Update July 14, 2017: In 2008, I posted to another discussion forum several quotes from Holding, showing how highly he lauded the Context Group and Richard Rohrbaugh in particular. This was to prepare the reader for the quotes from Rohbaugh showing that he thinks Holding gives Christianity a bad name and needs serious psychological help.
Finally, after nearly 10 years of my relentless advertising of this attack on Holding's integrity, my efforts are starting to pay off:
Holding, after allowing his most comprehensive article defending the "fuck you" style of apologetics he promotes (where he quotes Rohrbaugh in support), to go unchanged for nearly 10 years, he has finally been forced to add a few explanatory paragraphs to the beginning of the article, and in doing so, betrays that he recently got clobbered with strong evidence that I was correct all these years; the Context Group really does view him as a genuine piece of shit scumbag. See last section of this article entitled "The Third Disowning" for the update.
=========================
Update: July 19, 2017: Holding, apparently having discovered my commentary on his first update, updated his comments once again. I respond to his latest at the end of this post, under the heading "He Tried".
=========================
James Patrick Holding, since 1998, has built a nasty reputation around himself as a Christian apologist, by ceaselessly demeaning and insulting anybody and everybody, including Christians, should they dare disagree with his opinions about bible. Atheist John Loftus documented in 2009 that Holding indiscriminately insults other Christians just as often as he does atheists.
What makes him somewhat unique is his claim that the bible provides license to a modern-day Christian to use extreme condescending insulting "riposte" to publicly shame anybody who publicly criticizes Christianity.
See his magnum opus to that effect.
While it's still in the research stages, I plan to post an article hitting Holding from an angle he never expected: there are psychological reasons why a person obsesses about something, hence there are psychological reasons Holding obsessively insults his critics. the bible authorizes Christians of today to do many things, but Holding doesn't obsess over them: The bible instructs the disciples to evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20), but Holding has made it clear, several times, that he doesn't do apologetics to convince people to convert, but to make current believers feel secure that their faith can be intellectually justified. Therefore, "because the bible says I can" does not explain Holding's compulsive need to spit and hiss at anything and everything that opposes him. I insist that because psychology convincingly explains why kids and adults in general engage in name-calling, Holding is a human being too, and thus, the psychological reasons that explain why other people do this, suffice in Holding's case too. We cannot deny that he gets a thrill out of talking shit, so it makes sense to ask why he is that way. I think we'll find that, despite using Christianity as a cover, the reason Holding is attracted to verbal abuse is purely naturalistic: we find that some non-Christians have equal desire to verbally abuse others, so Holding cannot escape the facts that "the bible tells me so" is mere pretext, and that his motive to besmirch others runs no deeper than his genetic predispositions and environmental conditioning.
The whole idea that he only does this because he thinks it is godly, is total bullshit, human beings always fill a real or perceived void in their heart/mind when they obsess about anything, sex, gambling, fighting, etc. When we obsess, we experience a feeling of fulfillment...so without clear and convincing evidence otherwise, Holding's human nature argues that he experiences a feeling of fulfillment in verbally battering other people, and because this is so, his attempt to cite the bible as his motive, is a lie. He would be talking shit to his critics even if he wasn't a Christian.
Indeed, we have to ask WHY ancient agrarian societies approved of honor/shame spitting matches, in light of the obvious fact that insulting the other man does not do anything to show that your position on a matter is close to the truth than his. And the answer appears to be rank immaturity and the need to adopt an "us v. them" mentality of group survival in that collectivist society. The more outsiders were kept at bay, and the more emotional ties the individuals had with members of their group, the more likely they would survive:
Notice, Holding starts out by appeal to the work of a Context Group scholar, Richard Rohrbaugh:
Let's begin with Scripture, and some observational notes from the sociological well of Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics.
The first disowning
In 2008, I had a debate with Holding at Tweb, in which he engaged is his usual unnecessary amounts of spite and invective. I emailed Dr. Rohrbaugh in 2008, sent him a sample of Holding's highly insulting unnecessarily vituperative language toward me, and asked him in several different ways whether a modern-day Christian could justify using that kind of language from the bible. Rohrbaugh replied that such words indicate Holding gives Christianity a bad name, he needs serious psychological help, he has no manners, and neither Rohrbaugh nor any other scholar he could think of, would wish to be associated with Holding.
I posted Rohrbaugh's answer to Tweb in my defense. As predicted, Tweb, like any jailhouse lawyer or politician, invoked the trifling technicality that I didn't first get Rohrbaugh's permission, and thereby deleted the post (as if violation of their rule was more frightful to them than the obvious truth that their faith-hero Holding was proven to be a dishonest scumbag). But, asshole that I am, I knew that would happen, so I posted the same to the old FRDB boards, and it is thankfully still preserved in full. Check it out.
