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.
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?
Yes he did. But that was 2014, before my lawsuits enabled other Christians to see the dark and homosexual side of Mr. Holding.
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…
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 2016You 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. 2018People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055Circumstantial 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 2018citing 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 2018Quoting 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. 2018quoting 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 2018Quoting 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:
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.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.
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 pugnaciousOther translations make this clear:
: having a quarrelsome or combative nature : truculent
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.
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.
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.”1Interestingly, 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:
1 1. Thomas Sheehan, “Smiling Nihilism vs. the Evidence: A Reflection on the Resurrection,” Faith Works, vol 1, no. 1, Fall 1990, 5.
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.”2Some 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.
2 2. Ibid, 11.
3 3. Ibid, 13.
The Early Christian Belief In The Resurrection Of JesusBy 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=84See these and more examples from my blog post here, "The Context Group has THRICE disowned James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel".
"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?
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'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?
----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.
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 itshoddy,shallow,simplistic,inaccurate,insensitive,imprecise and pejorative. He thinks my main thesis is apsychological fantasy, states thatI portray premillennialists as ethereal, slinking robots (an interesting image, to say the least), andclaims 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.
-------------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.
