Seeing as how Brian Flemming doesn't seem to want to come to TheologyWeb to debate me, I've decided to hang him in absentia, so to speak. The following is on an extended diatribe-defense of his that appeared on a debate/blog with a fellow who calls himself "centuri0n" (and with whom, we have no dealings personally). We skip past two paragraphs of explanatory introduction and move to the meat:

PROBABILITY VS. CERTAINTY -- This section is partly non-controversial setup which we will not dispute in principle; eg, that probability can lead to a default for an argument. Otherwise Flemming plays the arrogance card:

In contrast, a fully indoctrinated member of a religious group does not consider evidence in this manner. An indoctrinated member of a religion takes the approach that the core assumptions of the religion are certainly true, and any argument against them must compete with presumed absolute certainty.

Wow, that's some argument. As good as this one:

In contrast, a fully indoctrinated member of an atheist group does not consider evidence in this manner. An indoctrinated atheist takes the approach that the core assumptions of atheism are certainly true, and any argument against them must compete with presumed absolute certainty.

For example: A Christ-myther already knows that the core premises of his thesis are true. If you challenge a Christ-myther to demonstrate that their thesis is valid, the Christ-myther will demand that you prove it doesn't--and set the bar at an impossible height. The mythicist is already certain that Jesus did not exist, so he or she does not feel the need to examine the cases pro and con and evaluate the evidence according to what is most probable. Compared to certainty, probability means little.

The myther, when confronted by challenges to the core dogma of their thesis, defensively and irrationally respond by raising the bar. They win the argument ahead of time by demanding that all challenges compete with certainty.

I didn't prove a thing with this "argument" and neither did Flemming with his -- it's all just childishness, which is one of Flemming's stocks in trade. But it is said just as easily of the likes of Earl Doherty and Robert Price.

RAISING THE BAR -- Flemming's nitpicking semantic diatribe over differences between "similar to" and "derives from" and "blatantly plagiarizes" interests us little here. We do not demand Xerox-like similarity, but we do have scholarly standards of the sort Miller documents here. With those in mind, when will Flemming take up the gauntlet of challenges our series here offers? He won't -- he's barely at the level of using Graves' 16 Crucified Saviors and the bogus Orpehus amulet. (Or, perhaps he will say we are "raising the bar too high" by asking that he answer what is offered by credentialed scholars.)

WHAT IS ENOUGH TO AROUSE SUSPICION? Flemming says, For the disinterested nonbeliever, it is clearly enough to arouse suspicion that the Jesus story is similar to prior god stories. That much is true: For the usual "disinterested nonbeliever" hasn't done enough research to make an informed judgment about such things, and so they resort to the hasty conclusion that the other version "of the dying and rising god is most probably a fiction like all the others appear to be." For the educated researcher, however, choice #3 is the most attractive: 3) The alleged similarities are overbroad, or else too late to be of relevance to comparison to Jesus. And if Flemming thinks otherwise, when will he show up on TheologyWeb to defend one or more of his specific candidates (like -- cough! -- Beddru of Japan)?

It speaks for itself that Flemming resorts to the "fundy atheist" version of "Satan stole my car keys" by appealing vaguely to "an urge to tell this timeless tale" and of an "apparent psychological need" which he has no documentation for. It is also a poor substitute for actually dealing in specifics of the named figures (Mithra, etc), of which he will do little here, and what little he does do, is racked with error (see below).

RELIGIOUS FANATICS WILL MAKE STUFF UP Yet more childish reasoning from Flemming, which we will simply turn on its head:

And, the fact is, atheists have been known to make stuff up. This doesn't mean they always do, but it must be considered a reasonable possibility, especially with regard to claims that a) help their irreligion, and b) are not corroborated by outside sources.

Most of this isn't a coherent argument at all, and is filled with hidden premises: Why limit the schema to "religious fanatics" (why not expand it to "humans" or "fanatical humans")? What constitutes a "fanatic" in the first place? What does "stuff" mean? Why is the category not more specific? Flemming will no doubt again say that we are "raising the bar too high" for his abilities to answer, but that is his problem, for what he has done is not simply put the bar on the ground so he can jump it, but bury it beneath 300 feet of earth. These last statements of his are vague and worthless in terms of epistemic evaluation.

