Confession, they say, is good for the soul; but it really doesn’t matter if you don’t have one to begin with. I, James Patrick Holding, have a confession:
John Loftus is right. I’ve been wrong. Christianity is bunk, and I know it.
Sad to say, I understand now why so many like Dan Barker covered up their change of mind. It isn’t cowardice, as I thought, but the fact that running against the grain of evidence is so hard to do. The problem is, as I have said truly, that you sometimes have to dig deep to get at the truth of a matter, and not even the best scholars can get it all at once.
Take the claim, for example, that Mithra was crucified. I’ve been regaling this as bunk for years now. It isn’t. More on that in a moment.
What led me to come out on this is Truth Be Told’s latest discontent over my review of Lobdell’s Losing My Religion. I couldn’t be dishonest with him on this, because he’s been a good friend for a while now, and in our correspondence over that review he said some rather conscience-smashing things. So here we are.
But now for Mithra. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I found that in a book titled Weihegrade und Seelenlehre der Mithrasmysterien by Reinhold Merkelbach. I still carry a bit of German around with me from my community college days, and while I’m sure my translation here isn’t exact, I’m able to do this well enough (and with the aid of the picture in the book) to give the gist of it:
Figure 5A. Composite carving from Mithraeum in ancient Achaemenid city of Istakhr, showing Mithra suspended from cross. Estimated date: c. 200 BC.
I resisted this evidence for a long time, and searched for anything I could find to suggest that Merkelbach was misconstruing or wrongly dating this evidence. But I couldn’t find it. So I have to be honest about it. What made it especially hard to dispute was that Merkelbach didn’t even try to connect this carving to Christian origins.
So anyway, it’s over now. I’ll be erasing the Tekton website in the next few days; you folks can save what you want from it, but make it snappy, because by next week it’ll be gone. I’m not sure about things like the E-Block. Those of you who paid may get refunds. I’ll soon be contacting Loftus (or someone else, if he won’t have me, and I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t) about posting a fuller deconversion story. There’s lots more where that Mithra thing came from, let me tell you. I also found out that:
1) The problem of evil is indeed very serious. This is where Loftus’ book was more convincing than I’ve been willing to admit. I pawned it as something out of my subject area, but the reality is – as Lobdell’s book also showed me – it hits hard in the gut.
2) Pedophilia in the Catholic Church is a very strong argument against Christianity. Lobdell emphasized this, as well.
3) Atonement is a disgusting doctrine, and Greco-Roman patronage doesn’t excuse it. See Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford U. Press, 2002 for a scathing expose’ on this issue.
4) The NT indicates that gifts of healing, etc. were intended to last for the entirety of church history. Clearly that hasn’t happened, as frauds like Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton show.
5) Pope Leo X really did use that “fable” quote in real life. It was recorded by the medieval historian Unsinn Stierausscheidung.
So there you have it. Say goodbye to Tekton. John, let’s be friends, heh? How about we get together for lunch sometime, like today?
You heard me. Check your calendar and see what day it is today.
April Fool!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
25 comments:
If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.
Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.
READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.
NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Haaaaaaaaa!
ReplyDeleteOooo that's good satire :D
Unsinn Stierausscheidung
ReplyDeleteTotally missed it first time.
"Unsinn Stierausscheidung"
ReplyDeleteGerman names are the best.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNothin' to say, Edski?
ReplyDeleteI can see why -- you fell for it too! John might even kick you off his blog for being the one who first told him about it! :D
HAPPY APRIL FOOL'S DAY, J.P.! YOUR BIRTHDAY ALREADY?
ReplyDeleteWHAT BETTER DAY TO NOMINATE J.P. HOLDING FOR ONE OF HIS OWN SCREWBALL AWARDS?
Read on if you can take your hand away from drawing bunny bosoms long enough.
1) Lobdell was disappointed foremost by the church's COVER UP of pedophilia and pedophiles, and the way the victims themselves were DEMONIZED by the church hierachy and laity. Lobdell makes this point repeatedly. Looks like you didn't read the book.
