Mike Licona likely thinks James Patrick Holding is a piece of shit scumbag

Update, May 4, 2018 -- see end
Update, June 4, 2018 -- see end

It hadn't dawned on me until recently that there are good reasons, even absent my personal knowledge of such, to believe that resurrection scholar Mike Licona thinks Christian apologist James Patrick Holding is an unsaved and genuine piece of shit who does more to hurt than help the cause of Christ.

How could I reach such a conclusion when I don't know of any statements Licona made to that effect?  After all, didn't Mike Licona promote Holding's "Defining Inerrancy" book?

Michael Licona

May 23, 2014 ·

J.P. Holding & Nick Peters have just published a book titled "Defining Inerrancy" in which they critique, not the doctrine but an overly wooden and anti-scholarly concept of it being forwarded by Norm Geisler and a few others. Foreword by prominent New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg. Available in Kindle for only $3.99 at http://www.amazon.com/Defining-Inerrancy-Affi…/…/ref=sr_1_1…

Yes he did.  But that was 2014, before my lawsuits enabled other Christians to see the dark and homosexual side of Mr. Holding. 

First, unless Holding's defenders wish to assert that America's courts do more harm than good by allowing circumstantial evidence, they will have to agree that circumstantial evidence is valid even if not quite as slam-dunk as direct evidence. Holding lives in Florida, the part governed by Florida’s “Middle District” federal court, so let’s start with how Florida courts view circumstantial evidence:

"The standard for assessing the sufficiency of evidence is whether any reasonable view of the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the government, is sufficient to allow a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Leonard, 138 F.3d at 908 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing Bush, 28 F.3d at 1087). "The test for evaluation of circumstantial evidence is the same as in evaluating direct evidence." United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir. 1982). As stated in the jury instructions, "There's no legal difference in the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence." (Doc. # 49 at 5). "Circumstantial evidence can be and frequently is more than sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Henderson, 693 F.2d at 1030.

US v. Wilson, Dist. Court, Middle District, Florida 2016

You may have heard the terms "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence." Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact indirectly, by proving some facts that allow you to infer that some other fact exists. For example, direct evidence that it was raining outside is testimony by a witness that she was outside and she saw it raining. Indirect evidence that it was raining outside is testimony by a witness that she was inside and saw people enter the building carrying wet umbrellas. You should consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. One type of evidence is not automatically better than the other. It is up to you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence, whether direct or circumstantial.

Jury Instruction quoted in Cooper v. Meyer, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2018

"`Evidence of a defendant's state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.'";

People v. Baker, Cal: Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dist. 2018

People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055

Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence may suffice to prove the elements of a crime. In fact, our Supreme Court has held that "circumstantial evidence is oftentimes stronger and more satisfactory than direct evidence."

People v. Graham, Mich: Court of Appeals 2018

citing People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) and People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 429 n 7; 646 NW2d 158 (2002)

And circumstantial evidence is merely evidence of a fact from which the existence of another fact may reasonably be inferred.

Warner-Armstrong v. Home Depot USA, INC., Dist. Court, SD Mississippi 2018,

Citing Miss. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets v. Hughes, 156 So. 2d 734, 736 (Miss. 1963).

"Circumstantial evidence can create a genuine issue of material fact . . . [and] [i]nferences that can reasonably be made from the record are made in favor of the non-moving party."

Brooks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Idaho: Supreme Court 2018

Quoting ParkWest Homes, LLC v. Barnson, 154 Idaho678, 682, 302 P.3d 18, 22 (2013)

Further, a trier of fact may rely on direct and circumstantial evidence in evaluating a defendant's guilt because both types of evidence carry the same weight and possess the same probative value. State v. Lash, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104310, 2017-Ohio-4065, ¶ 31. In fact, "[a] conviction can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone."

State v. May, 2018 Ohio 1510 - Ohio: Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate Dist. 2018

quoting State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 124, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991).

As the court noted in Hampton, the importance of the reasonable theory of innocence instruction in cases involving only circumstantial evidence is "deeply imbedded in Indiana jurisprudence" because:

    [w]hile a criminal conviction may properly rest entirely upon circumstantial evidence, there is a qualitative difference between direct and circumstantial evidence with respect to the degree of reliability and certainty they provide as proof of guilt. Such a supplemental instruction is a safeguard urging jurors to carefully examine the inferences they draw from the evidence presented, thereby helping to assure that the jury's reasoning is sound. Additionally, it serves to "reiterat[e] the magnitude of the [`proof beyond a reasonable doubt'] standard to juries when the evidence before them is purely circumstantial." Nichols [v. State], 591 N.E.2d [134,] 136 [Ind. 1992]. In this regard, the "reasonable theory of innocence" instruction informs the jury that if a reasonable theory of innocence can be made of the circumstantial evidence, then there exists a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.

Hawkins v. State, Ind: Court of Appeals 2018

Quoting Hampton v. State, 961 N.E.2d 480, 486 (Ind. 2012)

Second, Holding has a ministry partner named Nick Peters (i.e., of "Deeper Waters" fame), who admits being married to Licona's daughter, and admits to being willing, as he has in the past, of confronting Mike when Nick has a strong disagreement with him:

A Response To Lydia McGrew

I was quite saddened to see what was on Lydia's blog post this morning. Saddened because I do have a great relationship with Tim McGrew who I value as one of my dearest friends in this world. I do not want to have this be seen as a personal attack.

As the son-in-law of Mike and Debbie Licona, some might say that I will just walk in lockstep. Not a bit. In fact, Mike and I have had some strong disagreements as have Debbie and I. They know something for sure about me. (Other than the fact that I'm crazy about their daughter.) I speak my own mind and I do not let myself be easily swayed. If I thought Mike was seriously wrong on something, I would tell him. He knows this because I've done it before.

Does that increase the odds that Licona has had private conversations with Holding about Holding's problems?  Obviously yes.  And the fact that Licona and Holding are both conservative Christians and "apologists" suggests that, unless they have a moral problem with each other, they are going to contact each other not less often than fellow Christian scholars contact each other.

Third, what evidence leads me to believe that Licona more than likely has chastised Holding and presently regards Holding as biblically disqualified from any Christian teaching position?  I start with the biblical evidence and conclude with Licona's published materials.

a) Licona insists that he is a conservative Christian who accepts bible inerrancy, so I am required to assume that if Licona finds the bible telling Christians what to do, he will do it.

b) There is something in the bible, actually a few things, that tell Licona that 'Christians' who are ceaselessly aggressive, combative, and have a reputation for not much more than being quarrelsome bigoted attention-whores, are disqualified morally from any type of leadership position over the Christian people, regardless of how 'smart' the alleged Christian is:

 1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:1-7 NAU)

1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. (Jas. 3:1 NAU)

For those of you who might not know, the "pugnacious" in 1st Timothy 3:3 which Paul forbids the teacher from being, means combative:

Definition of pugnacious
: having a quarrelsome or combative nature : truculent

Other translations make this clear:

ESV  1 Timothy 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
NAS  1 Timothy 3:3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money.
NIV  1 Timothy 3:3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
NKJ  1 Timothy 3:3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
NRS  1 Timothy 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money.
YLT  1 Timothy 3:3 not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money,
CSBO  1 Timothy 3:3 not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy--

Yes, there are jackasses in the world who will trifle that these qualifications are only imposed on "overseers" (1st Timothy 3:1), so, "aha...these qualifications are not required of teachers!"

