James Patrick Holding's quietly deleted homosexual fantasies

 Update, April 25, 2018:  see end

Several people have asked whether Holding really did create fantasy fiction about cartoon characters shoving their faces into their asses.  Yes, he did, and that blog piece had him describing people banging their faces on Holding's kneecaps (i.e., Holding is an internally conflicted clown, with his genetic defects hard-wiring him for homosexuality, while having chosen to defend a religion that calls it a sin, hence, his homosexuality manifests itself in ways that are not as forthright as they could be).

That webpage conveniently disappeared shortly after it's existence was pointed out in my federal lawsuit against Holding.   The timing was no coincidence.

Fortunately, I preserved the entire page, with the disgusting parts underlined.  The following comes from

http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/greentrial.html

extracted in August 2015

Yes, wayback preserved this page, but did so in 2013 when it had different content, access that here.

Holding's pretentious trifling faggot fantasy bullshit runs afoul of the following bible passages:

 13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13 NAU)

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Eph. 5:3-5 NAU) 

 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Tim. 6:4-5 NAU) 

 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. (Col. 3:8 NAU)

-------at the end of the article, Holding can't resist indulging his gayness one last time, in describing his enemies has shoving their faces into their asses...again:





 It would appear that Holding is the "Sheila" who has the superior arguments (Holding once passed himself off in another chat forum as Sheila Rangslinger) and the "Mattchu" character is representing Farrell Till, John Loftus or any of a number of skeptics that have raked Holding over the coals in the past.

Notice also that he has the skeptic "Mattchu" bang his face into Sheila's kneecaps.  That is, Holding wanted his followers to envision a man banging his face into Holding's kneecaps.

To ward off rumors that I only showed a little bit of this defunct webpage because I'm taking something out of context, that's bullshit, here's the full content of this juvenile faggot fantasy.  If Holding took it down, he has a Christian duty to explain why.  If he thought it was morally acceptable, why did it disappear completely?  If he thought the article needed correction or updating, why did he remove it completely?

If he noticed that it made him look more like a fag than he intended the public to know, he has a Christian duty to admit this blog piece was sinful.  But of course Holding's sin of pride causes him to mistake his mental processes for god's own presence.

When you get done reading this crap, you will have no illusions about why no legitimately credentialed Christian bible scholar wishes to associate with Holding.  Both Blomberg and Habermas have pulled their support too.

WEDNESSSSDAYSSES, JULY 4, 2007
The Jeremiah Duh-Lemma
In a world we all know, Mattchu is once again busy with his annual armpit inspection. It is the end of the year and it is time to do his inventory of fleas. As he does so, he hears footsteps behind him. He tries to hide by curling himself up tightly into a ball, with his head between his legs - so far indeed that it seems that his head is tucked into his buttocks. But it is of no use. Despite his best attempt, he is detected at once. He peeks one eye out from between his buttocks and groans. It is that stupid rabbit thing again.
 SHEILA: Happy New Year! I see you're celebrating in the usual place.
 MATTCHU: Grrr. What stupid rabbit want now?
 SHEILA: Well, we've been waiting to see if you'd produce something Mr. Holding hasn't answered yet. I mean, those last entries on the Trilemma and the Land Promise - you just didn't interact at all with his arguments which address what you say.
 MATTCHU (growling, rubbing head): Didn't knows about them - so sure me, dumb rabbitsses.
 SHEILA (shrugs): Not interested. I know all we'd get is your bills. (Pauses.) Anyway, I'm here about this, um...thing you wrote on Jeremiah 7:22. It's pretty stupid, as usual.
 Mattchu rises, and spite of past experience, runs screaming and pounding his fists into Sheila's legs. Mattchu just doesn't ever learn, it seems, and as before he just bounces off with no reward other than a pounding headache. The only difference is that this time, Sheila is not engrossed in the article she is holding; she sees him coming and watches, nonchalantly, and he bangs his face into her kneecaps. After he bounces off, she glances down critically and frowns.
 SHEILA: You bent a strand of my fur. Don't do that. It takes hours to groom this coat. (She brushes the strand back into place, then proceeds to read the article silently. Mattchu is still groaning and rubbing his injured forehead.) You know, dear, you really should take a hint from your own words. You say There are sometimes, where, honestly, I just cannot tell one way or the other, whether a solution is good or not. Well, doesn't this suggest to you that you need to shut up and learn more before you mouth off?
 MATTCHU (moaning): Uh uh.
 SHEILA: I didn't think so. But what's all this about Jer. 7:22?
 MATTCHU: HA! Holdingsses answer an interesting solution or an explanation that is may be good in terms of textual criticism but silly as an apologetic solution designed to salvage inerrancy.
 SHEILA: Inerrancy as you define it - in terms of your ultra-fundamentalist past - or inerrancy as he defines it, in terms of what readers of the time of the Bible would say?
 Mattchu stares stupidly for a few moments.
 SHEILA: You don't know the difference, do you?
 Mattchu shakes his head. There is a sound like a BB rattling in a boxcar.
 SHEILA: And look, dearie - all this rot about how it's hard to believe that any divine being would've let the solution be discovered as late as it was -- he's answered that before to you. You need to get over yourself and stop pretending God owes you something. You whine about this over and over and over again, as though God is obligated to cover your ignorance.
 MATTCHU: He do TOO owe me something! Butt kissing!
 SHEILA: Hmph. Looks to me like you can get John Loftus to do that for you if you really want it. (Sheila reads further.) Well, dear, first off, Mr. Holding doesn't dispute that Jeremiah was part of an anti-cultic faction was actually the theory of some well-respected scholars in the field. He knows that, likely better than you. In fact, I'm sure you didn't notice the further link to here in which Mr. Holding cited Hopper, and also showed why his argument was bogus. I don't suppose you actually care to defend this view, though, do you - that Jeremiah was part of some anti-cultic faction?
 (Mattchu shakes his head violently and backs off a step.)
 SHEILA: All right. And you failed to notice Mr. Holding's more detailed link, so shame on you. Now he also says, The simple answer to this notes that this is rather the use of hyperbole to effect a point. The purpose of this phrase is to show the relative importance of sacrifices, etc. in terms of inward attitudes. Indeed, were this not so, we would be constrained to ask how such an obvious "condemnation" of the sacrifices survived the so-called "cutting" since the very priests that Skeptic X accuses of creating the sacrificial law for their own benefit were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! But history knows of no such opposition to the sacrificial system in Israel; while the temple machinery was often corrupt (as in the time of Annas), there is no indication at all that the actual sacrificial practice was disdained. This isn't his whole answer to the likes of Hopper - you missed that - but what do you say to it?
 MATTCHU: Grah -- This is something I find a bit silly. Holding asks how such an obvious condemnation would've survived since the priests were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! This is almost like asking how could discrepancies exist in any part of the Bible since the early Church fathers would've known they existed and would've discovered them and tossed them out and since this didn't happen we can trust that they truly are inerrant.
 SHEILA (shakes head): No, dear, it's more complicated than that. You're missing the point again. The hypothesis is that there were two parties, pro-cultus and anti-cultus. We're talking about a strong rivalry between two major parties. Hopper and his friends hypothesize that loyalty to both parties was so strong that they HAD to include portions of Jeremiah, an anti-cultus prophet, to give themselves legitimacy. Now in a situation like that, you need hard proof that there was an anti-cultus party to begin with. Mr. Holding's last sentence is the most crucial there, and you missed the point because you were so busy drawing a false comparison. Mr. Holding is not talking about some absent-minded failure to notice. And your analogy to the Gospels still being in the canon in spite of discrepancies is not relevant, because there were not opposition parties over each Gospel. What we're talking about here is a case where the pro-cultus party is supposed to have won, and despite being careful enough to include parts of Jeremiah, was also evidently careless enough to leave this rather obvious anti-cultus verse. You can't have it both ways, dear. You can't posit a carefully-crafted conspiracy by the pro-cultus party while also arguing that they were careless and included a honking obvious anti-cultus statement. In essence you are saying they were careful when it suits your theory to say so, and careless when it suits your theory to say so. The theory is driving the facts. NOW do you get it?
 MATTCHU (scratching head): Duh....no.
 SHEILA (rolls eyes): I'm not surprised. Well, look - we can shift out all this rot about Ezekiel; that has nothing to do with Jer. 7:22. (She takes several pages out and throws them to the wind. Mattchu, horrified, runs after them screaming as Sheila continues to read. As he does, Sheila sighs.) Oh, please. More of this crybaby whining. "By what criteria do we determine whether a given passage is to be read "plainly" and when it is not? Come now, dear, this is ridiculous. Stop being lazy and stupid. It might surprise you to know that Mr. Holding is very much in support of the idea of tailoring translations for each culture - or at least providing deep explanatory notes. But that's still no excuse for you being lazy.
 But let's get to the point. You say you agree with Mr. Holding about the hyperbolic nature of teaching in that time. Right?
 (Mattchu, returning with papers stained with mud clutched in his hand, groans but nods agreement.)
 SHEILA: Now past all this whining about how God should allow you to be lazy, and all this whining about how you think this means God "hid" the solution - which Mr. Holding has called you down on before (though he does not think in this case that Whitney and the others did anything more than bring to the fore what other people already knew) - so you have any actual reason to say that Mr. Holding's answer is wrong?
 MATTCHU Uh....If Holding is right and Jeremiah 7:22 is a negation idiom and is fully consistent with the law of Moses in the Pentateuch, he is left with a serious problem- that of a prophecy in Jeremiah and other places where an eternal kingdom is promised to David and an eternal priesthood is promised as well!
 SHEILA (staring): Say WHAT? What the heck does one have to do with the other?
 MATTCHU: HA! In some places in the Hebrew Bible, an eternal throne is promised to king David. In 2 Samuel 7: 11-16, we find written:
 8"Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. 9"I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. 10"I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, 11even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13"He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14"I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15but My loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16"Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"
 SHEILA: Hold it.
 MATTCHU: WHAT? I is genius explaining something!
 SHEILA: Have you seen Mr. Holding's material on the word 'olam - which is the word usually translated "forever'?
 Mattchu stares blankly.
 SHEILA: Mr. Holding's study follows the conclusions of James Barr'sBiblical Words for Time -- which concludes that the word does not mean "forever" but "in perpetuity" or basically, "as long as". "Forever" in English implies something unconditional and unchanging, but as Barr showed, 'olam does not.
 So your argument that says that:
 Again, we see here the promise that "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne before the houses of Israel" and, interestingly, enough, the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Yahweh to perform burnt offerings. Yahweh compares the covenant with David to a covenant that he established with the day and night. If the former can be dissolved, then it's possible that the covenant with David and the priesthood can be dissolved. Apparently, the throne and kingdom of David were meant to be understood as being eternal as well as the sacrificial system. If Holding is right and Jeremiah 7:22 is consistent with the Pentateuch, he has an even bigger problem: not only is there an eternal throne to David which never materialized but Christ could not have ended the sacrificial system because Yahweh is promising that the sacrificial system is eternal and will last forever
 ...is wrong from the start. Mr. Holding has no dilemma as you say; it's just that as usual, you get your foot stuck in your mouth because you haven't read all that he's written. He's also addressed that point from Cross about the "unconditional" nature of the promises - in the Land Promise materials answering Till which you didn't interact with. It's right here, in fact - Mr. Holding quotes from the same place you do. And he answers why it is not a problem for him. All this means in this context is that the sacrificial system is in suspension. Sorry, dear - you've made a fool of yourself again.
 At this, Mattchu throws his papers into the air and runs, screaming, towards Sheila. She sighs and at the right moment, raises her knee and delivers a stunning blow to his chin. His head and chest arch backwards, and in amazing feat of acrobatics, his forehead becomes jammed between his buttocks. In this position he somehow manages to land on his feet, and toddles off, screaming curses against J. P. Holding.
 SHEILA (sighs): Well, that's the way it goes...either way, he ends up with his head in the same place.
 Posted by Sheilaat Fun time0 comments -- no one cares!