The second disowning
I emailed Dr. Rohrbaugh in December 2015, provided him a link to Holding's "The Christian and Harsh Language" article (which has gone offline mysteriously one day after I threatened Holding with a third libel lawsuit: www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php,"Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '<' in /home/tekton5/public_html/lp/madmad.php on line 6" (extracted July 17, 2017)), and asked if he thought it made correct use of Rohrbaugh's scholarship. Rohrbaugh and I replied to each other several times. He then replied in candid fashion that said article is an "obvious perversion" of ALL Context Group work, an obvious perversion of the New Testament, and an obvious perversion of Rohrbaugh's own scholarship in particular.
Here is the full text of my email to him, and his response is at the end. I have highlighted the places where Rohrbaugh says things that totally contradict Holding's belief that insulting critics is proper for today's Christians. Rohrbaugh's ending comment could not have smashed Holding's hopes with any greater feverishness without employing cuss words:
On 12/6/2015 4:27 PM, Barry Jones wrote:
Mr. Rohrbaugh,
I hope you are not too busy to answer email!
I saw your video on bible canon and was intrigued by your
view that Nahum should be excluded from the canon due, in part, to its
insulting presentation.
If an insulting demeanor is something the bible author
approves of, doesn't that mean it is a good thing?
How can we determine which insulting comments in the bible
are really from God, and which aren't?
For example, what reason do you assign for the biblical
world being one of challenge and riposte?
Is that because God is really like that?
If not, what can we do to sift the "Jewishness" out of the
bible so that we are left with how God really is, unadorned by cultural garb?
I've battled KJV Onlyists who insult everybody like crazy,
and insist that this honor/shame dialectic is also appropriate for use in
modern-day America. I don't think that makes sense, but what is
your view?
My personal opinion is that when Christians today constantly
insult those who are outside the faith, they aren't doing it because it is
"biblical", they are doing it solely because they have a sinful lust
to argue, nothing more, but perhaps I'm not caught up on the study of biblical
morality?
Thanks,
Barry Jones.
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
Barry,
A lot of questions...
Some quick answers:
If a biblical author approves of insulting language and
attitude does that mean it is a good thing?
No. It means that author was mean
and insulting. Period. Are such comments "from God"? No.
The Bible is a human product. It
is not God's words, it is the words of its many authors. They were like us: some were wise and
thoughtful, some were vindictive, blind and short sighted. The ancient Hebrews left us all sorts of
stuff which THEY found meaningful. Some
of it has proven so to people everywhere for over 2000 years. Other stuff they left us is less than
worthwhile. There are lots of bad
characters in biblical stories. Why
should we imitate them?
Does God share the honor-shame outlook? No.
But God does not share our outlook either. The honor-shame outlook is NOT Jewish. It was universal in the ancient world and
still exists in much of the third world yet today. We can find it in ancient Babylon,
Egypt, Greece, Rome,
Israel etc. It happens to be the cultural world in which
the biblical writers lived and wrote, so why should we be surprised that they wrote with the language
and outlook of the time in which they lived?
Is it appropriate for us?
No. We are not an honor shame
society now (early America
was) and never will be again. No
industrialized society on earth has ever been.
Only agrarian societies are honor-shame.
How do we get the "Jewishness" out of the
Bible. You can't because it is THEIR
story. Moreover trying to do so sounds
very like anti-semitism. How do we have
a God unadorned by cultural garb? We
can't. We are finite humans. We all have all the limitations of our own
time and place. We see somethings well
and others poorly. That is simply the
human condition. There is NO POSSIBILITY
of culturally unadorned thought on religion or ANY OTHER subject on the
planet. So we Americanize
Christianity. Germans germanize it. Africans africanize it. There is no such thing as culture-free
Christianity and never will be. Naming
ANY finite human version of Christianity to be culture-free is idolatry pure
and simple. It would make some version
of us and our way of thinking the infinite, but human beings do not have the
capacity to be divine. Paul got it
right: "we see in a mirror dimly."
Richard
On
12/7/2015 6:28 PM, Barry Jones wrote:
Mr.
Rohrbaugh,
Thanks for
your response. I believe that your work
on the social world of the bible is sorely needed in light of the "read
the bible like a newspaper" stuff we get from most American commentaries
and churches. I was surprised very much
to hear how Funk from the Jesus Seminar screamed at you because of your
insisting that they consider the social context of the gospels before deciding
which sayings go back to Jesus himself.
That just made me dizzy that such a qualified person could so staunchly
resist the very relevant context issues.
I have
some other questions, no rush:
24
The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to
teach, patient when wronged, 25 with
gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant
them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and
escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his
will. (2Ti 2:24-1 NAU)
Does the
the "gentle" in 2nd Timothy 2:24 include any type of insult or
"shaming"? Or does 'gentle'
there mean what we modern Gentiles think it means (in context...teaching in a
patient way that does not involve insults or shaming even when instructing
those who publicly criticize the faith)?