That's easily disposed of:  Why is it that Paul forbids contentious assholes from being "overseers"?  Could it be that ceaseless insult and back and forth bickering constitute signs of spiritual immaturity?  Paul didn't just forbid constant word-wrangling vitriol for "overseers" he also forbid laymen from doing it, explaining that it leads to the ruin of the hearers:

 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Tim. 2:14 NAU)

1st Timothy 3 means exactly what it says, according to both inerrantist and non-inerrantist Christian scholars, which means Holding must either call them 'stupid' as well, or admit he himself is stupid for being so crazy mad against the Christian scholarly consensus.

 T.D. Lea, an inerrantist writing for the inerrantist New American Commentary:

In contrast to practicing violence, the Christian leader is to be “gentle” or forbearing in his relationships to troublemakers. The “gentle” man uses elasticity in supervision and is flexible rather than rigid. Synonyms for “gentle” include yielding, kind, forbearing, and considerate.

A “quarrelsome” man is a verbal (perhaps also a physical) fighter. He is contentious, grasping, and pugnacious. What Paul demanded in the church leader was a peaceable attitude that rejects all forms of threatening and fighting.

Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (2001, c1992). Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (electronic ed.). The New American Commentary (Page 111). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 W.D. Mounce, not an inerrantist, writing for the non-inerrantist Word Biblical Commentary:

ἄμαχος, “not quarrelsome, peaceable,” occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Titus 3:2 where Paul is telling Timothy to encourage all people not to be quarrelsome but gracious. It is a strong term describing active and serious bickering; it even can refer to physical combat (O. Bauernfeind, TDNT 4:527–28; cf. Acts 7:26; and Paul’s mention of ἔξωθεν μάχαι, “fighting without,” in reference to his tribulations in Macedonia [2 Cor 7:5; cf. 1 Cor 15:30–32; 16:9]). It is used elsewhere in the NT to describe the internal fighting that is caused by a person’s passions (Jas 4:1–2) and the war of words caused by Jesus’ teaching on the bread of life (John 6:52). This quality stands in direct opposition to the opponents, whose lives were characterized by their quarrelsome attitudes (see Form/Structure/Setting). Elsewhere Titus and Timothy are warned to stay away from quarrels over the law (μάχας νομικάς; Titus 3:9) and away from stupid and senseless controversies that only breed quarrels (ὅτι γεννῶσιν μάχας; 2 Tim 2:23). 

Ellicott comments, “the ἄμαχος is the man who is not aggressive . . . or pugnacious, who does not contend; the ἐπιεικής goes further, and is not only passively non-contentious, but actively considerate and forbearing, waving even just legal redress” (41).

Mounce, W. D. (2002). Vol. 46: Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 176). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 What really fucks up Holding bad is Paul's forbidding Christians from engaging in "foolish" controversies or foolish questions.  Holding is quick to characterize any and all atheist criticism of the bible as necessarily foolish and stupid, that's all he's been saying for 20 years.  Yet for 20 years he has directly violated Paul's prohibition by ceaseless willingness to trifle, at length, with adversaries he thinks are stupid dumbass morons who make stupid foolish arguments against the bible and ask stupid foolish questions.  Some would argue that Holding's need to obey Paul is more important than Holding's desire to defend a few impressionable know-nothings from being misled by stupid foolish arguments.

 c)  that's all well and good, but do I have evidence that Licona himself agrees with most bible commentators that Christian "teachers" and "apologists" are biblically prohibited from being  quarrelsome with those who publicly criticize Christianity?  Yes.  

Licona authored a book with Gary Habermas on the subject of proving the resurrection of Jesus, a book which comes with an interactive cd-rom. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, paperback 352 pages, Kregal Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI. © 2004 (with cd-rom)

In that book we find a chapter in which Licona states, in various different ways, that any Christians who would answer skeptics must be peaceable and gentle, and that getting all aggressive and insulting is the opposite of what Christ requires.

The game on the cd-rom asked a question as to which of 4 possible choices was quality about you that would have the most positive impact on those you witness the faith to. The choices were 

“wearing a suit and tie”, 

“debate skills”, 

“punctuality” and 

“love”.   

So the authors were clearly implying that “debate skills” are distinguishable from and not necessarily the same as “love”.  The correct answer was “love”.

On the cd-rom, the questions about "skeptics" included 

"if a skeptic is extremely belligerent, it is ok to call him a name”.   

the “yes” answer was incorrect, with the explanation 

“wrong, knucklehead!  Peter says to provide answers with gentleness and respect.”

Notice, Habermas and Licona believe that when Peter told Christians to give their answers with gentleness and respect (1st Peter 3:15), he was telling them how to answer "skeptics".

So, Mr. Holding, since you cannot afford to ignore my blog, when do you plan on making public statements about how Licona and Habermas are moronic dumbasses (to use your favorite terms) for applying Peter's advice to Christians dealing with skeptics?

Another question from the cd-rom game was 

‘people often lie, misquote, or repeat false information during the course of a conversation.  If you suspect this when someone raises a strong point against Jesus’ resurrection with which you are unfamiliar, how should you respond?”   

one of the wrong answers was “Accuse him of lying or stretching the truth in order to win the discussion”, with the explanation “this is not treating a person with ‘gentleness’ and “respect”.   

Since “skeptics” are the ones apologists think are most likely to raise such points, Habermas and Licona are indicating that they think apostle Peter intended for Christians to answer skeptics and not just unbelievers in this courteous respectful way.   And yet Holding currently still thinks calling a skeptic a "big fat liar" is appropriate.  From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lzdc3HZAow

One thing is perfectly certain: starting at least in 2004 and likely much earlier, both Habermas and Licona would have found James Patrick Holding’s “idiot/dumbass/moron" style of presentation with skeptics to be shockingly contrary to basic NT ethics, and they likely would have followed this to its biblical and logical conclusion, i.e., that Holding, by misrepresenting the truth of such a basic NT teaching for more than 20 years, and doing so with great ferocity and eagerness, is more than likely an unsaved wolf in sheep’s clothing, since this is the exact term the NT authors use for those in Christianity who rise to some type of popular teaching position but who have nonetheless failed spectacularly the moral and/or doctrinal criteria for any such leadership.  

I don't seriously expect Licona or Habermas to publicly explain why they don't conclude from HOlding's eagerly persistent sin of insult and slander that his claim to be born-again is very questionable, but I've certainly got a heavy circumstantial case that they do indeed privately hold that opinion, even if unwilling to bluntly say so.

Another question from the cd-rom was 

“if a skeptic claims that all events have natural causes, what would be a good response”?   

One of the wrong answers was "call him an idiot", with the explanation “We hope you won’t call someone an idiot”.  

Notice again:  Habermas and Licona were talking about a Christian dealing with a "skeptic".  They are obviously dead-set against Holding's bullshit theory that Christians have biblical justification to call names toward those who publicly criticize Christianity.  That's exactly what "skeptics" do; they publicly criticize Christianity.

