Part 3: JP Holding's defense of ...Real Jesus

I wasn't planning on doing another response to Holding and dedicate my time to better things. But, his latest rant is so deliciously stupid that I just can't resist. Holding doesn't show any respect to skeptics, so I afford him none. But, I've skipped the expletives here at the request of some visitors. Though I do sometimes make use of Battlestar Gallactica expletive substitutes. (BSG rocks!)

That, and Derrek Bennett wanted to respond to his portion. So, I'll first include his response, and then my own response to the rest of Holding's rant. Here Derrek's response:

Holding: So once again, PJ wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to create parallels with vague, general language and out of timeless elements; you can point these out all you want, but they mean nothing in terms of dependence.

So, despite the commonalities between Stoicism and Christianity, there are notable differences; therefore, Stoicism cannot have influenced Christian ideas, and to say so is simply a matter of eating the delicious cake I ordered. Got it.

Holding: Derreck Bennett didn't even have the guts to show up on TWeb to debate us...oh well.

Oh well, sure, why don’t I come play on your turf? While I’m at it, I think I’ll drop by the ghetto waving a confederate flag…. Derreck: What we are essentially talking about here is the critical difference between matters of superficial COINCIDENCE and matters of genuine INFLUENCE.

Holding: Sure Dreck, but you see, idiots like you will always CLAIM there is influence, even without a lick of evidence. The heart of these sorts of theories is to point to the similarity and yell, "INFLUENCE!" until all your windows break. Good point. Stoicism and Christianity comprise similar ideologies, and both are a product of the Hellenistic age. The same can be said for the Greco-Roman mystery cults and Christianity -- similar concepts of soteriology and ritual along with common geographic and historical ties -- but we certainly cannot infer influence. I’m just breaking windows to allow for a cool breeze. Derreck: Religion, on the other hand, is like any other manmade phenomena. It is highly subject to influence. Language is a perfect analogy. There are commonalities between English, Spanish, German, French and Italian because they are linguistically rooted in Greek, Latin and other ancient languages.

Holding: Oh, so the logic is -- what? 1) Where manmade phenomena are concerned, similarity is always the result of influence. Not necessarily; but, if there are demonstrable links, influence is not a far-fetched hypothesis. Religion and language, as manmade phenomena developed for the purpose of structure and understanding, are both naturally subject to influence. To argue that Christianity is exempt from influence is tantamount to suggesting that English developed independently of other languages. Holding: 2) Religion is a manmade phenomenon. Oh, all of them except for Christianity. My bad; I forgot. Same thing with the natural religious phenomenon of syncretism -- only happens in other religions. I’m terribly glib. Holding: 3) Therefore, any similarities are because of influence. Really. I had no idea. Er, by the way -- isn't history a manmade phenomenon? Aren't Presidential elections manmade? Then why isn't that date correspondence a case of influence? Duh ah.... Excellent point, Holding. Bearing that in mind, the date correspondences between JFK and Lincoln could certainly be said to be a matter of influence -- in a naturalistic rather than conspiratorial or metaphysical sense. In other words, the overarching domain of influence that is the American political system naturally rendered dates of similarity between the two presidents. Not that one influenced the other, but that both are a product of the same domain. Perhaps that’s why religions, as manmade phenomena expressing common concerns of life, death, creation, salvation, immortality, etc., are also subject to similarities based on common influences. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Derreck: … consider Martin A. Larson's brilliant summary of the historical development of Christianity...

