Synoptic Problem # 1: Matthew's dishonest fabrication of Christ-sayings

One of the synoptic parallels seems to naturally resist attempts by inerrantists to explain it away as a case of an author's right to exclude something:

Mark 8

Matthew 16

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them,   "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."  29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."     30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples,  "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered,  "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

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

The context for each is identical, so this is certainly not Jesus talking similarly on two separate occasions, this is one singular event being reported by two different authors.

What's more likely?  That Mark knew Peter uttered the longer form of the confession, but knowingly "chose to abbreviate it?  Or that Mark's version of the confession is shorter because the author didn't know about any longer version?  

What is more likely?  Mark knew that Jesus said all that extra stuff about Peter, but "chose to exclude" such profoundly important authority-establishing Christ-sayings, for his own "authorial purpose"?  or

Mark doesn't relate as much as Matthew because Mark had no reason to think Jesus said the things now confined to Matthew's version?

Such a debate involves probability judgments on how close Mark was to Peter, and whether Peter, as a leader, would likely or not likely have considered such a glowing personal endorsement from God-incarnate important enough to preserve and articulate in his preaching tours.

Dr. William Barrick wrote an article in which he tried to explain this as a case of Matthew accurately reporting, and Mark choosing for his own reasons to create a more "abbreviated" account.  See here.

I sent Dr. Barrick the following through his website contact form, which included my email address:

I read your explanation of the synoptic differences on Peter's confession at https://drbarrick.org/the-synoptic-gospels-inerrancy-what-did-peter-say/ 

Since the more expanded version in Matthew supports Peter's authority, and since the apostolic church was divided on Peter's authority (1st Cor. 1:12) can you really say it is "unreasonable" to insist that Mark would never have knowingly excluded such words from his account...and therefore...Mark is not excluding anything, Matthew is guilty of putting in Jesus' mouth words he never spoke?
 I accept Markan priority, and isn't it true that embellishments are more likely to show up in the later retellings, than in the original?
 While my theory might attack inerrancy or gospel reliability, I can't sympathize with that concern since I deny both doctrines.  I deny them because
 a) I feel certain biblical errors are real and not merely apparent; 

b) the bible doesn't teach the "only in the originals" inerrancy-caveat of the CSBI statement, so the specter of the bible extending inspiration or inerrancy to "copies" (i.e., the bible contradicting the CSBI) looms large;  and 

c) the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars accuse Matthew of "toning down" some expressions he copied from Mark...something he would hardly do if he felt Mark's gospel was "inerrant".

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

I will wait to see if Dr. Barrick replies.  For now, I'm not seeing any academic or objective justification for the inerrantist to automatically assume that Mark knowingly excluded otherwise important theology merely because such is "possible".

I don't claim the inerrantist theories are impossible, so you are not "defeating" any opposing hypothesis merely because your own theory is "possible".

You are also not "defeating" any opposing hypothesis merely because you can drum up a few supporting evidences for your theory.  You'd have to extend that luxury to anybody whose counter-theory had some supporting evidences, and then you'd endure the illogical outcome that both parties "won" that debate.

What actually happened in ancient history is not determined by mere possibilities, otherwise, both sides of every historical debate would 'win', which is illogical.

What actually happened in ancient history is determined by probabilities (i.e., whose theory to explain the evidence is more probable, or, can both theories boast of equal likelihood?).

That being the case, the Christian apologist is not "defeating" my above-stated theory by simply pointing out that his own counter-theory can be "supported".  Very few positions on biblical matters are without at least some support. No fool thinks all scholars win every biblical debate.

You need to show that your inerrantist-theory is more likely to be true than my skeptical theory that says Matthew invented the longer version.

While I expect apologists to be honest and engage with me in argument, I also expect James Patrick Holding to deceive his followers into thinking a 2 minute cartoon video that feeds his narcissistic lust will conclusively dispose of this allegation of error in the bible.  Yes, that is his idea of "rebuttal".