Another question from the cd-rom game:

“Skeptics will sometimes claim that even if God exists he cannot violate the laws of nature.  What could you say in response?”   

One of the wrong answers was “The fool has said in his heart, there is no god”, with the explanation 

 “A comment like this is not likely to motivate your skeptical friend to be open to anything you have to say from that point on and doesn’t answer his objection either.”

 Notice again, Habermas and Licona were talking about how to reply to the "skeptic", and they clearly do not believe quoting Psalm 14:1 is going to help the situation.  Gee, Mr. Holding, are Licona and Habermas "dumbass morons" because they don't think Psalm 14:1 is a good answer to such a skeptic?

Why don't you do a video on why it is that you refuse to label Habermas and Licona as dumbass morons? 

Of course jailhouse lawyer Holding will snicker that he's always made clear he doesn't argue to "save" skeptics, but to encourage Christians who might be bothered by skeptical arguments.

But that just shows Holding's continual inability to progress spiritually or emotionally.  The obvious reason Licona so easily presumes 'salvation' is the apologist'ss goal when dealing with a skeptic, is because he doesn't think there is any biblical precedent for the narrow-minded view that some Christians are not called to witness or lead others to Christ, but solely to strengthen the church.

Maybe Holding and Licona can have a public debate on whether the bible requires ALL Christians to be willing to lead skeptics to Christ?

Licona follows with a real-life example of how wrong he was to get mad at a Jehovah Witness during his discussion with her:



Keep reading, and for all of Holding's supporters who seem to think jailhouse lawyer trifles are the only purpose of life, notice that Licona previously mentioned "skeptics" in this context, and he continues to counsel apologists to avoid being aggressive toward "skeptics".  So you cannot argue that Licona was only talking about how apologists should deal with open-minded unbelievers.  No, Licona in the following excerpt distinguished "skeptics and seekers", and therefore intended apologists to have the same gentle disposition toward both those "seeking" and those "not seeking":



Gee, is Mike Licona so stupid that he didn't realize the bible supports righteous indignation toward those who persist in skepticism?  Or is James Patrick Holding just an obstinate jailhouse lawyer who wouldn't admit his sins of slander to save his life?

The worst part of this of that because Licona and Habermas are two of modern Christanity's most capable scholars, both of whom having even previously endorsed Holding, the more Holding uses "dumbass" and "moron" to label those skeptics who criticize his dog-shit attitude, the more Holding is also calling Licona and Habermas "moron" and "dumbass", because these two gentlemen clearly find compelling and true the Christian scholarly consensus that Christians are NEVER justified to engage in ceaseless insulting vitriol against "skeptics".

Is Holding, allegedly Christianity's most fearsome warrior, going to be publicly consistent in his ways, and admit publicly that Habermas and Licona are "dumbasses" and "morons" for disagreeing with him about this matter, as he is obviously so willing to insult everybody else publicly this way when they disagree with him on this issue?

Or is Holding a chickenshit cocksucker who will suddenly stop seeing any need to hurl righteous indignation when he thinks it might hurt his book sales?  I opt for the latter.  Holding thinks skeptic Dr. Richard Carrier is a moronic dumbass, but in their live debate some years ago, Holding did not hurl any insults at him.

Like I said, Holding is a chickenshit having more in common with a pussyfied 8 year old juvenile delinquent who roars through the phone during prank calls...but who skips town when challenged to show up at the bike racks.  Did Holding overlook that when his faith heroes Jesus and Pual insulted their critics, they did so live, in-person too, and not just through letters?  If Holding is going to imitate the honor/shame dialectic of the first century in modern America, why did he conveniently choose to ignore the "say it to my face" part?

Like I said, Holding is a chickenshit, that's why.


I've been asking Holding for years to cite any biblical scholars he knows of, who agree with him that ceaseless insulting aggressiveness toward public critics of Christianity is consistent with the attitude the NT tells Christians to have when they deal with those who publicly criticize Christianity.

As predicted, Holding fails to meet that challenge, and therefore, he is not allowed to hold that "most" Christian scholars got this wrong...he has to say all bible scholars are misinterpreting the bible on this matter.

As I show in another post,  Holding's magnum opus for defending his childish rage and need for perfect certainty 24hrs per day, "The Christian and Harsh Language", was found by Context Group scholar Richard Rorhrbaugh to be an "obvious perversion" of his own work, ALL Context Group scholarship, as well as a perversion of the NT itself, and was so bad, he did not even deem it worthy of peer-review.

Actions speak louder than words.  I will be supremely unconvinced by any official statements from Licona or Habermas to the effect that they still think he is a legitimate Christian brother in good standing in the faith.  Their hatred of insult and mockery makes it impossible for them to overlook the one trait that Holding has chosen to characterize himself with for the last 20 years.  Licona/Habermas are probably genuinely puzzled as to how a professing Christian could miss the forest for the trees so intentionally for so long.

Update, May 4, 2018-----


There's a video of the 2018 Licona/Erhman debate on YouTube, and I've advertised this blog piece there

 I advertised the same at the Barker/Licona debate

 I posted the same to Jonathan McLatchie's interview of Licona, I provide the screenshot since McLatchie has convinced me he'd like to see such thing suppressed rather than made known:

 ----------------------

Update, May 8, 2018

In 1990, Professor Thomas Sheehan argued in the short-lived Faith Works journal that Jesus was not raised in any literal sense.  In 1992, Gary Habermas replied to him in the Michigan Theological Journal:

In the introductory issue of the new journal Faith Works, Thomas Sheehan provided an outlined summary of his thesis that Jesus was not literally raised from the dead in any sense...In brief, Sheehan holds “that the Easter victory of Jesus was not a historical event — it did not take place in space and time — and that the appearances of Jesus did not entail anyone visually sighting Jesus’ risen body in either a physical or a spiritual “form.”¹

1 1. Thomas Sheehan, “Smiling Nihilism vs. the Evidence: A Reflection on the Resurrection,” Faith Works, vol 1, no. 1, Fall 1990, 5.

Interestingly, despite Sheehan being a person Holding would call a "false teacher" and thus deserving of being slapped with insults and riposte, Habermas opposes Sheehan's own insulting demeanor with language that could just as easily be used to oppose Holding's own insulting demeanor.  Habermas says:

However, purposely highlighted in Sheehan’s agenda is a secondary contention: A not so carefully concealed disgust for conservative research. This does not deserve to be treated as a separate critique, so I will mention it only here. Sheehan’s disdain for conservative scholarship which takes the Bible literally is manifest in well over a dozen comments. I am referred to (tongue in cheek) as 

“the doyen sans pareille of Fundamentalist apologists of the resurrection.”2

Some literalists “insist on riding Balaam’s ass to their scripture classes.”3 In spite of his view of the “resurrection,” Sheehan responds (Ibid., p. 12) to fundamentalist research as follows:

“If this were done intentionally, we would call it blasphemy.”(!)  Sheehan refers to literalists and their work as

“naive and misleading,”

“pseudo-scholarship,”

“nonsense,”

“fantasies,”

“supinely ignorant,”

“ignorance,”

“pernicious,”

“naive, backwater interpretations,”

“sleight of hand exegesis,”

“fudging the facts,” and

“the self-imposed ghetto of unscholarly literalism” (Ibid., pp. 5, 12-13). Lastly, Sheehan ends his article (Ibid., p. 13) with these words against literalists:

“And God is not served by telling lies on His behalf.”

