Doubtin' John's Bumblin' and Stumblin' Through TIF Thread

[jpholding]

Yep. I'm making a special thread for this so I have something to link to from the TIF page. Also to make DJ foam at the mouth and come here so I can thrash him some more.

So let's see, and we;ll do it all this time:

Anyone who reads much of what Holding says on the web knows that he majors in ad hominems against those who disagree, and it should be well known that I do not like him.

Yep. He likes me so much that he even lied real bad to try and get to me:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=97534

Hum....is that desperation I smell?

He’s a non-credentialed arrogant hack who has gained a following mostly from the uninformed.

Hear that, all? You're the "uninformed".

No wonder he had to self-publish this book. He claims that one of the reasons Christian publishers won’t publish it (which leads me to think he tried to get it published)

I did. I even had a prop from a major author. But as I said:

is because, in his own words, “I won't write Left Behind style crap, and the market for Christian lit is glutted, unlike the atheist market.” I think there is another reason.

There isn't. That's just the way it is -- and I know enough about the book market to say so.

The book reminds me of one of the good college term papers I’ve read, which I’d give him a “A” on if I were grading it, but that’s it. “Good,” in so far as he read a few books and strung together some decent information from which I learned a little. “College term paper,” in so far as he lacks a breadth of knowledge on the issues he writes about beyond that level. Among Christian publishers who are looking to publish in the area of apologetics, they are looking for something better.

Really now? So how many Christian publishers does DJ know? And can he give me the names of three that have heard of, for example, the Context Group and therefore have the "breadth of knowledge" he speaks of? Also, we might expect from this that DJ will expel some of his "breadth" to show were I err, but nope:

On the back cover Holding claims to have 17 years in apologetics ministry. If he’s 38 years old now (a guess), then that means he started his ministry when he was 21 years old. What can that mean? That a 21 year old on the web arguing for Christianity has an apologetics ministry? Hardly.

Duh....that I've been ministerING to people using apologetics for that long. Apparently DJ thinks you don't "minister" to people unless you are on the Web and have a 501(c)(3). Before the Web was around I ministered via old BBS systems. Before that I wrote guest articles for college papers.

He also claims “It is impossible to estimate the evangelical impact that is possible because of The Impossible Faith.” Since he capitalizes and italicizes the words, “The Impossible Faith” here, it’s hard not to escape the conclusion he’s referring to his own book.

Duh, DJ? It's normal to italicize the title of a book to distinguish it from other words in a sentence. And the capitalization was Xulon's choice. not mine, since they designed the cover. Sorry you got your shorts in a wad because your ego got damaged.

Such wildly overstated self-promotional claims usually come from college sophomores who think they know everything simply because they’re not yet informed enough to fully grasp the serious objections to their own arguments.

You mean, claims like these?

This book is simply the best of it's kind.... I had several masters degrees and was set for the express purpose of defending that faith all intellectual attacks. Now I turn that same intellectual muscle into questioning the very things I formerly defended. ...t presents a powerful culmulative case against that faith by a former defender of it.... You will not likely be able to read it and walk away unaffected. It is poisonous to the traditional Christian person's faith, hence the black cover.

So, DJ, when do you graduate from college? We're still waiting for an actual correction to be made, but no, he's not done whinin' yet:

The “explosive proposition” of his book is that “there is simply no possibility that Christianity could have been accepted by anyone in the ancient world, unless its first missionaries had indisputable proof and testimony of the faith’s central tenant, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Had there not been such indisputable evidence to present, Christianity would have been an impossible faith.” (p. viii) This is a very large claim! It’s widely recognized among educated people that the larger the claim is, the harder it becomes to prove it. But if you think this is a large claim he goes even farther. When discussing the skeptical argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, Holding writes: “It is impossible that Christianity thrived and survived while making such audacious claims falsely, and even more incredible to suppose that such claims were made with the full and continuing knowledge that the result in most cases would be rejection, ostracization, and persecution.” Then in the next paragraph he adds, “There are two added layers of difficulty…” So, first Holding claims such a faith is “impossible,” but that’s not enough. He adds that beyond being impossible, “it’s even more incredible...” But that’s not even enough, for he goes on to talk about “two added layers of difficulty.” (p. 97). How he can pile up “two added layers of difficulty” on top of an already “incredible” skeptical argument on behalf of an “impossible” scenerio, is beyond me. Educated people know not to claim more than what their arguments actually show.