 "You are wrong, here's the reasons, you could not possibly have any significant rejoinder, so, discussion closed to everybody except those whose comments I choose not to delete."

Doesn't your heart just race with fear at the very thought of disagreeing with such a fearless warrior?  I can barely type, I'm shaking so bad.  LOL

Always remember:  it wouldn't even matter if you the skeptic conceded the miracle of Jesus' resurrection for the sake of argument:  the god of the Christians does not think a person's working a genuinely supernatural miracle automatically justifies their theology, a worker of real miracles can STILL be condemned by God for promoting false theology:

 1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'
 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
 4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.
 5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.
 (Deut. 13:1-5 NAU)

So, obviously, the bible-god disagrees with modern loud-mouth Christian apologists like Frank Turek who insist that if Jesus truly rose from the dead, this miracle automatically proves he is the true Son of God.

Yes, there is evidence for Easter. There's also "evidence" that Bigfoot eludes capture by switching dimensions

This is my reply to an article by S. Joshua Swamidass, entitled

 

Is There Evidence for Easter? A Scientist’s List.

April 15, 2017

Science is full of trust-like faith. We believe grand, counterintuitive things because we trust the accounts of trustworthy sources.

But unlike religious faith, the "scientific" things are empirically demonstrable.  That doesn't mean that every theory purporting to be "scientific" is empirically demonstrable.  Dark Mater/Dark Energy are foolish concepts and "discovered" for no other reason than the explain why the universe doesn't appear to have resulted from a "big bang".

Mass is energy.

That is true.  Energy and Matter are just different ways of expressing the same thing. There is no such thing as energy in the absence of matter, or matter in the absence of energy.

Time slows with gravity and acceleration. The earth…

 Eistein's theory of relativity is less empirically demonstrable than the existence of trees, and otherwise is hardly relevant to the issue of Jesus' resurrection.

Science is full of trust-like faith. We believe grand, counterintuitive things because we trust the accounts of trustworthy sources.

And many times people are idiots for setting forth as "scientific" certain theories utterly lacking in empirical demonstration, such as dark matter/dark energy.  I don't "trust as true" anything that is not empirically demonstrable.  Now rack your brain trying to think of "truths" that aren't empirically demonstrable, but which are "obviously" true anyway.  YOu should start by saying "you can't even prove your own existence!", so those watching the discussion can recognize the stupid trifling sophistry you are willing to engage in just so you don't have to admit that Jesus' resurrection is lacking in evidence.

Mass is energy. Time slows with gravity and acceleration. The earth moves around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. Two black holes merged 1.3 billion years ago, sending gravitational waves through space that arrived last year at LIGO. In principle, this is all reproducible, but just in principle. If we personally verified and reproduced every experiment ourselves, science would grind to a complete halt. Yes, we emphasize evidence. But we usually trust the scientific consensus.

But only tentatively.  I don't see a reason to doubt the speed of earth's revolving around the sun...but at the same time, I wouldn't bet my life that this scientific statement is necessarily the truth.

And again, all of the issues you raise are matters that were capable of at least some degree of empirical observation that didn't require assessing witness credibility.  They are thus not analogous to Jesus' resurrection, which you don't demonstrate unless you find in favor of the credibility of the alleged witnesses.  Figuring out how fast the earth revolves around the sun doesn't require the investigator to engage in the nearly frivolous enterprise of trying to establish the identity and credibility of alleged authors from 2,000 years ago.

Yes, we are skeptical and regularly challenge accepted theories. But we usually trust other scientists’ reports of what they have seen.

And we are stupid to do so unless we see an empirical basis for those modified theories, a basis that doesn't require us to make a judgment call about the scientist's credibility or lack thereof.  The scientific consensus that Jupiter exists does not depend on any one scientist's credibility, and it is too absurd to believe the consensus is the result of conspiracy.  So my trust in the scientific consensus that Jupiter exists, has more empirical warrant than does somebody else's "trust" that "Matthew" was telling the truth in saying Jesus rose from the dead (Matthew 28).

