Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace's errors on the problem of evil

This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace's article

Why Would a Good God Allow Moral Evil?

Posted: 09 Jun 2017 01:18 AM PDT

For many, the presence of moral evil is evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all loving God.

This is illogical.  God's being an asshole doesn't mean he doesn't exist. 

The problem of evil is perhaps the single most frequent objection I hear when speaking to unbelievers, and it has been uttered by thousands across the span of history.

 It has also been a serious problem for serious Christians, and has caused plenty of them to leave the faith.

Epicurus (the ancient Greek philosopher, 341-270BC) expressed the problem clearly:  “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?”  There you have it: If a good, all-powerful, all loving God does exist, and we, as humans, are allegedly created in His “image”, why are people be so inclined to do immoral things? 

The bible says God takes personal responsibility for all murder (Deut. 32:39), and that he not only causes the worst of evils, such as rape and parental cannibalism, but gets a thrill or "delight" out of watching people commit such horrific atrocities, Deut. 28:30, 53, 63.

And why doesn’t this all-powerful God do something to stop evil, immoral behavior? 

 Why would he stop himself? 

A God such as this is either too impotent to stop evil, doesn’t care enough to act, or simply doesn’t exist in the first place.  But think about it for a minute. Which is more loving: a God who creates a world in which love is possible, or a God who creates a world in which love is impossible?

 It is more loving to protect your loved ones from evil to the extent that you have ability and opportunity to do so.

 It seems reasonable that a loving God (if He exists at all), would create a world where love is possible.

Then you cannot have any problem with atheists whose arguments proceed under the same "seems reasonable" criteria.

 A good God would create a world where love can be experienced and expressed by creatures designed “in His image”. 

 And a perfect god would have been perfectly content with the way things were before anything was created, in which case this god would have had no motive or desire to change up this happy equilibrium.  If God was perfectly content with the pre-creation state of affairs, he would not have created anything.

But this kind of “love-possible” a world is, by necessity, a dangerous place. Love requires freedom. True love requires that humans have the ability to freely choose; love cannot be forced if it is to be heartfelt and real. I cannot force my children, for example, to love me. Instead, I must demonstrate my love for them, provide them with the knowledge and moral wisdom necessary to make safe and loving choices, and then allow them the personal freedom to love one another and do the right thing.

 No, you think the people that have already died and gone to heaven, cannot chose to sin, yet you believe they still authentically love and worship god.  So freedom to sin and the possibility of evil are not necessary to get creatures to authentically love god.  If God can impose that state of affairs in heaven, he could have imposed it on Adam and Eve, in which case they would never have chosen to sin, and God would have avoided all the future situations that made him so angry at mankind.  God has only himself to blame for giving us freewill and the mess it created, when freewill was not necessary to successfully creating loving creatures.

 Eventually, as a parent, I have to let go, and this process of letting go is dangerous.

 Strawman; you believe your god is omnipresent, so he never "lets go" of anybody the way parents let go of teenagers.

 In order for my kids to have the freedom to love, they also need the freedom to hate.  Freedom of this nature is often costly. A world in which people have the freedom to love and perform great acts of kindness is also a world in which people have the freedom to hate and commit great acts of evil. You cannot have one without the other, and we understand this intuitively. Let’s consider an example.  Every year, millions of scissors are manufactured and sold in countries across the world. Everyone knows how valuable and useful scissors can be. No one is arguing for laws to prevent the manufacturing or sale of scissors; we understand how beneficial they are. Yet every year, hundreds of homicides and assaults are committed with scissors (I’ve actually investigated some of these). While scissors were designed for a good and useful purpose, they are often used to commit great evil. In a similar way, our personal “free agency” is a beautiful gift that allows us to love. It was intended to provide us the means through which we can love one another and even love God. But this freedom, like a pair of scissors, can be used for great evil as well if we choose to reject its original purpose. 

Irrelevant, creatures can authentically love god without having any ability to sin.  See above.

As Christians, we believe that God created us in His image.

 There were no other words the Hebrew author could have chosen to express the idea that we physically resemble god.  This whole business of the image of god being "freewill" is total bullshit.  The god of the early parts of the OT was physical even if also invisible.  Christians only insist that "divine image =  freewill/conscience" for no other reason than because they wish to harmonize Genesis 1:26-27 with the rest of the bible, which says god cannot be likened to anything on earth.  But a more objective approach is to ask what the original biblical words for "image" and "likeness" meant in their own limited contexts.  Jehovah Witnesses also like to use scripture to interpret scripture, but that obviously doesn't benefit them in the least, as all they end up doing is justifying their own heretical theology thereby,  so its pretty safe to say that grammar and immediate context are paramount, while biblical inerrancy (i.e., scripture interprets scripture) does not deserve to be exalted in our mind to the status of governing hermeneutic, given that Christians are disagreed about whether it is biblical, and if so, what version is correct.  

