Answering Triablogue on Isaiah 7:14

This is my reply to an article by Patrick Chan posted at Triablogue, entitled

Virgin Birth (Isa. 7:14)

 

Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."67 This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth.

Thanks for admitting that Christian scholars themselves are growing and more disenchanted with the "literal prediction" manner that they have been characterizing Isaiah 7:14 for centuries.  That would hardly be the case if squeezing Jesus out of that passage were as justifiable as you argue herein.

If spiritually alive people are growing tired of associating Jesus with that verse, you cannot rationally expect spiritually dead people to associate Jesus with it, or to give two shits about learning enough about hermenuetics so as to reply to Christian apologists who treat Isaiah 7:14  the way obstinate jailhouse lawyers for the ACLU treat the U.S. Constitution.

I have good reason to accept the views of some Christian scholars that the book of Isaiah went through an editing process lasting longer than 100 years after the prophet Isaiah died, before the text reached the canonical shape.  I therefore have every good reason to believe that the reason Isaiah seems to speak of a distant future of Israel is because editors took his words and "shaped" them toward that end, and that whether and to what extent the real Isaiah every orally spoke the things credited to him in that book, is forever beyond confirmation.  Your apologetic trifling will convince nobody except other fundamentalists who blindly presume the book of Isaiah is inerrant.  However, you still fail to show that Isaiah in ch. 7 was intended for his prophecy about the boy to relate to events 700 years into the future from himself.  The way you try to get around the obvious historical fulfillment of the prophecy, means you have less in common with honesty and more in common with jailhouse lawyers who get paid to pretend that words are really that elastic.

To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally?

No, that's why the timing of the boy's birth, not the mother's pregnancy, is considered the "sign" in Isaiah 7:15.

Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?

Arguments against a messianic interpretation of the text appeal to three major pieces of evidence. First, the historical setting of Isaiah 7 seems to demand Isaiah's sign relate to the current circumstances. Isaiah 7 opens discussing how Ephraim and Aram are placing political and military pressure upon the southern kingdom (vv. 1-2).68 The discussion of the sign responds to that situation (vv. 3-14). This suggests it deals with something in the present and not future.

Thus putting the burden of proof on those who would insist on 'double-fulfillment' or other fundie tactic designed to avoid dealing seriously with Isaiah's immediate context.

Second, the wording of the sign implies this. Isaiah relates Immanuel's birth with the collapse of the kings of Ephraim and Aram (v. 15). That seems to say the sign relates to the current crisis.69

"Seems"? 

Third, later development of the sign in Isaiah seems to support this interpretation. In the very next chapter, Isaiah describes the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in terms quite similar to [the] birth Immanuel (Isa. 8:4; cf. Isa. 7:16). Maher-shalal-hash-baz explicitly deals with the current situation of Ephraim and Aram (Isa. 8:4-8). That appears to confirm Isaiah intended the sign be fulfilled int he current time. Immanuel is a sign of the enemy's destruction and thereby Judah's deliverance.70

These arguments are admittedly compelling and make it seem that this is simply all the text discusses. However, several factors show there may be more involved.

 But if the average skeptic has a life outside of just sitting around all day googling for bible scholars who comment on this bullshit, they have perfect rational warrant to view Isaiah 7 and 8 as fatally ambiguous due to how much bible scholars disagree with each other about every detail therein.  . Joseph Jensen Joseph Jensen Associate Professor, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, sums it up nicely in the Anchor Bible Dictionary:

As already indicated, many aspects of these verses are disputed. For example,
Immanuel is said to be a royal child (H. Gressmann, E. Hammershaimb, A. S. Herbert, E. J. Kissane, J. Lindblom, J. L. McKenzie, S. Mowinckel, H.-P. Müller, H. Ringgren, J. J. Scullion, B. Vawter, W. Vischer, H. Wildberger, G. E. Wright),

specifically Hezekiah (Hammershaimb, Kissane, Lindblom, O. Procksch, Wildberger),

or Isaiah’s son (R. E. Clements, N. Gottwald, T. Lescow, J. J. Stamm, H. M. Wolf),

or any child conceived at this time (B. Duhm, G. Fohrer, G. B. Gray, O. Kaiser, L. Koehler, W. McKane, K. Marti, J. Mauchline), with “the young woman” being explained accordingly;

he is the new Israel (L. G. Rignell); and

some authors emphasize the difficulty of relating Immanuel to Isaiah’s historical context in order to favor a more strictly messianic interpretation (T. E. Bird, J. Coppens, F. Delitzsch, J. Fischer, Gressmann, H. Junker, M. McNamara, F. L. Moriarity).