The last bit, however, tends towards an actual argument of substance, with this offered as a specific:

That Luke is written in a style that suggests "history" means little. If you disagree, Joseph Smith has a factual account of his experiences with the angel Moroni that he would like you to read. That's "history," too.

To begin, Flemming fails to consider the obvious alternative that Smith had some experience that he THOUGHT was objectively real, so that "history" can truly say "Smith met Moroni" but with the caveat that the cause is another matter. (eg, it is a historical likelihood that Smith DID unearth something that could be identified with his "gold plates" but that they were not what he honestly thought they were). And here of course it is. In reply for Smith, one may point to various problems with Mormonism; and fairly, a critic may try to claim problems in Luke. That of course is a matter we have pursued here for years, but we do not expect Flemming to wish to lift himself high enough to cross that bar or any other on this site.

We know that religious fanatics will make stuff up. This is not a prejudice. A prejudice would be: "Everything religious fanatics say is always untrue." Or: "Religious fanatics make stuff up, except for my religious fanatics."

Despite the denials, Flemming's formulation does reflect a prejudice that he is merely trying to sneak in under the semantic door, as it were, by adding language of qualification. He wants to assert that "religious fanatics" (whatever that means) are inventors so that he can tar with the brush of prejudice while semantically getting away with not doing so. There is a poor attempt here to create plausible deniability for a clear prejudice (the same as he has used Graves' list and the Orpheus amulet, it seems). He is not expressing it "as a possibility to be seriously considered" but as a prejudice he wishes to insert on the sly. It seems likely that Flemming used this sort of dishonesty when he professed to be a Christian, and that in that sense the leopard has not changed those spots at all.

WHERE SHOULD THE BAR BE PLACED? Here at least Flemming admits:

However, it is important not to place the bar too high on proving Jesus' existence. Because the claim that a man existed is not extraordinary, the evidence for his existence does not have to be extraordinary.

With that, Flemming says he will go and look for "ordinary evidence" and that will come after a diversion.

BEFORE THE FIRST CENTURY -- The contents here are a vague and generally uninformative (even erroneous) look at "salvation cults". Little in the way of arguments are offered, but such as can be commented upon:

Before we get to the beginning of the first century, we should establish a few things we know about the period immediately preceding it. We know that in the Roman Empire, there were several popular "salvation cults," sometimes known as "the mysteries." They shared many common attributes, such as sacred meals and baptisms in which the initiate could be "reborn."

As when we addressed the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth page, there is much in the way of obfuscation here. See here on baptism and here on sacred meals.

Each god offered a pathway to eternal life. Mithra was an intermediary between the world of evil and the world of good, and his heroic actions in that intermediate realm were the ticket to a pleasant afterlife. Attis' suffering by castration guaranteed passage to paradise for his followers.

On "eternal life" see here. On the specifics, we can see why Flemming is scared to deal in them from this. He is without support on Mitrha, as we wrote:

As one Mithraic scholar put it, Mithraism "surely offered its initiates deliverance from some awful fate to which all other men were doomed, and a privileged passage to some ultimate state of well-being." [MS.470] Why is this a good guess? Not because Mithraism borrowed from Christianity, or Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, or anyone borrowed from anyone, but because if you don't promise your adherents something that secures their eternity, you may as well give up running a religion and go and sell timeshares in Alaska! In practical terms, however, the only hard evidence of a "salvational" ideology is a piece of graffiti found in the Santa Prisca Mithraeum (a Mithraist "church" building, if you will), dated no earlier than 200 AD, that reads, "And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood." [Spie.MO, 45; Gor.IV, 114n; Verm.MSG, 172] Note that this refers to Mithra spilling the blood of the bull -- not his own -- and that (according to the modern Mithraic "astrological" interpretation) this does not mean "salvation" in a Christian sense (involving freedom from sin) but an ascent through levels of initiation into immortality.