------------------------end

 Holding's sinful fixation with the anus shows up again:

This came from the People in Need of Preparation H:
You sir are a nasty and twisted person. Flush the bile out of your system once a day and before every public display and then maybe we can learn to appreciate your thoughts!

Taken alone, this might not indicate homosexuality, but it does in Holding's case because he has such a long and distinguished history of manifesting his unsavory appetite for male ass, even other Christian apologists have had to chastise him about it.  From a prior post:

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

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

 UPDATE:  February 23, 2019
Since I originally posted this, it came to my attention that the apologist who authored the above words, Steve Hays, issued a disclaimer, insisting that he was just kidding about Holding when saying those things.  I quote the disclaimer and provide a comprehensive rebuttal showing that Hays is a liar...he might be backpeddeling now, but back when he originally posted those words, he meant them with all holy sincerity.  See here.
-----------------------------

 So when such a person as Holding consistently makes reference to buttocks, anus, and the like, remember you are not dealing with the average heterosexual man who only occasionally talks like this, and that puts a different spin on his words.  Holding really is a fag at heart, but because he has a female wife, it's probably more accurate to call him a closet homosexual.  The great irony is that I'm an atheist critic of Holding and I find male homosexuality revolting.  Holding is allegedly an apologist who defends traditional Christian morality, and yet exhibits more signs of homosexuality than even some atheists.  How fucking sad is that?

Cold Case Christianity: If we can love god in heaven without freedom to sin, we don't need that ability here on earth

This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace who tried to get away from the serious theological problem of why we need freewill to love god here on earth, but we won't need freewill to authentically love god after we go to heaven.

#STRask - May 22, 2017

Melinda:
First question comes from evsp123 on Twitter. "If the ability to do otherwise is a requirement of love, then given our new natures, how will we love the Lord in the new Earth?"

Jim Wallace:
So I think it all comes down to the definition of what it is to have free agency. And if we pose it this way, the ability to do otherwise, it can put us in a conundrum 

Melinda:
Exactly. 

Jim Wallace:
But if we pose it in terms of the ability to do whatever it is you want to do. If you think practically, that is what free agency is. It's my being able to go out, and look at the set of options, and pick the one I want.

So what you are really doing is denying the libertarian notion of feewill, the one which Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig use to explain the problem of evil.  They say we have to have the ability to do the contrary, otherwise, our love of God would be forced, not free.  Along comes the skeptic and says if that is how you define authentic love, then the only way we could authentically love God after we get to heaven is if we retain our ability to sin.  Feel free to deny the libertarian notion of freewill, but just recognize that the consequences of doing put you at variance with other more experienced and more educated Christian philosophers.