Immanuel is said to be a favorable sign of salvation (S. Blank, Hammershaimb, Marti, Rignell, Scullion);

he is purely a sign of disaster (K. Budde, H. W. Hertzberg, R. Kilian, Lescow);

he is a double-edged sign (Fischer, Gressmann, Junker, Kaiser, Vischer, H. W. Wolff).
Immanuel’s food (“curds and honey”) is ideal and luxurious food of abundance (Gray, Hammershaimb, Lindblom, Rignell, Scullion, J. Skinner, Wildberger, Wolff);

his food is the nomad fare available in a land that has been devastated (Budde, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Duhm, Fischer, Fohrer, Herbert, Hertzberg, Kaiser, Kilian, McNamara, Marti, Mauchline, Stamm).
Immanuel’s coming to knowledge in v 15 is a temporal expression (“when he learns to reject . . . ,” “by the time he learns . . .”—G. W. Buchanan, T. F. Cheyne, Duhm, Fohrer, Herbert, Hertzberg, Kaiser, Lindblom, McNamara, Marti, Mauchline [following ], Rignell, Skinner, Stamm);

it expresses finality (“so that he may learn to reject . . .”—Budde, F. Dreyfus, P. G. Duncker, Junker, McKane, Mauchline [following MT], Müller, Scullion, Wildberger, Wolff).

The age at which a child learns to reject evil and choose good means the age at which he can distinguish pleasant from unpleasant (usually set at 2 or 3 years—Clements, Duhm, Fohrer, Herbert, Kilian, Lescow, Lindblom, McKane, Marti, Mauchline, Skinner, Stamm);

it means the age of moral discernment (often set at around 20 years—Budde, Buchanan, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Fischer [at age 3!], Herzberg, Kaiser, McNamara, Rignell, Scullion, Wolff);

it means the age of sexual awareness or maturity (around age 13—R. Gordis, L. F. Hartman, B. Reike).

Although most commentators agree that v 17 foretells devastation, there are some who take it as a prediction of future blessedness (Lindblom, Hammershaimb, McKane, Scullion).

Some authors question the authenticity of certain words, phrases, or even verses of the passage; in fact, some of the positions listed above require the rejection of parts of the text.

Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.

Like other prophets, Isaiah's mentality in this text does not merely focus on the present but the future:

    The context of Isaiah 7 shows Isaiah's redemptive historical awareness. Isaiah 7 is not the first chapter of the book. The previous chapters have set up important concepts and issues Isaiah 7 addresses. This revolves around how God will send Israel into exile because of their sin (5:26-30) but will reverse this in the end with a glorious kingdom (2:1-4; 4:2-6). Isaiah's call reiterates this paradigm. His job is to proclaim Israel's condemnation (Isa. 6:8-12) so that in the end, they will be made holy (Isa. 6:13).71 Isaiah's mission is one that connects present with the eschatological. Isaiah 7 is not in a vacuum. Its context suggests the present situation discussed relates to something greater.

The larger context of Isaiah does not bear that strongly on the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14.   Pretending that the apparent purpose of the entire "book" must be read into one of its specific statements is dangerous territory.  The larger purpose of Matthew is to evangelize the Gentiles (28:19-20), but that hardly requires us to read Gentile-implications into everything Matthew recorded Jesus saying.   The apparent purpose of Jeremiah is to condemn his own people for their idolatry, that hardly means we must read a condemnation of the Jews into every last thing he said.

I'm sorry, but you are not opening the door to the possibility that Isaiah 7:14 might mean something greater than its immediate context suggests, by pretending that we have to read some of Isaiah's overall purpose into whatever specific story he relates, such as the one in 7:14.

