by
J. P. Holding
Offering the Reply to:
Skeptic X
| Home |
Skeptic X: He will not be able to say the same, because
he is not about to take my replies and answer them point by point. And you'll see why here. It's as dull as all get out to reply to all this bombast X produces and the way he uses 5000 words to say what could have been said in 50. This paragraph is a great example.
For one thing, he doesn't have the patience. No one does. That's what X hopes. If he can put you to sleep reading his bombast, you'll never notice he didn't actually make an argument worth beans. I do go through all of X's stuff, though, and in so doing perform the public service of eliminating all that bombast and repetition. I know of no one who enjoys combing through X's articles other than X himself and a few of his loyal fans who would think it brilliant if he answered the question, "Name three secular references to Jesus," with the reply, "Peter Piper, Peter Parker, and Peter Principle." It takes patience to go
through a debating opponent's articles as I have done to his, Or a hard head. I will now go through his "Olivet Discourse" article and reply to any sections in it that I didn't specifically address in any of the rebuttal articles I have written so far. About time, 6 months late. Any sections that were previously answered will be deleted to avoid unnecessary repetition, Heaven knows that X, who repeated the Deut. 9 argument only 30 times in Land Promise II, wants to avoid "unnecessary repetition" but it may be that I will go over some points again if I should think of anything that should have been said about them in the other articles. Holding [in his original
article]: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: That Holding was taught the dispensationalist
view is irrelevant to this debate, So why does X see a need to talk about it? I objected to him skipping arguments from my article, not introductory commentary. He still hasn't learned a thing from that EVERYTHING cactus we made him sit on in the Land Promise debate. because that would mean that he is just
one of millions who were taught an incorrect position. If he was
trying to imply that his change from a dispensationalist to a preterist
constitutes some kind of evidence that preterism is true, Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: 1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words. That's clear enough that anyone who can see through cellophane should be able to see it. Well, now we know what X wears on the weekends. I answered this here. X needs to think about the idea that Paul is not using parousia with a capital P. Paul said that those of his readers who were still alive at the "coming of the Lord" would not precede or go before those who had fallen asleep (died), because when the Lord descended, the dead in Christ would be resurrected and then those who were still living would be caught up in the air to meet the Lord. See again the link, even as X repeats himself 100,384 times for effect. The New Testament clearly taught that the general resurrection would accompany the return of Jesus, so if Holding believes that the Lord came in AD 70, why doesn't he believe that the resurrection happened then? Repeats himself for the 786,867th time. This is what he thinks I'm skipping: repeated blather. I'm sure he will tell us that we would understand this if we just knew biblical idioms and the culture of the times as well as he does. Not idioms and culture this time, but try word usage. No doubt, he will claim that being "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" was just "apocalyptic" language that wasn't intended to be taken literally. No, that would be the pantelist view, actually. It's funny that X thinks I'll respond with the very view that I work against in other quarters. Meanwhile this is still a diversion, since the subject is the fulfillment of the O. Discourse. Theoertically Jesus could be right and Paul wrong, so X is wasting our time with this diversion. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Matthew 24:1-2 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Our first verses of Matthew 24 set the stage and establish context. There is no controversy of interpretation here; most agree, regardless of stance, that Jesus predicts here a destruction of the Jerusalem temple standing in his own time, and will agree that this was literally fulfilled, to the point that critics use this as evidence that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. This merely sets the stage for the question of the disciples: Skeptic X: Wildish stated a critical principle that I'm sure Holding would apply to any other book except the Bible. He's sure, but he didn't ask, so he's about to put his foot in his mouth. In the Book of Mormon, for example, reference is made in 1 Nephi 13:19ff to a "book" containing prophecies. To Mormons, this book was the Book of Mormon, and in 2 Nephi 27 is a lengthy prophecy about the "discovery" of this book through "a man" whose description obviously identified him with Joseph Smith. X wastes another tenth of his article quoting 1 Nephi, which we'll omit and which is more of his delaying tactics like wasting 6 months to buy time to reply to Hatcher. We'll get to his point at hand: I doubt that Holding's mouth gaped in awe
when he read this, despite the striking allusions to events that allegedly
accompanied the "discovery" of the Book of Mormon, because he has no
emotional attachment to Mormonism. My mouth neither gaped nor shut because I don't care. I have addressed Mormonism from a strictly Biblical-usage perspective, how Smith and other Mormons use the Bible to validate Mormon claims. On the basis of that failure I found alone I have seen no need to delve into Mormon claims about 1 Nephi (and they do in fact try to show it is based on an ancient document). But my approach if I did care would be the same as it is for the NT: Work out ways to figure a date of the document with no prejudice beforehand against predictive capabilities. In fact, he has written and
published a short book in opposition to Mormonism, so he will have no
difficulty applying Wildish's critical principle to this prophecy and
recognizing that it is far, far more likely that this is an after-the-fact
prophecy than that someone thousands of years ago had divine prophetic
insights into the future and wrote this "prophecy" in "ancient Egyptian"
script. Only, uh, Holding: Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? Luke 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? All of what is recorded here is inarguably related to the statement of Jesus in the previous verse concerning the Temple's destruction--with the exception of one argument. Mark and Luke provide no distraction, but Matthew, so it seems from the KJV, records Jesus as referring to the "thy coming" and to the "end of the world." Isn't this clear evidence of the dispensational view? No, it isn't. These considerations, first, about "the end of the world": Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: I won't say anything else about this, because I agree that the two were linked, What! So what was all that blather about anyway? It was just for show is all it was. but I don't agree that they were linked in the way that Holding claims. As I showed in my nine-part series, especially Parts (8) and (9), the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world were integrally linked in the minds of his disciples, who before they became followers of Jesus were part of a generation that had grown up believing that the end of the world was near. Hence, they believed that the two events, i. e., the second coming and the end of the world, would happen simultaneously. (That is how the two were linked.) When the disciples heard Jesus saying that the temple would be destroyed, they quite naturally assumed that he was talking about his coming and the end of the world. Hence, they asked, "What will be the signs of your coming and the end of the world?" And we replied to all of that, again, in the link above. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: The present age was a time when the creator god seemed to be hiding his face; the age to come would see the renewal of the created world. The present age was the time of Israel's misery; in the age to come she would be restored. In the present age wicked men seemed to be flourishing; in the age to come they would receive their just reward. In the present age even Israel was not really keeping the Torah perfectly, was not really being YHWH's true humanity; in the age to come all Israel would keep Torah from the heart. Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Perhaps pigs will fly someday