 We have the freedom to love and we are eternal creatures who will live beyond our short existence on earth. Our free agency allows us to love and perform acts of kindness, and our eternal life provides the context for God to deal justly with those who choose to hate and perform acts of evil. God will do something to stop evil, immoral behavior, He is powerful enough to stop evil completely, and He does care about justice. But as an Eternal Being, He has the ability to address the issue on an eternal timeline.

 The modern Christian notion about God being "eternal" is contradicted by every biblical description of heaven, which asserts things going on there, with God, in a way that necessarily presupposes the same degree of temporal progression of events that exists on earth.  This idea that your god lives in some eternal "now" that is fundamentally different than the "time" dimension we live in, is not biblical.

It’s not that God has failed to act; it’s simply that He has not chosen to act yet.

 The more biblical answer is that horrific evils occur because God causes them to happen, see Deut. 28:63.  Read everything between vv. 15-63, then you tell me that anybody who causes parents to eat their own kids, is "good". 

  1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

 This biblical logic is faulty, because according to the bible many of those who do not love, lack that love precisely because God wanted it that way:  David hates idoloters themselves, not just their idolatry, in Psalm 31:6, and god forbids the Israelites from doing anything nice for certain other people in Deut.23:6.

Compared to eternity, this temporal, earthly existence is but a vapor, created by good God to be a wonderful place where love is possible for those who choose it.

 Again, all biblical descriptions of heaven assert that events take place there with no less temporal progression than they do on earth.  Again, if God was perfect, he'd have been perfectly content to exist without creatures, and thus would never have become motivated to think that changing the original solitary perfection-state was "better".

James Patrick Holding disqualified by the bible from the office of Christian "teacher"

James Patrick Holding, formerly Robert Turkel, is known for little else on the internet than aggressively defending the bible as god's inerrant word.  www.tektonics.org.



And yet he has made statements that would get him kicked out of any conservative or fundamentalist church.  In 2008 I debated him at theologyweb.com, and I remarked that I caught Holding somewhere else talking like an atheist about the bible, and that therefore he would need to employ his tried-and-true "I-was-just-being-sarcastic" excuse to "explain" it to his buddies.

Holding, surprisingly, confirmed that he wasn't being sarcastic, but genuine.  That is, Holding confirmed that he really doesn't care whether the bible is the word of God or not.  Here's the relevant part of the exchange:

-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding, I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 

Naturally, the owner of theologyweb (who is also Holding's buddy), got rid of this embarrassing blooper, but thankfully it is still preserved by the wayback machine, which is thus an example that a godless secular machine has more concern for actual historical truth than Mr. Holding himself.  Check out the link.

So ask yourself: Where does the bible allow Christian teachers (which office Holding wants his paying admirers to believe he legitimately holds) to have such apathetic (uncaring) attitude toward the divine inspiration of the scriptures?

 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NAU)

I can buy that Jesus allowed for mere "salvation" of those who didn't take any position on the inspiration of the scriptures.  What I cannot buy is that Jesus or Paul would have this liberal attitude toward Christian teachers. What are the odds that Paul would have approved of so-called Christian teachers in his churches who didn't care whether the scriptures were inspired by God?

Holding has been publicly endorsed in the past by genuinely qualified Christian scholars like Craig Blomberg, Gay Habermas, and Daniel Wallace.  One wonders what these conservatives would think if they knew Holding took such a shit attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible?  They might muse that the only reason Holding makes such a big deal out of bible inerrancy is because it gives him something to bitch about, nothing more.

Email Holding sometime and ask him where the bible approves or allows for Christian teachers, as he supposes himself to be, to have such apathetic attitude toward the divine origin of the Scriptures.

His email address is: jphold@att.net
His residence address is: 2609 Greywall Ave, Ocoee, FL 34761

The fact that Holding is a closet-homosexual and that the bible scholars he quoted for years to justify his insulting demeanor toward critics, say he gives Christianity a bad name and have twice disowned him professionally and morally in no uncertain terms, provides sufficient probable cause to believe that Holding is no more a genuine Christian than Robert Tilton or Benny Hinn. 

In the real world we label such conflicted clowns with cognitive dissonance (willingness to hold two mutually contradictory positions on a matter despite knowing they contradict each other).

Cold Case Christianity: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”?