Pick the action I want, that I freely want. So now if that's the case, if that's the definition of free agency, well now I can kind of figure out how this might be reconciled to the sovereignty of God. If in fact, heaven is not a place where I'm limited, so I can't make options, but is instead a place where my nature has been so entirely renewed that my wants are now different, then I'm not going to sin because I no longer want that. So now I'm still freely doing whatever it is I want, what's been changed of course though is I no longer want to do what I ought not do.

If there is a form of "freewill" that allows for us to authentically love god while also preventing us from desiring to sin, why didn't God just infuse Adam and Eve with such will. Had he done so, all this mess of sin in the world would have been preempted.

So this kind of compatibilist view that kind of finds a way to find free agency in a very practical way. Because that's how we experience it, right? We just know that free agency is what we want to do. So I think what happens here, is if you change the definitions in such a way to create a conundrum, then you've got a conundrum.

Giesler and Craig are professional Christian philosophers who hold that only the libertarian notion of freewill is sufficient to explain evil (i.e., we need the ability to do the opposite of love).

But if you look at the practical definitions of free agency, and I think that really is the ability to do what it is you want to do freely. Then it's really a matter of what do I want to do?

Melinda:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Jim Wallace:
And I think that's why I always say, no listen, you'll be able to do everything you want to do when you're in heaven. You won't feel restrained. Oh I can't do this, I can't ... No, you simply won't want to do wrong anymore because your nature will have been so utterly changed.

Why didn't God give Adam and Eve that superior nature in the first place, so that they could authentically love him while being yet guaranteed to never sin?

James Patrick Holding: still a homosexual with unresolved anger issues, apparently

I have extensively documented elsewhere on this blog Holding's inability to suppress the fruit of his own closet-homosexuality.

One of his recent videos has him resorting to his old "butthurt" code language for homosexuality (no, it doesn't always mean gayness, but when coming from Holding, it does).

Second, the numbers in the title of the video constitute the amount of money a court decided to award him after incorrectly deciding it did not have jurisdiction to hear my libel-complaint (i.e., smart guy Holding, despite the fact that he could have made the same legal arguments all the way back at the beginning of gthe case, chose instead to hire a lawyer and take 9 months to make such arguments, costing him $21,000, when in fact if the Court really did lack jurisdiction, this would be something clear from the outset in this case, it wouldn't take 9 months of lawyering).

In other words, Holding is one of those mind-game playing psychos who takes delight in showing the public specific clues as to what he is talking about, and delighting to know that his enemy and some friends areaware of what they mean, but the average public doesn't.  He's no different than Berkowitz, Raider or any other criminal who delights in taunting his opponents with clues.

Third, he has the characters in the video standing next to a bus stop sign that says "Inner City Transit Route 13", which means he is gleefully mocking the fact that I was seriously injured on an Inter-City Route 13 bus a while back.

Fourth, I argued that he doesn't believe in the sufficiency of scripture doctrine because he uses far more than the bible to teach Christianity.  I cited a dictionary definition of "sufficiency" to show that in practice, because he clearly doesn't think the bible alone is "enough" for Christian faith and practice, he logically doesn't think the bible alone is "sufficient" for Christian faith and practice.  Holding responds saying I erred in using a modern English dictionary.  Not so.  Any fool can google the internet and find that "sufficiency of Scripture" is presented as a held doctrine by many church websites.  Nobody is qualifying that they understand "sufficiency" in a particular nuanced way that departs from normative English.

Sixth, Holding's cartoon moose asks his opponent whether he knows how the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture originated.  Again, how the doctrine originated is not the issue; the issue is whether Holding's practice lines up with what his words in English tell others he believes.  If Holding's thirst is not quenched by drinking a glass of water, then he is misleading his audience if he says "that was sufficient to quench my thirst" after drinking one glass of water.

Seventh, Holding and other Christians are, when saying they believe in the sufficiency of scripture, speaking to modern day people who speak modern day English.  Sorry Holding, but modern day people already know what "sufficient" means, so you are guilty of misleading them if you claim to believe in the "sufficiency of scripture" and you don't qualify that you are defining "sufficiency" in a nuanced way that cannot be found in a modern English dictionary.

As expected, Holding, ultimate pussy that he is, has his cartoon character punch me across the street at the end.  Actions speak louder than words.  The next time Holding tells you he doesn't believe in resolving theological disputes with physical violence, call him a fucking hypocrite.  He's scared enough of jail to avoid actually doing it in real life, but the desire to do it is still there, and this desire not having gone away after 20 years of being a Christian "teacher" indicates Holding has not spiritually matured in that long length of time.

Can you imagine Jesus or Paul, today, creating animations that promote the very actions they condemned?

Maybe Holding will  post an cartoon of a woman in the act of committing adultery.  After all, in his mind, if its "just a cartoon", then its promotion of acts that are unbiblical in the real world, cannot be used to draw any conclusions about what's going on in the mind of its creator.

James Patrick Holding; still the pretentious trifling hypocrite he always was

James Patrick Holding, a closet-homosexual apologist whose lies I've exposed on this blog many times over, has attacked me personally in his childish video cartoons uploaded to YouTube, apparently intended for dolts who mistake a relationship with their computer for a relationship with Christ.

Punch Bowling 3, v2: Alcoholic Rx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYK4uokq4Y

Detective Joe Fundy, Episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52zioplT9XI

Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation Part 15, v2: Romans 7 and Sin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaTC2fR2roo

Dumb Question of the Month 32, v2: Gentile Evangelization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEMFv3e_Ldc

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

Before I start in with the rebuttals, some general comments are in order:

First, Holding always caricatures himself in these videos as some type of moose-thing that is bigger, stronger and smarter, and caricatures me as an angry looking man who is smaller, weaker and stupid and wears a propeller-hat.  The conclusion that Holding expects most of his viewers to be on the mental level of a juvenile delinquents afflicted with ADHD, is irresistible.  

Second, Holding has banned me from commenting on his videos.  Fearsome warrior at the front of the battle, he is not.  He has also intentionally configured his tektonics.org website so that the person using my ISP, if they click on his website, will be given only raw and virtually unreadable html code instead of the normal webpage.  Apparently, not only does Holding fear my comments, he doesn't even want me to access his materials in a normal manner.

Third, Holding has banned my email address too, so apparently, he feels so threatened by me that he takes steps to decrease the chances, to the extent he can, that I will confront him with a charge of error, libel or misrepresentation.  In his private emails and messages sent in 2015 to other people, he admitted that he was frightened of me and that he had to take steps to calm his anxiety so his mind could focus on other things. He also admitted to his attorney that when he thinks his loved ones are being attacked, he gets irrational.  Don't believe me?  I'll provide those emails to anybody who asks.  

Fourth, what I said in court documents, or what others said about me in court documents, has nothing to do with the arguments I make to justify my interpretations of bible passages, but no, in all four above-cited videos, Holding gleefully taunts the reader with quotations of myself or others from my past lawsuits, asks them to guess who this is, then promises a free e-book in the future answering that question, as if their hearts should beat faster in anticipation (!?).  

In other words, despite knowing such quotes are irrelevant to my academic arguments on the bible, Holding still has faith that most of his followers have a Jerry Springer audience mentality that motivate them to leap fallaciously from "disapproved by another person!" over to "must be wrong about anything he has to say!" But since Holding's followers know there's a large group of people, including Christian scholars, who think Holding is a piece of shit scumbag deserving to be completely ignored (a conclusion they reach despite their knowing he holds the essentials and is likely saved), these followers of Holding apparently don't agree with Holding that disapproval by others indicates ignorance of biblical hermeneutics.