I am not quite sure what the purpose of the ad hominem rhetoric is; perhaps Sheehan thinks that his overt denigration of such research disproves its conclusions. But it should be obvious by the end of the essay that such abusive bravado does not take the place of carefully reasoned arguments for ‘his position.
2 2. Ibid, 11.
3 3. Ibid, 13.

The Early Christian Belief In The Resurrection Of Jesus

By Gary R. Habermas, A Response To Thomas Sheehan,

MTJ Vol. 3:2 (Fall 1992) 105-107(emphasis added)

If Gary Habermas thinks stuff like "naive and misleading" and "sleight of hand exegesis" constitute the fallacy of ad hominem and is also "abusive bravado", one can only wonder how he would characterize James Patrick Holding's brand of insulting rhetoric, which includes such marks of spiritual maturity as accusing his critics of using their penises to hit other people:

      "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?

See these and more examples from my blog post here, "The Context Group has THRICE disowned James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel".


On a theologyweb.com debate from 2008 that Holding's buddy John Sparks, owner of theologyweb, conveniently deleted, Holding responded to me as follows:

....me: his rebuttal first if he is so confident of the stupidity of bible skeptics, that he can accurately predict what evidence I will set forth to substantiate my case.
----Holding: Actually, no, I can't predict anything you might say; I can't see your arguments with your head stuck in the way up your bum. Your answers would come from plain-English, decontextualized readings you picked up in Fundyville, and there's no telling what sort of contorted rationalizations you may come up with. Something like what John Goddard produces, I expect.

....me: and places a very extreme burden on my shoulders in the debate, at least in your opinion, does it not?
----Holding: Not really, since you don't care about the facts in the first place. Not much "burden" involved in pulling claims out of your bum while you ignore scholarship, after all.

Holding's followers need to remember that Holding started his internet ministry in 1998.  So they cannot dismiss this evidence as Holding still being young in the faith.  Holding has always held himself out to be a biblically qualified "teacher" of others, and these insults come from posts he made in 205 and 2008, within 7 to 10 years after Holding started his internet "ministry".  What should we think of an alleged "Christian" who so eagerly violates obvious basics of NT ethics 7-10 years after he publicly declares himself a teacher of others?

And in 2015-2016, I documented in my two lawsuits against him how Holding equally egregiously libeled and defamed me, with the result that this "fearless spiritual warrior" (as his supporters obviously see him) felt compelled to remove his juvenile slurs from his website, contrary to his consistent 16-year history of being an obstinate prick who extends no mercy to any critic, ever.


I found further Evangelical disdain for abusive rhetoric in an article by Timothy P. Weber (Ph.D., University of Chicago Divinity School), in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS):

Though I never considered David Rausch’s original article to be a personal attack, after reading his rejoinder I am beginning to get a little suspicious. Rausch initially criticized a few pages’ worth of my views on the relationship between Jews and premillennialists. Now he takes issue with my whole book.

It is safe to say that Rausch does not care for my Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming. He calls it

shoddy,

shallow,

simplistic,

inaccurate,

insensitive,

imprecise and pejorative. He thinks my main thesis is a

psychological fantasy, states that

I portray premillennialists as ethereal, slinking robots (an interesting image, to say the least), and

claims to have located
the thousands of pages I did not read while I did my research. He does not even like the book’s title and assures us that Arno C. Gaebelein (who died in 1945) would not have liked it either. If Rausch is right about all this, somebody ought to put my book out of its misery. After reading his analysis, one might seriously wonder how the manuscript ever sneaked by a dissertation committee at the University of Chicago, the editors of Oxford University Press, and so many book reviewers (including some premillennialists)—all of whom rather liked it.

One side of me would like to give a detailed, blow-by-blow response to Rausch’s rejoinder. But his arguments are so ad hominem and personally directed that it would be hard to do so without sounding overly defensive and self-serving.

I will gladly leave it to the readers of JETS and my book to judge the spirit and validity of the bulk of Rausch’s comments. Though I choose not to answer Rausch in kind, I would like to draw attention to some of the more substantive issues in his rejoinder.

First, I am surprised by Rausch’s claim that I caricature premillennialists in such a distorted and negative way.

Timothy P. Weber,  A Surrejoinder To David Rausch’s Rejoinder,

JETS 24/1 (March 1981) 79-82 (emphasis added)

Apparently, there is room within conservative Evangelicalism to view James Patrick Holding's insulting rhetoric as the fallacy of ad hominem, and thus a sign of spiritual immature at best and lack of salvation at worst.  

And since I exposed the fact that Holding's goto scholar to support such, the Context Group (Richard Rohrbaugh) views his defense of insult-rhetoric as an obvious perversion of the New Testament, Holding's followers will have only two choices:  Either there are no Christian scholars who support Holding's foul mouth because they are all blinded by the devil and just don't know how God wants to get things done, or, there are no Christian scholars who support Holding's foul mouth because the very idea of a foul-mouthed person being a genuinely born-again Christian is in absurd conflict with basic NT ethics.  

Are Holding's supporters following a spiritually mature leader who has the uncanny ability to recognize truth far better than all modern conservative Christian scholars, or are they following a wolf in sheep's clothing, who confuses juvenile rhetoric with spiritual warfare?

 -------------Update June 4, 2018

That Licona thinks James Patrick Holding's filthy mouth disqualifies him from deserving consideration by anybody, may also be legitimately inferred from Licona's reasons for refusing to directly engage in argument with Lydia McGrew.   While her critiques of Licona involve nowhere near the type of vulgarities that Holding chooses to use, Licona still felt that Lydia's "tone" was sufficiently uncharitable as to justify Licona in refusing to engage with her directly.

Engaging with Lydia would require a significant amount of time. Since her blogs on my book are very long, I would begin by reading them, which would take a few hours. Replying to them cannot be completed in a mere 45 minutes but would require much more time. I’d probably be looking at a solid week of work. Then, if Lydia’s past actions are indicative of what would happen next, she would write very long replies to my responses. And those now desiring me to reply would also want for me to reply to her reply. To do that would require another week’s work. So far, I would be looking at a solid two weeks that could be spent otherwise in research or writing.
I’m virtually certain things would not end there, since Lydia would feel compelled to reply to my second reply. And the process goes on, requiring even more hours. (Even a back and forth for Philosophia Christi would require a chunk of time.) Seven years ago when another person was writing a dozen or so open letters to me on the Internet that criticized my book on Jesus’s resurrection, several highly respected evangelical scholars counseled me to ignore him, since engaging would end up sucking up an inordinate amount of my time and would not result in good fruit for the kingdom. I’m very glad I followed their advice, since my refusing to be sidetracked has allowed my ministry to expand nationally and internationally.
Understandably, Tom and some others may answer that, while a significant amount of time would be required of me, I should spend the required time considering Lydia’s criticisms carefully and either revising my position or clarifying and defending it. I do not share their sense of necessity. When I observe several theologians and New Testament scholars, such as J. I. Packer, Robert Stein, Darrell Bock, Mark Strauss, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, and Scot McKnight (all of whom are evangelical and have expertise in the Gospels, having spent decades studying them with passion and reverence) and Christopher Pelling, the foremost scholar on Plutarch, all having read my book and expressed varying degrees of approval while none have expressed anywhere close to the degree of alarm we are seeing from Lydia, I do not feel a necessity to spend the sort of time and emotional capital required to engage Lydia, especially when her critiques are seasoned with a tone that I consider less than charitable, to put it mildly. Therefore, I will leave to others the task of engaging with her.