  J. Warner Wallace, author of "Cold Case Christianity", banned me from his Facebook page despite the fact that I did not engage in any rule violations, and so it would appear that he simply got fed up with the fact that informed bible critics like myself find it rather easy to point out the flaws in the arguments he expects his followers to be amazed at.    

I also emailed Warner, twice, with an offer to engage in a written debate with him about any apologetics topic he wished.  He never answered.

In light of this, and in light of his relentless promotion of his books, I am forced to conclude that Mr. Wallace is dishonest in the sense that he will stifle criticism of his views, where possible, if he feels that criticism is likely to reduce sales of his books.  
My answer to J. Warner Wallace's Article entitled

 Cold Case Christianity: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “HumanFlourishing”?   Posted: 24 May 2017 01:02AM PDT 

 When it comes to moral truth, where do we get our notions of right and wrong?

 Answer: Since the bible says you should raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and everybody agrees you can warp a child’s mind and morals by raising them wrong, its perfectly reasonable to conclude that we get our notions of right and wrong from the environment we were raised in.  And because all mothers will insist their babies showed unique personality characteristics as far back as birth, it would appear that some of the way we determine morals comes from our genetic predispositions.

Can we generate binding, obligatory concepts without grounding them in the nature of a Holy God?

No, what we do is talk to each other, find out who agrees with our morals, organize ourselves into cities and nations, elect leaders to pass laws consistent with the morality in our group, then tell everybody that you either conform, or face civil and criminal penalties.  On the other hand, it is the belief that obligatory moral absolutes come from God, that is precisely why fundamentalists can never resolve their disagreements with each other.  Calvinists have no problem believing it is consistent with God's love and justice for some people who die in infancy to end up in hell, while most other Christians are instinctively repelled by it.   This would provide a rational basis for dismissing the biblical view of God and thus dismissing the concept of absolute morals.  Worse, the God of the bible manifests conflicting morals within himself.  His first moral inclination is to go down the mountain and kill the disobedient Israelites, but he changes his mind after Moses talks some sense into His head:

 9 The LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.

 10 "Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."

 11 Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

 12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth '? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

 13 "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"

 14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

 (Exod. 32:9-14 NAU)

  

As an atheist, I thought so for many years. Like Sam Harris (author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values), I argued that we can establish the moral value of any particular action by simply evaluating its impact on human well-being (something Harris typically refers to as “human flourishing”). Harris, a committed and vocal atheist, accepts the existence of objective moral truths but likens the establishment of such truths to a game of chess.

I am an atheist and I do not believe in objective morality, that is, that any morals are absolute.  I don’t know why you would ask me whether I think torturing babies for fun should is immoral.  Yes, I believe it is, but I am a human being, and a human being’s opinion does not an absolute moral make. 

In any particular game, each player must decide how to move based on the resulting effect. If you are trying to win the game, some moves are “good” and some moves are “bad”; some will lead you to victory and some will lead you to defeat. “Good” and “bad” then, are evaluated based on whether or not they accomplish the goal of winning the game. Harris redefines “good” (in the context of human beings) as whatever supports or encourages the well-being of conscious creatures; if an action increases human well-being (human “flourishing”) it is “good”, if it decreases well-being, it is “bad”.

An excellent reason to say Harris is wrong and that objective morality doesn’t exist, since obviously, what’s “good” to one person is “bad” to another, and if humans are the highest standard possible (as atheism would require), then the fact that human beings disagree on what’s good and bad is proof positive that there are no objective morals.  But lets not forget that even if we allow that Christianity is true, the god of the bible manifests conflicting morals.  In the NT, sex itself, not “illicit” sex, is still considered to be defiling and less than God’s highest good, when in fact sex is believed by most Christians to be a gift from a perfect god:

4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. (Rev. 14:4 NAU)

They didn’t remain undefiled from prostitutes, but undefiled from “women”, i.e., the sex act itself, regardless of whether it takes place inside or outside the marital bond, is still considered by this biblical author to be something that “defiles” a man to a certain extent, a view totally opposed to most modern Christians who think sex within a Christian marriage is a blessing from God, and therefore hardly "defiling".  Here the Revelation-author seems to be contradicting the forthright statement in Hebrews 13:4 that marital sex does not defile.