Holding: MARTIN LARSON! Martin Larson was a Grade A nutcase with no relevant credentials in the field of Biblical scholarship. He's so nutty he's used by people like Acharya S as a source. Dreck quotes a paragraph of his babble claiming influence from various figures like Osiris...see it debunked here. Holding’s typical brand of ad hom. Rather than try and dispute the content of the quote, he just insults the author. Then, he provides a link to his page full of defenses against potential Christian antecedents, like Osiris, where he plays up the differences between pagan figures and Jesus in an attempt to dispel the notion of influence. And how does he do so? Straw-man style, of course! He scrutinizes the dubious claims of the likes of Acharya S -- something a fifth grader could do -- then revels in his false sense of victory as usual. (And, no, it’s not Dr. Larson’s fault that Acharya S would extract elements from his work, then go on to make unsubstantiated claims of her own.) Further, the paragraph I quoted has a lot more substance than just “various figures like Osiris.” It encompasses several key philosophies and ideologies, as well as various cultures and contributors. But, Holding would rather wallow in ignorance than address them. Holding: PJ also quotes the non-entity of scholarship Earl Doherty:
Derreck: One major factor is the nature of the data being paralleled. There is a great difference between the data in the JFK/Lincoln case and the data in the Jesus/savior gods case.
Holding: Oh really, Earl? How?
Derreck: Each of the features attributed to Jesus and the other deities we can identify as serving a purpose, and they all form part of a coherent whole within the framework of mythical expression. The same is not true of the data in regard to JFK and Lincoln. None of the elements show any purpose at all, neither for elevating status nor casting some significance on the lives of the figures.
Holding: Gee, Earl, really? No purpose? Of course they show purpose. All of them were imitations intended to show that JFK was just like Lincoln, only better. You say, There is a big difference between being born in a given year and being born miraculously. The latter has theological significance whereas the former does not. You just don't get it, do you? The gods arranged it so that JFK was born in that precise year he was, in order to establish that he was Lincoln's rightful heir. Or maybe the historians purposely said he was born that year. And what about all those other parallels? Such as that both died before a major holiday (but Lincoln died before a better one, Easter, which connected him to Jesus)? No, Holding, you don’t get it. You are correct in that the similarities between JFK and Lincoln are drawn for the purpose of alluding to some conspiracy theory or underlying metaphysical connection between the two presidents. None of which is true. Nor is it true in regard to the similarities between Jesus and other pagan figures, but no-one is making that claim! (Unless their name is Acharya S.) There is no conspiracy theory at hand. There is no underlying metaphysical connection, despite the claims of C.S. Lewis (yeah, I said it). There is only the matter of natural influence weaving its way through legend and mythology. Holding: Are we getting the point, PJ? The whole "copycat" case is a fraud, a case of making up connections, equivocating on terms (which is what Geering does with his bit on "resurrection" and "salvation"). And even if Earl is right, none of this changes that it is the method of making comparisons, and then assigning them validity, that is under criticism. Oops, that‘s right. I forgot. Making up connections -- that’s what we’re doing. Sort of like I made up the connection between Christianity’s geographic and historical emergence, and that of the Greco-Roman mystery cults. Boy, do I have an imagination!
Holding: We say most of the parallels drawn between Jesus and eg, Osiris are one of two things, mainly: 1) just plain false; 2) cases of equivocation (as with his "resurrection"). But a few such parallels are also coincidence -- a very small number, actually. You'll notice Earl is very short on specifics -- for good reason. See the series linked above and see if you can answer better than Acharya can. It includes answers on Tammuz and Osiris. Good luck, PJ. You'll need it.
I’ve seen the series “linked above”. You did a great job smashing a non-authority like Acharya. What do you want -- a cookie?
Holding: Jacobsen claims there is some "double standard" at work because one interviewee touts the "early" copies of the NT in the second century, and then another interviewee dismisses possible pagan influence because the copies of the pagan documents we have are too "late" because they are from the second century! He is forgetting that the former matter is one that is comparative (the NT versus other documents) whereas the latter is not.
What is your point? The NT is dated to the 1^st and 2^nd centuries based on content analysis, and the evidence for the pagan documents in question date from the 2^nd century. So, this proves unequivocally that Christian ideologies of resurrection and salvation predate the pagan concepts? Of course, not. And considering the probability of influence upon the 2^nd century pagan documents from far earlier pagan myths (e.g. Tammuz, Baal, Osiris, etc.) your point is moot.

And if we’re gonna talk timelines, we might as well bring Justin Martyr into this. His quotes make it clear that the Greco-Roman parallels predate the Christian narratives. And your best defense is this? http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm#2.1 There, we find the apologetic author merely reinforcing Justin Martyr’s obvious statement -- that the pagans loosely developed their stories from the Hebrew prophets. Yeah, we get it. The problem is, Justin Martyr was wrong. All he does is validate the pre-Christian existence of the pagan parallels. Does he legitimately demonstrate that these parallel myths were drawn from the Hebrew Bible? Nope. Find me something in the Old Testament that explicitly states, without direct reference to the Babylonian Exile, that the Messiah will be born of a virgin to suffer, die and rise again for the salvation of his people in the form of everlasting life. It just isn’t there. Thus, Justin Martyr’s defense was one of desperation, especially in the face of Christian persecution.

What about the parallels with regard to Osiris? Were they stripped from the Hebrew prophets? Golly, I suppose….if the Hebrew Bible was written prior to 2400 B.C.!

And what about Tammuz or the Eleusinian mysteries which date to 1500 B.C.? In each, the deity is “raised” from the underworld -- the abode of the dead. Ever wonder why Jesus was “raised” from the dead -- why he was said to have “risen”? Why didn’t the New Testament writers simply state that he came back to life? Why did they use imagery reminiscent of the earlier pagan myths? Help me out here, Justin Martyr -- where was the Hebrew Bible while these stories were circulating? I guess the Devil made them up.