2) Atonement might be disgusting, since the ancient Hebrews were obsessed with "the heart," "the blood" and the "spilling of blood"(rather than focusing on the brain and central nervous system and relatively bloodless ways for an animal or human to die). But the foremost question concerns the fact that such a view is "sympathetic magic" (like one person takes a bath and another one gets clean on the other side of the world as if that makes logical sense). One man suffers a few hours about 2000 years ago and somehow that suffering gets transmuted into innocence and forgiveness for unlimited numbers of faults both petty (cursing) and egregious, things done by others in the past, present, and future. Marvelous how thin and wide such magical spilled blood can be spread.
And to this day theologians are still arguing over their version of why the "cross" was "neccesary." (Was it neccesary, really? Not according to the Lord's own Prayer, "Father, Forgive us this day our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us.")
3) Jesus stories arose in a culture in which paradigmatic stories of gods, miracles, messiahs, myths and kooks abounded. Whether or not earlier tales gave direct birth to the Jesus tales is not the question. The question is why did Jesus fit into such a paradigmatic "believing" framework in the first place, a framework that was already well built before Christianity came along and simply fit into it? Is your best explanation that "da dayvil did it" to confuse Christians? Did the devil inspire myths of the Emperor Augustus' virgin birth, his "evangelion," being called a "son of God," his kingship/kingdom, his being called up into heaven after his death? Augustus attracted such stories and terms even before the Christians started saying them about Jesus. How much moreso would such stories be connected with Jesus living in a less literate more hyper-religious place? Obviously for Jesus to take root in such a culture that adored miracles, Jesus had to walk the first century walk and talk the first century talk. But that doesn't mean such stories must be taken literally in Jesus' case anymore than historians do in previous cases. As for the Intertestamental books and what they taught, from the book of Daniel to Enoch and others dealing with the fate of Jersualem and end times battles as in the Dead Sea Scrolls' battle of sons of light and darkness, those also appear to have arisen both before and sometimes right beside the Jesus corpus. Ah, those were the days. First century apocalypticism. Charismatic Jewish healers, end timers, messiahs, and the Hellenized world with its myths. Of course the Jesus story is perfect history. NOT.
Sheesh, J.P., read some moderate Christian theologians, get on some biblioblogs with scholars (there's a huge list of bibliobloggers that N.T. Wrong compiled), read the Biblical Studies Carnival:
http://biblical-studies.ca/carnival/
Join CrossTalk2: The Historical Jesus and Christian Origins group at yahoo which consists primarily of biblical scholars:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/
You think atheists led the charge against inerrancy? Christians and Christian institutions have fought over that question and still do. But you'd rather blame it on atheists and total mythicists. That helps you continue to see things in black and white, since you primarily study inerrantist preterism in contrast to atheism and total mythicism.
As for your own inerrantist views, here's a recent review of one or your favorite holy books at the Society of Biblical Lit. site (no, it's not a review of the Bible, but a review of another book you seem to regard as preaching the near inerrant word on inerrancy):
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/01/ken-olsons-review-of-jesus-legend.html
Other bibliobloggers have also begun criticizing your claims now that you've taken to blogging:
Bankrupt Apologetic Claims
I just learned that J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministry started is contributing to a blog that’s entirely devoted to debunking John Loftus (who’s an atheist that tries to debunk Christianity in case you haven’t heard of him). In any event, in the comments to one of his posts I found a list of claims from Holding that I reproduce here:
http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/bankrupt-apologetic-claims/#comments
Burgess Picks Up Where I Left Off
Matthew Burgess picks up where my post from the other day left off and he offers some responses to J. P. Holding’s claims regarding the dates, authorship, and texts of the NT. Make sure to give it a read as it is light years beyond what I wrote.
http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/burgess-picks-up-where-i-left-off/
Extreme Right v. Extreme Left: A Hopeless Debate?