 What, however, do we mean when we talk about “flourishing”? It’s one thing to evaluate a behavior in terms of its impact on survival, and if we are honest with one another, this is really what drives Natural Selection. But Harris recognizes survival, as a singular goal, can lead to all kinds of morally condemnable misbehavior. History is replete with examples of actions that secured the survival of one group at the immoral expense of another. Harris suggests the goal is something more; the goal is “flourishing”. Human well-being involves more than simply living, it involves living a particular way. Human flourishing comprises a particular quality of life; one in which we honor the rights of others and seek a certain kind of character in order to become a particular kind of human group that has maximized its potential. See the problem here?  Harris has already imported moral values into his model, even as he seeks to explain where these values come from in the first place. One can hardly define the “maximization” of human wellbeing without asserting a number of moral values. What, beyond mere survival, achieves our “maximization” as humans?

I agree with you that Harris is wrong to believe in objective moral values, given that atheism would logically preclude objective morals.  But I deny that the last question above is legitimate.  The whole idea that we should strive for “maximization” stems from a greedy capitalist predisposition, which has manifested its true fruits clearly for the last 100 years.  It is enough to live life where we find ourselves and solve problems in our personal circumstances (i.e., paying debts, resolving family issues).  The drive of most people to “maximize” is precisely what has turned America into the ridiculous cesspool of hedonism it is.  I say chop wood, carry water, and put down that fucking cell phone.

 What does this even mean? The minute we move from mere survival to a particular kind of “worthy” survival, we have to employ moral principles and ideas. Concepts of sacrifice, nobility and honor must be assumed foundationally, but these are not morally neutral notions. Human “flourishing” assumes a number of virtues and priorities (depending on who is defining it), and these values and characteristics precede the enterprise Harris seeks to describe. Harris cannot articulate the formation of moral truths without first assuming some of these truths to establish his definition of “flourishing”. He’s borrowing pre-existent, objective moral notions about worth, value and purpose, while holding a worldview that argues against any pre-existing moral notions.  If, as a police officer, if I was watching Harris’ chess game and observed one of the players make a “bad” move, could I arrest the player? No. the definitions of “good” and “bad” Harris offers here are morally neutral. On the other hand, if one of the players was able to successfully cheat (without detection) and managed to win the game in this manner, could we call this behavior bad? He did, after all accomplish the goal of winning the game. We can only call this behavior “bad” if we begin with a notion about winning that identifies undetected cheating as a prohibited act; a moral truth that pre-exists the “chess game” and ought to govern its moves. Even though there are times when cheating can help us win (or survive) without any physical or emotional consequence, we theists recognize we’ve done something that “damages our soul” and offends the Holy nature of God (even if our behavior goes undetected by our peers).

Again, I disagree with my fellow atheists who think objective moral values exist.  Harris is just as wrong as Barker. 

When the atheist recognizes human flourishing as something more than mere physical or emotional survival, he too acknowledges the spiritual and moral nature of our existence, as he borrows from our theistic view to construct his own.

That is perfect nonsense.  Human “flourishing” is a very subjective thing, with greedy prosperity preachers saying you aren’t really flourishing unless you are rich, and the other Christians who contend that flourishing does not involve ease and comfort in this world.  My suggestion is that it is unreasonable for Christians to think spiritually blind atheists are obligated to figure out which of the spiritually alive people got the bible wrong.  Let God's likeminded one's get their act together, THEN they can have a hope of morally obligating non-Christians to see things their way.

Answer to J.P. Holding's Wheel of Stupid: Marriage in Numbers 31, Deut. 21

 
Skeptics have long pointed out the sexual immorality implicit and explicit in Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21.  In Numbers 31:18, Moses says the Hebrews may spare from massacre the virgin girls "for yourselves", and in Deut. 21:10-14, the rite for marriage to a female war captive gives no sign of concern for the possibility that the woman might not wish to marry the Hebrew man who just massacred her family.

Holding responds to some of these concerns at Wheel of Stupid Biblical Marriage Series 3 (Numbers 31, Deut. 21)

Unfortunately, many of his videos have commenting disabled, showing us that he intends to offer rebuttal to skeptics in a forum that prevents the reader from conveniently seeing how skeptics respond.

So I respond to that video here.

Numbers 31

    13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.
 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
 15 And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?
 16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.
 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
 19 "And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day.
 (Num. 31:13-19 NAU)

  ====================
Here's the backstory:  In Numbers 25, Israelites give in to sexual sin with the Midianites.  There, Moses orders the death of Israelites so involved.  In Numbers 31, God allegedly requires Moses to take "full" vengeance (31:1) on the Midianites.  The Hebrew soldiers make Moses angry as they return from said war with living captives (women and children and some men), and Moses' solution in  31:17-18 is controversial and implies Moses approved of sex within adult-child marriages.

