Cold Case Christianity: Did the Apostles Lie So They Could Die as Martyrs?

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

Cold Case Christianity: Did the Apostles Lie So They Could Die as Martyrs?

Posted: 28 Jul 2017 01:25 AM PDT

 129A few years back I spoke with Bobby Conway (the One Minute Apologist)

 Nothing spells "shallow research" quite like "one-minute apologist".

What would you think of an atheist bible critic who called himself the "one-minute bible critic"?

 and answered the question, “Did the disciples lie about the resurrection of Jesus?“As a skeptic, I believed that the story of the Resurrection was either a late distortion (a legend) created by Christians well after the fact, or a conspiratorial lie on the part of the original Apostles.

Then that was your error as a skeptic.  Given what we know about religious fanatics, its likely that the apostles felt that they had experienced visions of Jesus, and these subjective beliefs eventually morphed into stories of a bodily raised Jesus in the 20 years between Jesus' death and the writings of Paul.  Many of Benny Hinn's followers are telling stories of his miraculous healings the very next day after his "crusade" came to their town, but you find nothing compelling about the mere fact that the miracles were reported very early after the event at a time when they could be possibly falsified, agreed?

It wasn’t until I started working homicides (and homicidal conspiracies in particular) that I decided an Apostolic conspiracy was unreasonable. I’ve written a chapter in Cold Case Christianity describing the five necessary elements of successful conspiracies, and none of these elements were present for the Apostles. But even more importantly, the Apostles lacked the proper motivation to lie about the Resurrection.

You are a fool to assume that what a person is willing to say in public, always represents what he personally believes.  If the apostle authored gospels and epistles, that's no more indicative of their honesty about their true convictions, than the fact that Benny Hinn wrote "Good Morning Holy Spirit". 

My case work as a homicide detective taught me something important: there are only three motives behind any murder (or any crime, or sin, for that matter). All crimes are motivated by financial greed, sexual lust (relational desire) or the pursuit of power.

No, if somebody in the neighborhood guns down the recently paroled pedophile who recently moved to town, they aren't doing that for financial greed, sexual lust or pursuit of power, they are doing it to achieve a moral justice that cannot be achieved in the legal system.

If the Apostles committed the crime of fraud on an unsuspecting world, they were motivated by one of these three intentions.

Or like when mommy tells her 3 year old daughter to stay close or the Bogey Man will get her, the apostles were lying  to their followers, thinking believing such a lie would likely work more good than evil.  Scumbag homosexual apologist James Patrick Holding believes Christians can be justified to tell "honorable" lies.  From a theologyweb debate no longer accessible online:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6136-Does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia/page68

03-31-2015, 06:49 PM #674

jpholding

    Quote Originally Posted by B&H View Post

  Me:  So....do you have anything to say to defend against my argument that God, by ordering others to lie, as he did in 2nd Kings 22, is no less guilty of lying than the mob boss who orders a hit but doesn't actually pull the trigger?

Holding:  I guess you're too dumb to have heard of an honorable lie? Tell your master Kung Pu to beat you for not doing your social science homework.

 Wallace continues:

Most people will agree that none of the Apostles gained anything financially or sexually from their testimony,

And most people are stupid if they believe this, since while there might not be much sexual thrill involved in ministry, Paul was entrusted with enormous sums of money ostensibly to be conveyed to the Jerusalem church.  I don't have a problem with the idea that he delivered it, but I have a problem with the idea that Paul didn't stick his hand in the cookie jar.  Paul's attempt at fame enabled him to allegedly rent his own house for 2 years merely because his followers donated money to him, Acts 28:30.  I see no reason to classify Paul as any different than the thousands of insincere fakers who start ministries merely for the money.  Paul's stories of persecution are likely little more than tall tales.  And Paul's alleged willingness to cause such a stir that he becomes imprisoned, strongly suggest that yes, he had a naturalistic impulse to be the center of attention and to cause trouble, as can be seen anyway from his own admissions that before conversion he was an extremist Jew, hurting the Christians and imprisoning them.  He really was the type of guy who went to extremes for purely naturalistic reasons.

but some skeptics have argued the Apostles may have been motivated by the pursuit of power. Didn’t these men become leaders in the Church on the basis of their claims? Couldn’t this pursuit of leadership status have motivated them to lie? Wasn’t it a goal of early martyrs to die for their faith anyway?

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between Ministry and Martyrdom

The Book of Acts and the letters of Paul provide us with a glimpse into the lives of the Apostles.

They were also written by Paul's supporters or Paul himself.  I'd be just as impressed if Benny Hinn had one of his ministry partners send me a letter detailing miracles that happened when they were last in Uganda.  You don't care, and neither do I.

The Apostles were clearly pursued and mistreated,

That's what they say about themselves, and it was probably true to a certain extent, but so what?  Stupid people are known to cause trouble for themselves simply because they have a pathological need to stir up shit, despite being aware that they face consequences. 

and the New Testament narratives and letters describe their repeated efforts to avoid capture.

And Mel Tari describes many miracles in his "Like a Mighty Wind", so what?  He was known to be a swindler, and the fact that most of Paul's Galatian churches apostatized from him (Galatians 1:6) opens the door to the possibility that they found out Paul was a faker too.  And the fact that Paul's divinely appointed helper Barnabas (Acts 13:2) also eventually found the Judaizer position better supported than Paul's doctrines (Galatians 2:12-13) opens that door just a bit further.  And that door is kicked off the hinges with Paul's own admission that he would misrepresent his true theologicla beliefs if he thought doing so would make more converts.  1st Cor. 9:20-21.