You might
be interested to know that your Social Science Commentary is being used by an
evangelical apologist, who makes money selling books and promoting himself as
an apologist, to establish that there is biblical justification for modern-day
Christians to publicly shame/attack/insult those who publicly criticize
Christian faith.
For
example, in the article where he acknowledges using your work as a guide, he
gives the following advice to Christians who are interacting with different
types of people:
Private/questioner -- teach them.
Private/baiter -- avoid them.
Public/questioner -- teach them.
Public/baiter -- attack them.
This
is in line with the much broader dichotomy between public and private discourse
and encounter in the social world of the Bible.
Source: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php
Is there
anything at all in any of your published writings, or the published writings of
the other Context Group authors, that would support the above-quoted
Public/baiter -- attack them conclusion?
Of course he doesn't mean physically attack, he only means
"shame/insult/rebuke", etc.
You might
be even more interested in how says that people who refuse to use riposte in
modern American culture are sick and aiding and abetting that sickness:
""But we should be all things to all men and modify our
approach for today's culture."
Then it's time to give up blood atonement
too. No, modern culture has forbidden riposte as a way to prevent deserved
criticism and to silence the critic. To that extent, the culture itself is sick
and those who reject valid riposte are themselves aiding and abetting the
sickness." (Ibid)
Is he
misrepresenting your work there?
You might
be wondering what kind of person this "apologist" is. Here is a sample from his early work showing
him responding to various people who disagree with his views, and to the best
of my knowledge, he refuses to acknowledge that this was unChristlike:
"And you? You’re nothing but a sanctimonious ant with delusions of
your own grandeur; you’re nothing but a modern day Hugh waving your swollen
member around and knocking people over with it or else disgusting everyone by
pointing to it and shouting to everyone to look at it."
----http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84
---------------wayback has archived this if you care to check to see
whether this man was arguing in a context that morally or biblically justified
such language.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050501231546/http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84
"In your arrogance you missed it; you were so busy waving your
giant pee-pee around that you bonked yourself on the head with it and didn’t
even notice."
-----""http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89
---------------wayback has archived this if you care to check to see
whether this man was arguing in a context that morally or biblically justified
such language.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050501231540/http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89
Swollen
member? Giant pee-pee? Shouting at everybody to look at one's
uncovered genitalia?
The
trouble with this guy is not that he is just "wrong", but that he
manages to convince other apparently weak-minded people that he is a giant in
the field of bible scholarship despite lacking any formal education in bible
related matters. He has a tax-exempt
ministry and sells books about the world of the bible and "how to
reconcile alleged bible contradictions".
I therefore do not think that simply ignoring him fulfills the Christian
duty to positively identify false teachers and advertise a refutation of their
teachings that mar the image of Christ.
Having
your work abused by others is probably something that deserves your attention
and commentary, even if only to make sure that he doesn't mislead others
regarding Context Group work.
Thanks
again for your time, and I hope to find more of your lectures on the internet!
Barry
Jones
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
I glanced at the stuff on the website. It is obviously a perversion of both the NT
and ALL Context scholarship, including mine.
But... respond? Not worth my
time.
RLR
Since Holding since 1998 has been using Context Group scholarship to support his belief that the bible gives license to modern-day Christians to belittle their critics, and since it is abundantly clear from the mouth of the Context Group scholar and co-founder that this proposition is an obvious perversion of Context Group work, I have full reasonable and rational warrant to conclude that the world's smartest internet apologist engaged in nothing less than missing the forest for the trees for the better part of 20 years, hence justifying one's refusal to believe that Holding is the smartest internet apologist.
The Third Disowning
UPDATE July 14, 2017----------
Holding's magnum opus for defending his sneering "fuck you" style of apologetics, was archived several times by the wayback machine:
The first comes from a crawl done March 25, 2015
The several archived versions appear to be the same up to and including the crawl done February 2, 2017.
I had a sneaking suspicion that, with my relentless advertising of just how dishonest Holding is and how blind he is to obvious truth when it comes to his favorite vice of foul-mouthed "love", he would eventually be forced to modify his magnum opus, wherein he argues that Jesus wants Christians to talk shit to everybody who disagrees with them.
That day has come. I kept up with Holding's activity through Google Cache, and lo and behold, I found the following added to his article according to a Google cache capture from July 11, 2017,
Holding has pre-pended the following paragraphs to that article, and I respond to each point below:
Printed from http://tektonics.org/madmad.php
The Christian and Harsh Language
There’s a particularly moronic notion that some people might
come up with in response to what is below. They might ask if the Context Group
(whose work I cite below) agrees with what I’m saying here, and think that
actually is a meaningful question. It’s not.
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm
in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them.
What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today. To which
I would say in reply, if they do disagree: That’s their problem, not mine.
Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of
Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a
position I don’t agree with. I agree with their findings. I don’t agree with
all of their applications of those findings. There’s a huge difference, and
simple minds may not grasp that difference.