So, uh, when's DJ gonna get around to showing I didn't succeed? No, not yet, he still has a hissy fit to throw first:

His argument has floated around in Christian circles for decades, and maybe even centuries before, with more reserved claims about what it actually shows. It would be interesting to know who first used it. I myself used it as a Christian. But I only claimed the Christian faith was unlikely. The novelty of his approach is that he uses some recent scholarship from the Social Science Group of Malina, Neyrey, and Rohrbaugh, along with McCane’s study of burial customs in the New Testament era--books which someone must have pointed out to him and from which he uses like they were the gospel truth. He obviously picks and chooses what he wants to believe by these scholars, since none of them would affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, and McCane may be an atheist for all he knows.

And of course, that is a refutation of all they say. The material by these people is yards over DJ's head, and he'll never grasp it, not even if Matt Green helps him out. He never argued anything like this before -- it's far too advanced. Nor does it matter whether or not my sources are inerrantists, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, or Freemasons. It doesn't alter what they report a bit or forbid critical use of them as sourdes.

No one, I might add, pointed these books out to me -- I saw them referenced in reliable sources like Witherington and went out and found 2-3 titles, then I looked for more. Not that it matters: This is just a silly little complaint in the first place that affects nothing I argued.
It’s worth looking at his main argument.

Holding argues that ancient societies highly valued honor much more than we do today, and as such Jesus’ shameful crucifixion and burial would be powerful obstacles to them believing he is the Son of God. Holding asks, “How could a man, subject to such overwhelming disgrace, in a society where honor was so crucial, have come to be recognized as the Son of God? There is only one viable explanation,” that Jesus arose from the dead. (p. 17). Really? Only one viable explanation?

Yes. Really. So when will DJ get around to providing another one? Uh...nope...he says next:

Holding argues that in the ancient world people concentrated not on individual identity but rather on group identity such that there were three strikes against believing in Jesus. Strike # 1 is that Jesus was a Jew, hated and despised by the Romans. Strike # 2 is that Jesus was a Galilean, which added to Roman hatred just like Iraq or Afghanistan is to us today. The Galileans were also thought to be “ignoramuses” by the Jews in Judea. Strike # 3 is that Jesus was from Nazareth, which would cause both Jews and Gentiles to scoff at the idea he was the Messiah. Holding writes: “Ethnically and geographically, Jesus was everything that everyone did NOT expect a Messiah to be.” (p. 27). Everyone? Really?

Duh....yes....really. So how's about an answer to that? Nope:

Holding argues that the resurrection was a major stumbling block in preaching to the Gentiles because a bodily resurrection went against the philosophical thinking of that day, where the body was considered something to be escaped from, and it was strange to Jewish ears because “no one had conceived of the idea of one UNIQUE resurrection before the time of final judgment” (pp. 29-32). Again. “No one”? What about Herod and some others (Mt 14:1, Mark 16:14-16)?

Already answered that dumb point a billion times, DJ. There's nothing to suggest that Herod saw that as John returned in a glorified body. Get your social terms straight.