The Apostles continually evaded capture in an effort to continue their personal ministries as eyewitnesses.

Wallace, are you trying to say something to convince Christians or skeptics?

If I couldn't convince you of Mormonism by quoting the book of Mormon to you, why do you foolishly quote the bible to skeptics who don't believe it? You constantly TALK about refuting skeptics, but your apologetics endeavors blindly presume the inerrancy of the bible despite the fact that this doctrine is not even believed by most Christians.

The New Testament accounts describe men who were bold enough to maintain their ministry, but clever enough to avoid apprehension for as long as possible.

And Benny Hinn says...and Kenneth Copeland says...and these guys have thousands of follows. 

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between a Consequence and a Goal

These early eyewitnesses were fully aware of the fact that their testimony would put them in jeopardy,

I don't deny Christians got in trouble for their faith, but I deny that the NT accounts of persecution are straight historical fact.  Paul knew the value of lying and exaggerating and misrepresenting himself, 1st Cor. 9:20-21 (how could he present himself as under the to the Jews, while not believing himself under the Law, and do this without misrepresenting his true theological beliefs?  Anything less than outright lying would be insufficient to convince the Jews that you really did believe yourself to be under the Law).

but they understood this to be the consequence of their role as eyewitnesses rather than the goal. That’s why they attempted to avoid death as long as possible. While it may be true that later generations of believers wanted to emulate the Apostles through an act of martyrdom, this was not the case for the Apostles themselves.

Have you never read the bible?  John 21:19, if authored by John as you presuppose, shows the first apostles regarded their death by persecution as a thing glorifying God. That's not going to disappear just because the apostles, afflicted with cognitive dissonance as they were, believed this while also attempting to escape death.

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between Fame and Infamy

It’s one thing to be famous, but another to be famously despised. Some of us have attained widespread fame based on something noble (like Mother Teresa).

You are a fool, Mother Theresa's fruits included just as many heartless capitalistic ventures as they did good works. 

Some of us have attained widespread fame because of something sinister (like Jerry Sandusky). The apostles were roundly despised by their Jewish culture as a consequence of their leadership within the fledgling Christian community.

Then apparently you never read Acts 21, or if you did, you never bothered to ask yourself how Apostle James, leader of the Jerusalem faction of the church, could have ended up with a church filled with thousands of Jews, who converted to Christ but retained their zeal to do the law nonetheless.  How do you figure James managed that, given your assumption that he taught the same law-free gospel that Paul did, which said Christ was the end of the law?  Not only was James' church full of legalistic Jews, they trusted in an allegedly false rumor so much that James felt a speech by Paul would not be sufficient, he would have to make a substantial sacrifice of time and money doing what Jews do, to convince them the rumor was false:

 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
 22 "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
 23 "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. (Acts 21:18-24 NAU)

  Wallace continues:

If they were lying about their testimony to gain the respect and admiration of the culture they were trying to convert, they were taking the wrong approach.

Then Paul was a liar and took the wrong approach, because the Paul of Acts 21 who goes long with a Jewish vow and pays their expenses in doing so, also characterized his own Jewish heritage and its benefits as feces:

 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish (Greek: skubalon, refuse, feces, trash) so that I may gain Christ,
 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, (Phil. 3:4-9 NAU)

What would you think of the man who goes to a Mormon church, participates in all that they do, but when at home alone, he goes on the internet posting convincing reasons to believe Mormonism is dogshit? 

The Apostles only succeeded in gaining the infamy that eventually cost them their lives. This was obvious to them from the onset; they knew their testimony would leave them powerless to stop their own brutal martyrdom.

So?  Christians of today face equal persecution in Afghanistan, Arabia and North Korea, that hardly argues that their religion is true.  You will say it was different with the original apostles who would have known their claims were false, if they were false at all.  I answer that Paul's propensity to go from one extreme to the other (from jailing Christians to advocating for their cause) and his propensity to have bizarre experiences that left him unable to tell, 14 years after the fact, whether they occurred in his body or out of his body (2nd Cor. 12:1-4), refute you and lay a rational basis for saying at least PAUL was sufficiently delusional that he would not have been able to know whether his belief in Jesus' resurrection was true or false.  When this is combined with the fact that absurd esoteric experiences were allegedly common among the first Christians (Acts 2, tongues of fire, 1st Cor. 13-14, speaking in tongues), this whole idea you have about how the apostles surely knew whether their claims were false, is about as stupid as saying the Mormons, living in the age of the internet, and so capable of researching their own claims, surely know whether their claims are false.  Nope, people have a funny way of thinking the dumber something is, the more likely true it is.  Irenaeus would have not admitted how strong the Marcion and other gnostic heresies were, if humans of those times had some built-in motive to objectively verify things before trusting in them.  And the sins of Paul's Corinthian churches (1st Cor. 3:2 ff, 11:17 ff) support my contention that first-century conversions under the original apostles were no more likely to be genuine than 20th century conversions under Billy Graham at a tent revival.

As I examine the motives and consequences related to the testimony of the Apostles, I still find their martyrdom to be one of the most powerful evidences related to the veracity of their testimony.

The evidence for the martyrdom of each apostle is absurdly weak and inconsistent. Josh McDowell's son Sean wrote a doctoral dissertation evaluating the veracity of the historical evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles, and he acknowledged that most accounts were contradictory, ambiguous and late.  I am therefore singularly unimpressed with his ending comments wherein he finds them to be sufficiently credible to compel trust.

