The bible scholars who condemn Holding for his childish name calling

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

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

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


James White, Ph.d, is a 5-point Calvinist, author of many books,  and has been doing public debates with Christians and others for years.  When he critiques Holding in his article "How not to do exegesis", he disagrees with Holding's choice to start resorting to ad hominem attacks, and calls Holding a "nasty apologist", whom White will be glad to wash his hands of for good:

The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner. 

Holding pushed his use of homoerotic illustrations to such extreme levels in his debate with Christian apologist Steve Hays, that Hays had to complain and rightly observe that Holding has a filthy mind:

 …As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind operates, his latest thread is charmingly headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.
…Defendant’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable.
…This is not the first time that Defendant has taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.    

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

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

Hello,

I am having some issues with a brother who tries to justify his public insulting of atheists by appeal to the social science work on the bible done by the "Context Group".

When this brother preaches to unbelievers, and they challenge something in the bible, he insults and belittles them.

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

I would like to know:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Barry Jones barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

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

When Holding found out about this, he said my communication with Dr. Kirk was a good reason to report me for stalking, and since he was addressing me, his mortal enemy, he cannot seriously have expected me to take this as hyperbole or sarcasm, especially not since later he accused me of criminal stalking:

On Thu, 5/7/15, jphold@att.net <jphold@att.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: Fuller Theological Seminary thinks you are 'absurd'

To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015, 4:49 AM

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

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

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.comwrote: Hello,

I am having some issues with a brother who tries to justify his public insulting of atheists by appeal to the social science work on the bible done by the "Context Group".

When this brother preaches to unbelievers, and they challenge something in the bible, he insults and belittles them.

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

I would like to know:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Barry Jonesbarryjoneswhat@yahoo.com 

--- On Tue, 5/5/15, Carson <carson.aa@gmail.comwrote:  

From: Carson <carson.aa@gmail.com

Subject: Re: your opinion of challenge/riposte

To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 7:22 AM

Dear Mr. Jones,  

The Context Group is a collection of biblical scholars who study (mostly) the New Testament using social-scientific methods, such as sociology, anthropology, and the like. Whatever their personal beliefs, they do their work as functioning atheists (even though some of them are not personally atheists). One of the things they emphasize, partly rightly and partly in an exaggerated way, is the role of shame in the first century as opposed to guilt. Those of us who work in East Asian countries sometimes today see something of the same shame-culture.  

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

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

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

Frankly, I would not waste much time trying to convince your friend. It sounds as if he has adopted a pretty rigid stance that will not easily be corrected. Instead of spending your energy trying to correct him, spend your energy trying to bear faithful and fruitful and loving witness to the wonder of the gospel to those who do not know Christ.

With all good wishes, Yours faithfully,

D. A. Carson

Research Professor of New Testament

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015  

DAC:da

Again, in April 2015, I emailed to bible scholar Craig Blomberg the following questions about whether the bible supports modern-day Christians who insult and belittle their critics:

    From: Barry Jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:57 PM

    To: Blomberg, Craig

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

    What is your opinion of modern day Christians who persistently insult critics of Christianity?

    

    I noticed that you yourself never attempt to characterize your winning some debate about the bible, by using euphemisms that describe the sexual parts of the human body, and you never use insulting rhetoric, when you communicate with unbelievers or heretics who criticize the faith.  Are these things missing from your demeanor solely by reason of personal preference/choice, or are they missing because you believe that the bible without exception forbids Christians acting like that?

    

    How would you respond to the argument that "because Jesus and Paul insulted critics of Christianity, this is license for modern Christians to do the same?"

    

    It is my opinion that when 2nd Timothy 2:24-26 says "the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all...", the "all" includes unbelievers who criticize and attack Christian faith.  Do you agree or disagree, and please provide your reasons.  Some Christians have given me what appears to be very tortured exegesis in the effort to argue that this passage is consistent with their daily ceaseless persistent foul-mouthed insults against skeptics and atheists.  They say I only disagree with them because I don't know enough about honor/shame cultures or the ANE to speak on the subject.  I'm certainly no scholar, but I don't see anything in the scholarly literature about the ANE or honor/shame cultures, that would justify saying this passage is consistent with modern day Christians who routinely insult and belittle atheists and skeptics.

    

    Are you familiar with the work of the "Context Group" (i.e., Malina, Rohrobough, etc)?  If so, can you think of any contribution to biblical studies they ever made, which could reasonably be taken to support the idea that the New Testament approves of Christians who daily and routinely insult their critics?  I certainly appreciate their work, and most of it is not even hinted at in standard protestant commentaries, but I also cannot, for the life of me, find anything in their works that would suggest biblical justification for modern-day Christians routinely insulting unbelievers who attack Christian faith.

         Thank you,

         Barry Jones.

 Dr. Craig replied that those who act like this today, do a fair amount of damage to the Christian cause, and that he is not aware of anything in the Context Group scholarship of Malina or Rohrbaugh which would provide justification for modern Christians to insult and belittle those who publicly criticize Christianity:

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

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

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

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

I responded with a few follow-up remarks and further questions:

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:02 AM

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

Mr. Blomberg,

Thank you for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you believe that modern-day Christians who routinely resort to harsh insulting language against critics of Christianity, are clearly sinning with this kind of talk, or would you rather say that the circumstances the Christian is in when using  insulting rhetoric, decide whether the name-calling constitutes sin?

 Blomberg's final reply indicated that he felt negativity was to be reserved solely for ultra conservative Christians who need to be rebuked, and that any bible interpretations that lack support from any bona fide scholars are likely false:

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

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:18 PM

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

I answered several of these  questions explicity or implicitly in my previous response.  I don’t care to expand on it much  One can never make absolute statements about Scripture never justifying insulting behavior.  The Twelve are to shake the dust off their feet for those who reject them.  But, in general, we do much better to be positive, except to the ultraconservative Christian who needs to be rebuked. Interpretations that no bona fide scholars anywhere support are likely to be suspect because detailed scholarly studies will have canvased them already.

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:00 PM

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

thank you for your time.

 Mr. Holding's magnum opus, that Christians of today have biblical authority to go around ceaselessly insulting their critics with shameful belittling vituperation, is not agreed to by ANY "bone fide" legitimately credentialed Christian scholar.  So under Blomberg's own criteria, we have full rational warrant to be suspicious, at the least, that Holding's view of the matter is false, and yet, true to form, Holding prances around like an attention-deficit peacock, screaming at the world how obviously correct he is and how "dumbass" and "moronic" anybody who disagrees with him is.

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