too. If I edited this I would be editing X's strongest argument. Holding: Skeptic X: As for Wright's statement about the "inaugration [sic] of a new covenant" with Israel, I showed in Part (1) of my nine-part reply to Holding that the New Testament clearly teaches that the new covenant was inaugurated with the death of Jesus on the cross. And that part agrees with preterism's viewpoint. Holding: Skeptic X: There are no parallel accounts of this text in the synoptics, but the probable meaning of the expression "the world [aion] to come" can be determine by looking at how it was used elsewhere. Mark 10:28 Then Peter began to say to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You." 29So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, 30who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age [to aioni] to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first." Notice that the passage says that the ones who forsook all to follow Jesus would receive a hundredfold now in this time, i. e., this life, and in the age to come would receive eternal life. This clearly shows that aion was being used in reference to a world to come and not an age to come. Oh, that's a hoot. How so? Get this: Otherwise, Holding would have to argue that Jesus promised that those who left all to follow him would receive eternal life in the age that followed the end of the law in AD 70, but that obviously was not the intended meaning. Eternal life could not have been given in an "age" that transpired in this world. It would be given in the world to come. Says who? This is just another wind-around Church of Christ undershirt grab, the same stuff X tried to pull to claim that Leviticus was being figurative when it had God say the land was "mine." Eternal life can't be "had" now? Tell that to John: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:27-28) Sounds to me like eternal life is a "present reality" for people believing in Jesus. Of course X may pull the end-around that these passages are speaking proleptically, but if he wants to play that Joker, then why not say the same of the passage he just quoted? Either way he just bit a big one. As an aside, let's not also forget that the convert's "eternal life" as a believer in the Risen Jesus went from the time he died, on into eternity -- all of which was past Jesus' time and therefore in the "age to come". Oops. The same Greek expression was used in Luke's parallel account. Which he'll see a need to repeat, just to fill space. And he'd think we robbed him blind if we edited and dealt with the two passages together. Luke 18:28 Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed You." 29So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age [to aioni] to come eternal life." This statement was made in a broader context where the rich ruler had asked Jesus (v:18), "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Surely, then, Jesus was telling his disciples that those who left all to follow him would be rewarded with what the ruler wanted, i., e., eternal life, and the Bible did not promise eternal life in this world but in the one to come. Here again is clear evidence that aion was often used in the New Testament to convey the sense of world. Same answer as above, and X bit the big one here twice. It's just like him to make a serious mistake, and then repeat it for effect. See how he did it against that social science scholar. Is Holding still not convinced? Nope. Not at this rate certainly. Then he should take a look at Luke 20:34, where Jesus answered the Sadducees who had asked him whose wife the woman who had survived seven husbands would be "in the resurrection." Clearly, they were asking Jesus whose wife this woman would be in the next world. Look at Jesus's answer. Nice try upcoming, but it'll flop like all the rest of the sausage sandwiches X has thrown out so far. Luke 20:34 Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age [tou aionos toutou] marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are counted worthy to attain that age [tou aionos ekeinou], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Unless Holding wants to argue that Jesus was saying that it was possible to attain a state in an earthly age to come in which one could die no more, here is another clear case of aion having been used to denote world. In this case, it meant the world that will follow this one, when the righteous will be resurrected to eternal life. Another bad case of smashmouth exegesis. Look at it closely, the key part: "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead..." What we have here is a reference to those who go through NOT ONLY the Messianic age, but ALSO those who are resurrected. And X's hidden premise is that the resurrection will follow immediately upon the inauguration of the age to come. Holding is flat out wrong in his assertion that aion meant age, and so Jesus was referring only to the end of the "age of the law" in Matthew 24:3. As for Holding's claim above that aion was used in "both cases" for world in Matthew 12:32, he is wrong again. Actually, the world aion was not used twice in Matthew 12:32 but only once, because the verse literally says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either "in this world [aion] or in the coming [one] (to mellonti)." The word one was implied, but aion was not used a second time as Holding said. I point this out just to remind readers that they need to be cautious about taking what Holding says about Greek. He has certainly shown us that he is no expert in Greek. X would like to think this is a repeat of the anistemi error I drew from Quickverse, but no bonus this time for him, for two reasons. First, I did not say that aion was used twice, and I did not say "used for". Here at least Quickverse is reliable, for it shows that the second "world" is a KJV clarity addition and does not present a Greek parallel word. What I did say is that "world" in both cases is aion, and that IS correct. Aion stands for what is behind both English uses of "world" here. X is just playing his usual game of reading more into what is written than is warranted so he can knock down a scraecrow. Second, even if I had made the same mistake, it doesn't change the argument. Beyond that Let's also remember, if X wants to play this game, that he has made Goliath-sized bungles in things like guilt in the ancient world, and that's one that CAN'T be pinned on misreading a reference source. The difference between X's usual mistakes and mine is that his mistakes reflect a fundamental miseducation concerning his subject matter, whereas mine have to do with typical lapses in concentration and reference that any Joe can and does make regularly. Holding: Skeptic X: Now we can look at Holding's Matthew 13:39 "proof text." Yes, after having front-loaded even more repetitive bombast to keep the readers dazed. For thos reason I have chopped out the core of the above. It's just X re-re-re-re-repeating things he said before, which is part of his manipulative debate tactical scheme to make sure that the reader doesn't get clear time to read and digest an opponent's argument without X's constant interruptions. Holding: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. The verse 39 example has the same theme, only it uses the analogy of a harvest. (One other use, Matt. 28:20, offers no contextual clues.) Skeptic X: If I juxtapose two passages in which "Matthew" used aion, those who don't have a pet doctrine to defend should have no trouble seeing that "Matthew" at times did use aion to mean the world. Yes, and where's the clue from 28:20? Remember of course we answered this already as noted above. Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [sunteleias tou aionos]? Matthew 28:16 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world [sunteleias tou aionos]. Even those who have not studied Greek
should be able to look at the transliteration of the final three words in
each passage to see that they are the same. Now Holding claims that
sunteleias tou aionos in the question the disciples asked Jesus in
the first passage above meant not the end of the world but just the end of
the "age of law." Oh, now it's clear, isn't it? X doesn't get that we're saying that there are no contextual clues in Matthew 28:18-20 by itself. More time wassted by X. If that is so, then does Holding think that the
same three words in "Matthew's" version of the so-called "Great
Commission" meant that Jesus would be with his disciples, who were to go
to all nations to preach the gospel, only until AD 70 when the "age of the
law" ended? No, because as noted, the age of the Messiah had started with Jesus' crucifixion/resurrection. They were now "in" the Messianic age, and that's the age Jesus was going to be with them until the end of. If so, does that mean that after AD 70, the disciples
who went about preaching the gospel to all nations were on their
own? No, because as noted X is confusing the two ages. If sunteleias tou aionos in Matthew 28:16 I think he means 16-20. Oops, so much for Mr. Perfecto's typing record today. meant the end
of the world, the end of time, the end of an age in which the gospel would
be preached to all nations, then why did it mean just till the end of the