Holding argues that in the ancient world “innovation was bad.” Giving preference to the thinking of the ancestors over innovative ideas was the rule among the ancients. Holding argues this in regard to several particular innovative ideas: 1) Jesus taught that believers should be willing to forsake their families; 2) Jesus reached out to tax collectors and a Samaritan woman; 3) Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed by pagans; 4) Jesus teaching was subversive toward the Jewish perception of patriotism. Since Christianity was such an innovation (an arrogant and exclusive innovation), “it is extremely unlikely that anyone would have accepted the Christian faith—unless there was indisputable evidence of its central claim, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (pp. 33-45). Once more. Is it “extremely unlikely that ANYONE would have accepted the Christian faith…?”

So here's the way DJ refutes TIF:

He takes as long as possible to describe the contents, to make people think he's saying something.

Then he goes, "Duh -- what???"

Holding turns next to three other religions, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam and argues that none of these other religions passes the test as an “impossible faith.” (pp. 47-66). There are differences, no doubt, but they all arose from superstitious people and charismatic leaders. Mithraism actually died out, and by the criteria Holding suggested earlier that an impossible faith would be one that “passed into history” (p. vii) then it should be considered an “impossible faith.” When it comes to Mormonism, like Christianity, he doesn’t mention how persecution actually fans the flames of a movement.

Actually, I do deal with persecution and I point out why this is not relevant: Because Mormonism arose in an individualistic society.

In the short and remaining mostly superficial chapters Holding argues that there are “three pillars” supportive of the “impossible faith”: 1) Miracles; 2) The empty tomb; and 3) The fulfillment of prophecy (pp. 67-75). He argues that the resurrection was not expected by his disciples (pp. 77-82). And he closes by arguing against two old and often debated arguments that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, known as the “swoon theory” (pp. 83-94), and the “theft theory,” that someone stole the body of Jesus and perpetrated a lie (pp. 95-105).

Just description here, no answers.

Overall Holding wildly overstates his case, doesn’t interact sufficiently with his detractors, and bases his arguments on certain implausible assumptions that he doesn’t justify. For instance, Richard Carrier has sufficiently refuted his claims, not once but twice, along with Robert M. Price, Brian Hotz, and recently the combative Matthew Green, but Holding doesn’t mention their arguments or interact with them at all in this book. While I can excuse him for not dealing with Green's recent arguments, I can't with regard to those written before he self-published his book. Why didn't he?

Pssst....hey DJ....

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Look at the BOTTOM of the page. I tell people to check this URL for more info. And you can find Green taken down on tektoonics.com. Meanwhile, how about an example or two of an "overstated case" or an "implausible assumption"? You know, besides you just saying, "Duh, what?"

He doesn’t interact with the book, The Empty Tomb, either. If he wants to be a scholar, a wannabe, then the one thing scholars do is they show awareness of the relevant literature and interact with it. Holding doesn’t do this in his book, even though he does attempt this outside of his book.

Gee, well, I guess you aren't "aware" of this then:

http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html

If you want to be a scholar, then the one thing scholars do is they show awareness of the relevant literature and interact with it Why I have to do it inside the book, I don't know.

Furthermore, Holding quotes from the New Testament showing no awareness of Biblical criticism, the debates about Biblical inspiration, or whether Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. Maybe he should take the 100% challenge?

Bloody skail, DJ, I already did -- I told you to answer the articles all over my site. Done yet?

To blithely quote from a gospel (or the New Testament) without some understanding of the strata of gospel origins and the debates that ensue from them is just superficial stuff. He also assumes the people in Biblical times were not superstitious people in comparison to our own modern educated societies.

Oh yes. I also forgot to deal with the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, etc. I have answers to all this on the site, but don't tell DJ -- he doesn't wanna answer it.

He thinks people believed Christianity because of evidence even though they believed in Artemis, Zeus, and Janus, and that's merely college level stuff. [I’ll probably have more to say, but this is all for now].

OK, DJ, you show us my 17 factors related to Artemis, and we'll see how you do.

Well, that's got to be the crappiest review of TIF ever posted, other than maybe the guy who said it didn't disprove his theory that Christianity was invented by drunken Roman fratboys. But it comes close.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Such wildly overstated self-promotional claims usually come from college sophomores who think they know everything simply because they’re not yet informed enough to fully grasp the serious objections to their own arguments.