I am a scientist. Still, on Easter, I celebrate that Jesus rose from the dead about 2,000 years ago.

And there are also scientists who graduated from Brigham Young University...who despite their academic credentials, still put full faith and trust in the accuracy and historicity of one of the biggest confirmed religious frauds known to man, the Book of Mormon. So I fail to see how "I'm a smart guy over in this area" is supposed to have relevance to "I also put trust in certain religious claims".  Otherwise, atheism should be considered true, because many are scientists are academics themselves.  My advice is to avoid trying to connect "I'm a smarter-than-average person" with "therefore the religious views I've chosen to put faith are, are more than likely true".

This event, in first-century Palestine, is the cornerstone of everything.

No, there is a possibility that Christians discount but which remains a possibility nonetheles:  that Jesus was the true Son of God, but fame went to his head, he ended up displeasing God, and so while much of his teaching is from 'God', he did not rise from the dead.  That couldn't be the case if Jesus himself is God, second person of the Trinity, of course, but plenty of ancient Christians believed that Jesus was just a normal human being whom God specially selected to BECOME the Messiah.  That's called adoptionism, and the idea that Jesus didn't become God's son until his baptism is attested to by the phrase "this day have I begotten thee" which is an early and widespread textual variant for Luke 3:22.  Metzger doesn't do a very good job trying to characterize that variant as secondary, but admits it is the Western reading prevalent in the first 3 centuries:

The Western reading, “This day I have begotten thee,” which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps 2.7. The use of the third person (“This is…in whom …”) in a few witnesses is an obvious assimilation to the Matthean form of the saying (Mt 3.17). (Textual Commentary, 4th rev. ed. 2002, p. 112-113)

here's a blog that discusses the introductory issues.  Swamadiss continues:

In the same way that trust-like faith in science is connected to evidence, so is the faith I have in the Resurrection.

But not empirically demonstrable evidence.  To trust that somebody did something 2,000 years ago requires a finding that the source, one or more persons who wrote about it, are trustworthy.   We don't need to "trust" scientists in that sense when we adopt their views on most things today, unless of course we water down "scientific" so that it can even refer to claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever...like Dark Matter.

What is the evidence from which grew my trust? A brief and incomplete outline is included here.[1] This evidence is not an answer, but it raises the question. All we need is curiosity.

1. Without the physical Resurrection, two thousand years of history are left begging for explanation, like a movie missing a key scene.

The best explanation is that the resurrection of Jesus was mere legendary embellishment over time.  If two facets of Christian scholarly consensus are true (i.e., Mark is the earliest gospel, and he didn't intend to write anything after 16:8), then the earliest form of the gospel did not contain resurrection appearance narratives.  No, you cannot speculate that maybe Mark "chose to exclude" these while yet believing such stories were true.  In light of how strongly these support Mark's goal of showing Jesus to be the divine son of God, and in light of your own admission that Jesus' resurrection is the most important of all Christian events, it is highly unlikely that Mark believed the resurrection appearance narrative stories to be true but yet "chose to exclude" them.  You lose your religion where you lose the historicity.  Historicity turns on how probable one's explanatory theory is.

No other event in all recorded history has reached so far across national, ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, political, and geographic borders.

You have no reason to appeal to the popularity of the resurrection belief in the last 2,000 years, except because you are trying to argue from popularity to truth.  That's called the ad populum fallacy.

The message spread with unreasonable success across the world.

So did the popularity of heretics like Marcion.No doubt because most people back then simply trusted what a religious leader said, without caring to, or being able to, seriously check on the veracity of his claims.  The fact that the physical resurrection of Jesus is the form of Christianity that became most popular, does not testify to it's truth, otherwise, the fact that the false religion of Marcion and other forms of Christian Gnosticism grew by leaps and bounds to the point of being perceived by Irenaeus and other early fathers as a legitimate dangerous threat to the church, should be considered when assessing how true they were...which is, of course, stupid.