Think about it for a minute: twelve designated eyewitnesses traveled the known world to testify to the Resurrection.

The fact that we don't know jack shit about what most of the 12 apostles did after Jesus died (McDowell's thesis indicating the patristic traditions on them are late, contradictory and ambiguous), strongly suggests they actually didn't do anything worth remembering.  It is not likely that if the later patristic stories of their preaching and martyrdom are, the NT would have neglected most of the 12.   Even if the NT were written before some of these 12 did their preaching work, we'd expect if they were real apostles working real miracles and making many conversions, the NT would include 2nd century accounts about these matters for the same reason Acts mentions successful church planting in the first century.  It is irrational to claim that these garbled fantastic patristic accounts should be accorded our trust, and that those who remain skeptical are willfully blinding themselves. 

Not a single one of them recanted their testimony.

That's an irresponsibly couragous statement given the great problems of veracity and authentity of the sources as McDowell acknowleges.

And failure to recant by those in a position to know the claims were false, proves nothing either. Was Brigham Young in a good historical position to know whether Mormonism was false?  Yes.  Did he ever recant?  No.  You also overlook that the Christian religion provided another reason for people to group together, which would have made the difference between life and death during the famine of 41 a.d. ff.  Sometimes you stay even when you believe it is false, like so many Mormons who secretly know their religion is bullshit, but stay in it anyway beacuse of the enormous social benefits to be had from staying in such a group.

Not a single one of them lived longer because of their testimony.

Then apparently you didn't know that apostle John died as an old man.

Not a single one benefited financially or relationally.

yeah, we can be sure that when Paul took that big bag of money to the Jewish church (1st Corinthians 16:1-3), he surely didn't skim a bit off the top for himself.  Yeah right, and if we see Benny Hinn walking out of a hotel room with Paula White, we have a responsibility as good Christians to assume they were only talking in the room, until somebody can prove otherwise, god forbid that we should ever draw inferences from circumstantial evidence the way jurors do every day when convicting criminals.

These folks were either crazy or committed, certifiably nuts or certain about their observations.

Or they were religious fanatics whose true history, while likely including real persecution, was exaggerated by NT and patristic authors.

You don't think the book of Acts is lying to you about anything?  Ask yourself how likely it is that when the apostles were confronted with the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem, they didn't appeal to Jesus' authority.  Nothing in Acts 15 expresses or implies that the apostles attempted to refute the Judaizers on the basis of anything Jesus did, said or omitted to say/do.  How likely is it that Jesus could have had such a huge following as the gospels say (Mark 1:45, "large crowds" mentioned elsewhere), and yet the question of whether Gentiles need to get circumcised somehow never came up? The Book of Acts is having the apostles in Acts 15 answer the Judaizer controversy the way Pual would answer a theological problem (by quoting the OT) because the author of Acts is devoted to promoting Paul's viewpoint far more than in promoting actual historical truth.

Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation: James Patrick Holding fails to defend God's honor

I made the argument at this blog that in light of Paul's express wording in Romans 7:7 that he wouldn't have known coveting was a sin except this had been explicitly prohibited in Mosaic law, Christians cannot call something "sin" unless it has been prohibited in Mosaic Law.

I made that argument as part of my larger argument that the bible-god must approve of sex within adult child marriages, one of my arguments intended to show error in the bible (here, moral error, even by Christian standards).  The argument itself was:

Fourth, if Holding thinks Romans 7:7 is inspired by God, then Paul's language there giving criteria for identifying sin, is so strong it leaves no logical possibility of being able to identify sin where the Law is silent on the act:

 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. (Rom. 7:6-8 NAU)

Does Holding agree with Paul, that Paul would not have known coveting was a sin, except this act had been prohibited in Mosaic Law, yes or no?  If yes, then because the Mosaic law doesn't prohibit sex within adult-child marriages, Holding cannot have a biblical justification to call that act a "sin".  Holding will say the bible teaches we can know sin through our conscience, but the only reason our conscience tells us what sin is, is because God wrote his law on our heart, as Paul said:

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
 17 But if you bear the name "Jew " and rely upon the Law and boast in God, (Rom. 2:12-17 NAU)

In context, the "Law" that is on the heart of the Gentile (v. 15) is no different than the written Mosaic Law that is otherwise exclusive to the Jew (v. 17), and that contextual link cannot be undone by citing to commentators who think "work of the law" is something different than the "law".

-------------------------------
The full blog post where that argument was made is here.

Mr. Holding responds now with, you guessed it, another "cartoon" response, which apparently is the only way he can channel his aggressive spitefulness without committing a crime.  By living in dreamland, Holding can watch himself beat up those bad 'ol atheists and causes all the fantasy injuries he wishes he could inflict in real life.

Holding tries to counter by asserting, again, typically, without recourse to any scholarly commentary (why would God need a commentary anyway when he is posting his cartoon videos to YouTube?)

At :40, Holding says Paul is speaking in the past tense of his own experience.  He says this while flashing the following text:

                


First, Paul's wording is absolutist:  he would not have known coveting was a sin except the law had said "thou shalt not covet", and this directly contradicts Holding's belief that Paul could have known sin by conscience alone.  Paul did not say it would have been unlikely for him to have known such sin apart from the Law, but bluntly that he would not have known coveting was sin, apart from the Law.

Paul's choice of wording is absolute, it is inconsistent for a person who thinks there are more ways the the Law to recognize sin. If you don't need a car to go to the store, you don't say "if it hadn't been for my car, I'd never have made it to the store."

If Paul believed he could know sin by some way other than the law, then he erred by speaking in absolute terms in 7:7.