Fifth, it wouldn't matter if Holding's rebuttals were as conclusive as his salivating followers believed, none of his critiques of my views on bible alcoholism or Gentile salvation, etc, disturbs in the least any of my evidence or conclusions argued at this blog, that Holding

• is a homosexual, making him deserve to be killed, Leviticus 20:13
• has a filthy mind and mouth, violating Colossians 3:8
• is a bitter slanderer, violating Ephesians 4:31
• is the type of reviler that Paul said Christians should disassociate from, 1st Cor. 5:11
• has a bad reputation with those outside the church, violating 1st Timothy 3:7
• "obviously perverts" Context Group scholarship, according to co-founder Richard Rohrbough
• gives Christianity a bad name, is a boor with no manners and deserves no respect (Rohrbough).
• is a hypocrite afflicted with cognitive dissonance, given how he a) insists none of his words about me ever rose to the level of actual "libel", yet b) appears to have taken down his "internet predator alert" on me (something a gleefully shit-talking asshole like Holding would never do if he seriously believed his language wasn't libelous), and c) he refused to seek dismissal of the suit on the merits (i.e., by arguing that his comments were protected opinion or otherwise truthful), even though by his loud-mouthing one would think he'd have found it a piece of cake in court to defend his language as constitutionally protected free speech.
• is a hypocrite afflicted with cognitive dissonance, given how a) he said in private emails to his attorneys how scared he was that I might attack him or his family, and his 3,000 miles distance from me was the only reason he wasn't buying a gun for protection, b) he said I was "no different" than physical hostile inmates in a prison psyche ward, but c) still talks shit about me through his videos.  If you thought a person was likely to attack you physically, would you continue talking shit about them online?  Or did I forget that Holding's followers are afflicted with hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance like he is
• is a liar (i.e., in an email to Gary Habermas in 2015, who used to publicly endorse him, Holding said he is moving away from the "strong comeback" style), making him a liar since it is clear that Holding still loves "strong comeback" no less than he did between 1998 and 2014.

Holding has apparently missed an important nuance in the eternal debate:  When HE is guilty of immorality and slander and homosexuality, that hurts him more than accusations of my own errors hurts me.

I don't claim to have living inside me some magic man from the first century

I don't claim to have the power of the Holy Spirit

I don't claim to follow any of the morals of the bible.

I'm an atheist, I claim NO spiritual progress whatsoever.

But Holding makes all these claims.  Therefore, Holding's problem is hypocrisy and dishonesty.  And according to his own bible, the fact that he advertises himself to the world as a 'teacher' means his god finds his sins far more serious than this god finds the sins of non-teachers:

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

But for those interested in a more direct rebuttal...

Punch Bowling 3, v2: Alcoholic Rx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYK4uokq4Y

 

At 7:20-22, he ends this quote with "that's all, and that's all there is too it".  

Really?  Better break out that "I was just being sarcastic" excuse again, you'll need it for this blooper.

"Proverbs 31:6-7" say nothing about people in power.

It says nothing about them having a responsibility to avoid drunkenness.  

Here's what "Proverbs 31:6-7" says:

New American Standard, 1995 Update:
 6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.
 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more. 

New Revised Standard Version
 6 Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
 7 let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more. 

Holding, himself constituting the inerrant presence of God on earth, will never admit getting something wrong.

After all, its not logically possible for the creator to get something wrong.

So he will more than likely attempt damage control here of a rather trifling variety, and argue that he was "obviously" talking here about what those verses meant "in context".

In other words, Holding seems to be saying v. 6-7 cannot mean what they say, because v. 4-5 say something more easily acceptable to modern day inerrantists.

So the question to Holding is still relevant:  

Even assuming the "give" of Proverbs 31:6 is not a mandate, would God approve of Christians obeying the advice in Proverbs 31:6-7 today?  If not, when in the last 3,000 years did obedience to these specific verses become wrong for God's followers?  If yes, then what specific sort of "perishing", "bitter distress", "poverty" and "misery" would a person have to experience, to provide biblical license for a present-day Christian to provide the suffering person with enough alcohol to drink that they "forget" their poverty and "remember" their misery no more?

One more question:  When a person intentionally drinks alcohol with the intended goal of forgetting whatever is troubling them, is that a legitimate form of alcoholism?

But drinking heavily as a coping mechanism is often a sign of alcohol abuse or dependence. If you drink when you are depressed, you are probably making matters worse. Alcohol is a depressant, so using or abusing alcohol can cause or intensify feelings of extreme sadness or depression.

-----------

As far as the Romans 7:7 issue, 

• Paul's saying "I would not have known" constitutes a denial that Holding honestly thinks is irrelevant to the text.  Holding's commitment to bible inerrancy forces him to trivialize a bible author's qualifying comments where expediency dictates.  
• If you could have known exceeding the speed limit was unlawful by means other than reading the specific law in the city's legislative codes, you do not say "I wouldn't have known speeding was illegal, except the city code had said..."  So either a) Paul really meant what he said, thus implying you cannot show "sin" where you cannot show the act to be prohibited in Mosaic law, or b) Paul erred by choosing to phrase his meaning in absolutist terms.  Indeed, most Christians would not speak in the absolutist way Paul did if they wished to make the point they think Paul was trying to make.
• It also doesn't even matter if Holding is correct and sin can be "known" without knowing it is condemned in Mosaic law.  Holding thinks that in the days of Moses, Yahweh disapproved of any Jew in his 20's sexually consummating his marriage to a 7 year old girl.  Does Holding dogmatize about God's opinion on the matter?  If so, where does the bible set forth this divine view with sufficient clarity that it deserves to be called an "obvious" truth about God? 
• If Holding does not dogmatize about God having such view, then would he refuse fellowship to a Christian man in a third-world country whose sexual relations with his prepubescent wife were authorized by the applicable governing law of the land?  Holding cannot condemn him under Romans 13, so why would Holding say such a man was sinning?
• If Holding lived back in 19th century Delaware, where the age of sexual consent was 7, what in the bible would Holding have pointed to as justification for declaring sinful the adult man who married and sexually consummated same to a girl of 7 years old with her parents' approval?
• Is the bible-god's alleged disapproval of sex within adult-child marriages really so "clear" that it is a valid test of spirituality, salvation, orthodoxy?  Is God's biblical disapproval of sex within adult-child marriages seriously as "clear" as his biblical disapproval of adultery is, yes or no?

----------

Regarding Gentile salvation and Acts 11:18:

Did Jesus, before he died, teach Gentiles how to get saved, yes or no?  Under biblical inerrancy, the answer is "yes":

 15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
 16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 18 "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
 19 "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
 20 "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
 21 "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." (Matt. 12:15-21 NAU)

 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law,
 28 then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
 29 "Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, According to Your word;
 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
 32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel." (Lk. 2:27-32 NAU)

Did Jesus, before he ascended, teach Peter about the realities of Gentile salvation, yes or no?  Under biblical inerrancy, the answer would have to be "yes", because Jesus a) had a Gentile ministry, and b) he specifically exhorted Peter along with the other 10 original apostles that they were to take the gospel to the Gentiles:

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

In Matthew 28:19-20, was the resurrected Jesus exhorting his apostles to engage in a mission they still didn't know how to properly carry out, yes or no?