However, if any of the Context Group wishes to argue that
such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their
own business and look past the rarified confines of academia. Scholars like
Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting atheist idiots like
DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector. They’ve never engaged in forum debate with
lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting Thomas Paine as an authority on the
formation of the canon, or who have some sort of personality disorder and keep
posting mile-long blog entries no one ever reads, or who have never done
anything with their lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit
around collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise
rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.
If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place
for hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more. They are
far from being my favorite Bible scholars; nor do I quote them the most on this
website. I respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of
the Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply that
research.
With all that said, what place does satire and the like have
- what place can it have-within the defense of a religion based on a God who is
love?
I respond as follows:
There’s a particularly moronic notion that some people might
come up with in response to what is below. They might ask if the Context Group
(whose work I cite below) agrees with what I’m saying here, and think that
actually is a meaningful question. It’s not.
Yeah, noting that the scholar doesn't interpret his own research the way YOU do, is a moronic observation. We should never ask whether the author's use of a scholar's work applies it in a way opposite to the scholar's own application. If I used Holding's apologetics arguments to prove atheism, the fact that I apply his research differntly than Holding himself applies it, is irrelevant.
By the way, Holding, since you are now telling the Context Group to mind their own business, given that you apparently recently discovered they think you are a real piece of shit...what prevents you from calling them "morons" and "dumbasses" the way you characterize everybody else who disagree with your basic beliefs? You cannot cite to their expertise in the field, you talked shit to the properly qualified Hector Avalos and others for years (Carrier, Ferguson, Geisler, W.C. Craig, G.A. Wells, etc). Your opponent having the proper credentials has never slowed you down in the past from hurling abusive epithets at them, why should it slow you down from asserting that Rohrbaugh too is a moronic dumbass for not applying his research results the way you do?
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm
in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them.
And you have failed, magnificently, to establish that God intended for modern day Christians to follow this ancient custom today, which is a severe problem on your part, since which parts of the bible modern Christians are obliged to follow, is a huge never-ending rat's nest of conflicting opinion within the church. Reconstructionists say the U.S. Constitution should be replaced with the Decalogue.
What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today. To which
I would say in reply, if they do disagree: That’s their problem, not mine.
So if Holding disagrees with me, that's his problem, not mine? Will you allow others to dismiss criticism using use the exact type of rationalization that you use? Can we avoid your apologetics arguments by saying "if Holding disagrees with me, that's his problem, not mine"?
A more scholarly approach would say that if the Context Group draws conclusion from their research that are opposite to the conclusions YOU draw from their research, you need to either have a discussion with them, or present your reasons for saying their conclusions are faulty. We're waiting. Assuring us that it is "their problem" with no attempt to explain where they go wrong in applying their own research, just supports more and more the conclusion of apologist James R. White that you are strongly deluded about your own academic abilities.
Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of
Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a
position I don’t agree with.
You call everybody else a moron when they publicly attack traditional Christian beliefs. Rohrbaugh's view that Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon, was publicly made in the original speech and further publicized on youtube in a video that has since been removed. Mr. Holding, why do you refrain from calling Dr. Rohrbaugh a "moron" or "dumbass" for this public attack on biblical "truth"?
Perhaps you refuse to extend your insulting epithets to them because that would make YOU look equally stupid for having depended so heavily upon their scholarship for the last 20 years?
I agree with their findings. I don’t agree with
all of their applications of those findings.
So are they morons for incorrect application of their findings? If a skeptic takes your research and applies it in a way that you yourself didn't apply it, is that skeptic a dumbass, yes or no?
There’s a huge difference, and
simple minds may not grasp that difference.
Yes, Holding, you have the option of saying you no longer address your critics that way, but that would do you no good, since the questions would present themselves: Ok...then why have you softened your approach? Was it because you recently realized your foul-mouthed vituperation in the past had nothing to do with Christian love? Did you soften your approach because the Holy Spirit, for mysterious reasons, only wants Christians younger than 45 to talk that way? What exactly? If your prior abusive speech wasn't sinful, then why have you departed from what is otherwise in your mind a way of addressing critics that is approved of by God? Simple minds conclude that you don't talk like a demented teenager anymore because of nothing more than simple aging of the brain. Most human beings simply lose their need to aggressively dominate as they age more and more. Have fun trying to convince your worshipers that God doesn't change and yet wanted you to depart from what you thought was a perfectly godly way of rebuking your critics. Sure is funny that God's mood becomes less and less aggressive as you age more and more.
Apparently you think the Context Group have simple minds, because your later comment that the Context Group should "mind their own business", being such an extreme 180 from your prior position of worshiping the ground they walk on, strongly suggests you've recently found out that they too fail to grasp this difference.
However, if any of the Context Group wishes to argue that
such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their
own business and look past the rarified (sic) confines of academia.