During just the first few centuries, it spread without political or military power,

Any religious group that caters to the needs of the poor and illiterate, would likely spread without political or military power. 

prevailing against the ruthless efforts of dedicated, organized and violent opposition.

The political opposition to pre-4th century Christianity would also have been against all its forms, such as Marcionism.  It isn't like it was only the bodily resurrected/Trinity/JesusIsGodAndWasARealFleshAndBloodMan version of Christianity that was perceived to be a threat. That is, your logic suggests that Marcionism, by growing in popularity despite political opposition, was surely the truth.

How did a small band of disempowered Jews in an occupied and insignificant territory of ancient Rome accomplish this unequaled act?

They didn't, their gullible followers decided to make more of it than it really was.  For example, Benny Hinn is not responsible for his own popularity and success, its actually the dumb fucks who find him to be greater than he really is, who are responsible for his popularity.

[2] What happened so many years ago that reframed all human history?

Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor is responsible for Anno Domini.

2. With dates established by radiometric analysis, prophecies from centuries before Jesus’ birth predict his life, death, and resurrection.

Wrong, NOTHING in the OT predicted anything about Jesus.   Would you like to give it a try?  What, maybe Daniel 9 contains an "amazingly accurate prediction" of Jesus?   Jesus is the best explanation for the "Suffering Servant" in Isaiah 53?  Good luck.

One thing you won't be doing is pretending that you can demonstrate that the OT predicted Jesus' resurrection...despite your own belief that the resurrection was the highlight of Jesus' messianic purpose.

[3] The great scientist Blaise Pascal identifies this as the “tangible proof” for people who want evidence that God exists. These prophecies include specific details that Jesus and His followers could not control. For example, before the Romans invented crucifixion, Psalms 22:16 described the piercing of Jesus’ hands and feet.

1 For the choir director; upon Aijeleth Hashshahar. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.

 2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest.

 3 Yet You are holy, O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.

 4 In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You delivered them.

 5 To You they cried out and were delivered; In You they trusted and were not disappointed.

 6 But I am a worm and not a man, A reproach of men and despised by the people.

 7 All who see me sneer at me; They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,

 8 "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him."

 9 Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts.

 10 Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb.

 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.

 12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.

 13 They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion.

 14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.

 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death.

 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.

 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;

 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

 19 But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.

 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.

 21 Save me from the lion's mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me.

 22 I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.

 23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him; All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel.

 24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.

 25 From You comes my praise in the great assembly; I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him.

 26 The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever!

 27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.

 28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations.

 29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.

 30 Posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation.

 31 They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.

 (Ps. 22:1-30 NAU)

 An examination of the original context of Psalm 22 indicates is says things totally inconsistent with a "Christian' view of Jesus:

the speaker complains that God doesn't answer his cries (v. 2) despite the fact that theologically, the Father and Son have exactly the same will

the speaker metaphorically characterizes himself as "a worm and not a man" (v. 6), when in fact theologically Jesus is the ultimate Man, and as such, not only do we never find him talking shit about himself like this in the gospels, it is doubtful, on theological grounds, that Jesus would speak this way about himself. Would God, second person of the Trinity, describe himself as a worm?

the speaker says of God "you have been my God from my mother's womb", and in context, the author was the sinner David, who thus meant it in the sense of himself being a sinner who worships God.

The speakers prays for God to deliver him from the "sword", and again states his is troubled by dogs (v. 20).  Conservative Christians, with their bullshit high Christology, do not believe Jesus would ever seriously ask the Father to be spared from death the way David was requesting in this Psalm.

The speaker prays to be delivered from the metaphorical lion's mouth (v. 21), and of course, to be bitten by a lion is to be pierced. And since the "lion" that does the piercing is metaphorical in this context, so is the piercing effect mentioned in the immediately previous context of v. 16.   Again, the sense of "piece" that is meant in context, is clear...and it's manifestly not the "drove nails into his hands and feet" stuff.