 

Cold Case Christianity: Wallace lies to you about the accuracy of the Old Testament text

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: 

Establishing the Reliability of the Old Testament: A Timely Test of Transmission 

Posted: 25 Apr 2018 03:00 AM PDT

Establishing the Reliability of the Old Testament - A Timely Test of Transmission
In Cold Case Christianity, I discussed the careful transmission of Biblical texts. A number of my cold case investigations began with a careful examination of the original police reports and records. I got these documents from the police Records Division, where they were carefully collected and maintained for many years. Careful protocols were established to guarantee the preservation of these documents.

Which did not require somebody to copy out by hand what was stated in a prior written document.  We wouldn't have invented photocopying if copying by hand was equally as reliable.  Perhaps modern man found a more reliable way to preserve testimony than God himself?  Or did I forget that God's refusal to invent the printing press back when it would have been most beneficial falls under that "his mysterious ways" mantra that constantly sings in your head?

In one particular case, I had the chance to test this preservation process. After retrieving a report from Records, I called the original detective to ask a series of questions. This particular detective was conscientious enough to keep copies of his reports from his unsolved cases. He brought his copy with him for our interview. My copy from records was exactly the same as the detective’s. The Records Division had done its job, maintaining an accurate and reliable copy of the original documents for over 30 years.

That doesn't exactly sound like the Biblia Hebraica Stuttengartsia 

As it turns out, we can examine the competency of the ancient Jewish “Records Division” and test the ability of ancient scribes to accurately copy (and maintain) the Old Testament with a similar comparison.

Correct, and that's why you cannot decide which form of Jeremiah, Lxx or MT, is closer to the original.

 Here's an inerrantist Christian scholar on Jeremiah's text:

No other book of the Old Testament contains as many textual variants between the Hebrew (MT) and Greek texts (LXX) as does the Book of Jeremiah. In 1862 F. Giesebracht determined that the LXX is about twenty-seven hundred words or one-eighth shorter than the MT.47 A more precise count by Y.-J. Min in 1977 found the LXX to be 3,097 words or one-seventh shorter than the MT.48 The differences include the omission of entire passages in the LXX, the longest being about 180 words. The most significant omissions are 29:16–20; 33:14–26; 39:4–13; 51:41b–49a; 52:27b–30. Other omissions may be a phrase, a sentence, or only a single word or two. The LXX has about one hundred words not found in the MT. Furthermore, some words in the LXX are different from the corresponding words in the MT (variants). Another type variant that occurs is a different arrangement of texts. The most significant one occurs in the messages against foreign nations (chaps. 46–51 in the MT). In the LXX this section appears immediately after 25:13a (LXX = 25:14–31:44) and is also arranged internally in a different sequence from the MT.

Huey, F. (2001, c1993). Vol. 16: Jeremiah, Lamentations (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 30).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Wallace continues:

It’s clear the Jews guarded Scripture with extreme care and precision.

No, it was Jeremiah himself who accused the scribes of employing the "lying pen":

 8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. (Jer. 8:8 NAU)

The theory that the Jews guarded Scripture with extreme care and precision cannot be reconciled with the biblical story of Josiah's reform, wherein the Jews were perplexed upon finding a book of Moses hidden in the wall of a temple being remodeled, and they had to get a female spiritist to give her opinion on it before they could say with confidence that it was truly the law of the Lord.  That would hardly be the case if the Jews "guarded Scripture with extreme care and precision".  nobody seems to care that by the time of Josiah's reign, the Jews had all but forgotten the Law.  From 2nd Kings 22:

 8 Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it.
 9 Shaphan the scribe came to the king and brought back word to the king and said, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD."
 10 Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it in the presence of the king.
 11 When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes.
 12 Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant saying,
 13 "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."
 14 So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter); and they spoke to her.
 15 She said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Tell the man who sent you to me,
 16 thus says the LORD, "Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read.
 17 "Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place, and it shall not be quenched."'
 18 "But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the LORD thus shall you say to him, 'Thus says the LORD God of Israel, "Regarding the words which you have heard,
 19 because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you," declares the LORD.
 20 "Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place."'" So they brought back word to the king.

NAU  2 Kings 23:1 Then the king sent, and they gathered to him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
 2 The king went up to the house of the LORD and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great; and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD.
 3 The king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to carry out the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people entered into the covenant. (2 Ki. 22:8-23:3 NAU)

Wallace continues:

The Old Testament Scriptures were revered and protected, largely because early believers considered them to be the holy Word of God.

Some church fathers insisted the text of the OT became intolerably corrupt and had gone missing before the temple was rebuilt, and therefore, Ezra restored them with his magic wand.  Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) is representative:

So much for the details respecting dates, as stated variously by many, and as set down by us.

It is said that the Scriptures both of the law and of the prophets were translated from the dialect of the Hebrews into the Greek language in the reign of Ptolemy the son of Lagos, or, according to others, of Ptolemy surnamed Philadelphus; Demetrius Phalereus bringing to this task thegreatest earnestness, and employing painstaking accuracy on the materials for the translation. For the Macedonians being still in possession of Asia, and the king being ambitious of adorning the library he had at Alexandria with all writings, desired the people of Jerusalem to translate the prophecies they possessed into the Greek dialect. And they being the subjects of the Macedonians, selected from those of highest character among them seventy elders, versed in the Scriptures, and skilled in the Greek dialect, and sent them to him with the divine books. And each having severally translated each prophetic book, and all the translations being compared together, they agreed both in meaning and expression. For it was the counsel of God carried out for the benefit of Grecian ears. It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy. Since the Scriptures having perished in the captivity of Nabuchodonosor, Esdra the Levite, the priest, in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, having become inspired in the exercise of prophecy restored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures. And Aristobulus, in his first book addressed to Philometor, writes in these words: “And Plato followed the laws given to us, and had manifestly studied all that is said in them.” And before Demetrius there had been translated by another, previous to the dominion of Alexander and of the Persians, the account of the departure of our countrymen the Hebrews from Egypt, and the fame of all that happened to them, and their taking possession of the land, and the account of the whole code of laws; so that it is perfectly clear that the above-mentioned philosopher derived a great deal from this source, for he was very learned, as also Pythagoras, who transferred many things from our books to his own system of doctrines. And Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, expressly writes: “For what is Plato, but Moses speaking in Attic Greek? ”This Moses was a theologian and prophet, and as some say, an interpreter of sacred laws. His family, his deeds, and life, are related by the Scriptures themselves, which are worthy of all credit; but have nevertheless to be stated by us also as well as we can.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, ch. XXII

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997).