Over the past few days, I've become belatedly aware of a vigorous (and occasionally downright nasty) debate between atheists and conservative Christian apologists raging throughout the blogosphere, particularly involving exchanges between John Loftus and J.P. Holding--who represent the former and latter camps, respectively.
http://matthewburgess.blogspot.com/2009/03/extreme-right-v-extreme-left-hopeless.html
LASTLY, HOW SCREWY IS J.P. HOLDING?
HE EMPLOYS GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL INSULT HUMOR, AND NOT EVEN AS CREATIVELY AS DOES "P.J. GRASPING" WHO DEFENDS THE INERRANCY OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY AND OUR SAVIOR FRODO:
http://frodology.blogspot.com/2009/03/pj-graspings-frodological-guest-spot.html
http://www.blogger.com/profile/02864129887028231291
Hey, J.P.,
ReplyDeleteI didn't delete that post. I re-edited it in order TO ADD TO IT. The post above is what I originally wrote after adding some links.
Have a happy birthday!
J.P. Holding: Loose nut in the Deus ex Machina
J.P. Holding: Scat in the bowels of the corporate body of Christ
J.P. Holding: Inerrant on the subject of inerrancy
J.P. Holding: The Voice of God because God speaks so indistinctly to so many other biblical interpreters, and because the Bible is so indefensible in and of itself that it requires him to defend it, tooth and nail (broken tooth and rusty nail).
J.P. Holding: The discoverer of "hell lite"--patent pending.
J.P. Holding: vicious dove for Christ
J.P. Holding: Don't look at me, standing behind the Orson Wells sized curtain of my gargantuan ego and the wall of trophies I've awarded myself (can anyone say insecurity?), but look at those people who dare to have egos anywhere near my own and who dare to speak their minds in books and on the internet (insert an encyclopedia of laughing emoticons here, including rabbit bossoms)
Hey Ed Dumbuttski! Ever get a real job besides sticking book labels in the basement?
ReplyDelete“Read on if you can take your hand away from drawing bunny bosoms long enough.”
Whassamatter, Edski? Those bunny bosoms looking better thanks to your vacant love life?
”Lobdell was disappointed foremost by the church's COVER UP of pedophilia and pedophiles,”
No, short, Sheerlock. My post is a PARODY. Turn the fundy part of your brain off once in a while.
“2) Atonement might be disgusting, since the ancient Hebrews were obsessed with "the heart," "the blood" and the "spilling of blood"(rather than focusing on the brain and central nervous system”
Blah blah blah blah – I answered this crap all over Tekton, Edski. Old news. You can’t spill out someone’s central nervous system for a sacrifice, you moron.
“One man suffers a few hours about 2000 years ago and somehow that suffering gets transmuted into innocence and forgiveness for blah blah blah blah”
More fundy mutterings, Edski. No, you’re just dumb ignorant; atonement translates from the client-patron relationship with Jesus as the broker, and it is dumb fundies like YOU who sang mind-numbing hymns who hold to this kiddygarten version of the doctrine.
“And to this day theologians are still arguing over their version of why the ‘cross’ was ‘neccesary.’”
And as dumb as you are, all their arguments from each side are beyond you, especially when it comes to patronage. BTW moronski, Jesus taught that prayer to his disciples (clients)…get it? Ask Harry “Obscene Phone” McCall to lend you a business dictionary so you can figger it out!
“Jesus stories arose in a culture in which paradigmatic stories of gods, miracles, messiahs, myths and kooks abounded.”
Blah blah blah, fallacy of guilt by association, Edski. You work under John “the Liar” Loftus, an admitted adulterer; that proves – what about you?
“Is your best explanation that ‘da dayvil did it’ to confuse Christians?”
No, stupid. I’m a preterist.
“Did the devil inspire myths of the Emperor Augustus' virgin birth”
VIRGIN BIRTH! Augy didn’t have a virgin birth, you twit. His mother was impregnated by Apollo!
“his ‘evangelion,’”
Dumbass, the word “evangelion” was a common term for ANY sort of good news; this is like using the “NBC Nightly News” as evidence that modern evangelists stole the “good news” from NBC!