Holding asks why did Israelspare 32,000 virgins in Numbers 31, and parodies the atheist answer as “because they wanted lots of sex”.  Holding then gives the following text:

“Actually since girls were normally married at this time by age 12, that “virgins” here would have been an average age of 5 years old.”

First, Holding cites no sources to substantiate his assertion that girls in the days of Moses were normally married by age 12.  For example, there is absolutely nothing in the Law of Moses that says what age the girl should be married.  Holding here is probably merely drawing upon a generalization by ANE scholars that 12 was the average age of marriage, but given how much the bible-god hates the ways of the pagan nations of the ANE, it is not very biblical to just assume whatever was true for everybody else in the ANE was likely true for Moses too.  If one combines his lack of documentation, with the childish cartoon nature of the video, one gets a pretty clear idea of the mental status of the people Holding is trying to convince, and its certainly not skeptics like myself who have researched these issues. 

Second, many conservative Christian scholars still revere the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary, because what it has to say about the bible remains very scholarly despite its having been written in the 1800’s.  After acknowledging King Ahaz fathered a child at 10-11 years old, they recognize the question this will pop into the mind of the reader, and they go on to cite documentary evidence that prepubescent marriage was normative for middle-eastern families, and this evidence forces Holding, without a rebuttal otherwise, to admit ancient Hebrews were willing to allow marriage at even younger ages than 12:

2 Kings 16:1–4. On the time mentioned, “in the seventeenth year of Pekah Ahaz became king” see at 2 Kings 15:32. The datum “twenty years old” is a striking one, even if we compare with it 2 Kings 18:2. As Ahaz reigned only sixteen years, and at his death his son Hezekiah became king at the age of twenty-five years (2 Kings 18:2), Ahaz must have begotten him in the eleventh year of his age. It is true that in southern lands this is neither impossible nor unknown,33 but in the case of the kings of Judah it would be without analogy. The reading found in the LXX, Syr., and Arab. at 2 Chron. 28:1, and also in certain codd., viz., five and twenty instead of twenty, may therefore be a preferable one. According to this, Hezekiah, like Ahaz, was born in his father’s sixteenth year.
------33 In the East they marry girls of nine or ten years of age to boys of twelve or thirteen (Volney, Reise, ii. p. 360). Among the Indians husbands of ten years of age and wives of eight are mentioned (Thevenot, Reisen, iii. pp. 100 and 165). In Abyssinia boys of twelve and even ten years old marry (Rüppell, Abessynien, ii. p. 59). Among the Jews in Tiberias, mothers of eleven years of age and fathers of thirteen are not uncommon (Burckh. Syrien, p. 570); and Lynch saw a wife there, who to all appearance was a mere child about ten years of age, who had been married two years already. In the epist. ad N. Carbonelli, from Hieronymi epist. ad Vitalem, 132, and in an ancient glossa, Bochart has also cited examples of one boy of ten years and another of nine, qui nutricem suam gravidavit, together with several other cases of a similar kind from later writers. Cf. Bocharti Opp. i. (Geogr. sacr.) p. 920, ed. Lugd. 1692.

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentaryon the Old Testament. 

(Vol. 3, Page 283-284). 

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Third, and perhaps most important, if the biblical descriptions of pagan perversions is true (i.e., if the pagan "pass-your-children-through-the-fire" was describing pagans literally roasting their children to death, Deut. 18:10), then we have a rational basis to conclude that these people were so corrupted that not only did they approve of all forms of sex (penetrative and non-penetrative) but that they also had little regard for age  (i.e., pedophilia).   What exactly is the moral difference between throwing one's 5 year old girl into a fiery furnace, and allowing her to be used sexually?  The point is that the pagans likely allowed pedophilia, in which case some of the prepubescent girls would have participated in the sexual sin at Peor, or tried, meaning Moses' willingness to generally spare all the prepubescent girls was grounded in something other than his belief that they remained from of his sexual sin.

These considerations prompt questions Holding doesn't go near answering:

Why does Moses think the existing virginity of these girls makes them worthy of sparing?  Did he think their hymens remaining intact after the sexual sin at Peor (ch. 25) constituted proof that they did not sin sexually with the Israelites?  What fool thinks an intact hymen negates the possibility that the girl engaged in sexual relations?  Wasn't Moses a married man who surely knew that sex and thus sexual sin can take place without penetrative vaginal intercourse?  Or is there a distinct possibility that in the Hebrew mind, only vaginal intercourse qualified as "sex"?