"age of the law" in Matthew 24:3? Because something happened between 24:3 and 28:16-20 that inaugurated the new age of the Messiah. We need an explanation, and Holding should remember that his biases are not justifiable reasons for saying that these three words had a different meaning in 24:3. He's got it. Now we'll wait 65 years for him to get back to it. Lexicographers say that aion sometimes conveyed the sense of "the world," and translation committees have rendered aion as world in various New Testament texts. I don't know about others reading this, but I would prefer to put my trust in what the translators have said rather than in the opinion of a biblical inerrantist trying frantically to make the Bible not contradict itself. Well, as we showed in that previous reply, even the lexicon X used is iffy. And of course X would rather just read the English version and stick with it -- it saves a lot of depth, critical argument for him. If there is scholarly consensus that aion did at times convey the sense of "the world," Holding must offer more than his mere biased opinion that the disciples did not mean world when they asked Jesus what would be the signs of his coming and of the end of the world (Matt. 24:3). I did. X just doesn't like the answer. Same as on the Contrived Gospels thread. These questions were asked in response to Jesus's prediction that not one stone in the temple would be left upon another that would not be thrown down. In the minds of the disciples, such destruction would be associated with the cataclysmic end that was expected at that time. Not at all. Why? Now X is the one who's just "asserting" and running. If "the end of the world" [tes sunteleias tou aionos] meant just the end of the Jewish age in Matthew 24:3, did it mean this too in Matthew 28:20 when Jesus promised that he would be with disciples preaching the gospel until "the end of the world" [tes sunteleias tou aionos]? Holding needs to explain why there are no "contextual clues" in Matthew 28:20. I already did. X is just repeating himself for lack of anything substantive to offer. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: So here is a case where
a net was cast into the sea and was immediately filled with fish. Um, yeah, thanks to a miracle of either effect or providence. The context--there is that word again--makes it clear that this parable was speaking about the final judgment, Yes, and we made it clear earlier that people enter into final judgment on death. Thus indeed the parable fits in with an extended fishing expedition done one netting at a time. because verses 49-50 said that the casting away of the bad fish would be like the end of the world when the angels--there are those angels again--would separate the wicked from the righteous and "cast them into the furnace of fire," where there would be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Those two expressions were used elsewhere in the New Testament in obvious reference to the eternal punishment awaiting the wicked. Yep. And folks ewxperience their eternal fate on death, as we showed. Still waiting for X's answer, and wait and see how he fudges and fuddles on this issue below. Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it [the centurion's expression of faith], He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The reference to sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven was surely a reference to a gathering of the righteous in the next world and not to the "end of the age of law" with the destruction of Jerusalem. That is correct. The outsiders [gentiles] who had been righteous, like the centurion, would be gathered together with the patriarchs, but the "sons of the kingdom" [Jews], who had been unfaithful, would be cast into outer darkness where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. If Holding doubts that this referred to a final judgment, he should consider the following texts. I don't doubt it. As far as I am concerned the centurion is sitting with Abe, Ike, and Jake right now in the kingdom of heaven, which is active now, and which people are entering into -- or into the outer darkness -- even at this very moment. X also quotes Matthew 22:13 and 24:46, and Luke 13:23, and my answer for those is the same. Thus: Verse 29 clearly shows that the intention of this passage was to describe a final judgment, which would include people from all nations [from the east and the west, from the north and the south] who would be taken into the kingdom of God while the "chosen ones" would be thrust out. Yep. And people have been coming to the party and sitting down since the first century, and still are. Immediately below, Holding makes the claim that "no commentator" would disagree that the wicked meet their final judgment "upon death," but I have already shown that his proof text (Heb. 9:27) does not teach that the wicked encounter final judgment upon death, so I won't have to rehash my rebuttal of that incorrect claim. He's right he won't have to rehash, because it is a waste of time. We flattened that "rebuttal" already. He'll catch up eventually. At this point, I will just say that if Holding wants to talk about what "commentators" think, I am willing to make a substantial wager with him that most commentators see the passages that I referred to above--and even the parables in Matthew 13 that he is trying to quibble his way around--as references to a final judgment that will come at the end of the world. X likes to throw money around, but I would only say such about Hebrews 9:27 and most commentators, and never said anything more than that. I'll say more about that when I come to his quibble, but I just want to notice here that if Holding is going to argue that what "commentators" say should be sufficient to settle disputes over the meanings of biblical texts, he will have to abandon his preterist position, because he will find himself way outnumbered on this issue. Hey, fine. So that means if X wants to go by what patristic writers say, he'll have to abandon any idea that the Gospels weren't written by anyone but who they are attributed to. Fair enough. But let's be fair -- I wasn't using "most commentators" as an argument per se but as a way of summarizing and not engaging direct argument on the specific passage. I had no idea someone like X would have the teremity to interpret Heb. 9:27 any other way. I'm still wondering what he thinks the Bible says about the state of a person after death. Holding: Skeptic X: These vss. offer another analogy. Men die once and then come before God's judgment. Yes...exactly as I say. They die. They face judgment. Christ also has been offered once--note the stress on his death as the act of God--and also appears a second time, not, however, to be judged but to be savior of his people. It is often noted that this is the only explicit reference in the NT to a 2nd coming of Christ. Elsewhere the writers speak of his parousia--his "coming" or "presence, i. e., manifestation. But it would be a misplaced emphasis to stress a second time in this text. The words appear in the completion of the analogy and the accent falls, not on the word "second," but on the fact that both the death and the reappearance of Christ are distinctively different from those of others. Christ died, but not as a hapless victim. He offered up his life in freedom, and his death has a sacrificial and redemptive character. When he appears at the judgment he does not join the long line awaiting assessment but is Lord of the judgment and savior and deliverer of those who are waiting for him That is correct and in line with my position. People experience their "results" upon death but there is a time of judgment -- a sit-down hoe-down with Christ as judge, verifying the justness of what most everyone has already been experiencing once they died. (Warren A. Quanbeck, "The Letter to the Hebrews," The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, pp. 910-911, italicized emphasis added). So here is a commentator who apparently believes, as I showed in Part (8) referenced above that the New Testament teaches that judgment of the righteous and the "wicked" will begin when Jesus returns. X is mixed up here, because he is confusing "judgment" in terms of experience with "judgment" in terms of a decision. The difference here is one of mixing up the jail sentence with the judge's decision. In this case we experience the judgment upon us before (in time) sentence is pronounced. Until then, like the angels "Peter" referred to in 2 Peter 2:4, the unrighteous are "reserved for judgment," which will occur on a "day of judgment" that accompanies the destruction of the earth (3:7ff). Sorry, but that's not what Quanbeck is saying at all -- not in the way X wants it. As a preacher I am sure X delievered threats along the lines of the popular bumper sticker, "If you died tonight, would you go to HEAVEN or to HELL?" X hasn't said anything yet about what he thinks the Bible does teach about our experience immediately after death, and this is something we need to know from him. Here is John Wesley's comments on Hebrews 9:27-28, with emphasis added. John Wesley! And I get shafted for quoting scholars like Wright... 