An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[Kenny]

The rule is you don't get an award if you try to get one. But I can have one made in plastic for you.

That's okay. I say enough wonky things that I'm sure I'll come by one honest some day.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Oh I agree that it's time to clean house. I just want think he has the wrong people in mind.

And calling Licona a demon? There's someone over here also who will certainly have an opinion on that.

[Kenny]

And calling Licona a demon?

Yes, and, at the end of the day, over an extremely minor issue about how to properly understand an obscure and difficult passage of Scripture.

Even assuming (only for the sake of argument) that Geisler and Mohler and Ed are right in their assessment of Licona’s view as being both false and incompatible with inerrancy, what we have here is not a scholar denying inerrancy (Licona explicitly affirms it) but a scholar making a mistake and holding an inconsistent view. It happens. It’s a reason to engage in dialog and debate, sure, but not a reason to engage in a witch hunt. (As it stands, I’m confident that Licona’s view, right or wrong, is not incompatible with the doctrine of inerrancy, but that’s beside the current point I’m making).

Talk about stirring up discord among the brethren.

[jpholding]

Oh I agree that it's time to clean house. I just want think he has the wrong people in mind.

And calling Licona a demon? There's someone over here also who will certainly have an opinion on that.

And that reminds me. The little girl wants to know what Licona thinks of insults (funny how she didn't ask YOU). You and I have both had discussions with him about it, and I think it is fair to say that while he isn't comfortable with them himself, we have all agreed to disagree.

Maybe she'd like it better if I called him demonic and posted an open letter asking him to join the Insult Cult.

[SarahB]

Yes Sarah. Ed is a Christian too, so surely the same standards should apply to him, right?

Sure. I'll make similar objections regardless of belief or non-belief. He may well have posted something I would find objectionable, but I didn't see it. Even if so, it wouldn't justify further insults.

Holding/Turkel, on the other hand, is the presently reigning insult cult king. He knows he's wrong, you probably know he's wrong but the internet is a place where ethics and civility can go on holiday.

Holding/Turkel is trying to provoke a public feud with the big boys to get his name out there but they're not going to bite. Maybe he'll pick up a few new members for the insult cult but he'll remain unimportant and he'll remain right here, soaking up what bits of adoration he can.

(Is this the post you PMd about?) Be well and good.

[ukchristian28]

(Is this the post you PMd about?) Be well and good.

No, I meant post 239.

What's with writing Holding/Turkel? Turkel is not his name anymore and it hasn't been since 2007. You're talking about respect but I hardly think it respectful not to call someone by their proper name or the name they have chosen to go by.

[jpholding]

Sure. I'll make similar objections regardless of belief or non-belief. He may well have posted something I would find objectionable, but I didn't see it.

No of course she didn't. Her guide dog must be busy.

Holding/Turkel is trying to provoke a public feud with the big boys to get his name out there

Like it isn't already. Puh-leeze. The little girl continues her vain fantasies.

[Chrawnus]

Wow, hear that? "Hell" is a swear word. That means Jesus swore (Matthew 5:29-30, etc). And ya gotta wonder what Ed's gonna do with Malachi 2:3 and all those other passages with the dirty words in them. Especially Song of Solomon.

Didn't I say Ed was the guy who really was upset when Campolo used the "s-word"?

Ed would probably faint if he read Ezekiel 23. Especially verse 20.

I'd quote the chapter, but I'm not sure TWeb's rules would allow it.

[Chaotic Void]

Ed would probably faint if he read Ezekiel 23. Especially verse 20.

I'd quote the chapter, but I'm not sure TWeb's rules would allow it.

*Looks it up on Biblegateway*

Oh, THAT chapter.

[SarahB]

No, I meant post 239.

What's with writing Holding/Turkel? Turkel is not his name anymore and it hasn't been since 2007. You're talking about respect but I hardly think it respectful not to call someone by their proper name or the name they have chosen to go by.

It seems he makes an effort to avoid being considered respectable but you might have a point there. Now, can we see you address the same thing to him?

In regard to post 239, I noted earlier I don't like it from any side. Don't care to get into "why" and the "obsession" canard is..well, a canard.

Be well and good.

[jpholding]

Wouldn't bad mouthing people behind their back be worse than saying it to their face? When people have a problem with me for whatever reason I find it most offensive if they moan and insult me behind my back instead of having the courage to confront me with their complaint. It seems Ed is trying to make Paul out to be a coward!

Yes indeed. That's one reason why I noted that Paul expected word to get back somehow or other. The gossip machine of the ancient world was an express train. At the very least Paul expected the Galatians to recognize his authority as a basis for turning back the Judaizers.