Did the risen Jesus characterize the future movement of the Holy Spirit in the apostles as empowering them to preach the gospel to the Gentiles?  Under biblical inerrancy, the answer would have to be "yes", because in Acts 1, Jesus links the empowering by the Holy Spirit, not just to the apostles, but to their need to evangelize the "nations":

 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me;
 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:4-8 NAU)

Did Jesus, at any time between his birth and ascension, ever inform the apostles that Gentile men can be saved without circumcision, yes or no?  

If Jesus really did have the Gentile ministry mentioned in Matthew 4:15, 12:21 and Luke 2:32, it would be rather absurd to say that by some miraculous accident Peter just never noticed the criteria Jesus laid out for Gentile men to be saved and to fellowship with their Jewish fellow believers. 

Holding, like any jailhouse lawyer, intent on making the apostles look as good as possible, will trifle that the only people criticizing Peter in Acts 1:1-3 are followers of the apostles, that way, the stupidity of their anti-Gentile sentiment cannot be linked to the apostles themselves:

1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
 3 saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."
 4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying, (Acts 11:1-4 NAU)

Holding will scream his head off that the phrase "those who were circumcised" surely refers to nobody else in the world except the followers of the apostles.  So I have several questions:

In the context, what is the nearest antecedent to "those who were circumcised" (v. 2)?  Wouldn't it be "the apostles and brethren" (v. 1)?    

In Acts 10:45, all the "circumcised believers" were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on Gentiles too.  Why?  Had they been taught by some apostle that Gentiles cannot receive the Holy Spirit?

Why does the Acts-author in 11:1 make a  point of saying the "apostles and brethren" who were throughout Judea "heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God"?  Was there something significant about apostles in Judea hearing that Gentiles had received the word of God?  If so, what?  

John W. Martens, Ph.d,  is a scholar of Paul and biblical interpretation.

Martens analyses Acts 11:1-3 and concludes that identifying the apostles in Judea  (11:1) as those Luke intended to include in the phrase "those who were circumcised" (v. 2), is the best way to read the passage:

According to Luke “the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God” and when “Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” (Acts 11:1-3). Peter then began his “step by step” explanation (Acts 11:4). 

Note the difference between “the apostles and the believers” in Judea who had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God and the “circumcised believers” who are critical of Peter’s behavior when he went to Jerusalem. Johnson believes that Luke makes a “deliberate distinction” between these two groups and that it implies that the other apostles accepted Peter’s behavior since the Gentiles are described as having “accepted the word of God” (Johnson, Acts, 197). This is only an implication, though, since it is also possible to read the “the apostles and the believers” as the same group which in the next verse is described as the “circumcised believers.” If this is the case, Acts 11:1 simply describes the news drifting back to Judea andActs 11:2 gives us the response of “the apostles and the believers,” here just classified as “circumcised believer.

It is difficult to know which reading is correct, since Peter explains the salvific events among the Gentiles and by the end of the passage (Acts 11:18) they “all” glorify God. It is more likely that this describes “the apostles and the believers” who are themselves also named as “circumcised believers” and are convinced by Peter’s explanation of the Holy Spirit working among the Gentiles. On the other hand, if the “circumcised believers” have been convinced, why was a gathering of the Church necessary, as we will see in Acts 15? 

Mr. Holding, now that you've been informed that properly credentialed bible scholars with expertise in Greek, Paul, early Christianity and bible interpretation methods, agree with me that "It is more likely" that Luke's "they who were circumcised" (11:2) includes at least some of the "apostles" (11:1), will you continue insisting that my interpretation of the passage is moronic?

Yes or no?

Cold Case Christianity: Wallace apparently thinks Jesus' understanding of the gospel is irrelevent

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

What Does “Gospel” Really Mean?

Posted: 15 Jan 2018 04:00 AM PST

We often describe God’s gracious offer of Salvation as “good news”, and while this makes sense, given the magnitude of God’s gift to us, there are actually good etymological reasons for describing Salvation in this way.

Why doesn't your article appeal to what Jesus thought the gospel was?

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."    (Matt. 28:18-1:1 NAU)

Maybe you are a dispensationalist?  You know...you think the gospel Jesus preached before he died on the Cross no longer applies to the current dispensation of the modern-day church?  But the above-highlighted words of the allegedly resurrected Jesus indicate his pre-Cross teachings are what future Gentile followers ("disciples of all the nations") are required to not just 'learn' or 'believe', but to obey.  

That's a severe problem for you because nobody speaks about a saving belief in Christ's death for sin and resurrection as constituting "obeying".  You can believe in Jesus' death and resurrection without "obeying" anything.  The resurrected Jesus' choice to say "obey" therefore makes it clear that the emphasis of the true gospel is on the moral walk.

Indeed, Jesus' had a specific mission to Gentiles before he died:

12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee;
 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.
 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 15 "THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY THE WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES--
 16 "THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED."
 17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."    (Matt. 4:12-17 NAU) 

 15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
 16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 18 "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
 19 "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
 20 "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
 21 "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." (Matt. 12:15-21 NAU) 

30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
 32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel." (Lk. 2:30-32 NAU)

So you cannot escape this trap by saying Jesus didn't "really" evangelize the Gentiles before he died.  Yes, he did.

I think the reason one of Christianity's allegedly greatest apologists did not quote Jesus to answer the question of what the gospel is, because this apologist in real life likes Paul's law-free gospel much more than the legalistic method of salvation Jesus preached.  So that while you don't actually ever forthrightly assert that the gospel Jesus preached before the cross is the way of salvation, your ceaselessly focusing our attention on Paul's version and nearly never focusing our attention on Jesus' version tells us more than any media statement you might make saying you think the 4 canonical gospels are relevant today.

The word “Gospel” is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word, “godspel”, or “good story” and was substituted for the original Greek word “euaggelion” which first signified “a present given to one who brought good tidings”, or “a sacrifice offered in thanksgiving for such good tidings having come”. In later Greek uses, it was employed for the good tidings themselves. That’s exactly what God is offering us with the Gospel; “good news” about what he did for us through Jesus Christ:
 The Gospel is All About What God Did For Us
God wants us to rejoice over the good news of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Although our sin deserves death, Jesus paid the price and even defeated death so we too can live forever with God:

Sorry, Wallace, but a) your definition here still avoids Jesus' own definition of the gospel, and b) there you go again, emphasizing Jesus death as if it were somehow "more important" than other gospel matters, when in fact according to Matthew 28:20, the statement that future Gentile disciples must be taught to obey all that Jesus taught the original apostles, is most reasonably interpreted as placing all of his teachings on an equal par.

What Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount is not less important or central to the gospel than his death and resurrection.  Yet Paul always focuses on Jesus' death and resurrection and infamously doesn't give his readers jack shit about what Jesus said or did before dying on the Cross.  Jesus' earthly ministry meant nothing to Paul, and a few blurbs about how 1st Timothy 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7, or how Paul mentioned what Jesus said and did at the last supper in 1st Cor. 11:23 are not going to change the fact that Matthew and Paul have radically different ideas about what constitutes the gospel.

Matthew's own gospel contains not much more than the things that Jesus said and did, so when Matthew tells us at the end that the resurrected Jesus required future Gentiles to obey all that he had taught the original apostles (Matthew 28:20), Matthew clearly thinks the gospel consists of ALL that Jesus did and said between birth and ascension.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

So apparently what Paul received wasn't what the resurrected Jesus said in Matthew 28:20, as this Jesus didn't think the gospel was limited to his death and resurrection.