Flemming of course would not care for us to know about these very critical differences in the details, as he prefers to confront average Christians on the street, not credentialed scholars. On Attis he errs even more greatly, as we note here:

In a study devoted entirely to the subject of "soteriology" in the Attis cult, Gasparro finds no "explicit statements about the prospects open to the mystai of Cybele and Attis" and "little basis in the documents in our possession" for the idea of "a ritual containing a symbology of death and resurrection to a new life." [Gasp.AAO, 82] Put it bluntly: Attis was no savior, and was never recognized as such. The closest we get to this is from a writer named Damascius (480-550 AD!) who had a dream in which a festival of Attis celebrated "salvation from Hades" (see more below). We also see some evidence of Attis as a protector of tombs (as other gods also were, guarding them from violation); use of Attis with reference to grief and mourning -- but when it comes to the gravestones of devotees of Cybele and Attis, they are "all equally oblivious to special benefits the future life guaranteed by such a religious status." [Gasp.Sot, 90-4]. Attis may indeed have been raised somehow (see below), but it didn't do us any good!

In other words, it is false to say that "Attis' suffering by castration guaranteed passage to paradise for his followers" -- this is a simply bogus claim.

A LONG SILENCE -- this is the meat of Flemming's diatribe, and naturally it is filled with arguments that show a patent unawareness of the ancient world.

A book written by the Great Teacher himself (who should have been capable of and motivated to write it) would also be useful. But, inexplicably, Jesus apparently did not write this book.

It is not "inexplicable" at all to anyone with an ounce of education in the culture of the Greco-Roman world. There are two factors that should be taken into account:

1. The prevalence of orality over writing in ancient society. Today transmitting something orally is considered equal with not relaying it in a trustworthy manner, and we demand to see things "in writing" before we believe them. As hard as it may seem to believe, exactly the opposite was true in ancient times. Ancient literacy was no higher than 10 percent at any given time, so the primary method of communication was oral. Memory capabilities were correspondingly much stronger, so that it can not be said that oral transmission was unreliable, or that because something was important, it "ought to have been written down". Neither Jesus nor anyone else in ancient society would share this modern sentiment. (For more on this, see here. For a full overview of the ancient view of writing as a less-trusted "supplement" to orality, see Tony Lentz, Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece.)
2. The role of scribes. Related to this, the rarity of literacy made for an excellent business of scribal activity! And the paradigm of the day did NOT require that a teacher be the one writing down his own works -- rather, he would hire a scribe to do it as he recited his teachings. The role of Matthew in this regard is quite obvious and mirrrors precisely the scribe/teacher relationship of Jeremiah and his faithful scribe Baruch.

   This point is further elucidated by Achtemeier in his article "Omne Verbatim Sonat" (JBL, 109, 1990, 3-27). He stresses that in antiquity the "normal mode of composition" was to dictate to a scribe. "Dictation was recommended over writing in one's own hand by Dio Chrysostem, and famous personages, we are told, were regularly accompanied by a slave prepared at any time to take dictation" -- even if they were on horseback, or in the public baths! Though there was some disagreement on this preference (Quintillian preferred writing himself to dictation), it is clear that Jesus "doing it himself" was not a requirement.

Documents written by his disciples, who apparently believed that he was the son of God, would also be both expected and valuable. But of 12 disciples, exactly none apparently wrote their own accounts of the Messiah they personally knew.

Flemming of course presumes to argue that Matthew, John, and Mark (writing down Peter's words) do not come from such sources, and if he wishes to engage that matter, he can address this (he won't). As it is, three or four accounts is what we would expect at most (as from disciples of Socrates). Flemming merely offers the soundbite:

In my own research, I have noted that the vast majority of those who identify as Christians falsely believe that the gospels were written by actual disciples of Jesus. A sin of omission by Christian leaders, most of whom know better, keeps this widespread false belief alive.)

Then perhaps Flemming would care to enlighten us as to his answer to our material, by which the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels is far better than it is for that of any secular work of ancient times.

THE FIRST JESUS -- This is where Flemming pulls the Doherty out of the hat (or somewhere else, perhaps) and following an allusion to dying and rising savior gods who "exist" only in a spiritual realm (itself an error, others have said, saying that these gods were believed to have been on earth; but we make it of no matter to our case) and a repeat of his Mithra and Attis errors, Flemming offers two options:

1. Paul knew about the Jesus described in the gospels but manages to write 80,000 words without exposing this knowledge.

2. Paul writes 80,000 words without mentioning the gospel stories because be doesn't know the gospel stories.

Flemming forgot a few more options:

3. Paul had absolutely no reason to mention any of these things in much of his correspondence.

4. Paul did mention many of these things, but it takes a ream of excuses to explain them away.

5. Paul was a member of a "high context society" in which broad background knowledge could be taken for granted.

We discuss these answers in detail here and here. We expect Flemming will continue to pretend that these rebuttals do not exist.