9:27 After this, the judgment--Of the great day. At the moment of death every man's final state is determined. But there is not a word in scripture of a particular judgment immediately after death. Um, does Wesley mean here "judgment" as in a judge's decision, or "judgment" as in experience of a final state? Given the first sentence, it seems more likely that he means the former. 9:28 Christ having once died to bear the sins--The punishment due to them. Of many-- Even as many as are born into the world. Will appear the second time--When he comes to judgment. And in this case, again the first one. Without sin--Not as he did before, bearing on himself the sins of many, but to bestow everlasting salvation. Here is the explication of this verse in Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament with emphasis added. Did X see the word "Pictures" in the title and think it was his speed? It is appointed (apokeitai). Present middle (or passive) of apokeimai, "is laid away" for men. Cf. same verb in Luke 19:20; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:8 (Paul's crown). Once to die (apax apoqanein). Once for all to die, as once for all to live here. No reincarnation here. After this cometh judgement (meta touto krisiß). Death is not all. Man has to meet Christ as Judge as Jesus himself graphically pictures (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:25-29). Um hm. The first understanding, yet again. X is three for three missing that boat. Here is the interpretation of Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown in Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible with emphasis added. Awesome. 27. as--inasmuch as. it is appointed--Greek, "it is laid up (as our appointed lot)," Colossians 1:5. The word "appointed" (so Hebrew "seth" means) in the case of man, answers to "anointed" in the case of Jesus; therefore "the Christ," that is, the anointed, is the title here given designedly. He is the representative man; and there is a strict correspondence between the history of man and that of the Son of man. The two most solemn facts of our being are here connected with the two most gracious truths of our dispensation, our death and judgment answering in parallelism to Christ's first coming to die for us, and His second coming to consummate our salvation. once--and no more. after this the judgment--namely, at Christ's appearing, to which, in Hebrews 9:28, "judgment" in this verse is parallel. Not, "after this comes the heavenly glory." The intermediate state is a state of joyous, or else agonizing and fearful, expectation of "judgment"; after the judgment comes the full and final state of joy, or else woe. This is the closest so far to disagreeing with me, but folks, I have been through this wringer based on Mormon use of Heb. 9:27, and for whatever Fausset and Brown have to offer, here's the rub. Hebrews 9:27 uses the word krisis, which refers to the results of a judging action. Not the passing of sentence. That's the bottom line, and it renders X out of the picture. The following interpretation is from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible with emphasis added. but after this the judgment; the last and general judgment, which will reach to all men, quick and dead, righteous and wicked, and in which Christ will be Judge. There is a particular judgment which is immediately after death; And that is exactly what I have been saying. by virtue of which, the souls of men are condemned to their proper state of happiness or woe; and there is an [sic] universal judgment, which will be after the resurrection of the dead, and is called eternal judgment, and to come; this is appointed by God, though the time when is unknown to men; yet nothing is more certain, and it will be a righteous one. I have not quoted these sources with any intention of even suggesting that they prove that Holding's position on Hebrews 9:27 is wrong but to show that he is wrong in saying that "no commentator" would disagree with his position. Well, sorry, but 4 out of 5 definitely agree with me, and 1 might, but it's not clear without more context. X is just confused again. He has a habit of quoting or citing a source and then hastening on to something else as if the opinion of a Bible commentary is sufficient to settle the issue, but as I have said before, just about any religious belief can be supported by quoting books, because it isn't at all difficult to find books and commentaries that agree with one's religious position. And it's much easier than actually critically comparing arguments. Of course. My primary purpose in taking the time to go through Holding's article paragraph by paragraph is to waste time with bombast...er, show that he suffers from commentatoritis. If that means consulting scholars in the know, then I'll gladly suffer that disease, as opposed to the psych-disroder of being unskilled and unaware of it. He thinks that if he cites a commentary that agrees with his belief, then he has proven his position. If it presents data and arguments, and X can't refute that data other than by complaining, then I certainly have proven my position as far as this context is concerned. By the time I have finished replying to this article, everyone is going to see that Holding almost always just cites commentaries, but he makes little or no effort to show that the opinions of his commentators are sound. Thus, he repeatedly argues by assertion and question begging. I.e., the same repetitive bombast: X can't handle the words of those in the know, so rather than make critical comparisons, he implicitly insults them by acting as though his mere "nuh uh" is enough to respond to them. That's a lesson he hasn't learned yet as we showed here. Holding: Skeptic X: Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. In this parable, a man sowed good seed in his field. The sower was not identified, so the obvious intention of the parable was to teach a lesson based on what happened when a sower--just any sower--went out to sow good seed in his field. Oh. And who was the first "man" to sow seed? Thank you. It says so in Matthew 13:37, which I guess X forgot about: "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man..." Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding is trying to quibble on the grounds that a harvest period and the casting of a fishing net aren't exact parallels to his perception of final judgment as an event that happens expeditiously, but there are two things wrong with his quibble. First, there is no reason to think that the final judgment as presented in the New Testament will happen in the twinkling of an eye. Actually I agree and this is what I have been saying all along. But that's assuming that X means "final judgment" here to mean experientally, and it's not clear that he does mean that. Since he confuses the two, who knows. The New Testament teaches that in the judgment every person will have to give a personal account of himself before God. Yes -- in this case and in the cites below, that would refer in this paradigm to the "decision" judgment that comes, for us, after we've already spent some time experiencing our judgment results. Romans 14:12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who "will render to each one according to his deeds..." 1 Peter 4:4 In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. 5They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. This one though does more likely refer to the experiental aspect -- when Jesus has assumed the throne of judgment and declares by his authority what each person will experience upon death. This is again to be distinguished from the day of accounting. Such an individualized judgment would not be something that could be done instantaneously, so there is no reason for Holding to try to make the "harvest" in the parable of the tares an ongoing "separation" on the grounds that harvest time for a farmer takes place over an extended period. Which is not exactly what I did, but that's X for you. As for the casting of the net into the sea, I discussed that above and showed that the parable did not say that the kingdom of God was like a fishing trip. It said that the kingdom was like a net that was cast into the sea and gathered every kind. The comparison was to a single casting of a net. And we showed how X flopped like a fish trying to use a miraculous ctach as something typical. Second, Holding's quibble
fails to consider that there is no such thing as an analogy or comparison
that is alike in all details. Well I'll
continue my point-by-point reply in Part (2), where Holding tries to find
proof for his preterist position in the meaning of the Greek word
parousia. And we'll be here to respond. Well, that's it for now, and we may or may not use the same method of response next time. Either way we figure it is good now and then to remind the reader that the editing we do here of Skeptical material, especially by X, involves mostly editing repetition, bombast, and worthless chatter. Next round we'll get into evidence of fulfillment of the O. Discourse in the 30-70 period -- which is where X's attempts should be of most interest.