Second,  allowing that Holding is correct to say the bible teaches we can also know sin by conscience alone, all he gains is the ability to show that people can know by conscience alone that sex within adult-child marriages is sin...but that would not be sufficient to speak that moral opinion dogmatically.

You are imperfect.  What bothers your conscience doesn't decide how God feels and doesn't dictate how other people should think.  If sex within adult-child marriage is disapproved by God, you don't prove this by telling everybody how much the whole idea bothers your conscience.

So Holding simply creates further problem with his conscience argument:  How do you persuade the Christian brother that his conscience isn't reflecting God's morals, if your only basis for proving it is your own conscience?

If Holding is so sure that his bible-god thinks sex within adult-child marriages is sin, let him provide the following evidence:

1 - Biblical or historical evidence showing the minimum age ancient Hebrews thought a girl  must reach before a man could marry her.  Why does he automatically assume it would have been 12 years old just because that's what the Assyrians and Sumerians and Egyptians believed?  If you find out that I live in America, do you automatically assume I love mom, baseball and apple pie?  Why can't we adopt that age into our consent laws today, the stupid way Mr. Holding automatically assumes that the riposte of honor/shame cultures in the ANE automatically applies to Christian apologetics today?

2 - Biblical or historical evidence showing the minimum age ancient Hebrews thought a married girl living in the days of Moses must reach before her adult husband can have sex with her.  Holding, in his effort to avoid my argument, has said a man's getting married to a girl didn't automatically allow him to have sex with her, so I'd like to know what biblical or historical evidence he has that any ancient Hebrew man ever a) married a girl too young for sex, and then b) waited until his wife was older before having sex with her.  Don't tell me it was possible, because you've so far produced no evidence that any such thing ever happened, while most scholars are agreed that in the ancient world, marriage was the justification for sex.  I said marriage, not "betrothal".  I can buy that a Hebrew man would refrain from sex during betrothal, what I cannot buy is your speculation that even after "marriage", the Hebrew man would still refrain from sex until his wife was "old enough" for it.

3 - Why God was silent respecting this horrific crime against children, but spoke several times, clearly prohibiting bestiality.  Holding cannot say God expected us to use our common sense, otherwise, the fact that God specifically prohibited bestiality means God didn't expect us to know from "common sense" alone that sex with animals was forbidden or immoral. 

4 - Why we cannot classify this "sex within adult child marriages" thing as a non-essential based on God's screaming silence, and therefore, as a non-essential, make the argument that disagreement over this practice is not a sufficient reason to justify disfellowshipping or excommunicating someone.  Either explain that, or demonstrate that God's beliefs about the minimum age for girls to get married, is an "essential" about which liberality of opinion cannot be tolerated.

James Patrick Holding's intentional stupidity on biblical alcoholism

 Update: September 18, 2017, see end of this post.

After I wrote a blog entry enlightening Christians to the fact that their bible encourages its readers to promote alcoholism, Mr. Holding, fearsome intellectual scholar that he is, typically decides that the best way to "refute" me is not to reply to my blog directly or to write a rebuttal article, the normal way that serious bible scholars seek to address each other's work, but  to produce a cartoon video that has some type of moose character representing him,  rebutting a childish caricature of myself.

He cites to no scholarship whatsoever, providing us another reason why he presents things in cartoon format.   The lack of supporting scholarship coheres with the theory that it is Christians with the emotional and intellectual capacity of juvenile delinquents that he panders to.

According to one properly credentialed evangelical inerrantist scholar that once publicly endorsed Holding:

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.

Mr. Holding, who is the stupid moron here?  You for failing Blomberg's criteria that a reasonable interpretation of the bible can be supported by scholarship?  or Blomberg for not realizing that God begins speaking whenever a viewer clicks one of your cartoons?

Why don't you tell the world why it is that there are no properly credentialed Christian scholars who donate any money to your ministry?

His video seems to indicate that after 20 years of stupid pretentious trifling efforts to make distinctions that make no difference, he still hasn't learned.  He'd go to his grave insisting that the charge to give alcohol to people (31:6) is significantly different from any "command" to give people alcohol.  In this he denies his own "sociological perspective" in which the Proverbs authors spoke from a community that obeyed Mosaic Law, and therefore, the "son" receiving these proverbs would have little reason to distinguish a fatherly warning against adultery, from the divine mandate to avoid adultery in Exodus 20.

For example, when I was little, bedtime on a school night was 9 pm, by Dad's decree.

So when 9 pm rolled around and Dad said spoke in non-mandatory fashion "Ok, it would be good if you guys hit the sack now" we didn't respond the way Holding would have ("you must be giving me an option to disregard your words here;  because you've couched this bedtime statement as a Proverb just now, and this is not in the same genre as your "mandate" that we go to bed at this time, because sayings cannot be commands!")  Instead, like normal kids, we understood that the proverb was no less mandatory that the mandate.

The video where he attempts to refute my interpretation is here, and I now answer him point by point.

First, the text in question

 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink,
 5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
 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. (Prov. 31:4-7 NAU)

I asserted "the proverb contains the mandate to "give" strong drink (v. 6)."

Holding seizes on my word-choice "mandate" (video at 0:35 ff) as if the difference between "mandate" and "Proverb" was some significant thing.

It's not.  Otherwise you wind up with the type of stupidity that says sometimes God forbids adultery by command (Exodus 20:14), and at other times God only suggests avoiding adultery as just one among many options (Proverbs 6:24).  What stupid fool would argue based on the difference between "saying" and "command" that the Proverbs author isn't mandating the same thing mandated in Exodus 20:14?