Even Christian scholarly works admit that the Christian sense stems solely from the Lxx, the original Hebrew did not support it, so there is the additional problem of why the Greek is imparting more Christian meaning to the text than was originally present:

In Psalm 22:16 (21:17 LXX) we read: “they pierced my hands and feet.” It is true that the reading of the (possibly corrupt) MT would not have suggested this correspondence (“as a lion my hands and feet”), but elsewhere in the passion story references to Psalm 22 employ the Greek version. If the passion narrative depended heavily on the creative role of the OT, we would have expected “passion prophecy” to have rendered this connection explicit.

Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Page 603). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Finally, the sense of "pieced my hands" isn't meant literally by the Psalmist, for it is no less metaphorical than the the human enemies he characterizes as lions, bulls and dogs. So now we have the problem of the Christian interpretation taking what was originally mere metaphor, and insisting it was literal...all because they need to have their OT "predict" Jesus with "amazing accuracy".  Sorry, I sleep well at night, not worrying in the least whether Christianity has the least substance to it.

Isaiah 53 is a particularly important prophecy that lays out the story of Jesus and the meaning of the Resurrection (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). Is this evidence of an Intelligence outside our time confirming Jesus’ authority?

 No, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is spoken of by the 7th century b.c. Isaiah in past tense terms, and only Christians inist that using the past tense to predict the future is "reasonable".  Furthermore,

the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 "opened not his mouth".  Well, did Jesus open his mouth during his time of affliction and oppression? Yes, read John 18:33 ff.  Finally, even Christian commentators admit this exactly how to interpret Isaiah 53 has produced a storm of scholarly controversy ever since Christians began using it, and it doesn't make good sense to use a biblical matter embroiled in scholarly controversy to "prove" something, indeed, the commentary sets out to show fulfillment of the passage by servants/sufferers who lived hundreds of years before Jesus, a thing a Christian commentary would never do if Jesus were the "obvious" fulfillment of the passage:

The bibliography on this topic is enormous, indicating the great interest in the subject and the lack of agreement on it. The interpretation of these passages and the discussion of identification (who is the sufferer?) have continued at least from the first century (Acts 8:34) until now...This commentary will show that “the sufferer passages” are distinct from “the servant passages” sufferer and the servant are not the same person and that the in the Vision. Israel and the Persian emperor (Cyrus or Darius) are called “the anointed” or “the servant of Yahweh” (See Excursus: Identifying the “Servant of Yahweh”). But the sufferer in 50:4–9 and the dead sufferer in chap. 53 is more likely to be a leader in Jerusalem (perhaps Zerubbabel) who has been executed before the arrival of authorities sent by Darius.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 227). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Swamidass continues:

3. Jesus was a real person in history who died. Several manuscripts from multiple sources, including Jewish historians, describe a man named Jesus who lived and was executed.

You gain nothing by noting that Jesus was real.

[4] Specific details reported about His execution confirm.“Blood and water” spilled from a spear wound in His side. He really died and was not merely unconscious.[5]

Never mind that conservative Christian scholars like Craig Evans, by denying that Jesus ever actually mouthed many statements attributed to him in the gospel of John, therefore views the gospel of John as not necessarily setting forth actual history, but theological interpretation.  

4. The early accounts of the Resurrection and prophecies predicting it were reliably transmitted through history.

Which is irrelevant to the Christian scholarly consensus that mark was the earliest gospel, and that Mark didn't write anything after verse 8, necessarily implying that the earliest gospel author either did not know about, or did not trust in the reliability of, any resurrection appearance narrative.  

As of 2014, more than 66,000 early manuscripts are known, orders of magnitude more than other ancient texts. Many are carbon dated to before Jesus’ time on earth and the first few centuries after. We see accounts nearly unaltered in the earliest manuscripts.[6] A pattern of consistency emerges. There are variations in the manuscripts, but nothing invalidates the reliability of the Resurrection accounts.