A couple of points to begin this round. First of all. Skeptic X's webmaster seems quite the incompetent, as he posted the part of this we are replying to on March 1, but didn't note an update date under Skeptic X's name -- it was still 2/19/03. And these guys are telling other people that I edit articles after the fact, etc. -- given this sort of incompetence, how would they know? (Vague generalization -- just like they do!) Second, some folks have said that the color coding gives them problems, so we will now respond in bold rather than in color, and begin any significant responses (i.e., not to X's excessive blather, repetition, etc.) with a "grin" face like this one Holding: 2
Corinthians 10:10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful;
but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech
contemptible. 1
Corinthians 16:17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus
and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have
supplied. Skeptic X: Philippians 1:25 And being confident of this, I
know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and
joy of faith, 26that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant
in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again. Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my
beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but
now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling.... 2 Corinthians 7:6 Nevertheless
God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of
Titus, 7and not only by his coming, but also by the
consolation with which he was comforted in you, when he told us of your
earnest desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even
more. Notice that in all of these examples,
including Holding's two, parousia denoted a physical presence or
coming. We must wonder, then, why parousia was not intended
to denote a physical coming in the following passages. 1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what
is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the
presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming? 1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ
is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have
fallen asleep. 21For since by man came death, by Man also came
the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so
in Christ all shall be made alive. 23But each one in his own
order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His
coming. James 5:7 Therefore
be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the
farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it
until it receives the early and latter rain. 8You also be
patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at
hand. Holding has chided dispensationalists for not
admitting that New Testament passages clearly spoke of the "coming of the
Lord" in terms that plainly indicated that this "coming" was
imminent. Therefore, he will no doubt argue that James, in the
passage immediately above, was referring to that spiritual or mystical Spitirual or mystical, please! There is nothing "mystical" or "spiritual" about it. We hold that Jesus assumed a real throne in heaven. X is confused as ever, as this shows:
coming of the Lord that would happen soon in the destruction of Jerusalem, Good grief, man! No one here has said that the "coming of the Lord" would happen IN the destruction of Jerusalem! The destruction was a correspondent event, but it did not have the coming "IN" it! As I say quoting Wright: His parousia, his enthronement as king, would be "consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city." Not IN it! And you people who adore this guy still want to know why I can't do anything but laugh at him!
which would bring to an end the "age of the law," And again! He thinks the destruction of Jerusalem is seen here as an antecedent cause of the end of the age! He's as mixed up as a beaten egg under the Kitchen Aid! but that interpretation
is hard to reconcile with the two passages quoted immediately above the
text in James. Paul told the Thessalonians that they would be his
"hope, joy, or crown of rejoicing" in the presence of the Lord at his
coming [parousia]. In other words, Paul was saying
that the Thessalonian Christians would be a source of pride for him when
the Lord came, but this text is rather hard to understand if the "coming
of the Lord" that Paul mentioned was just that mystical or spiritual
coming that would occur when Jerusalem was destroyed, because Thessalonica
was in Greece, about 500 miles across the Mediterranean Sea from
Jerusalem. How could the Thessalonians have been a source of pride
for Paul (who was already dead by AD 70) during the localized destruction
of a city 500 miles away from Thessalonica? This statement makes no
sense if the "coming of the Lord" is interpreted to mean just a local
event that would happen on a tiny area of the earth, but if the "coming of
the Lord" is seen as a universally observable scene, which early
Christians believed was going to happen in their lifetime and be seen by
"every eye," the statement makes perfectly good sense. All of this is because X still hasn't bothered -- though he has been told "umpteen times" to use his own verbiage -- that I have addressed Paul's usage of parousia elsewhere; what it runs down to is that the word was NOT tied to a specific event and only that event! Preterists say a parousia happened in 70 AD -- when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne. They also say another one will happen at the final resurrection, yet in our future -- that will be an arrival here to earth, or a manifestation in the Hellenistic sense perhaps, or as well; either way, we have two. X is still banging his head against the wall of thinking that the word meant the same thing everywhere that is was used, which it did not -- which was our entire point in highlighting the variable and everyday uses!
As for James's claim that the coming of the
Lord was "at hand," I won't spend a lot of time bothering Holding with the
well known fact that some biblical scholars date James after AD 70,
because he would just deny it and probably refer me to Glenn Miller's
website. As it happens, no, since Miller hasn't written an article on the subject. X here is alluding to his chicken-skin refusal to address Miller's claims about the Petrine epistles. It is a fact, however, that some commentators--and Holding
likes commentators but only if they agree with him--date James well after
the destruction of Jerusalem. I like commentators that give sound arguments, but don't look for Skeptic X to soil his hands on this subject. Knowing that is the case, we'll just rest where he does at this point, affirm that "other commentators" date James before 70, and challenge him to refute that contention with actual argument. Don't hold your breath. That then is a problem that he will
have deal with if he wants to secure his preterist position, because some
people just won't be willing to reject scholarly opinion in favor of an
amateur apologist's desire to make the Bible inerrant. Likewise some people just will be willing to reject scholarly opinion they don't like, and for no reason other than "that was published in Grand Rapids". Or because they don't "get it" as was the case with X on guilt in the ancient world. This guy has his head in the sand and has the nerve to talk about "desires" as motives? The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:20ff
presents the same problem as the text in 1 Thessalonians.