Thanks, Derreck. Now onto the rest of Holding's lunacy. And, hoo-boy, it don't get much loonier. First up, Holding, abso-fraking-lutely astonishingly asserts that "audience participation" can only help correct a story, never introduce errors:

Holding: No, PJ, it can NOT "increase them."

Oh, for crying out loud. How has every legend that has ever existed in all of human history ever grown? Can you say "audience participation"? I knew you could. One person saying they thing X, somebody else thinks Y, somebody heard Z, *that* is how all legends grow. I've heard some pretty stupid arguments in my day, but nothing quite so brain-damaged as the dreck that Holding comes up with.

Holding bawls that I only addressed one issue of his paper elephant of the Miller article on Loftus' work:

Holding: PJ is barely up to snuff enough to do more than address ONE paragraph of Miller's enormous article.

Well, given that Miller doesn't understand that the issue in question is the time between the events happened and recorded, he obviously hasn't got the slightest clue what he's talking about. Your paper elephant has been hurled into the trash bin and no further comment is required. Get over the fact that your man-crush doesn't know what he's talking about and stop kvetching about it.

Holding: Tacitus is not considered more reliable because he has documented things, but because when he is checked, he is found more often right than wrong

And how is what Tacitus said checked? By his sources, among other things.

Holding: I'm still waiting for something that says testimony MUST be contemporary to be reliable, which is what PJ has been whining for all this time.

There is no set-in-stone rule for exactly how long between the event and the recording to conclude reliability. Something could be written a thousand years later and be right, something could be written five minutes after the fact and be wrong. The rules of historical research are inherently subjective. Which is exactly what Gottschalk says. But contemporary references are overall more reliable than non-contemporary, documented sources are more reliable than non-documented sources, multiple independent attestation is more reliable than single attestation, writings without an overt agenda are more reliable than writings with overt agenda. With all Holding's usual bluster, he can't run from this.

Holding: If you can play the game of "he's lying" then any argument you want is possible

I didn't say he was lying, I said you were reading more into what he said then he actually did say. You say he claims his information is one-step removed. This is more than what he says, he just says the origin was supposed to be witnesses but no claim is made about the number of steps removed. He simply does not say.

But, as far as lying, guess what -- every source must be considered as possibly lying. If you sit on a jury, when you listen to each witness, the possibility of deceit is to be considered. That's just a part of evaluating testimony.

Here, Holding denies having dodged a question of mine:

Holding: PJ thinks I am dodging the question by not saying which I prefer.

As a matter of fact, yeah, I do kind-of think refusing to answer the question asked and answering a question that wasn't asked in order to make it appear you were actually answering the original question does count as "dodging" it. I'm kind-of funny that way. Now answer the fraking question you steaming pile of chicken dung for brains. Nevermind, I really don't give frak what you think.

Holding: He isn't required to. PJ merely invents criteria to suit his own preferences. Skitloads of history is accepted as reliable without all of this rap.

No, its not. Pick up Gottschalk's book, or another reputable book on historical methods, and maybe you might learn something.

Holding: Oh dear. PJ really makes a bonehead of himself on this one, as he appeals to the Rational Responders' website and their presentation of Remsberg's List. Already refuted that.

Holding's "refutation" is a bunch of, "gee, why would these people have had any reason to write about Jesus?" Jesus allegedly drew crowds of thousands, healed and fed thousands, regularly caused uproars where ever he went. On the day he died, there were earthquakes, darkness in the middle of the day, and people getting out of their graves and walking around. AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE HAD THE SLIGHTEST REASON TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS. Holding, maybe you should try your hand at being a comedian, you sure make me laugh. At any rate, the Rational Responders article which I quoted gives good reasons why the people would have been likely interested in the escapades of Jesus and your joke of a refutation doesn't make a dent.

Holding: The collectivist social world of the NT, and the normal procedures of group dynamics, is all the "shown" needed to indicate that such discussions happened; it is up to PJ to show that Christianity was somehow completely different than every other social group, especially of that time

No, you moron. I have no doubt that whatever Christians existed in the first century discussed among themselves what they believed and why. So did first century Jews and Mithrists and what have you. It is you who are doing the special pleading saying the Christians must have got it all right while everybody else was out in left field.

Holding: That's kind of a stupid challenge, since very few holy books even try to report history

That's not really my problem, it's yours. Whatever the reason is for you not having a track-record to rely upon, you still don't have a track-record.