The Gospel is All About Grace
Paul devoted his life to sharing what he believed to be very “good news”. He thought it was good news because he understood God was giving us a free gift only He could offer: the gift of Salvation, given freely as an act of grace (unmerited favor):
 Acts 20:24
However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me-the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

Jesus' method of salvation was legalistic:

 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.   (Matt. 5:17-22 NAU)

In the immediate context, "your righteousness" is defined in terms of personal morality, i.e., legalism, i.e., you will go to hell for unjustly calling your brother a fool.  Again, the immediate context for Jesus' legalistic sounding requirement that his followers evince great righteousness, is his own discussion about morals and ethics.

Jesus also gave a rather legalistic answer to the rich young ruler who had asked him specifically how it is that one obtains eternal life:

  16 And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"
 17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
 18 Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;
 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"
 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
 23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
 24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."    (Matt. 19:16-26 NAU)

The context is quoted so no fundie can insist that I took this out of context or ignored some important quip that puts a different spin on Jesus' words to the rich young ruler.  Nothing in the immediate context of Jesus' words to this man expresses or implies that Jesus believed the man could obtain eternal life without keeping the commandments.  Therefore

"and come, follow Me." 

doesn't mean 

"what I just said is bullshit, you don't need to follow the Law, all you need to do is follow Me". 

The Gospel is All About God’s Work and Righteousness, Not Our Own
God wants us to know it is absolutely pointless to think we could ever contribute to our salvation in even the smallest way with our own efforts (or good works). The Gospel is good news because it demonstrates God will do what it takes to apply His righteousness to us if we will only place our faith in Jesus. It is faith alone, “from first to last,” that saves us:

Fuck you, the risen Christ requires all future Gentile followers to not just learn or believe, but to obey ALL the teachings he taught the original apostles, Matthew 28:20.

Romans 1:16-17
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

It's also curious that Paul was so intent on documenting his gospel from his interpretations of the OT, if in fact we must presume he believed Jesus preached the way of salvation for at least three years to the original apostles. Common sense says God's latest light on the gospel is probably going to create less confusion, yet Paul shuns the latest light and prioritizes his own treatement of OT texts as more important than anything Jesus had to say.

A “Works” Gospel is No Gospel At All
Finally, God wants us to understand it’s our nature to slowly drift from the good news of grace and slip back into thinking our own good works are actually saving us. But a “works based” Salvation is not good news;

Then you must think Jesus' definition of the gospel was "bad news".

we offend God when we try to act like our righteousness is anything compared to His.

But God still thinks people are righteous in his own sight where they obey all of his commands, a thing that at least two 1st-century people were apparently capable of actually accomplishing:

 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years. (Lk. 1:5-7 NAU)

Luke 1:6 thus contradicts the Pauline dirge that says we can never be righteous in the sight of God.

It is hopeless to depend on our own goodness when trying to reach a perfect God. We are simply never going to be “good” enough.

Which means you would seriously argue that Luke 1:6 doesn't mean we can ever be good enough for God on the basis of our obedience to his commands.  In other words, you'd rather trifle that there's no contradiction between God viewing a person as righteous based on their efforts to obey his commands, and God telling them at the same time that their efforts to obey his commands can never made them good enough.

Probably because you care more about bible inerrancy and reconciling Paul with everything else in the NT, than you care about common sense.

Galatians 1:6-9
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

In the context of Paul's letter to the Galatians, the "men from James" are the ones who are successful in getting Peter to cease eating with Gentiles (2:12).  Your problem is that you cannot cite Acts 15:24 for the proposition that these men were imposters or otherwise misrepresenting James, since Peter knew James quite well, and would thus have known whether these "men from James" were correctly or incorrectly representing James's view on the matter.  Therefore, Peter's "fearing the circumcision" or the "men from James" only makes sense under the theory that Peter felt those men were correctly representing James, in which the anti-Gentile sentiment of the Judaizer gospel goes all the way back to James, it is not limited to an ultra-conservative faction within the Jerusalem church.  Luke the liar's representation in Acts 15 of James as relaxing circumcision requirements for Gentiles therefore appears to be a falsehood concocted to make the reader think Paul and the Jerusalem apostles were more agreed on these matters than they really were.  Otherrwise, you have to think Peter was fearful of men whom he knew were misrepresenting James, and this is the least likely of the available theories.

God wants us see his gift of grace for what it really is. God’s grace is “good news” because it solves a foundational problem all of us have as human beings. We are fallen. We are rebellious. We are far less than perfect. Beings like us simply cannot enter into a perfect realm without God’s complete and total work in our lives.

It is far from obvious that Jesus believed in original sin.  And your ridiculously intense view of God as infinitely holy so that our best efforts are never good enough, is based on more on modern systematic theology than it is based on biblical truth.  God is completely free to exempt anybody he wants from the required punishments for sin:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." (2 Sam. 12:11-14 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Our faith alone saves us, and that’s good news, because any belief system which argues you can contribute to your own salvation is offensive to God, who is the only source of salvation.

So apparently you think the legalistic gospel Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-20 was offensive to God.

God doesn’t want to merely contribute here. He wants to do it all, because He knows how incapable we truly are in this area.

So incapable, in fact, that while we might be able to be "righteous in his sight" solely through our own efforts at obeying his laws (Luke 1:6),  being righteous in God's sight isn't enough.

You know...anything to glorify bible inerrancy and systematic theology.

my post to Dr. Long on Acts 11:18 and Gentile Salvation

Over at the blog of NT scholar Dr. Phillip J. Long, I posted the following questions and concerns about why the followers of the apostles indicate in Acts 11:18 that Gentile salvation is some new shocking unexpected theological development :

Dr. Long, 

I have argued for years on the basis of Acts 11:18 that God granting to Gentiles the repentance that brings salvation, must have been some new unexpected shocking thing to the Christians listening to Peter give that speech. 

What exactly is Peter's audience discovering? 

That Gentiles can be saved? 

Or the more nuanced discovery that the Gentile salvation they already knew to be available, doesn't require two steps, but only one? 

The wording in 11:18 is, IMO, too simple to justify the latter more nuanced interpretation, so IMO this church is startled to learn that Gentiles can be saved period.
This of course is a serious problem given that these Christians are the results of the labors of the 12 apostles, who surely must have known that Jesus had a major mission to the gentiles (Mark 1:45, Matthew 4:15, 12:21, Luke 2:32). 

Indeed, the risen Christ insisted that his teachings were the basis of all future Gentile salvation/discipleship in the Great Commission, Matthew 28:20. 

So why was Gentile salvation so controversial to these followers of the apostles?
Did the apostles, after being "amazingly transformed" by seeing a resurrected Jesus ordering them to preach salvation to the Gentiles (Matthew 28:20), and after being miraculously filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), end up neglecting the Gentile aspect of the gospel to the point that their immediate followers find Gentile salvation to be this unexpected shocking theological development, as they apparently conclude in Acts 11:18? 

Can we really fix these problems with a quick "the apostles just didn't get it" ? 