“being called a ‘son of God,’"
Oh yea, Edski, THAT was a very rare term. And kings were rare. So was the idea of apotheosis. Brilliant, Edski, just brilliant. I guess you think Jesus should have sunk into the earth just to make things a little different? How about the Ascension as a challenge to Roman preconceptions, Edski?
“Of course the Jesus story is perfect history. NOT.”
Of course, “guilt by association” is a valid argument. NOT. MLK fought for civil rights. So did Lincoln. Therefore, MLK’s life story was a myth! WHEEEEEEE!
”Sheesh, J.P., read some moderate Christian theologians,”
YAWN – old stuff, Edski. NT Wrong is a gaseous idiot. What’s wrong? You tired of being beat to a pulp and trying to pawn me off to save yourself face?
“You think atheists led the charge against inerrancy?”
No, they actually fall face first while others trample on them. I answer liberals too, stupid. Haven’t you been paying attention these last 10 years???
“Other bibliobloggers have also begun criticizing your claims now that you've taken to blogging:”
Awww….pissant commentary, how sweet! Sorry to bust your bubble, Edski, but the first little man, Norelli, was too chicken to come face me and defend his claims:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=125541
As for Burgess, if there was an actual argument in any of what he said, it died of loneliness! Nothing but craploads of “so and so said this” and “so and so said that.” How impressive!
Frodo’s little page? It might have some merit, too, if it actually had an argument, especially one related to something I actually said!
Of course, childlike minds like you ARE impressed by stuff like this, Edski!
Don’t worry, though….we’ll get you a date with something at the pet store! :D
JP Holding-out-for-a-hero said: Frodo’s little page? It might have some merit, too, if it actually had an argument, especially one related to something I actually said!
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that I was refuting anti-Frodology claims - not your pro-Christianity mental fingerpaintings! You are an evidentialist, I presuppose Frodo's divinity and everything else follows. Unlike you I don't have to spend my spare time scrabbling around in library archives, researching and cross-referencing and underlining things for furure reference!
The only thing that you and I have in common is our superbly witty challenge riposte, and a love of drawing sexy rabbits.
Theology-wise I refuse to discuss anything but Frodology, as anything else might require me learning something new - and anyone who knows their Sacred Texts knows that knowledge is the first step towards apostasy.
If you have a substantial refutation for Frodology then present it please - but don't try to out-riposte the King of Frodological Exegesis, because the shame will be all yours!
Yes I spelled "future" wrong!
ReplyDeletePJ said:
ReplyDelete"I think you'll find that I was refuting anti-Frodology claims - not your pro-Christianity mental fingerpaintings!"
Then you'd better let Edski know. He thinks you ARE refuting me.
Better help him find someone who DOES do that before he climbs to the top of a library stack and jumps off into a pile of metal bookends!
Hey Holdie, I see where your 2008 poster book on your website Blowing the Doors Off really tanked! Yep, it looks like it when down faster than the Titanic!
ReplyDeleteIt such a piece of crap, Amazon won’t even sell it! (Available from these sellers) Now that’s pitiful.
Lets see: No customer reviews yet! “Be the first.” Holdie, better fake something here or the “1 used copy” (returned) may not even re-sell.
Instead of 5 stars, what about 5 moons as in butt cheeks? After all, it will get more use as toilet paper in an out house!
When I think about how you cultivate and antagonize enemies, I just laugh and laugh.
ReplyDeleteWow, Harry. One of Holding's books didn't get good rep. Funny though, because most seem to be rather doing well on Amazon. His Christ Myth book has five star ratings from every single customer that purchased the book.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of toilets, do you know what you are full of, Harry? I found a clip of you in your own private sanctuary (I hope you don't mind; after all, privacy isn't much of an issue with you at all):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7l6jg4Hlog
TBT,
ReplyDeleteIt won't do you any good to toot Holding's horn. He knows what you are. Pimps don't respect their prostitutes.
Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall,
ReplyDeleteWow, are you stupid! :D The reason that the book isn't on Amazon, you twit, is that the person who financed it had his OWN selling mechanisms in place, and so saw no need to pay Xulon Press the additional $500 required to get it set up for them to sell it. We've sold plenty of copies via THAT route, thanks!
As usual, Chester the Molestor charges ahead and ends up getting himself slammed to the mat!
I laugh too, malove! All my enemies are just so stupid! :)
ReplyDeleteWow, Edski deserves a screwball for taking that post even halfway seriously.
ReplyDeleteStupid people do stupid things...and you seem childishly compelled to goad them. There's no stupid like smug and stupid, Bobby.
ReplyDelete"When I think about how you cultivate and antagonize enemies, I just laugh and laugh."
ReplyDeleteJ.P. Holding does exactly that. You should have read his replies to every new chapter in "The Jury Is In" as they were published online at the Secular Web. He used grade school insults and name-calling (his trademark as shown above) to disenfranchise himself from nearly every contributing author on the Secular Web except me, since he didn't respond to my chapter rebutting testimonies and the uniqueness of the Christian experience. (I guess Holding agreed the Christian religious experience wasn't all that unique, maybe not even his own.)
Holding also soon insulted Paul Seely, Reformed Evangelical, graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (a conservative college where Cornelius Van Til taught, founded by Machen in response to Princeton's growing away from B.B. Warfield's plenary inerrancy view). Seely's three articles in that theological review on the ancient Hebrew's flat earth and firm firmament view, and the mythical nature of the tower of Babel story in Genesis' primeval history section (chapter 1-11 of Genesis), were also cited approvingly in the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS by Dr. John Walton at Wheaton college. But J.P. Holding tore into Seely's heavily researched articles, and tore into them with arrogance and ignorance, and had his replies published in "Answers in Genesis" a young-earth creationist "ride those dinos" organization. They published Holding's know-nothing pieces as "technical papers" I believe.
Not to mention Holding's knock-down drag outs on tweb and on blogs with Rev. James White, apologist at Alpha Omega Ministries, and with Steve Hays of Triablogue and tweb. Though Holding and Hays have maintained some mutual respect still, since they share a common narrow Protestant apologetic and aim at some of the same targets, having derided and insulted some of the same people.
I also recall that Loftus was relatively calm going into tweb, but soon rec'd so many mean spirited derisive comments that as in the above cases, he was cultivated as an enemy by Holding and other riposter/imposters, from the anonymous Frank Walton to the formerl yanonymous "Discomfiter."
Holding in effect makes his own prophecies of "angry nonbelievers" come true. It's a self fulfilling prophecy with Holding.
While other Christian apologists, the more famous ones, have actually befriended their debate partners, including even Hitchens and his Christian debate partner who are making a film together about their squaring off in so many verbal debates, and one written and published debate. Even the atheist leader of the band Bad Religion, who obtained a Ph.D. and who debated a Christian prof in a book published by a Christian publisher, are friends. Antony Flew and Habermas are friends. Habermas and myself are friends. Habermas in general is a friendly guy. G.K. Chesterton, a Catholic apologist, was friends with H.G. Wells, whose anti-Catholic rhetoric was anything but nice, and with George Bernard Shaw, a sort of pantheist who criticized Christianity and biblical beliefs in some of his plays and in the press. Chesterton told an ailing elderly Wells in a personal letter that he would get into heaven, and said of Shaw that "in another era he would have been a great saint." Chesterton even wrote a novel, The Ball and the Cross in which an atheist and Christian try to have a duel to the death but wind up becoming friends.
I suspect Holding doesn't understand nor react well to satire. Nothing seems to bristle him more than satire. He takes it personally and reacts with grade school insults. He doesn't appear to understand the sly, less direct, and playful, nature of satire, and responds with "you idiot!" So Holding doesn't "do" satire very well. Maybe that's another reason he's angry, not even knowing how incompetent he is at trying to come up with some humor that rises above grade school level. But then, there aren't many if any Protestant Christian apologists who did satire very well, though there have been a few Christian novelists who did it well, like Evelyn Waugh (The Loved One, hilarious satire on the whole mortuary industry and Evangelicalism, Waugh being a Catholic).