Would the author of Proverbs 6:24 have viewed his adultery-prohibition as optional or mandatory upon his son?

Apparently Holding didn't make it as far as Proverbs 2 before he produced his silly knee-jerk reaction video:

NAU  Proverbs 2:1 My son, if you will receive my words And treasure my commandments within you,
 2 Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; (Prov. 2:1-2 NAU)

The author clearly equates his "words" and "wisdom" with "commandments".  "Commandments in v. 1 in Hebrew is the typical word for command, mistzvah, and the LXX provides the typical Greek work for command too, ἐντολῆς.

Again, the Proverbs author characterizes his words to his son as "command", and in context equates them as performing the exact same function:

 20 My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother;
 21 Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck.
 22 When you walk about, they will guide you; When you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you.
 23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; And reproofs for discipline are the way of life
 24 To keep you from the evil woman, From the smooth tongue of the adulteress.
 25 Do not desire her beauty in your heart, Nor let her capture you with her eyelids.
 26 For on account of a harlot one is reduced to a loaf of bread, And an adulteress hunts for the precious life. (Prov. 6:20-26 NAU)

By first saying "commandment is a lamp", and then in Hebrew parallelism saying "teaching is light", the author clearly thinks that his wisdom "teaching" is a "command" too.

The Proverbs author once again characterizes his previous proverb as a "commandment":

 15 Laziness casts into a deep sleep, And an idle man will suffer hunger.
 16 He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, But he who is careless of conduct will die. (Prov. 19:15-16 NAU)

 1 My son, do not forget my teaching, But let your heart keep my commandments;
 2 For length of days and years of life And peace they will add to you. (Prov. 3:1-2 NAU) 

Inerrantist D.A. Garrett, in the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary, also calls the stuff in Proverbs 3 "commands":

"As in 3:3, the command to bind the teachings to the neck means that they are vital to the young man’s survival.125 The father’s teachings are personified as guide, guardian, and companion126 (v. 22) and objectified as a lamp and a way (v. 23). The last verse of the paternal appeal (v. 24) indicates that what follows will be a warning to avoid the adulteress.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs,

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 99).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 4 Then he taught me and said to me, "Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live;
 5 Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth. (Prov. 4:4-5 NAU)

The Proverbs author specifically equates the wisdom sayings with commandments:

 1 My son, keep my words And treasure my commandments within you.
 2 Keep my commandments and live, And my teaching as the apple of your eye.
 3 Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart.
 4 Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," And call understanding your intimate friend; (Prov. 7:1-4 NAU)

Murphy and Garrett are not at the fringe, that Proverbs can also be commands is a standard view.  From the Emory University's Brennan Breed, in his Oxford Biblical Studies Online article "Wisdom Literature":

Other common categories of proverbs are "commands" (Prov 24.13) and "admonitions" (Prov 24.1–2), "rhetorical questions" (Job 4), and "happy" or "blessed sayings" (Job 5.17).

"write them on the tablet of your heart" is a) a throwback to the statements by the prophets that God would write his LAWS on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), and b) is exactly like the "bind them on your finger", it is a metaphorical way of telling the reader to carefully observe this wisdom instruction with the same type of care that one would observe laws that God wrote on their heart. 

Holding says Proverbs cannot be commands or mandates. "there's no mandate in a book like proverbs...I told you this before...Proverbs can't be commands or mandates" (video at 38 ff).


This signifies his black and white fundy view of the bible, the view that he so viciously insults others for having.

Mr. Holding concludes his cartoon scholarship on Proverbs, not having quoted even one scholar in support, by saying

 "Today the fundy atheist learned a valuable lesson:  The contents of the book of Proverbs place it in a genre where nothing in its contents reflect a divine moral imperative.  The closest it ever gets to a command is where it presents instruction from figures who were wise and in authority.  And that's the exact opposite of being a fundy atheist."

Well first, I only made the simple argument that the "give" of 31:6 was a command, I did not say "divine moral imperative".  The Proverbs author is still supporting alcoholism and being inspired by God the whole while, whether it is advice or command, assuming the two should distinguished at all.  The problem of God inspiring speech that promotes and encourages alcoholism remains, even if we deny that any commands were used in the promotion.

Third, despite Holding's past history making clear that he doesn't give one flying fuck about the fact that other equally or more scholarly brothers in the Lord who believe in biblical inerrancy, disagree with him, I provide the following for anybody who isn't quite as obstinate as Holding, so they might realize that God is not necessarily speaking whenever somebody clicks on one of Holding's cartoons:

Inerrantist evangelical scholar D.A. Garrett in the New American Commentary characterizes many Proverbs as "commands" and "mandates" without caveat.  Here he specifically asserts that the commands in the Proverbs are equal to the commands of Mosaic Law:

The Paternal Appeal (7:1–5). 7:1–5 In the appeal the father urges the son to keep his “commands” (vv. 1–2), the same word that is often used of God’s commands. The authority of God in the covenant and the authority of the parent as a teacher of wisdom are joined. In addition, the son should write the instruction on his heart, much as God will write the new covenant on the hearts of his people (v. 3; see Jer 31:33). The teaching should be internal, part of the son’s character and personality, rather than an external requirement.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 30).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Admonition. This is a command or prohibition written either in proverbial form (as a couplet or bicolon42) or as an extended discourse. A command in discourse form is found in Prov 6:1–5. An example of the proverb form is 16:3.

                     Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.