TAKE A SNAPSHOT -- Having assumed to prove his case, Flemming merely sums it up. Then in:

ENTER THE HISTORICAL CHRIST -- he builds on this assumption of victory on prior issues (Pauline silence, late gospels) to explain that a new version of Christ as historical popped up. By what means?

It's called "midrash."

It isn't unusual that a religion under these circumstances would develop allegorical literature that turned into history with subsequent revisions. And the pattern conforms to what we would expect: The first gospel is allegorical and incomplete, then later writings display more confidence that they are recording history (as their authors probably believed they were). If one is to claim this pattern is unusual, one must deny virtually the entire category of story known as legend.

Actually, this is a very poor definition of "midrash" and the view of the Gospels as such, popularized by Spong, fails miserably. But in light of the defeat of Flemming's earlier premises, his case does not get as far as being able to suggest this as an option.

THE VERY LATE EVIDENCE -- This is where Flemming plays his games with the secular references, and what little he offers has the usual errors. "Very late" he says? Then we may throw out Tacitus' accounts of the reign of Augustus wholesale? What of Robert Price's appeal to the sixth century Toledeth Yeshu for material about a Jesus that was 700 years earlier by its account? Flemming of course has no semblance of consistency here; he merely rushes his case past as quickly and with as few details as possible.

Noting Josephus and Tacitus, Flemming says there's no reason to expect that either performed a serious investigation to verify any claims. In a sense I agree, because I think knowledge of Jesus was part of common knowledge, indisputable and without any question of whether he existed even possible. Nevertheless, as for Flemming's two options:

1. Josephus and Tacitus never seriously investigated the gospel origins and only passed on a brief synopsis that any observer would have related at that point in history.

2. Josephus and Tacitus performed serious investigations of the gospel origins only to mention Jesus in passing.

We offer:

3. Tacitus and Josephus didn't need to perform serious investigations about the simple facts they reported because they were common knowledge. However, a) Tacitus was a competent and serious researcher who, if needed, would and could have done what investigation was needed; b) Josephus, though not as thorough a researcher, was reasonably competent and was also a resident of Judaea and Galilee who would have been aware of it if there had been any question of Jesus not existing or any reason to suspect that he didn't.

When Flemming says "reason will lead to a different evaluation of these statements than faith" we fail to see how he arrived at that, unless "reason" is defined as "doing as little homework as possible."

THE EARLY CHURCH ADMITS DECEIT -- Flemming poses:

Historical accuracy was most certainly not the first priority for the early church. Church father Eusebius probably puts it best in his own words: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

No specific application is made to the Christ myth, but I have seen that many atheists uncritically abuse this quote from Eusebius. A far more sober treatment is found here. Flemming merely uncrtically follows the line of Gibbon, to which Pearse replied:

I think we can see that v.2 is the bit that Gibbon has used. But does it mean what Gibbon says? Or is Eusebius, faced with a huge amount of material for contemporary events, simply honestly stating that from here on he won't cover everything, but only those which are in some way useful to know about, whether positive, or negative but with a useful moral, and for the rest stick to general statements? It seems as if that the latter is more consistent with the context, although one could make out some sort of case that Gibbon is misrepresenting something that is really there in Eusebius. But is the idea that Gibbon is making in Eusebius' mind at all? Surely he's thinking about writing something useful to his public?

HOW TO DENY THE OBVIOUS -- there's little need to address, now, Flemming's childish comparison to the "Bat Boy". But it's hardly surpising that this is the section he spends the most time on. Itr is little more than a poor attempt to validate his lack of scholarship and addressing of details on figures like Mithra.

CONCLUSION -- It is truly ironic to see a Christ-myther pontificating in terms of how an irrational belief system greatly increases the odds that a debater will throw these kinds of stones in my path. But now comments on his conclusions:

1. I do not claim there is a Xerox-like similarity between the gospels and any previously existing literature. And we do not demand one. But we do demand that scholarly standards be observed, and Flemming, who cannot even get simple points about Mithra and Attis right, isn't coming close.