Your references to earlier chapters in Isaiah do not even bear out what you are trying to do, for in those cases the apparent intent that the historical reality be related to the eschaton is at least arguable, but nothing in the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14 expresses or implies the connection of his Ahaz-prophecy, to anything in the future. 

Worst of all, you pretend as if there's been no editing of Isaiah's words at 7:14 since the day they were first written down, a source critical judgment not shared by any other source critic.  You also don't even know how long of a period it was between what Isaiah allegedly spoke orally, and when these were transferred to written stories, yet you pretend as if there's just no doubting that the written words correspond perfectly to the oral original.  Sorry but you are just a bit more happy about the honesty and reliability of OT authors, than most biblical scholars are, for example, Christian scholar J.D. Watts:

The commentary will be looking at the Vision of Isaiah as a work of literature presented to a literate people. Although it certainly is the end product of a tradition, we will contend that the process was not automatic. Tradition provided the composers of the Vision with material for their book. But they, not tradition, determined the use to which the material was put and the interpretation it received. The commentary will show that this interpretation m many instances runs counter to the conventional thought of their day and of other biblical literature dealing with those events. It may well be that the Isaiah tradition itself ran counter to the conventional concepts and was thus congenial to the writers. But they, not it, produced the final result.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. Word Biblical Commentary (Page xlii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Chan continues:

    The immediate context exhibits this very perspective. Isaiah meets Ahaz with his son, Shear-Jashub, whose name means "the remnant will return" (7:3).

The names of the people in the story do not express or imply that what happened to them is some type of prediction of the future, unless you contend that the writer is employing fiction.

72 The language is used earlier in Isaiah (cf. 1:26, 27; 4:3) showing the situation in Isaiah 7 is not just about the present but God's greater agenda of exile and restoration.

Matthew's quotes of Jesus also weren't about merely the present, but the gospel to be given to future Gentile followers.  That hardly means that we read a Gentile-presupposition into everything Matthew says.

73 Likewise, Isaiah's use of the "house of David" evidences Isaiah believed the current situation was a threat not only to Ahaz but the entire Davidic dynasty (7:2).

No, it only shows he was addressing the present generation listening to his voice.  The burden is on you to show that "house of David" was Isaiah's way of addressing people who were not yet born.

74 Interestingly enough, the threat against the Davidic dynasty is the immediate context and concern of the sign (7:13). Again, the immediate context of Isaiah 7 does not merely describe a historical situation but one situated in a larger plan. Isaiah is not just speaking to the present situation

Once again, you have failed to make your case that because Isaiah elsewhere deals with the eschaton, surely he must be doing so in 7:14.  You also need to prioritize how Ahaz likely understood the prophecy, over what you think is going on with Isaiah's literary concerns.  Even if Isaiah took his conversation with Ahaz and transferred it to story-form and added eschatological details, so what?  That would just mean Isaiah is expanding what happened and pretending it has more significance than it originally did.

    The grammar of the sign indicates this. As discussed, some have interpreted Isaiah 7:14-15 to say the child is a sign that the northern kingdom and Aram will be defeated. The language makes mention of the present situation for sure. However, that is not precisely what Isaiah says. Notice, the wording states the son will eat curds and honey (v. 15) because (כִּי) before the child is old enough to choose between good and evil, the kings' lands will be desolate (v. 16). Technically, the resolution of the conflict with Ephraim and Aram is not the content or purpose of the sign but rather the reason the sign occurs the way it does.

Sorry, Mr. Jailhouse lawyer, but I see no difference between "purpose" and "reason".  If you think I'm wrong, check a thesaurus, see what synonyms are available for "purpose".  No better term was ever invented to characterize sophists like Christian apologists, than "doublespeak".

75 It answers the question "why does Immanuel eat curds and honey, the food of poverty?" (cf. 7:22), as opposed to "what is the significance of Isaiah's sign?"

Because the sign would be fulfilled at a time when poverty was plaguing Ahaz' kingdom, another rope anchoring Isaiah's words to the 7th century b.c. 