Prohibitions in discourse form occur as units (e.g., 1:10–19) or scattered among the commands of discourse admonitions (e.g., Prov 4:10–19). Prohibition proverbs are often in two parts: the prohibition proper and the reason for the prohibition (a warning of what will happen if the prohibition is violated).

Garrett specifies that the "instruction" is equated with "command" in 13:13:

12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.
 13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded. (Prov. 13:12-13 NAU)
"Note the rich vocabulary of instruction in these two verses: דָּבָר (“word”), מִצְוָה (“command”), מוּסָר (“instruction), and תּוֹכַחַת (“reprimand”). The parallelism of the two verses is reinforced by ending both with a pual imperfect verb."

No fool would deny that a prohibition is also a command, so when Garret say "prohibition", he likely intends the sense of the synonymous word "command".  We have the 10 "Commandments", and several are nothing more than prohibitions (i.e., "do not commit adultery").

Garrett continues, citing to Proverbs 30 twice:

Finally, biblical wisdom stresses the limitations of human knowledge. The gulf between human perception and divine reality is never really closed. The sage is commanded to go about his task with humility and reverence for God. The learned must never forget their limitations (30:2–4) and that they are prone to error and conceit. Above all, they must subordinate their quest to the Word of God. For “every word of God is flawless” (30:5).

The blessing in v. 18 might appear to be a promise of many children,104 but again the passage emphasizes the sexual pleasure of marriage and not having offspring (v. 19). The command to “take pleasure105 in your first wife”106 implies negatively that a man should never have sexual relations with another woman (whether in adultery or by divorce on contrived grounds) and positively that marriage should include sexual joy and fulfillment.

Lest Holding pretend he doesn't feel threatened by another evangelical inerrantist Christian scholar's disagreement with him (which attitude would be not be fruit of somebody who is a legitimate part of the body of Christ and desires more unity than diversity in exegesis), let Holding provide quotes from any properly credentialed Christian scholar who agrees with his astoundingly stupid belief "there's no mandate in a book like proverbs...I told you this before...Proverbs can't be commands or mandates" (video at 38 ff).

 Holding then at 1:30 ff, insists the scholar I quoted (to show the saying "give alcohol" in Proverbs 31:6 was a command) I had misunderstood, and he says the scholar meant "command" only in the sense of "saying" and supports this by analysis of v. 1-5.  Again, Holding's trifle is unnecessary and is a lie:  Here's the full quote from my original article naming the scholar:

The WBC is a bit more realistic:

6–7 The emphasis on royal justice is followed by a rather bold and singular recommendation. Instead of enjoying personal consumption of the royal cellar, the king is to provide a supply of drink for the unfortunate people who need it as a kind of comfort (?) for their misery. This strange command has provoked several hypotheses. On the one hand, it has been considered to be “cynical” and perhaps a later addition; as noted in Note 5.a.*, the command is in the plural. On the other hand, it has been interpreted as providing some relief for the unfortunate. What is to be, as it were, doled out to kings is to be provided generously for afflicted members of the realm, whose comforts are little enough. Even though this can be only a temporary measure, a kind of ancient opium (as well as modern?), it is nonetheless recommended.  

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 241). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Holding insisted that Murphy meant "command" in the sense of "saying", but Murphy asserts, repeatedly throughout his commentary on Proverbs, that many of them either include, or ARE, "commands", and in some contexts, he clearly equates them with the Mosaic law, or else clearly distinguishes them from "sayings".

Proverbs 16: 3 Trust in the Lord is a frequent topic in this book; here it is expressed in a command, while in v 20 it is in a saying.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

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

 Murphy again demolishes Holding's stupid trifling pretentious bullshit, and admits part of a proverb is a command and is thus different from the "saying" that follows it:

Proverbs 25: 6–7a The two verses go together; the command is motivated by the better saying that follows it.

 Murphy also says:

 In a sense, the whole book of Proverbs is instruction, for even an experiential observation (which is best included in the neutral term “saying”) is meant to impart some awareness or knowledge. However, it is well to note the appropriateness of “instruction” as an overall designation of the kind of writing evidenced in chaps. 1–9, where the parent/teacher strongly urges “son[s]” to a particular lifestyle. The same is true of the section associated with the Instruction of Amenemope, Prov 22:17–24:35. A simple example would be some kind of command, followed by a motive clause (“do this, because”), as in Prov 3:1–2. But this can be developed at great length, as in Prov 2:1–22. In the context of the book, the instructions of chaps. 1–9 can also be called wisdom poems. The command (or the prohibition) can also be framed as a statement. For example, there is no change of meaning between Prov 16:3 (a command) and 16:20 (a saying), despite the differences in form.

From the point of view of wisdom, how should “ethics” be understood? I would offer the following considerations. It is not just commands and condemnations, but rather the art of living honestly together with others before God.

  It is obvious from what has been said that Israelite wisdom is more practical than theoretical. It attempts to persuade, cajole, threaten, or command a particular attitude or course of action.

Proverbs 1:10–14 The instruction begins with a dramatic description of temptation that youths can expect to face. 10 The parent/teacher issues a command and proceeds to describe the danger coming from “sinners”; they are not called “fools.”

Proverbs 2:1–4 The teacher promises wisdom as a gift of the Lord, if the “son” truly follows the bidding to seek wisdom above all else, beyond any riches. The intensity of the appeal matches the intensity of the speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy. 1 The “commands” are those of the teacher, not the Torah. Although the technical term (מצות), so frequent in Deuteronomy, is used, and thus may have another level of meaning for later readers, it is generally understood here in its literal historical sense as referring to the commands of the father/teacher.