Except Mark's screaming silence.  Apparently, the original gospel story was merely that the women found out from some anonymous man or angel that Jesus rose from the dead...and that's all. the original gospel story did not contain resurrection appearance narratives. And if Mark is the earliest of the gospels, then the later gospels having such narratives points toward typically expected legendary development, by which stories increase in detail and drama over time with each retelling.  No wonder some dumb ass Christians have "suddenly discovered" that the Christian scholar consensus is wrong, and that Matthew, with his resurrection narrative, was the earliest of the gospels.

5. Accounts of the Resurrection include inconvenient and unflattering details,

forgers can make up embarrassing details for the purpose of increasing the drama of the narrative or the lesson learned at the end, therefore the "criteria of embarrassment" is of limited utility at best.

that make most sense as attempts to reliably record what had happened, free from embellishment.

That Matthew and Luke embellish, modify and change Mark, is accepted by even "inerrantist" Christian scholars, who also admit they changed his text because they thought Mark's wording would support unorthodox theology:

Mark 6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58. The statement should not trouble contemporary Christians. God and his Son could do anything, but they have chosen to limit themselves in accordance to human response.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 100). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 But if Mark's statement should not trouble contemporary Christians (i.e., Mark's wording is not reasonably susceptible to supporting low Christology), then what motiviated Luke to omit it and Matthew to "tone it down"?

 Mark 4:38 Not a few have compared the sleeping of Jesus and Jonah. It is, however, a mere coincidence and in no way implies that the story is modeled upon that of Jonah or a passage in Psalms, such as 89:9; 106:9; or 107:23–25. Jesus’ sleeping does suggest confidence in God (cf. Ps 3:5; 4:8; Prov 3:24). Furthermore Jesus’ sleeping is one of many indications in Mark of his humanity. The disciples’ question strongly rebukes Jesus and is another example of Mark’s candor, which Matt 8:25 and Luke 8:24 tone down.

Brooks, J. A, supra

 If Matthew and Luke believed, like today's inerrantists, that Mark's choice of wording is not reasonably interpreted in a way supporting low Christology, then how could Matthew and Luke have been motivated to tone it down?  If it's not a problem or a potential problem, it doesn't need a solution, does it?  And how can you believe the gospel authors espoused "biblical inerancy" (i.e., that Matthew and Luke viewed Mark's text as without error and inspired by God exactly the way Mark wrote it), when modern-day inerrantist Christian scholars are admitting that Matthew and Luke changed or "toned down" Mark's wording?  If YOU had been using Mark's text to help you construct your own gospel, would YOU have changed his wording the way Matthew and Luke did?  Or would your being an "inerrantist" prevent you from making any changes to the divinely chosen wording in the source material?

Mark 5:31 The disciples’ sarcastic reply is an example of Markan candor that is omitted by Matthew (cf. 9:20–22) and toned down in Luke (8:45).

Brooks, J. A., supra

 Swamidass continues:

They do not fit expectations of a fabricated account.

They aren't quite as bad as the 2nd century pseudepigrapha (gee, I wonder where the 2nd century Christians ever got the idea that utterly fictional narratives about Jesus stood a fair chance of being believed by Christians, if in fact 1st century Christians cared only for historically accurate source material?  And that Matthew, Luke and John are fabricating in their resurrection accounts was already shown by the Christian scholarly consensus which says Mark author of the earliest gospel, did not write anything about the resurrection appearances.  Since it is not likely Mark would "chose to exclude" the evidentiary details of the most important aspect about Jesus (his resurrection), Mark's silence isn't because he is "choosing to exclude" such a story, he is silent about Jesus actually appearing to anybody because Mark did not know of, or did not trust in the reliability of, any so-called resurrection appearance story.  No trifle of "maybe this or maybe that" can take this historical justification for skepticism and make it unreasonable.

For example, women are the first witnesses of the Resurrection.

Many Christian scholars think Paul's story of the resurrection witnesses in 1st Corinthians 15 draws on a very early creed, and Paul mentions no women.  