2. I do claim that demanding this kind of evidence is simply a distraction from relevant points of argument. We're not demanding "that kind of evidence" but with the kind of errors Flemming is making on the most simple matters, even our bar -- that of integrity, honesty, and accuracy -- seems to high for him as well.

3. I do claim that setting the bar in the appropriate place (on both sides of the question) is necessary for an honest and productive discussion. Which in light of the above, and Flemming's use of dishonest tactics and errors about the simplest things (eg, there being NO records left from Pilate's court), tells us that there will be no such discussion from him, nor intent for one.

4. I do claim that the bar for being suspicious of the Jesus story's authenticity is that it is similar to prior stories of dying and rising gods. "Similar" is a weasel word that allows a dishonest interpreter like Flemming to pick and choose among what he thinks ought to be suspicious. But really, he can't get even that far when he can't get the mosr basic data correct.

5. I do not claim that this similarity alone makes the complete case against a historical Jesus--it only increases the probability that Jesus is fictional. Well and well. So when will he step out and answer us?

6. I do claim that if the Jesus story is true, there should be some evidence from his lifetime and just after that is not present. Of course, and there is -- he just makes every excuse he can (via the proxy of the likes of Doherty, who we have answered, and who has failed in turn to reply to the bulk of what we have said) to get rid of it.

7. I do not claim that this absence of evidence alone makes the case--it only increases the probability that Jesus is fictional. It would, perhaps, if true.

8. I do claim that Paul's and the early Christians' apparent ignorance of the bulk of the Jesus narrative is legitimate grounds for being further suspicious of the eventual Jesus story's authenticity. As noted, this is simply lack of knowledge of the nature of Paul's society, as well as making excuses for clear references like 1 Thess. 2:14-16.

9. I do not claim that this factor alone makes the case--it only increases the probability that Jesus is fictional. Perhaps true, if the background premise is valid, which it is not.

10. I do claim that the late arrival of the first alleged biography of Jesus, and the even later arrival of significant updates to that biography, are legitimate grounds for being even further suspicious of the Jesus story's authenticity. And we claim that Flemming merely follows uncritically what is said about dates and authorship of the Gospels, and has neither the means nor the ability to defend his views.

11. I do not claim that this late-arrival factor alone makes the case--it only increases the probability that Jesus is fictional. Ditto.

12. I do claim that the Jesus story's strong conformity to a "hero pattern" that the writers of stories of gods and heroes have been driven to use since long before Jesus is grounds to believe that it is more likely that the Jesus story is a product similar to those previous products than that it is an authentic historical (or supernatural) coincidence. And we say in turn that this "strong conformity" is an illusion, as documented in Licona's response.

13. I do not claim that this factor alone makes the case--it only increases the probability that Jesus is fictional. Ditto.

14. I do claim that midrash can partially explain the creation of the gospels. We reply that Flemming has a poor conception of the uses and creation of "midrash" and no controlling thesis that would also not make it possible to render any history we like into midrash.

15. I do not claim that this factor alone makes the case--it only increases the probability that the gospels are fictional. Ditto.

I should mention that the above essay merely skims some conclusions that I have reached in my own research. This essay is by no means a comprehensive representation of the mythicist case, nor is The God Who Wasn't There, which is merely an introduction to the case. Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier and others (none of whom I speak for here) have made the case and various facets of it more comprehensively and far better than I can. I would encourage readers of the DebateBlog to experience these works directly, especially if you fear them. Well, bad news for Flemming....for all those people, we have been there, done that, the direct experience resulted in far more of laughter than it did fear. But by now it is clear that Flemming refuses to take his own advice and "experience" debate with us directly.

On May 9, Flemming posted an item in his blog which constitutes the ultimate act of cowardice on his part. The matter was introduced thusly:

So you want to debate me...So you would like to challenge me about the claims I make in The God Who Wasn't There?

No problem. But please understand that I get a lot of these requests, and I can't waste my time arguing with people who are not open to changing their minds or who haven't developed enough familiarity with the material.

So just download and sign this "Statement of Belief" PDF, have it notarized, then mail it to Beyond Belief Media. Then we can talk.

If you are unable to sign the Statement, we cannot talk any further, for one or both of the following reasons:

1) You are not familiar enough with the facts to be ready for a meaningful discussion at this time.

2) Your capacity to understand the facts is so compromised by your religious ideology that a conversation with you would be pointless.