5–6 O. Plöger points out that wisdom joins Yahwism (were they ever really separate?) in this command to trust in the Lord,

Proverbs 3:27–28 The couplet style returns (if not already in vv 25–26) with prohibitions and commands dealing with relationship to neighbors. 27 The presupposition seems to be that a neighbor has some right to consideration (in the LXX translation, a poor person), and that one has the means to help. 28 The admonition to help the neighbor is strengthened by this verse; there is no reason for postponing kind action. Delaying tactics are equivalent to a refusal. Cf. Jas 4:16.

29–30 These are commands to live at peace with one’s neighbor, and in particular to avoid unjustified legal disputes (such is the meaning of “contend”).

Proverbs 4: 4–9 These verses are to be regarded as a summary in the form of a “quotation” of the grandfather. It is a very intense passage, and its erotic quality has been described by R. E. Murphy (CBQ 50 [1988] 600–603). 4 The father was pressured by his father to keep the “commands” (see Comment on 2:1) and to pursue wisdom, which stands in parallelism with the “words” from the grandfather’s mouth

Proverbs 5: 1–5 The topic is that of going surety, of providing some financial backing for someone who is in debt. 1 The instruction is addressed by the father/teacher to “my son,” but without the customary command “listen.”

Murphy agrees that "teaching" is parallel to "command" in the Proverbs, so Holding will probably trifle, as usual, that "teaching" is different than "saying", just so he doesn't have to admit that Murphy meant some of the "sayings" are parallel to "commands":

Proverbs 7:1–3 The introduction reflects 3:1–3, and thereby Deut 6:6–9. “Teaching” and “command” are parallel as in 3:1; cf. 4:1–2. 2 V 2a is the same as 4:4b; again, the typical wisdom emphasis on life appears. 3 The commands are to be bound on the “fingers” (like amulets, or tephillin?) and also on the tablet of the heart, a phrase occurring in 3:3; cf. Deut 6:6 and Jer 31:33. It is not certain that a material tablet is meant; so B. Couroyer, RB 90 (1983) 416–51. It could be metaphorical, emphasizing the interiorization of the teaching.

Proverbs 8: V 5 is a command; the tone of the speech remains imperious throughout; it is not the pleading tone of the parent/teacher.

Proverbs 8: V 9 indicates the requisite reaction: Those who have understanding will “find,” or acquire knowledge. The comparison to precious objects such as gold and silver is a frequent one (e.g., 2:4; 3:14–15; 16:16), but v 10 is a command, not merely a comparison.

Proverbs 13: 13–14 “Word,” “command,” and “teaching of the wise” give a certain unity to these verses. The word and command refer, at least in the first instance, to the teaching of the sage, not to the Decalogue.

Proverbs 25: 21–22 This quatrain, made famous also by Rom 12:17–21, has given rise to many studies and differing interpretations. 21 The command is so clear that it loses its quality of shock, and perhaps it has become domesticated by long use.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 193). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Proverbs 30: 32–33 An admonition with motivation follows the numerical sayings, and there seems to be a deliberate threefold repetition of “pressure” in v 33. 32 The word for fool here is nbl, the same consonants which appear in the name of Nabal in 2 Sam 25, whose conduct exemplified “pride” as well. It is not clear what “plans” (see Note 32.a.*) are meant, but in an admonition such as this against foolish pride they are probably foolish. The gesture of hand to mouth is broad enough to indicate various reactions. In Job 21:5 it appears to designate being appalled, but here it is a clear command: Silence!

Murphy finally makes clear, one last time, as clear as anybody could ask, that a teaching in Proverbs 31 is an actualization of specifically Torah Commandments:

Proverbs 31: These instructions were produced among educated women and men belonging to the urban upper class of the Yehud province. Their teaching is conceived as an interpretation and an actualization of Torah commandments.

Holding must not think Paul's statements in Romans 12 about feeding one's enemy are mandatory, but only optional, since he'd otherwise have to admit calling this "mandatory" constitutes calling a proverb a "mandate"

 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
 22 For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the LORD will reward you. (Prov. 25:21-22 NAU)

Apostle Paul sets forth that Proverb as if it it's instruction is a mandate which no Christian has a right to avoid obeying:

 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
 20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:17-21 NAU)

 Inerrantist Mounce interprets Paul's statements here as mandatory upon the Christian:

12:17–21 The natural impulse is to return injury for injury. But retaliation for personal injury is not for those who claim to follow the one who told his disciples to turn the other cheek and go the second mile (Matt 5:39, 41; cf. Gal 6:10; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). Instead, believers are to be careful56 to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone57 (cf. Prov 3:4). The early church understood the necessity of having a good reputation with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7).

Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 240).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Christian Scholar Murphy says in the Word Biblical Commentary:

Proverbs 25: 21–22 This quatrain, made famous also by Rom 12:17–21, has given rise to many studies and differing interpretations. 21 The command is so clear that it loses its quality of shock, and perhaps it has become domesticated by long use...The enigma of coals on the head is not the issue (if it can even be understood) that calls for discussion here. Rather, it is the sharp commands: feed, give drink to the one who hates you, literally—not merely a vague “enemy.” The concrete situation is not known, but the application has a universal impact; who does not have enemies? The saying, along with Prov 24:17 (cf. 20:22), is contrary to the Schadenfreude, the joy in the downfall of an enemy, that is not uncommon in the Old Testament. It belongs with the strong command of love of neighbor expressed in Lev 19:17–18, even if the perspective is that of the Israelite community.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 193). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Holding, apparently learning as he goes along, starts qualifying what he meant, and now says at 1:45 ff that proverbs cannot be a command "in the sense of being a divine imperative".