In a culture that did not admit the testimony of a woman as valid evidence in court,

That is bullshit, the law required a woman to give testimony in some cases, Deut. 25:9, and regardless, the NT books do not appear to be written to convince unbelievers, but to convince those already in the faith (i.e., those who have already decided to break away from worldly ways of doing things and adopt new ways...and in 1st century Judaism/Christianity, there were women whose testimony was considered of supreme importance: the prophetesses or daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8).  Even before Christianity, Judaism often honored the word of a woman (Ezekiel 13:23). Priscillia took part in instructing the zealous but ignorant Apollo in correcting his Christian preaching (Acts 18:25).

In short, the gospels were primarily written for those who already adopted the Christian faith, and therefore, were written for those who did not agree with secular view that the testimony of women was worthless.

this detail is surprising. Likewise, all the disciples, the leaders of the early Church, flee as cowards when Jesus is taken.

Which is consistent for followers who aren't convinced their leader can do serious miracles, but not consistent if we assume, as Christians must, that the disciples believed Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural.  If they were, those miracles would have given them every reason to be "amazingly transformed" no less than their alleged seeing Jesus risen from the dead would have.  More gospel baloney that has features more consistent with fiction than fact.

6. After Jesus’ violent death, His followers were frightened and scattered.

A literary device to make their subsequent transformation all the more bold and dramatic.

Then, something happened that grew a strong, bold, and confident belief that resisted sustained, murderous opposition.

Baloney!  There is not enough information about exactly how the original apostles died, to justify your  conclusion that they sustained their faith against murderous opposition.  And Mormonism sustained murderous opposition, even opposing the American Military in the 19th century, but does their succeeding against the odds impress YOU?  Then why should Christianity's success against the odds impress anybody else?  For the unfortunate few who seem to think James Patrick Holding's "impossible faith" bullshit answers this criticism, it doesn't.  Richard Carrier, who actually has a Ph.d in history and thus knows what he is talking about, has trounced Holding's thesis, which is probably some of the reason why Holding now hides his rejoinders behind paywalls:

Holding has configured his website so that the place I normally access it from, will not allow me to see anything but unreasdable raw html, but the google cache still provides the evidence that Holding doesn't want his reply to carrier to be known unless you pay for it:

• Reply to Robert Price
• Reply to Richard Carrier [Donation Required]

 See the bottom of that page.

Swamidass continues:

Unlike other movements with executed leaders, once they came back together they did not replace Jesus with one of his family members. Their resistance was entirely non-violent and devoid of political power. Yet they were all suddenly willing to die for what they saw.

Fuck you, the available historical evidence does not permit dogmatism on how willing the original disciples were to become martyrs. What are you doing, parotting Josh McDowell.

What changed them?

Indeed, what change was responsible for Peter becoming a Judaizer after Jesus allegedly rose from the dead?

 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Gal. 2:14 NAU)

 Swamidass continues:

Why was there not evidence at the time to undermine their belief?

 That's about as stupid as asking "Why was there not evidence at the time to undermine the belief of the Mormons in the 1800's?"  There obviously was, but they found continuing in Mormonism and the practical benefits of it to somehow be a stronger motive than in whether it was actually true.

What convinced them that Jesus was inconceivably greater than his family?

Good question, since it was precisely his own brothers and immediate family who found his claims during his earthly ministry to be unworthy of credit:

1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
 4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. (Jn. 7:1-5 NAU)

  20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
 27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "--
 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."
 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."
 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?"
 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Mk. 3:20-35 NAU)

 I've been asking "apologists" for years how they explain how to reconcile their belief that all of Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural, with the gospel facts they are forced to admit are true, namely, that Jesus' immediate family were so unimpressed with his claims/works that they didn't believe him. If his miracles were real, their unbelief impeaches their credibility, should they surface later as believers.  If they refused to believe because Jesus' miracles were false, kiss your religion goodbye.  Hence, apologists don't have a lot of wiggle room as long as they admit the above-cited two passages about Jesus' own family refusing to believe his claims, are historically true.