The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II

 Wallace continues:

The Masoretic tradition gives us a glimpse into the obsessive care Jewish scribes historically took with their sacred texts. Scribes known as the Masoretes (a group of Jewish copyists living and working primarily in Tiberias and Jerusalem) took over the precise job of copying the ancient Scripture and transmitting it for later generations.

Yes, they did, but even conservative Christian scholars say the text is in poor condition with little to zero ability to know what the original likely said:

 from A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods...By Paul D. Wegner:

“Most scholars today have abandoned any attempt to develop and eclectic Hebrew text (combining the best readings from each of the Hebrew manuscripts, similar to the United Bible Societies text of the New Testament).  In the case of the Old Testaement text, scholars have argued for that literary history is very  complicated and  thatt little of it is known.  Some scholars have suggested that the different versions of part or all of t some books may have coexisted or that there many have been different stages in the literary development of a book (e.g., Jeremiah and Ezekiel both have shorter and longer forms).  Tov states: Large-scale differences between the textual witnesses show that a few books and parts of books were once circulated in different formulations representing different literary stages, as a rule one after the other, but possibly also parallel to each other.  The situation is complicated even further by the fact that we do not know when the development, modification and compilation of the books ceased.  In addition, for the vast majority of Old Testament books the oldest extant text was copied at least several hundred years after it was first written.”

Wallace continues:

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran confirms their amazing ability. In 1947, a Bedouin herdsman found some unusual clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. The jars contained a number of scrolls revealing the religious beliefs of monastic farmers who lived in the valley from 150 BC to AD 70. When this group saw the Romans invade the region, they apparently put their cherished scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament, and most importantly, a complete copy of the book of Isaiah. This scroll was dated to approximately 100 BC; it was incredibly important to historians and textual experts because it was approximately one thousand years older than any Masoretic copy of Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scroll version of Isaiah allowed scholars to compare the text over this period of time to see if copyists had been conscientious. Scholars were amazed by what they discovered.

According to Gleason Archer (author of A Survey of Old Testament Introduction), a comparison of the Qumran manuscripts of Isaiah “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.” Some of the 5 percent differences were simply a matter of spelling (like you might experience when using the word favor instead of favour). Some were grammatical differences (like the presence of the word and to connect two ideas or objects within a sentence). Finally, some were the addition of a word for the sake of clarity (like the addition of the Hebrew word for “light” to the end of verse 53:11, following “they shall see”). None of these grammatical variations changed the meaning of the text in any way.

The late and beloved Farrell Till shot this shit down almost 30 years ago:

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, believers in the inerrancy doctrine thought they had found cause to rejoice. In Cave One at Qumran was found a manuscript of the book of Isaiah containing all 66 chapters except for only a few words that were missing where edges of the scroll had crumbled. Although many spelling variations were found in the text, the content of the Qumran scroll was found to be remarkably parallel to the Masoretic text of 895 A. D. Translators of the Revised Standard Version in 1952 found only 13 textual differences in the manuscript that they considered important enough to affect their translation of Isaiah. When scholars dated the manuscript at circa 100 B.C., Bible fundamentalists believed they had found in the Qumran text of Isaiah indisputable proof that through the long, silent centuries Jewish scribes had been scrupulously faithful in transmitting their sacred books. After all, if a thousand years had brought no significant changes to the text of Isaiah, couldn't we believe that the same was true of the other Old Testament books?

This would make an impressive argument were it not for subsequent discoveries that were made at Qumran, which Bible inerrantists have been very reluctant to talk about...

Farrell Till, “The Jeremiah Dilemma”,

Skeptical Review (1990, July-August)

 And under Christian reasoning, Wallace is reluctant to talk about the Qumran evidence for bible books other than Isaiah, so the only way Farrell Till could have known that fundamentalists were very reluctant to talk about those matters, is if he was inspired by God.  How else could he have foreseen such things?

(for the skeptical reader, I saved most of Farrell Till's "Skeptical Review" articles, I can sent you the executable file that will give you most of issues or so if interested.  This site has most issues between 1990 and 1995; wayback has preserved many of Till's online posts between 2004 and 2006, from a now-defunct website. See here for wayback's preservation of articles from more skeptical authors at the now-defunct website).

Wallace continues: 

What compelled the ancient scribes to treat these documents with such precision and meticulous care?

What compels Christians to play with live rattlesnakes at church?

It was clearly their belief the documents themselves were sacred and given to them by God.

Then the Jews of Jeremiah 8:8 were a sorry exception.

The ancient Jewish scribes didn’t have access to photocopiers, microfiche, or digital imaging like modern police-department Records Divisions do,

And if God was really moving through them, he could have simply waved his magic wand and had the Jews invent the printing press.

but they understood the importance of Divine record keeping, and they used the first-century equivalent in technology (the meticulous tradition of their Masoretes) to carefully guarantee the accuracy of the texts.

You are clearly an "apologist" with a fundamentalist axe to grind.  No responsible Christian scholar would rave about such ideological fantasies as this.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective,

That's right, he isn't a scholar.  If he was, he would have known that the people most knowledgeable about the state of the OT text, do not find it to be the shiny perfect idol that Wallace apparently does.

Demolishing Triablogue: Steve Hays' unedifying rants about Trinitarianism

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Is the Trinity tritheistic?

Is the Trinity tritheistic? Compared to what?

Is a pancake a fruit?  Compared to what?  Gee, you were born to grasp issues early on.

What's the point of contrast in biblical monotheism? Pagan polytheism.

The question more likely to instigate objective answers is how likely it is that the ancient Hebrews viewed their god as a single 'person'.  They likely did.

Physical humanoid gods with superhuman, but finite abilities.

 I don't see the contrast with the biblical god, since the biblical god's powers are also limited:

 19 Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots. (Jdg. 1:19 NAU)

 Don't forget, as you rush to pay your resident apologist to answer this "alleged" discrepancy, that the reason Judah couldn't win the battle in the valley, is stated in the text rather clearly and it isn't "they lost faith in their god."  Try "because they had iron chariots."  Sorry Steve, but I care more about what the biblical authors actually meant, not whether what they said can be spun to avoid clashing with the untouchable foregone truth of bible inerrancy.

Gods who come into being, usually through sexual intercourse between a god and goddess.

That's how Matthew and Luke say Jesus came into existence, though of course Christians tweaked that motif to make it unique.

Gods who can pass out of existence. Gods who are physically and psychologically separate from each other. Who come into existence at different times. Some are the offspring of gods.

"we are all his offspring", Paul, quoting a pagan theological text in Acts 17:28.  If Paul didn't mean this in the original polytheistic way it was intended by the original author, then he took it out of context.

By contrast, Yahweh is immaterial.

A rather meaningless statement.  What's next?  A monograph on how incorporeal beings can move physical objects?  What else do you do in your spare time?  Wonder what life would be like if "cat" was spelled "d-o-g"?  Let's just say Steve Hays is anything but a threat to atheism.

Yahweh has no beginning or ending.

Neither does the universe. Now tell us all the reasons why you think all the creationist Christians at ICR are deaf to the holy spirit, all because they deny the big bang.

If there's internal differentiation in Yahweh, it's not tritheistic in the sense of pagan polytheism. Yet that's the biblical frame of reference by which something would be tritheistic.