That is so rich!!! From someone who reviewed his own book on Amazon with glowing praise!

[jpholding]

Now also for the comments on DJ's comments.

One guy says that Lucretius, in book 3 of De Rerum Natura:

argued that a material "resurrection" could happen under unusual circumstance. But he doubted that it would reconstitute the same individual because the of the loss of continuity of consciousness:

Uh, yeah, precisely my point: "Unusual circumstance". I do not argue that they say it was theoretically impossible -- that would be nonsense -- but that they considered it ACTUALLY impossible -- which is what his doubt amounts to.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...
John:
I am amazed at this post, which shows, yet again, why DC is head-and-shoulders above other atheist blogs. I am aware -- as is anyone who has read DC for any length of time -- how much your personally dislike Holding, and his 'confrontational' and 'personal' way of dealing with his critics.

Despite this, you were able to give a truly fair display of his arguments and positions -- perhaps doing a better job of presenting them than he can himself.

That by itself wins Benton some Gold Screwball Awards!

Shygetz said...
Excellent review, John! It seems to me that, given only the normal amount of "evidence" that most apocalyptic cults of the time had, the honor system of the time would have resulted in Christianity being much more widely accepted in the lower strata of society, with those of higher status and social honor would have avoided the religion due to its shamefulness. On the other hand, if the proof was incontrovertable, then both upper and lower class people would have been equally persuaded.

That's the sort of stupid comment I'd expect from someone whose exposure to the honor-shame paradigm is limited to what DJ just told him. First, as I also noted, Christianity DID attract an unusual number of "higher status" converts. Not many by numbers (which no one could do, because there were very few of such people in the first place) but by percentages, more than ought to have been expected.

The bit about "equally persuaded" doesn't make a lot of sense. What does he mean? That exactly 5.4% of both classes would have had to have been persuaded?

Pure social-sci mumbo jumbo.

Now, my coursework on the ancient Christian church was many years ago, but if I remember correctly, the early members of the Christian church were predominantly from the lower social strata; is my memory correct?

Duh....uh....yes, but that's because 90-95% of all people of this time were "from the lower social strata," moron. Nevertheless they were no less restricted by the factors I named than the upper crust.

1:07 PM, September 22, 2007
Vinny said...
I was recently discussing "The Case for Christ" with a Christian who claimed that Strobel did a "good job" presenting both sides of the argument. I asked him how he knew that Strobel was presenting opposing viewpoints fairly, i.e., whether he had read anything by Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong, or Dominic Crossan for example. He said he did not need to because they were all disreputable.

The man was right, and I have read them all. Want to come here and debate one or more of 'em with me, Vinny?

It always amazes me that modern evangelicals who will uncritically believe anything they read (as long as it comes from one of their own) can be so convinced that early Christians could never have accepted anything they were told without examining all the evidence and seeking out eyewitnesses who might contradict the stories they were being told.

It always amazes me how dumb fundy atheists think this sort of "duh, I can't believe it" retort is an actual answer to anything I have written. The agonistic dialectic assures that they would have sought out contradicting witnesses -- period. And that they would have stepped to the plate had they existed.

Martin Wagner said...
The atheist book market may not be glutted, but we seem to have all the New York Times bestsellers! ;-)

So did Dianetics, for that matter.

10:40 PM, September 22, 2007
Joseph said...
The early Christians simply didn't have the means to do a thorough investigation of the stories handed onto them. They had to accept them on faith.

No, dum dum, there WERE early Christians who had the means: The very "upper crust" I refer to, as well as converted Jews who regularly returned to Jerusalem for festivals. Joseph is so dumb he thinks that they couldn't look into it because they didn't have phones or TV.