If Jesus physically appeared to me and I ran around on the earth with him for three years, then saw him risen from the dead and ordering me to do certain things, it doesn't make sense that I'd be slow to obey or understand what had been drilled into my head for those prior three years.
So it would appear that the anti-Gentile sentiment was not just some questionable misunderstanding by the followers of the apostles, but went back to the apostles themselves (Galatians 2:9, limiting their evangelism to just the Jews, in contradiction to the risen Christ's direct command that they, that is, the 11 original apostles, do the work of the Gentile ministry).

Another attempt to dialogue with McLatchie and McGrew

On the YouTube video apologist Jonathan McLatchie posted, interviewing Dr. Lydia McGrew about her Six Bad Habits of New Testament Scholars, I posted the following relevant challenge to McGrew:



So I'll just have to wait and see whether she takes up that legitimate challenge, or whether McLatchie, fearsome apologist that he is, blocks the comment.

The Fearsome Warriors at Triablogue demolish the opposition by blocking their posts?

It seems the warriors are Triablogue are so confident that bible skepticism is utterly irrational, they think blocking posts from those who offer legitimate challenges, constitutes overcoming the devil.

Apologist Jonathan McLatchie hosted a webinar in which Dr. Lydia McGrew, wife of New Testament scholar Timothy McGrew, described what she thinks were Six Bad Habits of New Testament Scholars (and how to avoid them)

McLatchie, you'll recall, is one of those fearsome spiritual warriors (calls himself one of the world's leading apologists) who, when confronted by my challenge to debate any biblical or Christian issue he pleased, dishonestly ducked the challenge by pretending that my having filed civil lawsuits in the past somehow indicated any such debate would be unprofitable.

Steve Hays of Triablogue (he is an inerrantist, Lydia is not) commented on Lydia's webinar speech, and Lydia replied to Steve.

Today, January 10, 2018, I tried to post the following at Triablogue:

Steve, Lydia,  

What is your opinion of Dr.Craig Evans, an otherwise "orthodox" Christian, not a liberal or heretic, who says in his debates with Bart Ehrman that Jesus didn't ever say many of the things John's gospel puts in Jesus' mouth? 

For example, Evans says stuff like "before Abraham was, i am" was never uttered by the historical Jesus.  see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zkTTNGJLQ, Evans gives his answer at time-code 1:00 ff 

Sure, John might be a different "genre" from the Synoptics, but I don't think you can blame a skeptic or atheist for feeling confident about the theory that the gospels often lie to us about what really happened, when you have conservative Christian scholars like Evans admitting that the historical Jesus never said many statements now credited to him by the author of John's gospel.   

If as most apologists say, the atheist bible critic is unreasonable and irrational for crediting John with fiction, then must such apologists not also, to be consistent, charge Evans with being irrational and unreasonable? 

The only way I see out of this is for one of you to assert 

a) Evans isn't qualified to make such statements, or
b) Evans is just plain wrong, implying you can demonstrate such, implying you actually will, or
c) argue that gospel statements crediting Jesus with speech he never spoke, can nevertheless be legitimately characterized as "historically reliable". 

I'm not sure if "historically reliable" can be stretched so far that it also covers cases where real life people are credited with speaking words they never actually spoke. 

I look forward to your replies.

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

After clicking "post", I received the following reply, telling me in contradictory fashion that my comment was "blocked" but also "posted", thus giving the smartest inerrantists in the world one more "apparent" contradiction to "reconcile":



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

I have trounced apologists before with my resurrection challenge, namely, that there are only 3 resurrection accounts in the NT which come down to us today in first-hand form, the others are hearsay, vision, or otherwise; Matthew, John, and Paul, and that's generously granting assumptions of traditional gospel authorship which I'm otherwise well-prepared to attack.

Unless somebody is willing to rebut conservative Christian scholar Craig Evans and his theory that John often attributes to Jesus words Jesus never actually spoke, it would appear that under Evans' own view, the gospel of John puts words in Jesus' mouth which Jesus never actually spoke, and thus disqualifies himself as a resurrection eyewitness.

With John gone, now there's only two first-hand witnesses left, Matthew and Paul.

I'm just pissing myself with worry about the overwhelming evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

Matthew Flannagan finds it difficult to answer simple questions about the sufficiency of scripture

In reply to Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan's blog piece, wherein he tried to dispute the liberal interpretation of hell, I asked him whether he felt simply quoting the bible was sufficient to discharge his obligation as a Christian to teach and refute error.  He replied in the negative, that proof-texting was terrible error, I responded that this is exactly what several NT authors do in their own treatment of the OT.

Matt then asked me to go waste somebody else's time, and I took that as his subtle way of asking me to quit stomping him down intellectually.  Here's how it happened.

barry
Jan 5, 2018 at 10:17 am
 Matt,
 Do you believe that the biblical wording is “sufficient” for Christian faith and practice?

 Matt
Jan 5, 2018 at 12:09 pm
 Barry, sorry, but I don’t know what you mean when you say that “biblical wording” is sufficient for Christian faith and practise? 

 barry
Jan 5, 2018 at 1:19 pm
 By “biblical wording”, I meant the words of the bible. 

 Matthew Flannagan
Jan 5, 2018 at 6:37 pm
 By “biblical wording”, I meant the words of the bible.
 Sounds to me like your equivocating, when a person talks about the words of the Bible, they often mean by that what the bible teaches. But it could also be a reference to the phraseology, used by biblical authors.
 I am still unsure what you mean. 

 barry
Jan 6, 2018 at 8:41 am
 Do you believe that merely quoting Luke 16:19-31 verbatim to an Evangelical Annihilationist, without adding any commentary or argument, is ‘sufficient’ to discharge your Christian obligation to refute error?

Peter S WilliamsJan 7, 2018 at 3:27 am Please get someone to copy edit this article. There are sentences that make no grammatical sense and this is unfortunately obscuring the content.

 Matt
Jan 8, 2018 at 12:49 pm
 Barry, No, Luke 18 is a parable and it comes in a section where Jesus is discussing money and greed. So simply quoting it wouldn’t suffice, you’d have to make the case that in addition to making a point about money and greed, Jesus intended in this parable to give an accurate description of what hell is like. I think that’s dubious.
 Generally just quoting a passage without taking into account the context or Genre is a terrible method. Its known as proof-texting and is widely disparaged. 

 barry jones
Jan 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm
 If “proof-texting” is is a “terrible method” and is “widely disparaged”, then do you accuse Jesus and some NT authors of using a terrible method? 

 Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, without commentary…as if he expected his readers to just “get it”, despite the obvious fact that no surviving pre-Christian Jewish commentary describes it as messianic (i.e., there was great likelihood Matthew knew the unbelieving Jews he wrote to did not accept Isaiah 7:14 as messianic, yet he quotes it verbatim, plus nothing, as if he expected that the quotation, alone, would be sufficient. 

 And since patristic testimony on Matthew indicates he wrote also for non-Christian Jews and not just Christian Jews, this appears to be a case of a NT author expecting an unbeliever to “get it” through nothing more than “proof-texting”.
 Hebrews 1:6 quotes Psalm 97:7 as if the latter was speaking about God’s “Son”, but again, without commentary. If Clement and Eusebius can be trusted, then Eusebius at H.E. 6:14 reports that Clement explained “the name “Paul an Apostle” was very properly not pre-fixed, for, he says, that writing to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced against him and suspected, he with great wisdom did not repel them in the beginning by putting down his name.” 