 Then tell us, Steve:  Did the Father will for Jesus to say "let this cup pass" in Matthew 26:39, yes or no?  Did the father intend for Jesus to draw the conclusion that he was abandoned by the Father, as Jesus clearly thought when saying "Why have you forsaken me" (Matthew 27:46)?

Or will you write several articles on why only fools think "why have you forsaken me" implies being actually forsaken?   So, Steve, if God forsook "Jesus", does that permit drawing the conclusion that the First person of the Trinity (Father) abandoned the Second person of the Trinity (Jesus)?

Demolishing Triablogue: God forced you to sin, but you still 'deserve' to be punished for it...and other dreck

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Accident of birth

    Stephen J. Graham
    @sjggraham
    Suppose God sent to Hell everyone who was born in South America before 10am. The rest of us go to heaven. Is there any reason on Calvinism to think there is anything wrong with God holding people morally accountable for being born in South America before 10am?
    Secular Outpost Retweeted

    Stephen J. Graham
    @sjggraham
    Can South Americans born before 10am complain to their creator "Why did you make me thus?" Who are they that they should talk back to God? (cf Romans 9:20)

    Stephen J. Graham
    @sjggraham
    I'm asking whether it makes any moral sense for God to hold someone accountable for something beyond their control. I don't think the issue is about divine command ethics.

I wouldn't normally comment on some random tweet by an atheist, by since this was retweeted by Jeff Lowder at the Secular Outpost, I'll bite:

i) God wouldn't be holding folks morally accountable for when and where they are born, but for their sin.

But under Calvinism, God caused them to sin no less than he caused them to be born in certain times and places.  Your attempted distinction is illusory.

For instance, if an arsonist trips a silent alarm, and the police arrest him before he had a chance to get away, he wasn't held accountable for his poor timing. That's an incidental circumstance.

But if the police caused him to commit arson,it wouldn't make sense to hold him accountable.  Yet police causing him to commit arson is more analogous to the Calvinist god who causes people to sin.  Your attempt to justify the way God holds us accountable, fails.

ii) Since many South Americans are Christians, it would be morally wrong for God to damn them.

That is not consistent with the bible.  Jesus did no sin (in your fable), yet God struck the shepherd.  The baby born to David and Bathsheba hadn't don't anything to deserve death, yet God "struck" that child and forced it to endure a miserable sickness for 7 days before it died.   No inerrantist has ever said Apostle Paul's sins were probably the reason God sent a "messenger from Satan" to buffet him as a thorn in the flesh, yet God caused that bit of suffering nonetheless.  And you delude others with sophistry anyway, since your hypothetical isn't even a logical possibility, for under your Calvinism, your divine-command theory makes it impossible for God to be wrong, ever, for any reason.  

For one thing, God would be breaking his promise to save those who trust in Jesus.

Thats' irrelevant, the pot is STILL never justified to say "why did you make me this way", regardless of what is actually true or not true.

ii) In addition, it would be wrong for God to damn those whom Christ redeemed. Since Christ atoned for the sins of Christians (i.e. the elect), there's no judicial basis for damning them.

Have fun trying to convince non-Calvinists that the branches in Christ that end up being heaved into the fire for destruction, were never legitimately growing in him.   Read John 15 without wearing your Calvinist glasses.

Admittedly, some professing Christians are nominal Christians, but I'm referring to the elect.

iii) Hence, Rom 9:20 doesn't apply.

On the contrary, if Paul's analogy in that verse of men to pots and God to potter be fitting, then it would NEVER be morally good for the pot to say "why have you made me this way".  That's the point of the analogy, the pot NEVER talks back to the potter, so to imagine this ever happening is perfectly absurd.  If Paul pushed his analogy too far, which he did, that's your problem.

iv) Sometimes we're responsible for things beyond our control and sometimes not. Depends on the example. If a mother leaves her newborn baby on my doorstep, I'm not responsible for the child in the sense that I'm not its father. And I didn't create that situation. But having been thrust into a situation not of my own choosing, I'm responsible to see to it that the newborn doesn't die on my doorstep from exposure or predation.

Unless, in your Calvinist communication with God, He tells you that he predestined you to neglect the child to the point of death.  If so, then you aren't allowed to use your freewill to overcome God's sovereign degree just so you can made the lemon you are selling look like a Ferrari to the customers.  If God is a piece of shit, say he is a piece of shit.  Don't dress him up in fear that his biblical ways will hurt your marketing prospects.  Call it like it really is.  Include "God ultimately causes all people to sin" when you evangelize, don't just limit yourself to the sugary crap western minds will likely be attracted to.  But perhaps that's too demanding?

And by the way, you didn't provide any examples of how you could be accountable for things beyond your control.  The baby on your doorstep becomes part of what you can control when you discover him or her.  Regardless, on the basis of Romans 9:20, you have no theological warrant to attempt to justify God's ways.  If people complain against god, its because he stirred them up to do this.  Nothing is more funny than a Calvnist who believes like a supralapsarian, but who argues as if he supports the libertarian notion of freewill.  And in your theological view, Paul's answer in Romans 9:20 has more divine inspiration in it than any of your own speculations. Apparently, neither you nor most Calvinist theologians actually believe the scriptures are "sufficient" for faith and practice.

Demolishing Triablogue: Steve Hays doesn't notice he's complaining against what God wants

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

So many Christians–so few lions!

A standard objection to Christianity is whether inclusivism is fair.

That would likely come from unbelievers uninformed about what a piece of shit sadist the bible god really is.  Fairness isn't the problem.  Getting a thrill out of watching men rape children to death is.

Is it fair that so many never had a chance to hear the Gospel?

Yes, people who never heard the gospel were thus spared a miserable existence of telling themselves that cosmic mysteries can be explained by theologians who learn the ways of jailhouse lawyers.  Of course, some of us have far less tolerance for logical contradictions, so we can understand how Christians can have joy in the Lord and have no problems with the absurdity and inconsistency of their beliefs.  Mormons are a prime example.  So are Pentecostals and Calvinists.  Pretty much the whole bad except the liberal Christians who are honest enough to admit they do this shit more because its a club that facilitates social support.

This is an issue in freewill theism as well as Calvinism.

I don't see why Calvinists would give a shit.  If as Calvinism says, God wants sinners to sin, and therefore wants men to rape babies, you are probably better to focus your energies on problems obviously more serious than "what about those who never heard the gospel?"

There are familiar strategies in fielding this objection. But I'd like to remark on a neglected consideration. It's striking how frequently unbelievers respond to the Gospel with seething antipathy.

Why would it be striking?  Your god bitches at us all pissed off about our bad choices, despite his possessing coercive mental telepathy abilities, Ezra 1:1.  That's like an armed guard bitching at the robbers during a bank heist, and somehow just never getting around to using his gun.  But I have an explanation:  your god is a stupid bastard in most of his ways because he is nothing more than an idol made in the image of man, an idol that keeps changing as the years roll on and people become more civilized.

It's not as if they exclaim, "That's just what I was always waiting for! Where have you been all my life!"

And you naturally wouldn't expect unbelievers to respond that way to a God who secretly wills for them to disobey his revealed will, which is what Calvinism is all about, right?