Holding, who thinks the Jews scrupulously preserved the oral traditions that are behind the Pentateuch,  also doesn't tell his readers how the Babylonian Talmud (oldest ancient Jewish commentary on the OT) answers the question of how the Hebrews could tell which girls were virgins in this episode.  Holding and Glen Miller avoid the fire by positing that the clothes of virgin girls would have been different, but alas, the Talmud at Yebamoth 60a-b says Moses had them pass before the ceremonial frontplate and their virgin-status or lack thereof was determined by whether they blushed from embarassment, a thing he would hardly have done if their dress was the conclusive deciding factor:

  It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,13  for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14  and Phinehas15  surely was with them. And the Rabbis?16  — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.17  If so,18  a proselyte whose age is three years and one day19  should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,20  but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14  but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently21  it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit22  for cohabitation.23  It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man;20  Scripture speaks of one who is fit23  for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him,24  it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.23
Whence did they know?25  — R. Hana26  b. Bizna replied in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: They were made to pass before the frontplate.27  If the face of anyone turned pale28  it was known that she was fit for cohabitation; if it did not turn pale28  it was known that she was unfit for cohabitation.

 The same source continues on, mentioning the Hebrews capturing 400 virgins in Judges 21, and explaining the Hebrews knew they were virgins by making the girls sit on the mouth of a wine-cask, and if a girl's breath smelled like wine, she was judged a non-virgin.  Interestingly, some of the Rabbis felt this earlier barbaric test should have been applied in the case of the Midianite virgins:

Similarly, it is said, And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him;29 whence did they know it?30 R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate!31 — R. Kahana son of R. Nathan replied: It is written, for acceptance,32 for acceptance but not for punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also!33 R. Ashi replied: It is written, ‘unto them’, implying unto them34 for acceptance but not for

punishment; unto idolaters,35 however, even for punishment.36

13.    She is not regarded as a harlot.

14.    Num. XXXI, 18.

15.    Who was a priest.

16.    How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?

17.    Not for matrimony.

18.    That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.

19.    So long as she has 'not known man'.

20.    Num. XXXI, 17.

21.    To reconcile the contradiction.

22.    I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.

23.    Not one who had actually experienced it.

24.    Implying that any grown-up woman is not to be spared, even if she hath not known man.

25.    Which of the Midianite women, referred to in the texts quoted, was, or was not fit for cohabitation.

26.    Cur. [edd.], 'Huna'.

27.    [H] the gold plate which was worn by the High Priest on his forehead. V, Ex. XXVIII, 36ff.

28.    Lit., '(sickly) green'.

29.    Judges XXI, 12.

30.    Cf. supra n. 1 mutatis mutandis.

31.    As was done in the case of the Midianites (v. supra).

32.    Ex. XXVIII, 38, referring to the front-plate.

33.    Why then was the test there performed before the plate?

34.    Israelites, as were the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead.

35.    As were the Midianites.

36.    By the front-plate.

I think this is the part where Holding stops being so confident that the Jews were able to reliably preserve their oral traditions.

Holding next asserts

 “Therefore, this passage (Numbers 31:18) would have nothing to do with any concepts of marriage – and not surprisingly, it says nothing about marriage either.”

The objections are easy and many:  Several conservative Christian commentators assert the spared girls were intended for marriage or concubinage, that is, Holding is giving the false impression to the naïve viewer that his opinion is standard among conservative scholars.

Update: June 12, 2017:  From the wayback machine, I uncovered an old 2015 post of mine at theologyweb.com that the owner of that site deleted, a thread to which Holding had repeatedly replied.  In that thread, in my first post,  I quoted a conservative inerrantist Christian scholar who said the girls of Numbers 31:18 were spared for purposes that included marriage. 

You will say they were only spared to do housework, but bible-believing commentators have already asserted that this sparing in Numbers 31:18 was for purposes that included marriage:

Women who had known men sexually, whether Midianite or sinful Israelite men, were to be considered unclean, since they were the main instrument of Israel�s demise at Baal Peor. Only the young girls would be allowed to live so that they may be taken as wives or slaves by the Israelite men, according to the principles of holy war (Deut 20:13�14; 21:10�14).

Cole, R. D. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3B: Numbers (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 499).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 The point is that when Holding, in his 2017 video, asserts that the sparing in Numbers 31:18 had nothing to do with marriage, this was two years after he was correctly informed that conservative Protestant inerrantist scholars exist who say the sparing was for purposes involving marriage.  That is, Holding expresses his denial position with great confidence despite his knowledge that other conservative Christian scholars disagree with said denial.  It boils down to simple dishonesty.  If Holding wasn't such a dogmatic jerk, so consistently incapable of distinguishing his beliefs from the voice of God, he would probably have made more clear that his denial of marriage-motive in Numbers 31:18 is an interpretation that other inerrantist scholars disagree with.