This reference to the "coming" was made to Corinthian Christians, And my answer is the same, in the same article on Paul, and X is still trying to put his socks on. who
also lived in Greece and were only slightly closer to Jerusalem than the
Thessalonians. Furthermore, the text in 1 Corinthians said that
Christ was the "firstfruit" of those who had returned from the dead, but
those who were "Christ's," i., e, those who had died in a state of
"salvation," would be brought with Christ at his "coming." If the
"coming" that Paul was referring to was just a "spiritual" or :mystical"
coming of the Lord that would happen when Jerusalem was destroyed, in what
sense did Jesus bring with him at that time those who had died "in
Christ"? Was that just a "spiritual" bringing too, or does Holding
say that the general resurrection happened at that time? More wasted and repetitive babbling from X. Again, his fans wonder why I edit his work? This preterist doctrine has more problems in
it than a hound dog has fleas, We are glad to know that X spends time counting fleas on hound dogs. Beg pardon, was I being a pedantic literalist? but the problems multiply as we look at
other passages where parousia was used in reference to the return
of Jesus. 1 Thessalonians 3:13 And may
the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all,
just as we do to you, 13so that He may establish your hearts
blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints. As we have already seen and will see again
farther along, Holding has argued that the "angels" that so many New
Testament passages say will come with Jesus on the
clouds--figurative clouds, of course--were not "supernatural beings" but
just "messengers." Holding, of course, sees these angels as messages
who would go out after the destruction of Jerusalem and "harvest" the
elect from one end of the earth to the other by just preaching the
gospel. Um, no, I didn't do that in this case. My answer to this is again in the Pauline article X still hasn't found. Meanwhile he'll continue to blather on trying to refute an argument I didn't make. So we'll not say another word until you see the hard return (a line across the text) and you can zip right past all of X's blabbo answering an argument we aren't even making for this passage. Notice, however, that the text above says that the Lord
Jesus Christ will come with all his saints. The word for
saints used here was agion, which meant "holy [ones]."
It is the same word that was used in Jude 14, which quoted the text in 1
Enoch 1:9, which prophesied the coming of the Lord with "ten thousands of
his holy ones [agiais]." This word was almost always used in
the New Testament in reference to "saints," i. e., those who were
deemed to be righteous ones. Whether it meant that in 1
Thessalonians 3:13 or whether it meant angels doesn't matter, because
either meaning would pose a problem for Holding's preterist view. If
it meant "holy ones" in the sense of angels, that would lend support to
the view that the various texts that refer to angels coming in the clouds
with Jesus upon his return meant actual angels and not just human
"messengers" who would go forth to the "harvest" by preaching the
gospel. If the word was intended to mean "saints" or "righteous
ones," this text will support the many others that indicate the "coming of
the Lord" would be accompanied by a resurrection of those who have died
"in Christ." In addition to 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, quoted above,
the following text, also previously quoted, states the same thing.
1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I do not
want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen
asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14For if we
believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him
those who sleep in Jesus.15For this we say to you by the
word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming
[parousia] of the Lord will by no means precede those who are
asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And
the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. That's clear enough for anyone who doesn't
have a pet belief to defend. The text clearly said that when the
Lord came, descending from heaven, he would bring with him those who
"sleep in Jesus." When did anything like this happen in AD 70? In
other words, in what sense did Jesus bring with him all his saints in AD
70? That Paul was referring to the parousia
referred to in Matthew 24:3 is evident from his use of the word
parousia in verse 15 above [indicated in brackets]. There is even more. Yep, more from Paul, still addressed in that article X hasn't found yet. Blame him for his own desire to tramp out into diversions rather than sticking with Olivet. 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now,
brethren, concerning the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ
and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2not to
be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by
letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. This passage has already been quoted in
support of another point, but there is something else in it that warrants
comment. Several passages that I have already explicated show that
New Testament writers believed that the coming of Jesus was imminent and
that it would be accompanied by a resurrection of the dead, who would then
be judged according to their works. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: At any rate, the text above refers to the
coming of the "Lord Jesus" in that day, so this sounds very much as
if Paul was referring to a one-day event. If Holding thinks
otherwise, he has an obligation to stop his asserting and take the time to
analyze texts like the one above to show that the writers obviously
intended them to convey the preterist doctrine. Been there, done that. The "day of the Lord" isn't of necessity a 24 hour day and in OT usages, it never is. Holding: Skeptic X: X continues with more of the same blah blah blah about 2 Thess. and 2 Peter being written to excuse away the non-parousia. All of this assumes that he has been right in his previous arguments, which we have refuted, so we will feel free to edit him here, where he repeats some of the same stuff he said about 2 Peter before and which we have addressed, and where he brings up the same argument about Paul addressed in the article we have which he has yet to find. We move to: What it all boils down to is this. In
the passages quoted above, the apostle Paul said that the Thessalonians
should wait for God's son to come from heaven, but Holding says, "Well
that's figurative." No, I don't say that. X has no idea what I actually say and has a bad habit of sticking arguments in people's mouths. Paul said that God would bring with him those
who had fallen asleep in Jesus, but Holding says, "That's all figurative
too." No I don't say that, and never have. X can't find arguments he can refute, so he makes them up for me that he can. Paul said that the Lord would descend from heaven with a
shout, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." Paul said that the loud
shout would come from the voice of the archangel with the trump of God,
but Holding says, "That's all figurative." No, I don't. And you people in X's camp still want to know why I edit out so much? X repeats himself over and over here, stuffing arguments into my mouth faster than he can pitch bulldada. Paul said that those who
were alive at this time would be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord
in the air, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." No, I don't. Full preterism does, but not my view. Paul said,
those who were caught up in the air at this time would forever be with the
Lord, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." Good grief, aren't these last three points the same thing repeated different ways? What, does X get paid by the word? No, it's all debate manipulation, which is why he cries and whines when we edit his responses -- he loses the only tactical advantage he can make for himself, via endless blather and repetition. In 1 Corinthians 15,
Paul said that the dead in Christ would be raised "at his coming," but
Holding says, "That's figurative too." No, I don't. In 2 Peter 3, "Peter" said
that the world that now is has been stored up for fire until the day of
judgment and perdition of ungodly men, but Holding says, "That's all
figurative." For once he's part right. The fire I do say is figurative, for cleansing, as we have pointed out. "Peter" said that the day of the Lord would come as a
thief in the night in which the heavens would pass away with a great noise
and the elements would melt with fervent heat, but Holding says, "That's
all figurative." Not all of it -- just the noise and heat, as we have shown and as X has failed to counter. "Peter" said that the earth and the works that are
in it will be burned up, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." He's on a roll, and actually fully correct this time.