Then apparently God only speaks through you, since most Christians and Christian scholars do not think debating skeptics licenses them to talk in extremely filthy pornographic terms the way you do, as I document here at this blog.
In 2008 when I posted Rohrbaugh's scathing criticism of you to theologyweb.com, you replied, in a post that your buddy John Sparks conveniently made disappear, that I was just a moron who was capable of manipulating scholars into agreeing with me.
Theologyweb.com, 04-16-2015,
02:32 PM #925
jpholding
Quote Originally Posted by
Bud Head
There are several problems
with your attempt to wiggle out of this nightmare:
No,
sorry, you missed the obvious one, because your ego got in the way:
Skepticbud
aka YOU is a patent moron, which Rohrbaugh obviously detected
immediately,
so
he gave no genuine consideration to your request, as he has no time to deal
with Internet wackos
who
are interrupting his serious, scholarly work asking him to read their long and
extended forum
postings
detailing their personal problems.
By the way, Holding, can you
quote anything you ever told any of your readers in the last 5
years, about Rohrbough's
opinion of you?
(YAWN)
Why? Should it make a difference? The old TWeb did have a huge thread about how
Rohrbaugh's
views were distorted by another numbskull just like you who asked the same
questions. I
imagine
it's cached somewhere, if anyone cares what you think (they don't).
Is this the part where you
suddenly discover that seeking an opinion from properly
qualified experts in the
field likely won't prove much of anything at all?
No,
it's the part where I point to a perfect example of how even morons can
manipulate experts
to
make them say what they want to hear.
So apparently, you've finally found confirmation, in a hard way, that I wasn't misrepresenting Rohrbaugh, nor did I manipulate him into saying what I wanted to hear, but that he seriously does think, for reasons independent of me, that you are a dishonest scumbag, no other theory can explain why you go from pretending the Context Group is the last word on the bible, to telling them to mind their own business. But we already knew that asking you to admit your mistake is perfectly pointless, given your belief in your own inerrancy.
Scholars like
Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting atheist idiots like
DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector.
Perhaps because, in disagreement with you, they think there are some NT passages that forbid today's Christians from communicating with such people. Again, Holding, if the Context Group scholars misinterpret the NT, why do you refrain from calling them morons and dumbasses, the way you characterize other equally properly credentialed scholars who disagree with you, such as Avalos, Carrier, Matt Ferguson and others?
They’ve never engaged in forum debate with
lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting Thomas Paine as an authority on the
formation of the canon, or who have some sort of personality disorder and keep
posting mile-long blog entries no one ever reads, or who have never done
anything with their lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit
around collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise
rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.
Probably because the Context Group scholars disagree with your view that the NT authorizes Christians to ceaselessly wrangle words with those who are intent on opposing Christianity. Perhaps they adopt the common sense interpretation of 2nd Timothy 2:14.
NOW will you call Rohrbaugh a moron for missing the obvious? Or are you finding it exceptionally difficult to decide how inconsistent you'll let yourself be?
If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place
for hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more.
Why? Stupid moron atheist bible skeptics don't represent the least threat to Christians, do they? Or are you the type of person who calls the fire department every time somebody lights a cigarette?
They are
far from being my favorite Bible scholars; nor do I quote them the most on this
website.
Irrelevant, I've been telling the world for years that Rohrbaugh thinks you give Christianity a bad name and that you obviously pervert his scholarship as well as the NT, and the overly defensive tone you now take indicates you recently confirmed to your chagrin that I'm telling the truth about this.
So are you going to apologize for mischaracterizing me all these years as "manipulating" Rohrbaugh to make those negative comments about you? Or is it presumptuous of me to expect that Pope Holding Innocent III could possibly make a mistake? The only reason God put Christianity on earth was to give James Patrick Holding a way to vent his purely naturalistic aggressive need to beat those who disagree with him.
I respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of
the Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply that
research.
That's not the issue. The issue is not whether you have a right to use their research, of course you do.
The issue is whether Rohrbaugh was correct in saying that your insulting demeanor makes you give Christianity a bad name, and whether he was correct to say your most comprehensive defense of foul-mouthed riposte constituted an "obvious perversion" of his work, Context Group work, and the New Testament itself.
We're waiting for you to do something you've never done before: explain how motivating others to stay in the group via teaching them to insult and verbally abuse outsiders, is the more objective way to evaluate the truth-claims the group holds to.
A KJV Onlyist could also insult you in his church, causing his followers to slap their thighs, laugh and yell "amen" as they sit entertained, watching him shame and belittle you for disagreeing with KJV Onlyism...but that does exactly nothing to demonstrate that your criticisms are moronic, agreed?
If you can see the dangers of the honor/shame dialectic when those you disagree with use it, then there's a fair chance that those dangers are also lurking when YOU use it. But your followers have to be open to the prospect that following you is immoral, before they'd care. And given that their following you indicates they aren't true Christians, I have to conclude they are guided more by what feels good than by what's actually true. They follow you for no further reason than some follow televangelists from the 1990's: You are a funny clown who makes them feel good about what they already believe.