Catholics seems to have more fun with their faith and with their apologetics. Rabelais, Erasmus, Cervantes, Chesterton, Waugh, Auden, they understood satire. Protestants as a rule don't. Luther and Calvin were pretty good at cursing as where other Reformers, cursing often at each other. No real history of satire. They aren't very relaxed and accepting, their little new born cults vied with one another for dogmatic authority after the Reformation. Calvinism vs. Arminianism, this against that ism. While Catholics in comparison have a longer and often more somber and stolid history, and remain the single largest denomination of Christians by far, the single largest religious group in the world too, beating out Sunni Muslims, who are number two (see adherents.com). Catholics also aren't as afraid of drink as Protestants have a reputation for being, especially Southern Baptists for whom Jesus turned water into non-alcoholic grace juice.
Hey J.P. if you've gotten this far, please tell me how all the N.T. documents could have been composed prior to 70 A.D. and not leave a gap of some quite noticable sort in early church history between those documents and later church letters and documents? After all those N.T. documents were crammed into pre-70 A.D. you have a bit of a gap before the other documents started appearing. The move you move forward, then you just move around the gap. Also, the pre-70 A.D. view is just an hypothesis, not the consensus, not by far. But of course if it makes you sleep better at night to believe that all of your hypotheses are certainties...
Edski, what's your problem, anyways? Did the Furman library's porno maganzine collection run out on you and leave you with a lot of spare time to post more goofball arguments?
ReplyDeleteDumbski said: "I guess Holding agreed the Christian religious experience wasn't all that unique, maybe not even his own."
I don't have any "religious experience" to appeal to, moron. But you're right: I DO consider "personal testimony" to be almost worthless as evidence. I've been saying that for years, as you'd know if your best source for scholarship wasn't Hustler magazine.
Dumski said: "Holding also soon insulted Paul Seely, Reformed Evangelical, graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary"
Yawn....I kicked Seely to the curb, Edski, and all he could do is hide behind obfuscations as a reply. Aw, so Walton cites him approvingly. Isn't that special. And that answers my arguments how, you moron?
When will you ever get past your babyish "so and so is a good Christian and he disagrees with you" lame duck methods, Edski? Any chance of your intellect maturing to critical thinking in the next few years?
"But J.P. Holding tore into Seely's heavily researched articles, and tore into them with arrogance and ignorance"
Too bad you're better at sayin' than showin', you and Seely the crybaby both.
"Not to mention Holding's knock-down drag outs on tweb and on blogs with Rev. James White, apologist at Alpha Omega Ministries, and with Steve Hays of Triablogue and tweb."
And as I told you, Edski, you're too dumb to answer any one of us, regardless of which one is right, so you can just go suck your thumb in the corner, thanks. You, who like Harry, gets his info on patronage from business dictionaries...riiight. And Playboy, of course.
"I also recall that Loftus was relatively calm going into tweb, but soon rec'd so many mean spirited derisive comments"
That's because he also "soon" made it clear that he was the latest incarnation of Waffle-O Bill when it came to defending his boo, which he was mainly there to sell from his used car lot.
"While other Christian apologists, the more famous ones, have actually befriended their debate partners,"
Awww, isn't that sweet. Here's a bit of advice: Who gives a flip? This is your substitute for answering my questions about things like when the Pythagoreans were concerned with the number 153? I'm still waiting for you to answer this, and it's been years.
"I suspect Holding doesn't understand nor react well to satire. Nothing seems to bristle him more than satire."
:D YOU do satire? No, Edski, you ARE satire. I don't bristle at it; I OUTDO it, especially when it comes from neophytes like you who get your joke books from Toys R Us. Nor am I angry -- I'm laughing at you all the way, pushing your buttons and watching you dance to the tune I play on them.