Hence, to say Immanuel is a sign for Israel's present deliverance is not grammatically correct. Rather, the present circumstances will cause the tragic circumstances surrounding Immanuel's birth and childhood. Again, the present connect with the future.76

 That can be fixed by noting that Isaiah's child in question probably wouldn't die immediately after Ahaz's enemies fled.  He would likely grow up past the days of Ahaz.  That's as far into the future as the text requires.  Pretending that Isaiah was intending to address people who wouldn't be born until 700 years later is total bullshit.

    Understanding this helps make sense of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8. As discussed, some scholars parallel Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immanuel. Indeed, in Isaiah 8:4, Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies the upcoming desolation of Ephraim and Aram as predicted in Isaiah 7:16. That is the child's prophetic purpose. However, we just observed such desolation is not the purpose of the sign of Immanuel. In Isaiah 7:16, the desolation of those kingdoms explains why Immanuel will be born in poverty and not what Immanuel is all about.

Isaiah ties "immanuel's" significance to a feared invasion from the Assyrians:

 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:7-8 NAU)

Isaiah is obviously saying that an attack from the present King of Assyria would occur soon (i.e., "about to", v. 7).  By contrast, there is no Assyrian anything going on 700 years later when Jesus was born as Assyria fell not later than 500 b.c.  Isaiah's speaking to Immanuel was not some bizarre prophetic utterance, he was more than likely speaking to an actual boy, if the text can be trusted to convey what Isaiah really said.

Accordingly, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel do not share the same purpose.

Then compare what Isaiah 7 says about Immanual, with what Isaiah 8 says about Maher-shalal-hash-baz:

 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
 15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
 16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
 17 "The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria."
 18 In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isa. 7:14-18 NAU)

 5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
 6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.
 9 "Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered.
 10 "Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us."   (Isa. 8:5-10 NAU)

Isaiah 7 associates Immanual's life with Assyria's attack on Isaiah's present-generation jews (v. 18), an attack that God "whistle's' for (v. 18), and then in 8:10, God is bringing the king of Assyrian upon the Jewish people.

Indeed, the circumstances in the life of Maher-shalal-hash-baz are said to precede an imminent invasion by the king of Assyria, just like the circumstances in the life of "Immanual" were said to:

 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
 4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." (Isa. 8:3-4 NAU)

 Chan continues:

They relate, but are not the same sign. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the sign that the harsh circumstances surrounding the Messiah's birth will take place.

No, there is no "Messiah" in Isaiah 7 or 8, unless you mean a temporary messiah living before 600 b.c.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz is near the prophecy that confirms one in the more distant future (Immanuel's birth in exile). Kidner's observation (reiterated by Motyer) sums this up nicely:

        The sign of Immanuel . . . although it concerned ultimate events, did imply a pledge for the immediate future in that however soon Immanuel were born, the present threat would have passed before he would even be aware of it. But the time of his birth was undisclosed; hence the new sign is given to deal only with the contemporary scence.77

 The time of the birth of the boy was given in Isaiah 8:

 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
 4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." (Isa. 8:3-4 NAU)

 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isa. 8:18 NAU)

Your efforts to squeeze Jesus into a context he clearly doesn't belong, are laughable.

    The rest of Isaiah 8 further supports that Immanuel is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah's wife does not name the child contrary to what is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Isa. 8:3; Luke 1:31).

But if you read the context, you will find that they are one and same kid:

 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
 4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
 5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
 6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:3-8 NAU)

 That passage twice associates the boy with an Assyrian invasion, once in v. 3-4, and again in v. 7-8.  Why Isaiah provides two names for the boy is anybody's guess, but it cannot be denied that it is one boy signifying one Assyrian invasion.

Isaiah also records how Immanuel will ultimately triumph over Judah's enemies and end exile (Isa. 8:10).

Correct, and the enemy in context, is the King of Assyria.  See v. 7.

Based upon this, Immanuel seems to be different than Maher-shalal-hash-baz. After all, the latter never delivers Judah from its enemies. Thus, Isaiah differentiates Immanuel from Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

 Dream on.  Your God is a stupid mother fucker if this is his idea of predicting events that wouldn't occur until 700 years after Isaiah and his generation die.