He Tried
Here are the updates in his update, and I respond to them point by point. The places he added new language are underlined.
Holding's first update said:
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm
in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them.
What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today.
To which
I would say in reply, if they do disagree: That’s their problem, not mine.
Now it says:
The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm in
Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from
them. What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today.
I don't disagree with their interpretations. I disagree with their
applications. I don't draw conclusions about those applications from
their research. I do that on my own.
Thank you for confirming that you draw your applications of their research "on your own", because for 20 years previous, you lauded the Context Group as top-rate bible scholars. Here's my documentation on you from 2008 which I posted to theologyweb at the time, which only survives now thanks to my having also posted them to another discussion board in 2008, knowing your buddies at theologyweb would delete the thread in their effort to keep Pope Holding Innocent III looking clean and shiny:
First, notice how Mr. Holding lauds the "Context Group":
Quote:
"There exists a group today which seeks to restore "plain and
precious things" to our understanding of the Christian Gospel and the
Bible, and I stand behind their efforts 100%. No, I do not mean
Mormonism. I am referring to a coterie of scholars known as the Context
Group. This small but ardent group of scholars has an admirable goal: to
reframe our understanding of how to read the Bible and to understand
what it meant according to those who first wrote it. Using decades of
research into ethnography and social psychology as a background, the
Context Group has been slowly unraveling the ethnocentric and
anachronistic work of western Biblical scholars whose imperious attitude
has caused them to read the Bible through a modern lens and do violence
to its meaning. We have featured some of their works here, including
Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul and Pilch and Malina's Handbook of
Biblical Social Values. We have so far used the materials of the
Context Group in various settings to refute the contentions of
ethnocentric Skeptics."
(from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jsnorestore.html)
|
Holding lauds specific Context Group member Rohrbaugh:
Quote:
"Skeptic X of course knows as much about ancient Mediterranean
social psychology and anthropology as he does about quark physics, so
naturally when confronted with Malina and Rohrbaugh -- both respected
authors who have written multiple volumes and great numbers of articles
on this subject, and are members of what is called the Context Group, a
collection of scholars specializing in this narrow field of interest --
he is reduced to barking like a chihuahua: "Oh, my God, did Malina and
Rohrbaugh say this? Then it must be right." Darned straight it is, and
Skeptic X hasn't got the wherewithal to say anything in opposition..."
from http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markmen_CC1-2.html
|
Another comment, this time from an article he wrote as damage
control after a skeptic emailed Rohrbaugh about Holding's "collectivist"
excuses for everything:
Quote:
"Malina and Rohrbaugh's coterie -- the Context Group -- have been
filling in the missing links in Western Biblical scholarship with 20 and
more years of research supported by over half a century of
ethnographical and social studies. Their works have appeared in
scholarly, peer-reviewed journals and books, while Stevie just bought
his first coloring book..." (
from http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-5.html
|
Holding assures me that Rohrbaugh, among other scholars, has done decades of serious study into the bible:
Quote:
" I’ll be sure and tell Malina, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey and the rest of
the Context Group how your genius has overturned their decades of
serious study into the social sciences."
from http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...gh#post2455321
Gee, Holding, you never told the Context Group to mind their own business before 2017...why?
Was it because, in shamelessly unscholarly fashion, you cared more about using their work to support what you believe, than you cared in guarding against perverting their work, as Rohrbaugh now says you did?
If you think the Context Group is so infinitely smart about the ancient Semitic Mind, don't you think a scholarly approach to their conclusions would evince just a bit more pause and caution before publicizing how much you disapprove of their application of their own research?
Yes, a scholar can create research that she herself does not apply correctly, but that's usually the exception, not the norm, especially for Context Group schoalrs whom you think are so smart, they are creating a paradigm shift in American bible scholarship. If we had to believe that scholars are just as easily capable of misapplying their own research, we'd have to conclude that Pope Holding Innocent III is also capable of misapplying his own research. And since none of the Tweb goons who regularly donate cash to your cause think that is logically possible, fairness demands that you agree with the prior assessment, that the notion that a scholar has misapplied their own research, and done so for more than the more than 30 years that Malina and Rohrbaugh have been publishing, is the exception. The notion that a scholar, especially somebody as infinitely smart as you laud the Context Group to be, correctly applies their own research (i.e., draws correct conclusions from it) is the norm.
So while it is not impossible that the Context Group misapplied their own research, you've demonstrated your lack of scholarly accumen and objectivity by informing the world that, when you finally couldn't deny it any longer, your first reaction to the Context Group's anti-fundamentalist view of scripture was that they need to "mind their own business". A more scholarly person would have done what any scholar does, contact the other scholar, seeking to discuss their differences with each other, or seeking to attack each other in some peer-reviewed publication like JETS. I think this is the part when you tell me that true scholars are always too busy to answer each other's objections.