"Peter" said that the heavens will be dissolved in fire and the elements
will melt, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." Gee, he's repeating and babling yet again. Didn't he just say this in different words? Jesus said that
after days of tribulation, the sun would be darkened, the moon would not
give her light, the powers of the heavens would be shaken, and the stars
would fall, but Holding says, "That's all figurative. Correct again, and we showed how that was the case. Now all X needs to do is get his head out of the pedantics bucket. " Jesus said
that the sign of the son of man would then appear in heaven and all the
tribes of the earth would mourn as they saw the son of man coming in the
clouds of heaven, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." Half wrong, and we explained what it meant. Jesus
said that he would send his angels with the great sound of a trumpet to
gather the elect from one end of heaven to the other, but Holding says,
"That's all figurative."Part figurative. The trumpet part at most, and the "angels" are messengers, humans carrying the gospel. We haven't even got to this part yet and X is telling us what we argued. Jesus said that the son of man would come
in his glory with all of the holy angels and would sit on the throne of
his glory, but Holding says, "That's all figurative." No, that all is real -- and in heaven. Jesus said that
all nations would be gathered before him, but Holding says, "That's all
figurative." Ditto. X repeats himself three different ways yet again. Tell us the truth: Does X really need all of this repetitive bombast? Only to keep his gullible readers dazed. Jesus said that he would separate the people in these
nations like a shepherd separates his sheep and goats, but Holding says,
"That's all figurative." No, I didn't say it was figurative, that is literal, though expressed in terms of metaphorical convenience (i.e., all persons replying at once the same way, obviously not literal). Jesus said that he would say to those on
his right hand that they were inheriting the kingdom that had been
prepared for them for the foundation of the world but would send those on
his left hand into the everlasting fire that had been prepared for the
devil and his angels, but Holding says, "That's all figurative
too." Dadblame again! Didn't X just say this in the last entry? Blah blah blah! Figurative--every passage that speaks about the
"coming of the Lord" is figurative. No, it isn't, though some passages contain figures of speech. X's "all or nothing" wind-up is tediously pedantic. Does anyone besides me think it
is a bit strange that no New Testament writer ever gave a direct, literal
description of this "end of the age" that Holding and his preterist cohorts
are trying to sell us? Does anyone fiund it strange that X spins out all of this repetitive bombast, half of it completely off target? Was that any way for the omniscient,
omnipotent Holy Spirit to "inspire" those who wrote about this
all-important event? By covering X's pedantic inability and lack of desire to get out of his La-Z-Boy and stop eating Pringles? No strangeness there. It does seem that at least once the omniscient,
omnipotent one would have directed a writer to say something like, "The
Lord will come in a symbolic sense when the Romans destroy Jerusalem and
bring the age of the law to an end," but it didn't happen. Actually it did happen to some extent in the Lukan parallel to the Olivet Discourse. Not that God was obliged to kiss hte patoots of stubborn literalists here in the 21st century. This
should be sufficient reason for rational people to conclude that it
probably didn't happen because that was never the intention of those who
wrote about the "coming of the Lord." I.e., X's inherent provincialism is enough reason to take his word for it. Those of like mind will of course agree, given their perceived self-status at the center of the universe. Holding: Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying,
I am Christ; and shall deceive many (cf. Mark 13:5-6). Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived:
for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth
near: go ye not therefore after them. In order to show that the Olivet Discourse
found fulfillment in 70 AD, it has to be shown or suggested that these
events came to pass in that time. Did we see many coming and claiming to
be Christ? Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding can't explain away this missing
element by arguing that it "was likely not permitted socially" to make
"such a clear identification of one's 'Messianic self,'" because Jesus did
not say that many will be reluctant to say, "I am the Christ"; he said
that there would be many who would say that they were the
Christ. Holding: Skeptic X: This all shows how far Holding is willing to
lean over backwards to find evidence for his speculative "solutions" to
biblical discrepancies, but the worst is yet to come. X ought to try leaning over backwards into some relevant research in the field; he may want to start with Horsley's book on bandits, prophets and messiahs. He cited
Theudas and Judas as two examples, who were referred to in Acts 5:36-37,
but according to this text, these phony Messiahs had had their day in the
sun before Jesus's speech on the mount of Olives. Which makes no difference in context. Here I'll take some discredit for lack of clarity in my report. DeMar, who cited these examples, meant only to establish a pattern of Messianic pretenders -- who occurred before and after the time of Jesus. We have examples of such pretenders before and after; X even helps is out by noting the later Theudas (who he thinks Acts confuses with an earlier one; on that we refer to Miller's article here, which he will duly ignore). Either way we have ample record of pretenders of this type, and if X wants to strain credulity and claim there could be some before Jesus' speech but none after -- in times that were more tumultuous politically! -- he can knock himself out. Anyway we will skip past the quote of Acts 5, and past the further yada yada about the earlier Theudas, to: This leaves Holding plumb out of false Christs between AD 30 and 70, so this puts a big hole in his claim that the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled by AD 70. Plumb out? X gave us the later Theudas, and he got rid of the Egyptian and imon by absurd denials. He also contradicts his own earlier assessment, when he wrote a lame article on Mara bar-Serapion: Messianic pretenders in Judea were a dime a dozen during the era of foreign domination. Josephus referred to some of them, and even the New Testament mentioned two of them in Gamaliel's speech to the Jewish council ( Acts 5:35-36). In Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (Harper & Row, 1985), authors Richard Horsley and John Hanson tell of several Messianic prophets of this period besides Theudas and Judas of Galilee, whom Gamaliel mentioned in his speech. Some of these Messiahs were even named Jesus, and most of them came to ignominious ends at the hands ofeither the Romans or their own countrymen. I guess when X was trying to scratch for another candidate for the "wise king" bar Serpaion referred to, it means such pretenders were a "dime a dozen"; but when it comes to this subject, they suddenly disappeared for the period in question. Anyway, Dositheus may have been earlier than Jesus -- and then we get to Josephus' catch-all statements: The
best he could do after stretching facts like a rubber band to find even
the five false Christs he named above was to say that "there may have been
more [false Christs] who were spectacular failures not worthy of the
record." All he is left with, then, is another "may have
been." Oh sure -- and it is a "may have been" to say that there were Messianic pretenders in a time of political, social, and religious upheavel unmatched in prior years. Holding: Skeptic X: To show that Holding is reading into this
text far more than what Josephus actually said about false Messiahs
at this time period, I am going to quote an extended section of the
passage cited in Antiquities. Notice that the primary concern
of Josephus was the havoc that was being caused by robbers and bandits and
that when he referred to "imposters," he was apparently talking about
robbers who also posed as false prophets. So X wants to keep it convenient and argue that there were false prophets but not false Messiahs. Now isn't that convenient for his thesis (where it wasn't before with Mara bar Serapion). But to that quote from Joe, and X bolds stuff he thinks is important: Now as for the affairs of the
Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again
filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did
Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together
with the robbers. He also caught Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had
gotten together a company of robbers; and this he did by treachery;
for he gave him assurance that he should suffer no harm, and thereby
persuaded him to come to him; but when he came, he bound him, and sent him
to Rome. Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because
he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs
better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made of him by
the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as
procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid
of him, now he was become so continually troublesome to him; for such
continual admonitions are grievous to those who are disposed to act
unjustly. Wherefore Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful
friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the
robbers upon Jonathan, in order to kill him; and this he did by
promising to give him a great deal of money for so doing. Doras complied
with the proposal, and contrived matters so, that the robbers might
murder him after the following manner: Certain of those robbers went up to
the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers
under their garments, and by thus mingling themselves among the multitude
they slew Jonathan and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers
went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time;
and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling
themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies,
and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in
remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the
boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which
they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God,
out of his hatred of these men's wickedness, rejected our city; and as for
the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit
therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to
purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as
desirous to make us wiser by our calamities. 6. These works, that were done
by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now
these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them
into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest
wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God.