We'll comment on this "Statement of Belief" in a moment, but to begin a few things become clear. The first is that Flemming is clearly seeking excuses to avoid debating informed Christians. Avoidance is his tactic, just as it was when he did his "man on the street" interviews and avoided credentialed scholars with opposing views. Note as well the supposition inherent here: That if you disagree with his views, it must be because you "haven't developed enough familiarity with the material". Flemming's arrogance is such that he has no conception that someone who IS thoroughly familiar with the material could possibly disagree with him!

A second thought is the caveat about "open to changing their minds." I have doubts that any debate scenario anywhere has ever made such a ludicrous and self-centered delineation. At the same time, has it eluded Flemming that debates have audiences? Is he going to make all the people who want to watch a debate with him and someone else sign a "Statement of Belief" too? This makes it quite clear that what we have here is a contrived excuse to avoid debate, not a genuine concern to change the minds of others.

And of course, item 2) above is another example of the sort of childish, easily reversible statement that Flemming could have blown right back at him, with the word "irreligious" instead.

Now let's comment on this "Statement of Belief" Flemming wants to use as a shield to hide behind:

I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

The requirement, as 1) above, begs the question that Flemming's case is decisive. In other words, you are essentially being asked to acknowledge that Flemming is right about the case for Jesus not being solid, which is the very issue to be debated! Creationists have never demanded that evolutionists sign a "Statement of Belief" that says, "It is possible that evolution is not true" and would rightly scorn such an imposition as a debate trick. That's all that this is.

Is it "possible" Jesus did not exist? I have weighed the evidence, which Flemming refuses to deal with me on. The only way this statement could be affirmed in good conscience is if I added the caveat, "in the same sense it is 'possible' that Brian Flemming is an Arcturan vole bat."

I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life.

While this is true, the question presupposes an argument that only "evidence that dates to the time" of one's life counts for anything. All of this of course would mean that there is some issue over, eg, Tacitus writing about Nero 50-70 years after his death, which there is not. So while it could be affirmed as it stands, it begs enormous questions of historical epistemology.

I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.

I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.

I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition.

I leave these three together for they represent the most clear place in which Flemming is obviously trying to avoid debating a critical premise. Of course this is one place where he might say that "consensus" agrees with the view implied (it doesn't, not to the extent of his role model, Doherty); but if that is so, then he needs to remove either these or item 1 above ("it is possible Jesus did not exist") because item 1 stands against a stronger and even broader consensus. And so Flemming would have to fairly acknowledge that it is "possible" that there are written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ; that the names of the Gospels were NOT added well after their composition, that there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers, and that some of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition. As it is, it becomes clear that Flemming wants you to assume he is right on this before he'll agree to debate you, and that is simply cowardice and the very sort of closed-mindedness he says will make him avoid debating you.

I believe the Bible is not infallible.

While I could not sign this, it hardly means a meaningful debate cannot be had; most of what I would argue simply uses the Bible as one would use any histiorical work like the Annals of Tacitus.

I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up. The words are somewhat weaselly (how "common"?) but in any event, as noted above, this reflects a prejudice by Flemming.

I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions. Likewise vague and weaselly; but only KJVO fundies would say that Christianity was not influenced by Judaism, or that Christianity did not "trump" pagan art by doing things like redrawing Mithra killing the bull as Samson killing a lion. The vagueness hides the issue of means and direction of influence, as well as its significane.

I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false. Obviously -- such as, "Jesus was born Dec. 25th."

I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity. Vague as well ("significant"? how?) and also would exclude the Resurrection, if taken literally. If so, Flemming has now made it so that he will never debate any Christian! At the best he'll debate someone like John Shelby Spong.

So what's it boil down to? Flemming could have made it simpler by making his Statement of Belief read:

"I believe that Brian Flemming is right and that he will win any debate."

So it is that Flemming's Ultimate Act of Cowardice emerges.

Yep, we sure did get under Flemming's skin this time; we're now to the point where he's been forced to acknowledge our existence, and as a celebratory gesture he has graciously given us directions to his mouth and even placed his foot inside for us. To wit, in his personal blog under the title, "Christian apologist J.P. Holding admits that Jesus never existed" we have the following:

This is a stunner. Talk about strange bedfellows.