Or maybe you didn't intend your article to be "scholarly", but only "popular"?
We therefore have good cause for suspicion when you suddenly begin telling the world how you clash with them on how to apply their own research.
So what if they don't like my applications?
Ok...do you approve when skeptics dismissively turn away from your arguments by saying "so what if Holding doesn't like my applications?" If skeptics have a scholarly responsibility to actually answer the criticisms you make, then fairness demands that YOU have the same responsibility too.
Gee Holding, when can we expect an article from you which cites the reasons why Rohrbaugh errs greatly when he says biblical insults didn't come from God and aren't appropriate for Christians today?
Will it be published around the same time that you answer my libel-lawsuit against you on the merits? If the reader wants to see the horrible factual allegations I was willing to state against Holding in my lawsuit against him, they can contact me, and I will forward them the First Amended Complaint I filed in the Florida Middle District federal court last year. While Holding escaped by technicality from having to answer those on the merits, NT ethical principles would demand that these things arguably legitimately question whether he is "saved" at all:
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10
I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with
the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have
to go out of the world.
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to
associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:9-11 NAU)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Greek: loidoros), nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)
The Greek word for "reviler" is loidoros, and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says it refers to those who verbally abuse others:
449
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
1.
loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts
23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he
recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged
Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
2.
Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed
to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23;
cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9).
This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf.
Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation
is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]
B. W. Powers, Ph.d is Dean of New Testament and Ethics, Tyndale College, The
Australasian Open Theological College (20 years). This is from his 2009 Commentary on 1st Corinthians
Holding's updated update continues:
I would say in reply: That’s their problem, not mine. Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of Nahum
is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a
position I don’t agree with, and it's not a matter of intellectual
deficiency for Rohrbaugh to hold that view since the key facts (such as
that Nahum has harsh language) are not in dispute.
So if some skeptic agrees with Rohrbaugh that Nahum should be booted from the biblical canon, such skeptics are not "morons" for believing this way?
Rohrbaugh's view on
Nahum is a moral decision he makes based on his own preferences. I do
think those preferences are absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch.
You also think that all skeptics whose bible interpretations you consider absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch, are themselves morons, a dumbasses, and deserving of having homosexual slurs and other sexually inapprorpiate vitriol hurled at them.
When can we expect an article from you which shows your consistency of thought, and publicly accuses some Context Group scholars of being morons and dumbasses, because like skeptics, some of their bible applications/interpretations are "absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch"?
What's the matter? You can't stand to think of how embarrassed your followers would be if you admitted that for the last 20 years, you've been leaning upon the work of dumbass morons whose opinions about biblical matters are "absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch"?
Holding first said "simple minds":
Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of
Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a
position I don’t agree with. I agree with their findings. I don’t agree with
all of their applications of those findings.
There’s a huge difference, and
simple minds may not grasp that difference.
His updated update now adds "very" to it:
But
the bottom line is: I agree with their findings, and I don't think they misinterpret the New Testament. However, I also don’t agree with all of their applications of those findings.
There’s a huge difference, and very simple minds may not grasp that difference.
Then apparently, you must think Rohrbaugh has a very simple mind, because in his 2015 email to me, he did not say he disagrees with the way your "Christian and harsh language" article "applies" his research.
He said your article "obviously perverts" the following: ALL Context Group work in general, his own scholarship in particular, and perverts the New Testament as well:
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
I glanced at the stuff on the website. It is obviously a perversion of both the NT
and ALL Context scholarship, including mine.
But... respond? Not worth my
time.
RLR
See earlier in this post for the comments I emailed to Rohrbaugh, which motivated him to say this.
Holding's update to the update continues:
However, if any of the Context Group ever wished to argue that
such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind
their own business and look past the rarified confines of academia.
Scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting
atheist idiots like DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector. They’ve never
engaged in forum debate with lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting
Thomas Paine as an authority on the formation of the canon, or who have
some sort of personality disorder and keep posting mile-long blog
entries no one ever reads, or who have never done anything with their
lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit around
collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise
rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.
Then you must not have a life, since, you're obviously describing me as the one with the mile-long posts that nobody ever reads. Why do you think of yourself as a nobody? Cheer up.
They also, not
shockingly, never appeal to the Bible as authoritative justification for
their views about modern behavior (because as the Nahum example shows,
the Bible isn't their chief defining authority). They don't think Nahum
is a good example for us. So of course the Bible isn't their final word
as a moral guide.
And the fact that the bible isn't their chief defining authority, puts them in the same class as all those skeptics you deem "morons" and "dumb-asses", since the proof that the bible is the word of God is so clear, even those lacking formal bible education should be able to see it, amen?