    Isaiah 8 also affirms the logic we observed in Isaiah 7:14-16. It describes how the Assyrian invasion will desolate Aram and Ephraim. However, it also discusses how the invasion will flood Judah, the "land of Immanuel" (8:5-8). If Immanuel is a sign that Israel's enemies will be destroyed resulting in Judah's salvation, why does Isaiah 8 state the opposite result occurs?

Gee, religious fanatics never contradict themselves, do they?  No sir, the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Instead, the description in Isaiah 8 fits with what I have suggested above. Isaiah 7 prophesies Immanuel would live in poverty because of the present circumstances. Isaiah 8 states the desolation of the Judah's enemies would lead to Judah's own desolation and so Immanuel will be born in exilic conditions.

And you want us to believe that although your god could have been a bit clearer about predicting Jesus, in his infinite wisdom he thought it best to couch "predictions" in past tense fortune-cookie language?  FUCK YOU.

    The rest of Isaiah 8-11 reinforces a messianic perspective to Isaiah 7:14. At the end of Isaiah 8, the prophet describes how Israel and its king will collapse in darkness (8:21-22).

Ahaz.

78 However, from that darkness a light will come (9:1-2 [Heb., 8:23-9:1]) based upon the birth of a child (v. 6 [Heb., v. 5]) who bears the authority of God upon his shoulders.

All biblical prophets had the authority of God on their shoulders.  you haven't narrowed this to Jesus.

This messianic individual in Isaiah 9:6 (Heb., v. 5) corresponds with Isaiah 7:14.79 Both record the birth and naming of a child associated with God's presence ("God with us" versus "Mighty God"). Both discuss how a child is born in exile and trial. Both texts ensure the security of the Davidic dynasty by virtue of the child's birth.

A thing that Jesus failed spectacularly in.  He was killed in 33 a.d., and no demonstrable evidence outside the dreams of biblical authors has expressed or implied that Jesus continued to rule over the Davidic dynasty for 2,000 years after he died.

With such parallels, Isaiah arguably equates his prophecy in 7:14 with the messianic figure in 9:6 (Heb., 9:5). This reinforces a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

But you don't know how much went on in Isaiah's life between what he says in ch. 7 and what he says in ch. 8.  You might be seeing contextual inferences that were conjured up by the way Isaiah's post-exilic editors chose to put his ramblings together.

And don't forget Isaiah 8:18, where Isaiah explains that it is his own kids (plural) who are for signs to Israel.

Isaiah 11 also reiterates this. That chapter introduces a child-deliverer (Isa. 11:2) whose dominion is at the culmination of history (11:9-12).80 With that, Isaiah 11 repeats the same pattern of a royal child born who secures ultimate deliverance and reign.

At the time the deliverer of Isaiah 11 does his stuff, will also be the day when the wolf lies down with the lamb (metaphor for utopia actually achieved):

 6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. (Isa. 11:6 NAU)

 But before, during, and after Jesus' life, the only time the lamb laid down with the wolf is if the lamb was inside the wolf.  You lose.

The similarities and pattern argue that Isaiah tied all of these texts together.

More correctly, the evangelistic hopeful way that his post-exilic editors threw his shit together.

Isaiah shows how the Son born of a virgin in exile (Isa. 7:14) is the Son/Child who will conquer the exile (9:6 [Heb., v. 5]) and ultimately restore the world (11:1-12). Again, later texts reinforce Isaiah 7:14 is not just about the present but the future.

These factors illustrate what we have observed in this chapter. Isaiah did know complex theological concepts like the Messiah. His writing develops that idea (Isa. 9:6 [Heb., v. 5]; 11:2) which clarifies the nature of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah also did not strictly write about his current situation but had in mind how the present relates to the future.

A future that was known to Isaiah's later editors.

Hence, he talks about how the current crisis relates to the sign of the ultimate deliverance and security for the Davidic dynasty (Immanuel). He writes with greater complexity than we might originally anticipate.

Or most people simply aren't as familiar with sophistry and illusion as jailhouse lawyers are.

One factor remains. Intertextuality not only helps us to see Isaiah's directionality but also his theological depth.

Translation:  "forget how the words of Isaiah were cobbled together over hundreds of years, seeing it the way inerrantists see it causes all sorts of entertaining theology to come bursting out." 