You believe in evolution, yeah? Dance like that monkey you evolved from then!
"Hey J.P. if you've gotten this far,"
Hell, Edski, you sure do know most people wouldn't bother, don't you? Do you ever plan on taking the hint that 90% of what you say is useless tripe no one wants to hear? Why don't you get a career on morning radio, and get some fluffy female co-host to giggle at you?
"please tell me how all the N.T. documents could have been composed prior to 70 A.D. and not leave a gap of some quite noticable sort in early church history between those documents and later church letters and documents?"
Wha -- ??? What the TARTRUS kind of argument is this? It makes zippo sense -- wins a Screwball Award for Incoherence!
"After all those N.T. documents were crammed into pre-70 A.D. you have a bit of a gap before the other documents started appearing."
Your point being WHAT, Edski? Most ancient writings have been lost. Papias, Quadratus, and way too many secular works to mention as well. What kind of stupid argument are you making here? Do you think the church had a by-year quota for making documents they had to fulfill?
Papias: "Dah, we haven't written an epistle in 2 years now."
Clement: "Duh, we have to wait another year, otherwise someone will think there's too small a gap between this one and the last one."
Papias: "Duh ah, makes sense."
And you wonder WHY I call you stupid? :D
"Also, the pre-70 A.D. view is just an hypothesis, not the consensus"
And you can't answer a single argument on the matter one way or the other, Child Edski. Go back to your teddy bear and get your thumb back in your mouth.
It won't do you any good to toot Holding's horn. He knows what you are. Pimps don't respect their prostitutes.
ReplyDeleteDear NFLP, here are some facts for you to know:
1) This blog and other related websites were created by me, not JPH.
2) JPH was an invited contributor to these sites and he has gladly accepted on all accounts. His contributions are strictly voluntary.
3) Therefore, these sites were created out of my own will-power, and are not necessarily influenced by Tektonics.org. If anything, JP would be MY prostitute, because he adds to the picture of things.
4)Holding treats me better than he would, say, John. And this April Fools prank is proof of just that. By the way, the April Fools prank was also my idea, as well.
5)I prefer Holding's company compared to those of his dissenting opposers. Mostly because JPH is well informed and critically objective without proclaiming himself to be something he knows that he isn't, not possessing a large ego, and not being manipulative. I've interacted with Holding for little more than two years now, and I haven't found anything about him that would suggest the idea that he "uses" me in any respect. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do appreciate him as a person. He's neither the Ann Coulter type, nor Jon Stewart, and yet he elegantly sticks the realistic facts into people's faces that are either intellectually dishonest or don't want the truth heard. I don't respect Holding because of his beliefs, I respect him because of his personality. People need to stop whining about it and see where it applies when he tries to communicate with you knuckleheads.
TBT,
ReplyDelete"Elegant" "Critically objective" "Not possessing a large ego" "Not being manipulative"
These terms hardly describe Holding. Your lack of dedication to truth makes any of your statements suspect, Sir.
Given how Holding delights in pulling wool, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether you are Holding in one of his disguises.
You say you "respect him because of his personality"---see his post to ETB. His personality consists of childish insults, sneering contempt, and avoidance of straight answers.
This is not what one expects from a mature Christian apologist.
These terms hardly describe Holding. Your lack of dedication to truth makes any of your statements suspect, Sir.
ReplyDeleteThose terms hardly describe Loftus, too. Go visit TWeb and examine for yourself if Holding judges people based on their beliefs. And you'll see that you're a fish without water.
Given how Holding delights in pulling wool, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether you are Holding in one of his disguises.
Hmmm...alright. That makes allot of sense. There's no way of proving to you that I'm not Holding, but believe what you want, sir. Aside from the fact that I'm usually active in the evenings, and Holding is typically online in the mornings to afternoons. I know allot of atheists feel the same about America, so to you I say: I shall allow you to believe in your own delusions.
ROFL! So now I'm TBT. This is rich. I see you beat me to giving this a Screwball...NFLP has had one before, IIRC.
ReplyDelete