within acceptable norms of NT ethics, why he pulled that down in the middle of the first lawsuit, and has not (I could be wrong) posted it publicly since? 

The question is even more problematic for him because he cannot claim he had an attack of morality, his 20 year history of verbally emasculating his critics forbids that.  And He cannot claim he genuinely feared I was correct and some of his statements therein might have been libelous, as such admission would tarnish his image as Pope Holding Innocent III.  He caters solely to a rather juvenile spiritually immature crowd, and he is scared that once he admits having messed up royally, they will stop sending him their cash.

Well then, why has he failed to re-post a legally and biblically justified document that would so strongly fulfill his pathological need to ruin another person's life?  Why indeed?  Doesn't the bible say that James Patrick Holding never changes?

Did you know that Holding made a parody video of my having gotten injured in a bus accident last year?  I was on an Intercity Transit bus, on Bus # 13, and was injured when the driver slammed on the brakes. In Holding's video where he portrays me as a lunatic who can barely speak, he has this all take place while I stand at a bus stop called "Inner City Transit", waiting for the "Route 13" bus.  What are the odds that the similarities here are purely coincidental?  He ends the video by physically injuring me in a very violent way, making a parody of the fact that I was injured in that bus accident.  And in the video, I end up in an insane asylum in a straitjacket talking incoherently, which cannot be anything other than his mockery of the personality disorder that I genuinely suffer from (which is true despite Holding's fiction that this makes me dangerous).

Dr. Blomberg, can you really say, seriously, that Holding hasn't done anything making him worthy of severe rebuke and disassociation?

Do YOU have any plans to similarly mock and degrade your critics?  I'm guessing "no".

Did you know that Holding was correct to say I have borderline personality disorder? How do you feel about sympathizing with a "Christian" brother who slanders,  reviles and provokes those whom he believes are dangerously mentally ill?  My illness doesn't make me dangerous, as Holding lied to you, but Holding believed I was so so mentally ill that I'd try to kill him if we got in the same room together, and yet he STILL slandered and slanders me like crazy, hoping to provoke a reaction, because he has such a pathological need to feel like he is dominating his territory.  He told his attorney Seth Cooper that he was frightened that I would try to kill him, so much that he wouldn't go to court with me unless I was sedated and under guard.  From one of the emails I forced him to disclose in the first lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

From : Raphael

ΤΟ : jpholding

m OSSrOS8

One Bad Pig

Sparko

Date : 2015-10-O6 19:39

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

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

Was it therefore sin for you, despite knowing that Holding acknowledges no significant local pastoral authority, to reject implementing the Matthew 18 process?

If you had done the right thing and attempted to work with me in fulfillment of my request to address this matter according to biblical principles, there's a chance the problem wouldn't have become so extreme that I found it necessary to start litigating this in the court of public opinion.

However, you have a chance to redeem yourself and show that you follow NT ethics even when it hurts, you don't simply write commentaries on the bible.

1 - Holding has recently posted a YouTube video, in which he argues that Matthew 5:25 only applies to modern-day Christians who are faced with a frivolous lawsuit filed by a rich Plaintiff so that their loss in court must be virtually certain before they need to obey what Jesus said there.  This interpretation squarely contradicts your interpretation as found in the New American Commentary, where you say Christians must work for the good of their legal adversaries.  You neither expressed nor implied this was limited to exceptional cases as Holding did.   His interpretation has no support from bone fide scholars.  Now didn't you tell me in a 2015 email, quoted at the beginning of this article, that interpretations for which no bona fide supporting scholarship can be found, are likely false? 

2 - I will be suing Holding for a third time because he has recently libeled me again..  I would like to attempt settlement with Holding upon the biblical basis of the interpretation of Matthew 5:25, 40, and you now have the option of using this opportunity to rebuke a Christian brother who sorely needs it while also obeying Jesus, or you can continue ducking your obvious Christian duty (you publicly endorsed Holding, so you have an ethical obligation to publicly withdraw that endorsement if you feel Holding is willfully defiant of NT ethics...you cannot simply slink away quietly).

Are you a Christian in morals as well as academia?  Or only in academia? I say the former, and only time will tell whether you practice what you preach.