------------end of update.

The following are from properly credentialed bible scholars, while Holding has no formal education in the bible beyond a master's in library science:

 Only the young girls would be allowed to live so that they may be taken as wives or slaves by the Israelite men, according to the principles of holy war (Deut 20:13–14; 21:10–14). By this they could be brought under the umbrella of the covenant community of faith.
Cole, R. D. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3B: Numbers (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 499). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

31:17–18. rationale for who is put to death. The criteria used to determine who would be executed were two: (1) all the boys must be killed to prevent them from presenting a military threat in the future, and (2) all nonvirgins must die since they have already been contaminated by sexual contact with a proscribed people. Virgins represent an “unplowed field” and may be adopted through marriage into the Israelite tribes (see Judg 21:11–12). It is also possible that they were enslaved or used as concubines. These young women were presumably innocent of the seduction of the Israelites by Midianite women at Baal-Peor (Num 25).
Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Nu 31:18-24). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

The adult males are slain, including the king, princes, and Balaam. The women and children are taken as captives along with much booty. Moses is angry with the military leaders when he sees the Midianite women. They, on Balaam’s advice, had turned Israel away from the Lord. He commands the officers to kill all the boys and every woman who has slept with a man. The virgins and little girls are spared; they will be assimilated into the congregation of Israel by marriage. Thus, in the midst of vengeance, there is compassion.
Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library (Nu 31:1). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Only the virgins were spared, because they could marry Israelites and thereby be assimilated into the Israelite community.
Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968]; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

The young virgins were spared for marriage (Deut. 21:10–14) and slavery (Lev. 25:44–46)
Hughes, R. B., Laney, J. C., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.; Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (Page 65). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

 Deuteronomy 21:1-14

10 "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,
 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,
 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.
 13 "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
 14 "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.
 (Deut. 21:10-14 NAU)

Holding then asserts the following about the regulations in Deut. 21:10-14 for marrying female war captives:

 “In reality, Deut. 21:10-14 is a step up on other law codes of the day which allowed women captured in war to be indiscriminately killed, mutilated, and raped.”

 First, it doesn’t matter if that is true; the Hebrews being slightly more civilized than their pagan neighbors is not the issue:  the problem is the arguments that indicate this marriage regulation takes no concern for the woman’s feelings, ever, which means the sexual consummation it authorizes constitutes rape (to say nothing of the fact that the guy she would be having sex with was part of the mob that had just killed her family and kidnapped her [in 2015 Holding at theologyweb.com, in a post that has since been removed from public access, said it was “personal honor” that would convince such a woman to become willing to have sex with the guy who just killed her family, though he offered no historical, biblical or sociological evidence that a sense of honor would ever cause a woman to replace her disgust for her family's killer with feelings of sexual arousal]).

  Theologyweb Does your God approve of Rape?
04-15-2015, 01:25 AM #277
jpholding
03-26-2015, 08:16 PM #134
Quote Originally Posted by B&H View Post
Can you think of any plausible argument that a woman might consent 
willingly and freely to sex with a man who is part of the mob that just killed her family?
 ----------Holding: Yeah, stupid...it's called "personal honor".

 
 Holding learned his honor-culture stuff from Context Group co-founder Richard Rohrbaugh.  See my other blog article quoting Rohrbaugh as saying Holding has obviously perverted the Context Group's work on honor/shame societies, and that Holding gives Christianity a bad name and needs serious psychological help

Second, Holding’s effort to argue that this law did not approve of rape, runs counter to the way at least one Christian bible committee translates it. The American Bible Society produced the "Good News" bible, and that one explicitly puts rape into v. 14:

14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

Such a Christian translation committee would surely not have rendered this verse to clearly connote rape, if as Holding would insist, the evidence against the rape interpretation was obvious and powerful.
There are contextual reasons to support the rape interpretation:  1) like a rapist, the guy who wrote this law shows no concern whatsoever for whether the woman desires to be married, the rite is to begin if the man desires to marry her; 2) the law is allowing for a man who was part of the army who just killed that woman's family, descreated her idols and carried her off as prisoner of war, to marry her, so it is safe to assume the author is allowing the man to become married to, and thus have sex with the very type of woman most unlikely to ever have sexual feelings for the man, thus further implying lack of consent on her part.