[SarahB]

Ed has posted a sermonette on his blog in which he basically recopies most or all of the email he sent me which he told me not to repost here. Yeah, that sure made sense. Let's see what kind of silly self-justifications he offers.





Well, there he goes again, siding people with "the devil" any time they break his little world apart and make it hard for him to understand. How rancidly childish. And never mind that Satan is bound right now, eh, preterists? Hey Ed -- does Satan also try to ruin your family BBQs the way he does Joyce Meyer's?

After more rancid discourse about people being captives to Satan, we are told:



I'll skip the analysis, because it's just the same la dee da about 2 Timothy 2 that we've gone over before here with skepticbud. Ed can't reconcile his twisted treatment of this passage with the behavior of Jesus, Paul, and other Biblical figures, because unlike me, he doesn't have a clue about the private-public discourse distinction.





Gee, let's see -- I guess alleging that people are under the influence of Satan isn't an example of that. Or blackballing them with open letters. Or calling them false teachers. Or.... Oh of course not. That's just Ed being "kind".




Wow, hear that? "Hell" is a swear word. That means Jesus swore (Matthew 5:29-30, etc). And ya gotta wonder what Ed's gonna do with Malachi 2:3 and all those other passages with the dirty words in them. Especially Song of Solomon.

Didn't I say Ed was the guy who really was upset when Campolo used the "s-word"?



Has he? Not that I have heard, but does anyone know anything about this?



That, Ed, is only your perception because you are profoundly ignorant. Never mind that by this reasoning you now have no way to excuse Jesus for his behavior, or Elijah, or any other Biblical figure. Never mind that this was a high context society where the public-private distinction would be taken for granted. Never mind that what Paul describes in 2 Tim is clearly a PRIVATE exchange. No, Ed needs a pencil the size of the new World Trade Center before he can connect all the dots.

Oh, and now he not only gets my name wrong, but...what else?

Ed then yaks off a list of the usual ho-hum passages I have already dealt with; he never bothers to ask himself, "Gee, couldn't the Pharisees have applied Eph. 4:29 to Jesus?" But here's a revealing admission by Ed:



HA! No, Ed, the pastor was RIGHT. You ARE a pathetic bully who says things to "cut" people; though you sanitize it with the language of holiness (eg, "he's teaching demonic things", "I'm just confronting people with their sin"), the fact is, you have just admitted that you have a record of being recognized as a bully, just as you were here. And here's what he also misses: we can say too, "we're not cutting you, Ed, we're confronting you with your sin" -- and what can he say? NOTHING! He's caught in his own web of self-justification -- one that we can't be caught in because of the private-public discourse model.



I can -- Ed's scholarship!



Sparko, check your supply of irony meters, I think another 3 boxes just 'sploded!



Oh boy....this ought to be good for some yuks....



Bingo -- the old "Jesus was God so he can insult people" canard. We've seen this excuse so many times already, Ed. It doesn't wash, because God's image means He gives us His authority to execute on earth. Moreover, God has delegated us authoritative gifts such as teaching, so you have no right to say someone does or does not have authority to insult. Finally, you turn Jesus into a roaring hypocrite with this excuse (well, Ed does make God into his image, doesn't he?), and you also can't get rid of other people like Paul and Elisha that way.



Precisely, Ed. And you're an oppressive, religious hypocrite who thinks you're an expert in the Scriptures, and are expert at perverting them. Next?



Oh Lordy, the old "prophetic oracle" excuse. Get real, Ed. All this means is that Jesus told the truth. That's what prophets do. But there's no logical connection that requires someone to be a prophet to pronounce such judgments. That's just a made up connection you use to try to weasel out of an argument you can't rebut otherwise. You may as well say, "Jesus had a beard and wore sandals, that's why he could do it."

Ed, we had a guy here who tried that rationalization already, named "jwarrend". It got him laughed off this board because it was a patent rationalization.


Uh, Ed? Please stop being so stupid. The OT prophets were doing challenge/riposte too, a prophetic rebuke IS a challenge. There's no "stretch" here -- you're just profoundly, monumentally ignorant.



Uh, so what, Ed? It's still foul language by your own reckoning, and news flash -- since Paul's letters would be read aloud and discussed, this would get back to them eventually. Ed goes on further about whether this was self-castration but it doesn't make a crapload of difference.



Oh no of course not. He just HAPPENED to engage in something that just COINCIDENTALLY looked JUST LIKE IT. How convenient. This is the kind of goofball thinking Ed considers solid argument.