7. More than just a fact about our past, the Resurrection creates a connection to God that is perceived by people from all times, cultures, socioeconomic statuses, personalities, and metal capacities, across the last 2,000 years of history. Its reach includes some of the most famous scientists: Blaise Pascal, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Gregor Mendel, Asa Gray, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, and Francis Collins. Is this unmatched reach and influence a sign of a living God working His purpose in history?

Ad populum fallacy.  You cannot argue or imply a truth by referring to the fact that it is popular, or accepted by a bunch of smart important people in history.

Some of the evidence here is established by scientific methods. For example, radiocarbon dating demonstrates that Isaiah 53’s prediction that Jesus “see the light of life” after dying was written at least 100 years before His birth.

Irrelevant, Isaiah 53 contains details entirely inconsistent with the Jesus of the gospels, so it doesn't matter if we grant that Isaiah made this "prediction" in 700 b.c. or in 100 b.c.

However, the question of Jesus gently beckons us out from science’s limits, into a reality where love, beauty, goodness, and relationships are real. In the question of the empty tomb, science itself reaches its hard limit. It points to something beyond itself.

Not if you infer all that is reasonable to infer from the Christian scholarly consensus that Mark was the earliest of the 4 gospels and that 16:8 is the last of Mark's own writing.

1. The Resurrection is God’s direct, supernatural action in a specific physical event in history. The obvious finality of physical death (both in modern science and to the ancient world) serves to highlight the role of God in this moment. We never consider God’s action in science, so we cannot even ask the question without opening our minds to things beyond science.[9]

And thus opening our minds to things beyond empirical demonstration.  Now google "William Lane Craig" and then come back here and tell me that I believe in numbers even though I can't demonstrate them empirically.

2. The entire Christian faith hinges on the physical Resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:14,17),

Jesus himself never taught any such thing, so Paul was likely engaging in the sin of going beyond the word of the Lord here.

but no “Resurrection mechanism” for science to study is proposed.

We also don't propose any "gateway to another dimension" to explain the Bermuda Triangle.

As a mechanism-free singular event that defies all natural laws, we are well outside science’s ability adjudicate facts and understand evidence.

Precisely why we should view any science-contradicting testimony as total bullshit. 

3. The question of the Resurrection is more like an opportunity to fall in love than a scientific inquiry.

yeah, with the resurrection story representing that stupid mule she met at the bar, who makes all those mid-might promises to her when she's in the mood, but who later fails to deliver.

There is evidence, but the Resurrection cannot be studied dispassionately.

Precisely the reason why we should be suspicious that it is not capable of dispassionate resolution.

[10] If Jesus really rose from the dead, it reorders everything.

And if the Easter Bunny is real, this is going to embarrass a lot of mature adults.

Just like falling in love, in changes our view of the world.

The final verdict, for me, is that the Resurrection makes sense through the lens of history.

The final verdict for me is that you appear to have learned your entire resurrection spiel from Josh McDowell, the one Christian apologist most notorious for avoiding debate and peer-review like the plague.

I find the Creator of all that science studies comes to us in this way.

If it keeps you from doing crime, more power to you.  What's false become beneficial to society if what's false keeps you in line. Religion is the opiate of the masses.  Sleep tight.

The evidence is compelling, but not definitive.

"but not definitive"?  How does it feel now that you've said something to make most of your other conservative Christian friends view you are ignorant, weak, or deluded by Satan?

Faith in Jesus is reasonable and is certainly not without evidence.

So?  Rejection of the resurrection of Jesus is certainly reasonable and not without evidence.  Your article has done nothing to tip the balance of historical probabilities in favor of the Christian view.

So, we are left with an invitation. Will we too believe? Will we be curious? Will we respond with trust?

And get caught up in all the ceaseless theological arguments that constantly divide Christians against each other?  FUCK YOU.   I cannot be a Christian because I'm the kind of guy who actually takes my beliefs seriously. 

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.