Holding: PJ may take what victories he can claim; "in some cases" is not at all sufficient to prove the point, unless the person NEVER in their lives was not under control of a demon and had the ability to male a choice.

That might be a problem for my position, if that was my claim. It's not. My claim was that at least during the period of demonic possession, the possessed has less opportunity to seek salvation. Of course that is true of many other situations. I might loose my hearing and/or vision, and therefore have less ability to hear and read the Gospel. I might be taken prisoner somewhere locked in a cell and denied access to spiritual materials. I might get Alzheimer's Disease and have less ability to understand what I'm told. Or I might live in a country that doesn't have freedom of religion and restricts access to religions materials. The point being is that everybody (even Holding believe it or not) comes to the best conclusions they can based on what information they have, their intelligence allows for, and their biases allow for. That includes both people that choose to be Christians and those that don't. So for God to choose to "throw souls away" for making the wrong choice is ludicrous.

My phrase, "throw souls away" comes from a Lutheran minister I used to talk to. He said in his younger years he was fundamentalistic. But now he would turn away from the fundamentalist's God who "throws souls away".

Holding: That is all that Ehrman can find in terms of the nature of scribal changes -- no creation of legends, indeed, just clarification of what the text really did mean originally for a new context in which words were given different meanings by those who abused the texts.

This is simply not true. In Ehrman's books one can find many examples of changes that altered the meaning of the text, sometimes based on a theological agenda of the scribe. For example, Ehrman doesn't believe the line where Paul supposedly says that a women must be silent in church is genuine. This line is contradictory to other things that Paul says. Ehrman argues this was a scribal addition by someone with an anti-women agenda. Did you actually read Ehrman or just look at the pictures?

Holding challenges me on my claim that different situations demand different degrees of evidence. He says:

Holding: The rules of evidence are not changed just because we have an interest or stake in what happens,

What is so funny is in his previous responses, he directly confirmed my claim.

Holding: I don't need any evidence that Jacobsen walked to the store because I don't care if he did or not. But I might need more if I did care:

So, one moment, Holding knows that different situations need different evidence, and the next he is aghast that I would assert such a thing. Holding doesn't give a rat's behind about consistency, accuracy or integrity. It's just a game of deny anything the skeptic says even if that means also denying what he himself says. What an ass.

Holding often cites having worked in the prison system. He just might have heard that criminal trials have different standards of evidence than civil suits. And this isn't some mere quirk of the US justice system, it stems naturally from the fact that different situations require different levels of evidence. Are you sure you worked in the prison, and weren't an inmate? Was that thing you thought was your guard uniform possibly a straight-jacket?

Holding charged me with insulating deception on the part of Licona, and yet he gives himself carte blance to call anybody he feels like liars. Holding responds:

Holding: I proved PJ's ineptitude and dissimilitude amply.

My charge wasn't about Holding calling me a liar or whatever. My charge was that he calls any and all skeptics liars. He gives himself carte blanch to do so, but cries like a baby if I merely suggest exaggeration on the part of his man-crush. More of the Holding double-standards.

In regards to prophesy validation procedures, I challenged him to come up with a better standard. His response:

Holding: Gee, how about -- a prophecy is shown valid if it is true and done before the fact? That was hard.

No, moron, I explained why in my paper what this isn't sufficient. I can predict there will be a war in the future, and I invariably will be right. I could predict something somewhat more specific than that, like a war between two specific peoples -- but if I'm given thousands of years for it to come true then it hardly qualifies as a prediction. If I predict something even more specific, but that I am in position to make it happen, that also would not qualify as a prophesy. These things are obvious, and exactly what I said to begin with. His answer to my challenge is utterly laughable. What a complete moron.

Holding: So how about the Jews in the cellar then? Which absolute do you follow? 1) Preserve human life. 2) Tell the truth. Duh ah...oh....

That's why I don't believe in moral absolutes. It is you that claim that there are absolute morals, and now you have to retreat from it.

In regards to my references of Caildini about what has happened in previous cases where definitive proof against specific religious beliefs arose and yet did not quash them, Holding says:

Holding: What evidence? PJ provided no evidence; he merely pulled scenarios out of his bum, with no supporting documentation or scholarship or reason to accept a parallel.

First off, I didn't come up with the scenarios, it was Caildini. I guess he just pulled them out of his bum, right? I guess Caildini just made up the 16th century Anabaptists. It's so lucky we have Holding around to show us how everybody but him is wrong on everything.

To quote an old Dr. Who episode, "I don't think [Holding] is as stupid as he appears. Nobody could be". Which leads me to believe he knows he's full of bull. Or, maybe he really just is that stupid. I dunno. Well, have a nice go frak yourself. Until next time, love and kisses.