There are grammatical reasons to support the rape interpretation:  In v. 14, the standard translation is "you have humbled her", with the Hebrew anah laying behind "humbled".  This anah appears in the following passages where the context clearly indicates "rape": 

 2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (Hebrew: anah). (Gen. 34:2 NAU)

 24 "Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish  (Hebrew: anah) them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man." (Jdg. 19:24 NAU)

 11 When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, "Come, lie with me, my sister."
 12 But she answered him, "No, my brother, do not violate  (Hebrew: anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing!
 13 "As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you."
 14 However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated  (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2 Sam. 13:11-14 NAU)

 7 "They have treated father and mother lightly within you. The alien they have oppressed in your midst; the fatherless and the widow they have wronged in you.
 8 "You have despised My holy things and profaned My sabbaths.
 9 "Slanderous men have been in you for the purpose of shedding blood, and in you they have eaten at the mountain shrines. In your midst they have committed acts of lewdness.
 10 "In you they have uncovered their fathers' nakedness; in you they have humbled  (Hebrew: anah) her who was unclean in her menstrual impurity.
 11 "One has committed abomination with his neighbor's wife and another has lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law. And another in you has humbled his sister, his father's daughter.
 (Ezek. 22:7-11 NAU)

 10 Our skin has become as hot as an oven, Because of the burning heat of famine.
 11 They ravished  (Hebrew: anah) the women in Zion, The virgins in the cities of Judah.
 12 Princes were hung by their hands; Elders were not respected. (Lam. 5:10-12 NAU)

 The standard lexicons say anah can refer to rape:

  Koehler - Baumgartner lexicon:

 —2. to do violence to: a) to rape a woman Gn 342 2S 1312.14.22.32 Ju 1924 205 Lam 511; to abuse Ezk 2210f; bעִנָּה מִשְׁפָּט ( to violate justice, bend, bow Jb 3723; c( to overpower someone Ju 165f. 19 ï nif. 3. כֹּחַ to break Ps 10224, to cram someone’s feet into fetters 10518 (:: W. Thomas JTS 16 (1965 !):444f);

 Holladay lexicon; 

1. oppress, make s.one feel his dependence Gn 1513 & oft.; humiliate Nu 2424, (of God) humble, subdue 1K 1139; ±innâ mišp¹‰ violate justice Jb 3723; humiliate (a woman by forced marriage) Dt 2114; ±innâ nafšô, humble onesf., mortify onesf. (by fasting) Lv 1629; — 2. violate, rape (a woman) Gn 342; — 3. overpower Ju 165f; force s.one into (b®) s.thg Ps 10518.

 Harris says in his Theological Wordbook:

 This verb is applied to the forcing of a woman including a captive woman later rejected (Deut 21:14) or cases of pre-marital relations (Deut 22:29; Gen 34:2). It can be a capital offence (Deut 22:24).

 The rape interpretation of Deut. 21:14 may also be sustained from the larger context of general Hebrew morality, which was barbaric to say the least, in which case we do better to pause before blindly assuming the ancient Hebrews felt the same way about sex as modern white Christian evangelicals. Hebrew patriarchs felt burning to death was appropriate:

 24 Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry." Then Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!" (Gen. 38:24 NAU)

 Moses commands the burning death of a priest’s daughter if she has pre-marital sex:

 9 'Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. (Lev. 21:9 NAU)

 God’s will for Achan, expressed before Achan was executed, was to have him and his children burned to death for stealing that wedge of gold, whether Joshua brought about their death by burning or by stoning is irrelevant to the specific desire of God that the burning be the mode of death.

 15 'It shall be that the one who is taken with the things under the ban shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has committed a disgraceful thing in Israel.'" (Jos. 7:15 NAU)

Holding continues:

 “The strictures humanize the woman and undermine the assumptions which normalized the harsher treatment.  In that sense, it was an effort to reform as well as legislate morality.”

If Holding means that the Hebrew God's approval of rape was an attempt to reform morality, then yes.  Rape is immoral unless it is approved by Mr. Bible-god.

The bible scholars who condemn Holding for his childish name calling

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

I would like to know:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Barry Jones barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to know:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Barry Jonesbarryjoneswhat@yahoo.com 

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

From: Carson <carson.aa@gmail.com

Subject: Re: your opinion of challenge/riposte

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

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

Dear Mr. Jones,  

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

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

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

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

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

With all good wishes, Yours faithfully,

D. A. Carson

Research Professor of New Testament

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015  

DAC:da

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

    From: Barry Jones

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

    To: Blomberg, Craig

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

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

    

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

    

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

    

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

    

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

         Thank you,

         Barry Jones.

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

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

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

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

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

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

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

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

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

Mr. Blomberg,

Thank you for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

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

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

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

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

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

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

thank you for your time.

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

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