But not even this qualification will save him.  The "give" in v. 6 is an imperative by grammatical necessity:

נתן verb qal imperative masculine plural   שֵׁכָר noun common masculine singular absolute  

 And Gensenius says:

§ 110. The Imperative.

Mayer Lambert, 'Sur la syntaxe de l’impeÃratif en heÃbreu,' in REJ. 1897, p. 106 ff.
a1. The imperative,¹ which, according to § 46, is restricted to the 2nd pers. sing. and plur., and to positive commands, &c., may stand either alone, or in simple co-ordination (as in 1 K 18:44, Is 56:1, 65:18) with other imperatives:

 Matthew Henry thought the "give" of 31:6 was a "must" implying mandatory observance:

III. The counsel she gives him to do good. 1. He must do good with his wealth. Great men must not think that they have their abundance only that out of it they may made provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts of it, and may the more freely indulge their own genius; no, but that with it they may relieve such as are in distress, v. 6, 7. "Thou hast wine or strong drink at command; instead of doing thyself hurt with it, do others good with it; let those have it that need it." Those that have wherewithal must not only give bread to the hungry and water to the thirsty, but they must give strong drink to him that is ready to perish through sickness or pain and wine to those that are melancholy and of heavy heart; for it was appointed to cheer and revive the spirits, and make glad the heart (as it does where there is need of it), not to burden and oppress the spirits, as it does where there is no need of it. We must deny ourselves in the gratifications of sense, that we may have to spare for the relief of the miseries of others, and be glad to see our superfluities and dainties better bestowed upon those whom they will be a real kindness to than upon ourselves whom they will be a real injury to.

The Talmud Rabbis interpreted the verse to imply that houses that did not have wine could not be considered blessed.  How mandatory is it that one make sure one's house is blessed?

R. Hanan said: "Wine was created only to comfort the mourners and to pay the wicked their reward for any good they may have done, on this earth, as it is written [Proverbs 31.6]: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those who have an embittered soul." (By "one that is ready to perish," is meant the wicked and by "those who have an embittered soul," are meant the mourners.)

R. Hanin bar Papa said: A house where wine does not flow like water cannot be classed among those that are blessed, as it is written [Exod. 23.25]: "And he will bless thy bread and thy water." The bread referred to is that which can be bought with the proceeds of the second tithes and the water which cannot be bought with such money really means wine. If, then, wine is so plentiful in the house, that it flows like water, the house is counted among the blessed.

 The Gemara holds that the expense of such wine "must" be borne by the congregation:

When one was going to be killed, they used to put a grain of frankincense in a goblet of wine and gave him to drink, so that he should become dazed. As it is written [Prov. 31.6]: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those who have an embittered soul." And there is a Boraitha that the wine and the frankincense were donated by the respectable women of Jerusalem. Now, if it happened that they were not donated, who must bear the expense? Says the Gemara concerning the latter: Common sense dictates, at the expense of the congregation, as the verse reads "give," which means the congregation.

 Holding then falsely caricatures me as saying his view can be dismissed, as if I had totally discounted Proverbs' genre as useless to the debate (video at 2:00 ff).  I never expressed or implied any such thing.  But the quotes of Garrett and Murphy, supra, Christian scholars who say multiple times that proverbs often contain, or ARE, "commands", make clear Holding gets no help from appeal to "genre".  To repeat:

Excursus on Theology

The assessment of biblical ethics is a difficult one, and questions of methodology abound. In one of the latest studies (Ethics and Politics in the Hebrew Bible, ed. D. Knight [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994]) it is only tangentially that wisdom literature is mentioned. From the point of view of wisdom, how should “ethics” be understood? I would offer the following considerations. It is not just commands and condemnations, but rather the art of living honestly together with others before God.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 276). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Holding, pretentious childish immature repressed idiot that he is, then entertains his idiot followers with a parody of himself becoming He-Man or some cartoon character and physically attacking me, as his childish way of expressing how he defeated my argument. 

As usual, Holding

a) sets forth his view as if it was non-controversial common knowledge, when it is anything but, and 
b) doesn't cite to any scholarship to support his point, despite the fact that Craig Blomberg said a position on the bible that cannot be supported with any published scholarship is likely to be false, which must mean Holding's denial that Proverbs can be divine imperatives is likely false until and unless he supplies scholarship to support his points;
c) is contradicted in his trifling distinction between wise-saying and "mandate" by properly credentialed conservative Christian bible scholars, and yet
d) still has to pretend that his opinion of the matter is so obviously true that those who disagree with it deserve to be called morons.

Perhaps Holding would like to do his admiring audience a favor and explain when it WOULD be appropriate for a modern-day Christian to obey Proverbs 31:6-7.

 =========================

Update: September 18, 2017
Holding's answer to this post is his plagiarism of the intro to the 80's cartoon "He-Man", nothing more.

The reader can decide for themselves why it is that the atheist is the only person in this debate quoting evangelical inerrantist Christian scholars, and the "Christian" in this debate is the only one trying to prove things by plagiarizing secular cartoons.

Update: September 25, 2017 
Holding has removed that video, probably because it took an atheist to remind him that there are limits to how creatively stupid and immature a person can be in their apologetics, and of all the ways to bring the presence of the Holy Spirit into one's arguments, imitating secular 80's cartoons probably isn't the way any serious Christian would do it.