We see a modern parallel to the "impossible" rise of a major world religion in the Mormon faith. A charismatic leader + miraculous claims + fanatical apostles + blindly devoted followers + persecution = a major world religion (LDS still one of the fastest growing--proving people are willing to believe despite the evidence).

Wrong -- as I show in great detail, Mormonism provides no parallel.

Lee Randolph said...
Hi John,
Nice Job on the review.
It sounds like he's got one big argument from ignorance.
"The ancients would this and the ancients wouldn't that...."

And that's an answer how, Lee?

Not rebutting his detractors was foolish.

Not noticing that I already had was plumb stupid.

Innovation was bad, unkay?

Yes, it was. And your answer to this, other than "duh," is what?

John W. Loftus said...

Shygetz, yes, one of the claims about Jesus is that he reached out to the sinners, outcasts, women, lepers, tax collectors and Samaritans.

Paul himself said in I Corinthians 1:26-29:"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him." And Onesimus the slave was a convert (Philemon).

There were some exceptions, like Paul himself, and a centurion named Cornelius, but it was a lower class mass movement.

Too bad that's not the whole story, as noted above.

4:56 AM, September 23, 2007
Vinny said...
What kind of "indisputable evidence" does Holding think that first century Christians would have demanded? Would thirty-year-old hearsay suffice as it does for him?

First of all, Vinny, cut the blah blah about "hearsay" as though it means anything:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html

And there's also the matter of the reliability of oral transmission in this era, and that the message was preached immediately, not just thirty years later.

Second, I cover that in the chapter on the three major points of evangelism.

In any case, isn't the story of Thomas putting his fingers in Jesus' wounds the first apologetics? John seems to be saying "Yes, we really could show you evidence to back up our claims if we had to, but you are better off if you just take our word for it because you will be more blessed."

Nope. Dumb exegesis, Vinny:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.html

Steven Carr said...
Holding had to self-publish his book?

I am surprised.

Not hard to surprise you, Steve Weevie. Where you been? We miss your contortions here.

Anyone else want to make dumb comments like these? I'll keep tabs.

[jpholding]

Dang -- can a mod please fix the typos in the thread title?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dang -- can a mod please fix the typos in the thread title?

Done

[Meta Knight]

Whoops. Looks like DC's as stupid as ever.

[Mr Minder]

Come on! Is that really what you guys have to put up with? These nimbnuls are what you can call - in Swedish - "dumskallar" and "klantarslen". That's simply it. And DJ hasn't honestly () answered JP's claims as of yet? Man!

[jpholding]

Someone posted a link to this thread on DJ's blog, and here's what he wrote back:

If anyone goes to Darren's (aka Holding's--own up to it will you?) link, you'll find the pure childishness of Theology Web. There is no serious discussion when it comes to Holding and Co. Don't even bother. My problem was that I tried to have rational discussions there to little avail.

Awwww, isn't that sweet of him to say that about us.

But no, DJ....I'm not darren. If I sign up to post anywhere and don't use my name, I'll do it as Sheila or one of my other toons.

I got so frustrated with this I eventually started a blog about him and witheld the fact that I started it. I did own up to it and confessed. Now he will never forget it and acts as if this happened yesterday and reminiding others about it somehow answers my specific arguments. Sheesh. But as I explained even a cuddly dog can be provoked to take a bite out of you.

And sometimes an ugly dog needs to be kicked to be reminded that he can't just bite anyone without consequences.

He also forgot how I keep bugging him about the 7th commandment.

[jpholding]

DJ comments:

Thanks Stargazer. I like the word "inured": vt "to harden somebody to something: to make somebody used to something unpleasant over a period of time, so that he or she no longer is bothered or upset by it."

That's where I am now, but it took me too long.

Yep. After all that time, he got inured all right.....






....to telling the truth.



Stevie Weevie also adds:

The level of discussion on Theology Web can be ascertained from Holding's summary of Richard Carrier's analysis of what Paul meant when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 'You fools'

Basically, Carrier discussed this verse of Paul's, and Holding summed up the discussion as Carrier says ancient people were stupid.