A notorious Christian apologist named J.P. Holding has admitted that the case made in The God Who Wasn't There is so solid that he could not refute it in a debate. He has backed out of a former debate challenge by stating:

I believe that Brian Flemming is right and that he will win any debate.

Wow.

Of course, as you probably suspect, that's not the whole story. Mr. Holding is being sarcastic in the above statement. He says that if he signed the required Statement of Belief, that would be the same thing as saying, "I believe that Brian Flemming is right."

But that tells us a lot right there, doesn't it?

He's essentially said this:

If the propositions in the Statement of Belief are true, Jesus did not exist.

I don't see how it could be read any other way. J.P. Holding is essentially admitting that without the supernatural trump card, his position loses.

Well, do allow us to correct that "essentially".

Flemming is right on one key point: I was being sarcastic. But far more sarcastic than he thinks I was.

Indeed, this toon tells the story just as clearly to those with eyes to see. No, I did not say "[i]f the propositions in the Statement of Belief are true, Jesus did not exist." I said, "Brian Flemming is a despicable coward who wants to place critical elements of the debate off limits in order to avoid being shown up for an incompetent hack who can't defend his prize position."

Arguably, one COULD sign off on Flemming's statement and still debate the existence of Jesus. A liberal Christian, GakeusiDon, has indicated that he could sign off on more than I could (but still not all of them; perhaps only Spong could do that). But the trickery is manifest in that Flemming has been aware of our challenges for quite some time; and the "Statement of Belief" is carefully circumscribed to make it so that I in particular (to say nothing of any informed opponent) could not sign it in good conscience.

No "supernatural trump card" is needed. I didn't use any "supernatural trump card" when I laid Earl Doherty out to dry years ago, and I don't need one here. Indeed, other than the last entry in Flemming's "Statement" (which, as noted, if read literally rules out debate with ANY Christian at all!), none of the matters require any supernaturalism for any consideration, so the premise tendered is bogus to begin with.

My sarcasm is far more poignant than Flemming, in retaining his fundamentalist mindset even as an atheist, believed: His cowardice is so great that he may as well ask us to concede all points before we will debate him. And wouldn't that be lovely for him?

He goes on:

No rational person familiar with the facts could disagree with the Statement of Belief. Every one of those assertions is as obvious as "Brian Flemming takes enormous glee in manipulating Christian lunatics." The only way not to believe them is to use the magic of faith.

And yet, if it is so obviously "rational" and so in accord with "the facts" then why doesn't Flemming emerge from his roach hole and take some glee in catching me flat-footed in public debate by means of his incredible mastery of "rationality" and "the facts"? He won't (even if he could get the definition of faith correct). Why not? Because he is an unconscionable coward who runs from his problems -- as he did when he was a professing Christian, so he is now.

For the record, J. P. Holding has his own hobbies in which he takes enormous glee, that is quite germane here: I enjoy crushing arrogantly ignorant Skeptical insects. Let it speak for itself that out of the dozens of statements and claims of fact in this and other places we have addressed which have direct bearing on Flemming's arguments, he chose to touch NONE of them at all.

That certainly sounds like someone who is "rational" and a master of "the facts," does it not? Heh heh. You know it is. (HEAVY use of sarcasm, for the sarcasm-impaired.)

One more bit:

(Oh, and here's a window, possibly, into why J.P. Holding has a fixation on my movie. Imagine that you thought your eternal happiness was dependent on the whim of a notably temperamental sky god. And now imagine this sky god Googled you. Would He understand the meaning of "Sponsored Links"?)

The apparent meaning of this is that when one does this, Flemming's movie website appears as a sponsored link. Frankly, I pay no attention to advertisements; this is news to me, though anyone who has to pay for attention from Google admits their own desperation from the very beginning since they can't get Google's attention by proper means (eg, having quality and traffic as a result). For all I knew, a Google search of my name would have produced a "Sponsored Link" for Meet Cartoonists in Your Area. In any event, the "eternal happiness/tempermental sky god" routine doesn't describe our beleif system, though it reflects no doubt the caricatured system Flemming held to as a sub-par believer. Call ours the system of the predictable patron/suzerain God responsible for the honor ratings of His subjects.

So, what then in close?

We're not done yet by far. Flemming had best dig an even deeper roach hole for himself.