This relates to the sign itself, the virgin birth. One might ask how the sign of a young woman (rightly assumed to be a virgin) giving birth participates in Isaiah's theological agenda.81 Scholars have consistently wondered about this reality.82 Intertextuality can aid in this discussion.

No thanks, I prefer to see the problems of Isaiah's authorship and sources solved before I start dogmatizing about what he meant.  I was only arguing herein under YOUR assumptions that one person is responsible for the text.  God only knows to what degree editors of centuries after Isaiah changed the material that later became his ch. 7 and ch. 8.

The phrase "conceive and give birth" (יֹלֶ֣דֶ + הָרָה֙) is actually a formula reiterated in the canon. The formula applies to individuals including Eve (Gen. 4:1), Hagar (16:11), Sarah (21:2), Jochebed (Ex. 2:2), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:5), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:20).83 Ruth is a close parallel (4:10).84 The births are often miraculous because God overcomes barrenness (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:20) or provides protection from harm (Gen. 16:11). Accordingly, the sons born are important individuals in God's plan.

Precisely what the gospel authors would have known in first century Judaism.  Telling stories about Jesus being born of a virgin puts him on par with other important people in the OT.  How convenient.

The significance of the virgin birth seems to be an argument of lesser to greater. A virgin birth exceeds any other miraculous births. Consequently, the virgin-born Son is the most significant individual in redemptive history.

So significant that his virgin-birth status is nowhere attested in the NT except Matthew and Luke, despite your contention that such status strongly argues for his importance.  I'd say the NT authors did not agree on whether Jesus was born of a virgin.  Otherwise, they wouldn't neglect it any more than Protestant evangelicals neglect John 1:1.

He surpasses Isaac, Moses, Samson, or Samuel. In the context of Isaiah 7:14, the birth of this ultimate individual secures the Davidic dynasty and the restoration of a remnant (cf. Shear-Jashub, 7:3).

Then it cannot be Jesus, since Jesus died in disgrace in 33 a.d. and didn't "restore" jack shit.

He will be born in exile to end it.

Jesus did not end any exile.

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

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

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

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

Michael Licona

May 23, 2014 ·

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People v. Graham, Mich: Court of Appeals 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawkins v. State, Ind: Court of Appeals 2018

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

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

A Response To Lydia McGrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other translations make this clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“wearing a suit and tie”, 

“debate skills”, 

“punctuality” and 

“love”.   

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

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

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

the “yes” answer was incorrect, with the explanation 

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

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

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

Another question from the cd-rom game was 

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

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

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

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

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

Another question from the cd-rom was 

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

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

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

Another question from the cd-rom game:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Update, May 4, 2018-----


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

 I advertised the same at the Barker/Licona debate

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

 ----------------------

Update, May 8, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“naive and misleading,”

“pseudo-scholarship,”

“nonsense,”

“fantasies,”

“supinely ignorant,”

“ignorance,”

“pernicious,”

“naive, backwater interpretations,”

“sleight of hand exegesis,”

“fudging the facts,” and

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

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

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

The Early Christian Belief In The Resurrection Of Jesus

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

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

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

      "And you? You’re nothing but a sanctimonious ant with delusions of your own grandeur; you’re nothing but a modern day Hugh waving your swollen member around and knocking people over with it or else disgusting everyone by pointing to it and shouting to everyone to look at it."  ----http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84                     ---------------wayback has archived this if you care to check to see whether this man was arguing in a context that morally or biblically justified such language.  https://web.archive.org/web/20050501231546/http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84

                    "In your arrogance you missed it; you were so busy waving your giant pee-pee around that you bonked yourself on the head with it and didn’t even notice." -----""http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89                     ---------------wayback has archived this if you care to check to see whether this man was arguing in a context that morally or biblically justified such language.  https://web.archive.org/web/20050501231540/http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89

     Swollen member?  Giant pee-pee?  Shouting at everybody to look at one's uncovered genitalia?

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

shoddy,

shallow,

simplistic,

inaccurate,

insensitive,

imprecise and pejorative. He thinks my main thesis is a

psychological fantasy, states that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 -------------Update June 4, 2018

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

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