How can you talk to people who misrepresent others so blatantly?

I dunno, Stevie -- how can YOU talk to someone like Loftus who posts fake blogs?

And I summed up Carrier 100% correct, whether you like it or not, and no matter how much spin you put on it or how you distort it.

[Mountain Man]

It's funny just how little it takes to get DJ and his gang off their game, isn't it?

[Frogwarrior]

It's funny just how little it takes to get DJ and his gang off their game, isn't it?

I wonder what it takes to get them on their game

[Raphael]

So let me get this straight...

Apparently JP should have included in TIF detailed refutations of any objection that has been made or could be made of TIF.

But then DJ would have complained about it being too long and not having pictures.

[jpholding]

More dumb comments from DJ and his Useful Idiot Collection:

Joseph:

I hope everyone can see what so-called Christians like Darren have been reduced to in the defense of their faith. Arrogance and name-calling must be a fruit of the Spirit, huh, Dan? Or is that a work of the flesh...if it is, you've got some repenting of your own to do!

Oh my. Looks like "Joseph" used to be a Wimp for Jesus.... He obviously thinks Jesus and Paul and John sent flowers to their ideological opponents....not....


DJ:

Darren (I'm not convinced it's not Holding but now I'm thinking it's someone who feels the need to defend the Blog like Dee Dee Warren). Anyway, this is the kind of thing I'm referring to. I'm inured to it. Anyone who wants to go to Theology Web and check out any of the discussions there is welcome to it.

Besides, if my biggest problem in life is what you say it is, then I am truly a thankful person. Sheesh. Just get over it.

Hear that? Now "darren" might be Dee Dee. Or me. Actually, we are ALL Spartacus here. TWeb really has only one member.

Hey, know what? I think DJ is really faking having all those DC members. They're all actually him. More:

Fault away Darren. Throw the first stone. Look at the splinter in other people's eye all you want to. Make mountains out of molehills, and continue repeating them all you want to. It's that kind of behavior that makes me glad I left the Christian faith in the dust. Thanks for yet another reminder.

Speaks for itself -- would have been fun to hear him explain his affair away like this...

I remember a Barthian Scholar talking about Origen who castrated himself for religious purity who said, "it's not what I do that bothers me so much. It's what I think about. My mind is a cesspool of filth." Apparently you are different, pure, holier than others. Congratulations!

Well gee, DJ, with YOUR record, how hard is to to BE purer and holier than YOU?

Besides, why in *** do you really care whether I misled my readers one time? You think I mislead my readers every single time I argue against Christianity anyway.

True, but we put some of that down to being stupid, not dishonest.

As a former counselor in the churches I served I know the hidden faults of many Christians, and I suspect you are no different than them.

Still, let's say I am the worse person on earth. What does that have to do with any particular argument I might make? I made an argument with premises and a conclusion about the problem of evil. Whether or not I am the sterotypical immoral atheist you might think I must be, it is irrelevant to my argument itself.

It is relevant when your arguments inclulde implied necessity of trusting you to produce accurate information.



Stevie Weevie:

Now , where was that thread on TWeb again where Holding goes mental because a member of the Context Group had the audacity to claim that Holding was just another of the many people who misrepresent things to support their ideology..

Stevie is talking about the place where a certain banned/matrixed JPHOCD sufferer misrepresented himself to Malina as a certified angel and got Malina to issue a statement about the MODERN use of riposte, not about "misrepresentation". No wonder Stevie hasn't posted here in ages.

[grosses_schwein]

Hi, my name is David Mooney. I live in North Carolina and am 50 years old. I am an unbeliever, but I decided to join to read the threads and to learn something useful. I will lurk for awhile and spend most of my time online reading past threads. I just wanted to say "hello" to everyone.

[Mr Minder]

Welcome, sir, and hope you will have fun!