 That is, Paul was addressing unbelieving Jews (i.e., who were prejudiced against him) and apparently expecting them to just “get it” without his further commentary despite how obvious it must have been that such unbelieving Jews did not understand Psalm 97 to contain any references to Jesus. So Paul’s lack of commentary when quoting the bible to unbelievers seems to constitute the exact proof-texting that you call “widely disparaged”. Paul wasn’t doing much different here than KJV Onlyists do when street-preaching.
 Paul in Hebrews 10:5-10 does even worse: Although the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 says “my ears you have opened”, Paul here quotes the Lxx form which says “but a body you have prepared for me”. 

 Here’s the problem: Paul is speaking to unbelieving Jews (Clement, supra), and here, quotes to them not just the Lxx form they are unlikely to prefer anyway (their problem with the Lxx obscuring or corrupting the text goes back at least to Ben Sira’s grandson’s extended prologue to Sirach, saying the Greek translation doesn’t have the same force as the Hebrew original, and that such differences are “not small”) but a specific form of a verse that aligns much more closely with Paul’s thought that God prepared a body for Jesus, a thought utterly at odds with what the unbelieving Jews Paul was addressing would accept…and yet Paul does exactly nothing to justify to them his convenient preference for a controversial Greek translation that just so happens to make the incarnation of Jesus much easier to prove. 

 Worse, Paul characterizes this as what God does when he brings Jesus “into the world”, when in fact nothing close to kenosis can be found in Psalm 40. So not only is Paul refusing to justify to an unbelieving audience his preference for a controversial translation of the Hebrew, he is also refusing to justify why he thinks this Psalm has anything to say about God bringing Jesus into the world. 

 If Paul didn’t feel the need to academically justify his arguments to those who clearly didn’t agree with those arguments, why do you? 

 If Paul can be comfortable quoting to unbelieving Jews a version of Psalm 40 that they do not agree with, and feel no need to provide the academic justification for it, why can’t you be comfortable quoting Luke 16 to liberals who do not agree with you on what it means, and feel no need to provide them any academic justification for your particular understanding?
 In Luke 4:4, Jesus answers the devil by proof-texting from Deut. 8:4, again, no commentary, as if he thought the mere verbatim quotation of the scripture, alone, was sufficient to discharge the need to rebuke or correct those who are in theological error. 

 We would hardly find the NT justifying such “proof-texting” if the NT authors agreed with modern conservative Christian scholars that one’s obligation in preaching/teaching requires them to follow up their verbatim bible quotes with their own commentary. 

 It would appear then, that the NT authors find it far less needful to provide academic justification, than do modern day conservative Christians. 

 How could you go wrong making the change and imitating the NT authors’ more simplistic methodology? You quote Luke 16 verbatim to the liberals who say hell is mere metaphor, that’s it, and you allocate the job of overcoming their academic objections, to the Holy Spirit. 

 Yeah, you’d lose your standing as a Christian “scholar”, but it’s more important to you to align as close as possible to the apostolic method of teaching unbelievers/heretics, than it is for you to impress your modern peers with your ability to trifle about scholarly minutiae, amen?
  

Matt
Jan 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm
 Barry, I see you want to change the subject from the post again to ask me to exegete a swath of different passages you disagree with.
 But for the record there is a difference between proof texting of the sort you were mentioning and enthyeme.
 How could you go wrong making the change and imitating the NT authors’ more simplistic methodology? You quote Luke 16 verbatim to the liberals who say hell is mere metaphor, that’s it, and you allocate the job of overcoming their academic objections, to the Holy Spirit.
 This is mistaken on several counts, First, the phrase “hell” is a metaphor, Jesus isnt literally referring to the valley of Hinnom in Jerusalem but using a well known apocalyptic symbol almost no one conservative or liberal denies this.Theologians such as Jean Calvin and Charles Hodge acknowledge this, are they liberals? Second, as I pointed out the passage in Luke you mentioned is a parable, so your just misreading the Genre. It would be like the someone quoting Nathans story about a sheep as a teaching on shepherding.

 Yeah, you’d lose your standing as a Christian “scholar”, but it’s more important to you to align as close as possible to the apostolic method of teaching unbelievers/heretics, than it is for you to impress your modern peers with your ability to trifle about scholarly minutiae, amen?

 This is just ironic, skeptics emphasis reason and science and complain that religion is thoughtless based on faith and not reasoned, then they complain that Christian scholars use reason and complicated arguments.
 You come in and demand I respond to your arguments and then complain I engage in argument. I suggest you waste someone elses time. 

 barry jones
Jan 10, 2018 at 3:21 pm
 Matt,
 I’m not changing the subject. You impugned “proof-texting” as “terrible error”, so it was a legitimate move on my part to confront your evangelical self with passages from your own bible where biblical authors are committing the same alleged “error”. And since you didn’t do much to oppose, apparently, that strategy was correct. 

 You refuse to say which instances I quoted are a case of the bible author employing enthyeme, so I guess that means you wanted me to guess which ones were doing that. I shall not play guessing games with you. 

 When I said the liberals view hell as metaphor, I wasn’t mistaken, your problem is that you think there’s a “mistake” merely because, like a jailhouse lawyer, you can capitalize on your opponents failure to speak in detailed qualified manner. I obviously meant that the liberals view hell as ONLY metaphor, that is, they deny there’s any literal aspect to it. But because I didn’t use the word “only”, you cry “mistake!”, as if I didn’t’ know the conservative position that agrees biblical hell is metaphorical in certain aspects. Stop being so quick to leap from somebody’s failure to qualify, over to “mistake!”. 

 You say you “pointed out” that the passage is a parable, but “pointed out” is not “argument”, and as such, you did not justify disagreement with other Christian scholars who say this story is real history and not parable, such as Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Intervarsity, 2006), p. 534?

 “skeptics emphasis reason and science and complain that religion is thoughtless based on faith and not reasoned, then they complain that Christian scholars use reason and complicated arguments.”

——-But that’s your problem: Your own bible condemns any effort you make to justify your treatment of scripture to unbelievers or heretics with academic argument. Therefore, when you make such argument, you can be condemned with your own bible as not living up to the more simplistic method advocated by NT authors. When you DON’T make academic argument, you might be living up to the more simple standard of NT authors, but the consequence is that nobody is obligated to seriously consider a position that has nothing more behind it except “proof-texting”. It is not my fault if you wish to uphold two contradictory standards of proof, the academic argument approved by modern scholars, and the proof-texting employed by NT authors.

 “You come in and demand I respond to your arguments and then complain I engage in argument.”

——-You wish to look good to modern people, thus calling for scholarly level argument, but you refuse to condemn the NT authors for their more simplistic argument via proof-texting.  It is not my fault if your attempt to serve two different masters makes it easy to condemn pretty much any scriptural argument you attempt.

 “I suggest you waste someone elses time.”

——Perhaps I was also wasting my time asking you to describe and source whatever moral yardstick you were using to justify saying torturing babies solely for entertainment is objectively immoral, given that you essentially disappeared after I pressed that matter.
 That you are wrong about me wasting your time (and wrong in your implication that this was my primary motive in dialoguing with you), all anybody has to do is check out my list of challenges to you in the last post over at http://www.mandm.org.nz/2017/10/richard-carrier-on-the-moral-scepticism-objection-to-divine-command-theory.html 

 When you are prepared to defend the matters those challenges attack, you know where I blog.
 https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-challenge-to-matthew-flannagan.html
 Conversing with you was fun and educational. Fare ye well.