I'm not saying nobody responds that way. But notice how many people, when exposed to the Gospel, how many people, when given the opportunity, far from welcoming the message, greet the message with implacable enmity, to the point of persecuting or martyring Christians. Silencing them. Torturing them to death. "So many Christians–so few lions!"

Unbelievers can get out of control.  But if Calvinism is the right form of Christianity, then indeed, there aren't enough lions.

It's not as if many people go to hell simply because they never had a chance to hear the Gospel. As though, had they only been given the opportunity, they'd be overjoyed and feel privileged.

Sorry Steve, you won't be blaming unbelievers for their predictable rejection of "truth", as you are a Calvinist.  If unbelievers reject the gospel message, its because God predestined them to do so, and their choice to do so is effected in that direction by God's sovereign will, which is somewhat akin to throwing a dish on the floor, then getting angry at the dish for doing what you wanted it to do (break).  I think this is the part where you insist that the Calvinist God who both "wills and wills not", is the supreme example of mental consistency, and all who disagree are merely blinded by the devil.

So often unbelievers react like drowning swimmers who fight the lifeguard: "How dare you save my life!"

Blame it on god, as Calvinists are inclined to do anyway.  And under Calvinism, God is not just a lifeguard, he is also a man-eating shark.  To be consistent with your Calvinism, you need to also say that some unbelievers are like swimmers who fight the shark.

I'm not saying this covers every case, but it's worth pondering. How frequently those who need it the most are the most antagonistic. Violently belligerent. 

Blame it on god.  You Calvinists think us unbelievers are only being violently belligerent toward your God because he predestined us to act that way, correct?  What fool wishes people would deviate from the path of perdition that God forces them to choose? 

Did you forget that you are a Calvinist?

Demolishing Triablogue: Steve Hays' Trinitarian speculations violate Paul's prohibitions against foolish questions and ceaseless word-wrangling

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled 

Ares redivivus

Apostate Dale Tuggy's philosophical objection to the Trinity is that it (allegedly) violates the law of identity.

It does.  You insist that Jesus is separate in person from the Father, but that both have identical wills in all things, when in fact it is the "will" that makes the person distinct from another.  Talking about two different people who agree on absolutely everything and have the same identical thoughts is absurd, and we'd only expect false religion to spend 2,000 years trying to prove the impossible.

Some Trinitarians stray from Nicaea's ideas about Jesus and the Father, and allow for Jesus to will things contrary to the Father, but that's only because they are constrained to believe that way by the biblical evidence, not because the Trinity concept allows it.  By the way, you bible forbids the Nicaean concept of Jesus.  

 39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matt. 26:39 NAU)

 If Jesus had infallible assurance that the Father would never grant this request, why did Jesus make the request?  If you had infallible assurance that your boss would not let you go home from work early, would you still ask "Boss, if it is possible, let me go home early, yet not as I will, but as you will" ?  Of course not. You'd only ask such a thing if you didn't know whether the boss would allow it. In which case Jesus is asking an identical question because he wasn't sure whether God would allow it, but he probably concluded soon after that God wouldn't allow it.  The point is that you cannot reconcile Matthew 26:39 with your Nicaean view that Jesus is little more than a perfect reflection of God the Father.

Worse, Jesus makes explicit the disagreement between his personal will and the Father's by saying "not as I will".  The negation is perfectly pointless if Jesus' will was always in harmony with the Father's.  If you and your girlfriend both desire to eat at McDonald's, do you say "if it be possible let's eat somewhere else, yet not as I will, but as you will" ?  Obviously not...unless you are just playing games.

I think this is the part where you answer one logical contradiction with another, and account for Jesus' will not being in harmony with the Father's by pretending Jesus was only speaking here "from his human nature", not his divine nature.

Ok, then what?  Was Jesus' human will at variance with the Father's will, yes or no?    Or must I become an expert on Monothelitism before you will deem me worthy of response?

Are you quite sure that when the gospel authors said "Jesus" did this or that, they sometimes meant only his human nature and sometimes meant only his divine nature?  You'll forgive me if I don't assume the gospel authors were as paranoid about upholding systematic theology and inerrancy as today's fundagelicals.  I'd rather believe the gospel authors were far less sophisticated than this, a theory more consistent with the way things were in the 1st century...which means when they attribute words to Jesus, they are necessarily implying that ALL of Jesus was in support of what he was saying/doing...and not merely his "human nature".

And that's to say nothing of the fact that having "two natures" constitutes logical contradiction.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that if we are to presume Christ was consistent and perfect, this would demand that BOTH his natures are in agreement with whatever he did or said.  So, Steve, who asked the Father for the possibility to avoid their cup of suffering there in Matthew 26:39?  Jesus?  Or the second person of the Trinity?

One issue this raises is how to define identity.

An issue which I'm sure kept Jesus' original followers up late at night, shivering with fright about the consequences of getting any of this stupid sophistry wrong.

For instance, I've argued that if A and B can be put into point-by-point correspondence, then that's a rigorous definition of identity. However, reflection symmetries meet that condition, yet reflection symmetries remain distinguishable by virtue of chirality.

Unfortunately, the bible says enough about Jesus to forbid concluding that he was in perfect harmony with the Father, so take your Nicaean "light from light" and shove it up your word-wrangling strife-loving bible disobeying ass.

But another issue is whether ancient people operated with a stringent definition of identity.

Yeah, the fact that Nicaea didn't happen until about 300 years after Jesus died, sort of deprives you of all sense of purpose in life.  I suggest you write a monograph on the shit and have it peer-reviewed.

Let's take hypothetical example. In paganism, the gods are not indestructible. One god can kill another god. In that event, he ceases to exist. No more body. No more consciousness. Yet it's possible to recreate him through sorcery.
Suppose Zeus gets really miffed with Ares and zaps him out of existence, but Hera brings him back through some magic ritual. There's a gap in his existence: from existence to nonexistence to reexistence. Would pagans regard Ares redivivus as one and the same individual?

Did you miss the part of the NT that forbids you from engaging in stupid questions?

While some metaphysicians might balk, I have no reason to think ordinary ancient people would regard Ares redivivus as a different individual from his former self.

And atheists have no reason to think Jesus' original followers would have viewed him as "light from light".  Sometimes biblical authors accidentally let the inconvenient historical truth come out.  Paul in Acts 13:33 applied the "This day I have begotten you" Sonship  Psalm 2:7 to the point in time when Jesus resurrected:  

32 "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers,
 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'
 34 "As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.' (Acts 13:32-34 NAU)

 I think this is the part where you insist that anybody who thinks this is saying Jesus was begotten of God on the day he rose from the dead, are morons for not realizing that the need to defend inerrancy is always more important than the need to understand biblical authors correctly.  Never mind that being begotten on a specific day was the original intent of this Psalm:

“Today” points to the fact that the words were announced on the coronation day, the day on which the divine decree became effective.

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 67). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

So, Steve, when the the divine decree in Psalm 2:7 become effective in Jesus' case?  On the day he rose from the dead, as Paul taught and as the original context of the Psalm would require anyway?

Or did I forget that rule of interpretation that says NT authors are always allowed to take the OT out of context and still be correct to do so?