Unfortunately, there's no indication of any "modifications" in any of the subject texts at all. This is Ed fantasizing for the sake of convenience yet again.



Yes you are, Ed. You just did it.



What a riot. I've been studying this stuff for years, and the CG between them has decades of experience in studying it, and because King Ed, who has studied this for all of five seconds, doesn't like the conclusions, we must be "naive and uncritical".



Really! It's also possible Ed is a talking mutated jackass from the planet Gumwad. No, Ed assures us, despite the bill, quacks, and feathers, that's no duck -- IT'S A WATERMELON! :

You've been at the Insults for Christ game for--what?--a DECADE and you STILL can't get any authoritative traction for it. Not even from Licona.

From what I've seen from and about you, your following paragraph describes YOU. Perhaps you think that's some effective deflection, but every one of those descriptors applies to YOU.

:

It isn't. There are no limits specified anywhere when the matter is someone like Ed who deceives, gyrates, misleads, bullies, and refuses to answer questions put directly to him, and also contrives fantasy versions of history to suit his purposes. :

You

:

What a joke. :lol :

Oh, I'm beginning to see it's much more than a joke.

[ukchristian28]

It seems he makes an effort to avoid being considered respectable but you might have a point there. Now, can we see you address the same thing to him?

I wanted to see if you would admit to your double-standard. You have, so that's good.

Making fun of someone's name however may not be without Biblical precedent. According to J.P the Bible (in the Hebrew) sometimes misspell's King Nebuchadnezzar's name. Spelled correctly it means "Nabo protect the crown". The misspelling makes it mean "Nabo protect the mule". However, I haven't been able to validate this claim so far as I can't find any reference to it online apart from statements by J.P. I would like J.P to cite his source before I proclaim it as being true. I am confident that he will be able to. If the claim is true it would mean that the Bible supports making fun of someone's name in order to make a point (i.e highlighting the king's failings) and J.P is not being inconsistent when he does it to make a similar point. However I don't see how calling J.P Holding Robert Turkel serves any such purpose. That doesn't make any point about J.P Holding's arguments or his character, unless of course you think that it is somehow immoral to use a pen name.

In regard to post 239, I noted earlier I don't like it from any side. Don't care to get into "why" and the "obsession" canard is..well, a canard.

It's not a canard because it clearly is an obsession. It seems to be the subject you constantly drone on about. How many times have you used the phrase "insult cult" on this thread alone? People like Jimbo have made whole webpages devoted to this one issue. J.P Till (Lazy Agnostic) comments on message boards all over the Internet about J.P Holding being mean and horrible and how other Christians need to rebuke him for it. J.P Till even wrote to Bruce Malina to complain about it! It's an obsession alright and I would like you people to explain why you have it.

[Chrawnus]

It's not a canard because it clearly is an obsession. It seems to be the subject you constantly drone on about. How many times have you used the phrase "insult cult" on this thread alone? People like Jimbo have made whole webpages devoted to this one issue. J.P Till (Lazy Agnostic) comments on message boards all over the Internet about J.P Holding being mean and horrible and how other Christians need to rebuke him for it. J.P Till even wrote to Bruce Malina to complain about it! It's an obsession alright and I would like you people to explain why you have it.

Isn't it because they're all crybabies? I mean, who else would whine that much?

[SarahB]

I wanted to see if you would admit to your double-standard. You have, so that's good.

Making fun of someone's name however may not be without Biblical precedent. According to J.P the Bible (in the Hebrew) sometimes misspell's King Nebuchadnezzar's name. Spelled correctly it means "Nabo protect the crown". The misspelling makes it mean "Nabo protect the mule". However, I haven't been able to validate this claim so far as I can't find any reference to it online apart from statements by J.P. I would like J.P to cite his source before I proclaim it as being true. I am confident that he will be able to. If the claim is true it would mean that the Bible supports making fun of someone's name in order to make a point (i.e highlighting the king's failings) and J.P is not being inconsistent when he does it to make a similar point. However I don't see how calling J.P Holding Robert Turkel serves any such purpose. That doesn't make any point about J.P Holding's arguments or his character, unless of course you think that it is somehow immoral to use a pen name.



It's not a canard because it clearly is an obsession. It seems to be the subject you constantly drone on about. How many times have you used the phrase "insult cult" on this thread alone? People like Jimbo have made whole webpages devoted to this one issue. J.P Till (Lazy Agnostic) comments on message boards all over the Internet about J.P Holding being mean and horrible and how other Christians need to rebuke him for it. J.P Till even wrote to Bruce Malina to complain about it! It's an obsession alright and I would like you people to explain why you have it.

Spend a lot of time on this topic, do you?