It's also relevant that they aren't out there like the
fundy atheists peddling their views deceptively and in gross ignorance.
And once we remember that you talk this big because you dance solely for your admiring paying customers, we can dismiss it as the choir preaching that it is. All I ask is that your worshipers wipe the floor dry after they've drooled at your having walked by them in all your baronial splendor.
If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place for
hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more.
So if you are consistent and fair, you'd launch this criticism against ANY Christian bible scholar who doesn't think there's a place for hard language today in those places that YOU use hard language.
And since you cannot find any properly credentialed Christian bible scholars who use filthy juvenile-delinquent language and homosexual ephemisms to crow about their argument victories to the world, what you are basically saying is that ALL Christian bible scholars need to get out more often, and that would necessarily include lights who have publicly endorsed you in the past, such as Licona, Blomberg, Habermas, Daniel Wallace, etc.
And especially Habermas. As you know, after I forced you to reveal in Court your private emails with your buddies wherin you plotted lega strategies and libeled me some more, several of those emails make clear that Gary Habermas does not approve of your ceaseless shit-talking, which he characterizes politely as "strong-comebacks".
Then you lie to him by saying you don't know if it is your growing older or what, but you just don't prefer to engage in strong come-backs anymore. You are a liar, you knowingly misrepresented yourself to Habermas when you said that. Nobody with a solid 20 years history of filthy homosexual shit-talking obsessiveness, like you, ever stops delighting in ceaseless name-calling. Apparently, you found out early in childhood that calling names was the only way you could satisfy your pathological need to draw attention to yourself and how great thou art.
They are
far from being my favorite Bible scholars,
You couldn't name any bible scholars that ARE your favorites, for if you did, I'd simply ask whether they have seen the light, like you, and go around talking shit to impress their admiring customers, or whether they are like moronic dumbass skeptics who think Christians of today have no biblical justification for talking shit to their critics. You will answer that said alleged favorite scholar disagrees with you about modern-day riposte, and there we are, again, asking how this could be one of your favorite scholars, when she takes a position that you label as moronic, dumb-ass, and against the clear evidence.
nor have I ever worshiped
the ground they walk on;
But Christianity tells us that everybody worships something, which, if true, can only mean that worship is not limited to singing praises...if atheists must worship something, you need to water down "worship" to the sense of whatever it is that you prefer to focus on the most in life; money, sex, power, fame, religion, witchcraft, selling cars, whatever. If that watered down version of "worship" is the correct sense, then are worshiping the ground the Context Group scholars walk on, when you laud their work, as I documented earlier in this post, and you cannot escape that epithet merely because you don't formally sing songs of praises to them in turch. And since you apparently didn't know, turchisrong.
nor do I quote them the most on this website. I
respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of the
Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply
that research.
Yeah right, and I can use your research even if you disapprove of my views and the way I use that research. Did you know that the research at tektonics.org supports atheism? Your follows may think this is clearly stupid, and that's my point exactly: when you apply a scholars research result to obtain the opposite conclusion they themselves reach, its more likely that YOU are the one getting things wrong, unless you can come up with clear and convincing evidence that they surely did misinterpret or misapply their research.
So, again, when can we expect you to publish an article giving the reasons why the Context Group is incorrect for saying your "Christian and Harsh Language" article is an "obvious perverson" of their work and of the New Testament?
For the record, no Context Group member has ever written to me
about any of this.
If those scholars disagree so forcefully with your application of their research, sounds like the more scholarly thing to do would be to approach them in the attempt to either discuss or debate your disagreements, or perhaps do so in a formal Christian journal like CRI Journal, or JETS.
And if they ever did, I'd invite them to spend a few
hours on YouTube and get some eye-openers.
You don't have the first clue what websites the Context Group scholars peruse. It could very well be, and likely is, that they are perfectly well aware of how aggressively many atheists attack the Christian faith, and yet knowing this, they STILL do not think Christian's insulting atheists with sexually offensive slurs is action that can be reconciled with any sane view of NT ethics.
So the more scholarly thing to do would be for you to first make inquiry as to which Context Group scholars are aware or unaware of how aggressively some atheists at Youtube attack and insult Christanity, so that you may then speak from accurate knowledge when you assure the world that the COntext Group doesn't already know this stuff.
But I don't expect they'd
waste their time anyway.
Given that Rohrbaugh said your application of his research was such an obvious perversion that responding to you wouldn't be worth his time, your expectation is probably justified.
Giving you another reason to call them dumbass morons, since at that point we'd also see that they also don't feel the least bit of spiritual compulsion to hiss and spit at today's bible skeptics. If a person is truly born-again, exactly how long can they be blind to clear NT teaching?
If your own history is any example, I'd say they could miss the forest for about 20 years and still not recognize the clear teaching of the NT. See earlier in this post, my comments about apostle Paul forbidding Christians to associate with specifically CHURCH MEMBERS who engaged in "reviling".