And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of
their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them.
Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that
said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to
go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay
over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said
further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls
of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure
them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen
down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his
soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number
of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the
people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two
hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did
not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make
war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when
any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages,
and plundered them.... Now watch X try to spin it for his purposes: The overall context of this passage shows
that Josephus was primarily concerned with robber bands and that he was
using the word imposter in reference to robbers who (1) infiltrated
cities and posed as ordinary citizens, and (2) pretended to be prophets
who could perform signs and wonders. Not once did he give any
indication in this passage that the "imposters" claimed to be the Messiah,
so this still leaves Holding without even one Messianic pretender during
this period that he claims fulfilled Jesus's prophecy that there would be
"many" who would come saying, "I am the Christ." Once again X pedantically thinks that these people had to say the words "I am Christ" to match the prophecy. But we're still not to the place in my essay where I showed that such was not required, and even as these persons clearly performed Messianic functions in their attempts -- doing signs and wonders, doing military maneuvers, posing as something they were not -- X wants to say that someone doing Messianic "stuff" is not a Messianic pretender. Brilliant. Those who read Holding's "apologetic"
attempts should be careful to check whatever sources he cites or quotes,
because we have seen that he is not above twisting and distorting sources
to make them appear to support his position. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Besides that problem, Holding is flat out
wrong in saying that Matthew was the only one who actually used
Christ in the text. He was the only one who said that those
who came falsely claiming to be the Christ would say, "I am the Christ,"
but Mark used "false Christs" [pseudochristoi] to describe them
later in the text. Uh, yes, but only Matthew has the word "Christ" after "I am" in his version of the three verses cited above this paragraph X quotes from. I didn't get zip wrong; X is moving the goalposts then trying to claim that I was wrong under his new field layout. We'd suggest it's because X gets so lost offering all of his bombast that he lost track of my frame of reference -- the same as he did when he claimed I "changed" my position on the Land Promise issue. That's what a lot of talking to yourself will get you -- poor "listening" skills. Note as well that with the pseudo-christos references, there is no issue of a self-claim that the honor strictures of the day would prevent, and that X dodges the significance of the missing "Christ" in Luke and Mark "I am" statements. It makes the claim a much more general claim to power and authority mirroring the "I am" of the OT. So Holding is trying to
prove that the various aspects of the Olivet prophecies could have been
fulfilled by AD 70, but he has been unable to verify any cases of
false Messiahs who came, saying, "I am the Christ." Such a pedantic restriction was never required in the first place. All that is required is that these persons enact Messianic roles; note that this is what Keener will say below. Inerrantists who
want to swallow the preterist line should not worry, however, because
pretenders of "various types undoubtedly abounded" at this time. We
have Holding's word for that. We also had X's word that such persons were a "dime a dozen" when he wrote a few years ago. Funny how times change when your argumentative needs do as well. By the way, I would be
interested in seeing Holding document the "signs and wonders" that the
"many" false Christs showed during this period to deceive "the
elect." If this happened, there would surely have been some record
left of it by someone. Same old Skepitcal blatter -- who writing for the time should have recorded it, any why? Josephus had Vespasian as his "Messianic" fulfiller, and X needs to show that he would have believed such persons really did signs and wonders to report. Holding: Skeptic X: A false prophet was the
occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation
in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get up upon the
temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their
deliverance. Bingo. An attempt to activate eschatological salvation. A Messianic role, but X is too miseducated to get this. Now, there was then a great number of false prophets
suborned by the tyrants to impose upon the people, who denounced this to
them, that they should wait for deliverance from God: and this was in
order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above
fear and care by such hopes. Ah, what was that? Political salvation? Another Messianic role. Note that Josephus argued that Vespasian filled this role, and these false prophets pointed in the same general direction. There are two reasons why this information
from Josephus cannot be used to show fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy
that "many" would come in Jesus's name, saying, "I am the Christ":
(1) This text does not say that these false prophets claimed that they
were the Messiah; it simply says that they were false "prophets," who had
brought about the deaths of many people by telling them that they would be
delivered from the Romans if they climbed upon the temple As before X pedantically assumes that someone had to mouth the words "I am Christ" for there to be a fulfillment -- that is not needed, as noted above (2)
Jesus said that when these false Christs came, the people should not worry
because the end had not yet come. Huh? Well, this is one goofy argument on the surface. X apparently thinks these people who did worry would have cared about Jesus' instructions in Matthew 24:4-6 (X mistypes it as 4:4-6 -- so much again for that spotless record) -- what? Were they Christians who gave Jesus' teaching any authority? No, not according to the text -- not that such people who start worrying, then remember Jesus' words, and then say, "Oh yeah, that's right, I'm not supposed to worry!" and then go out happily picking dandelions while Rome dropped rocks from catapults on their heads. Yet X seems to argue more than this: So Jesus told his
disciples that when they heard deceivers saying, "I am the Christ," they
should not be "troubled," because the end had not yet come, but the "false
prophets" that Josephus described were deceiving the people on the
very day that the temple was burned and Jerusalem destroyed.
Hence, if Holding is right in claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem
was the "end" that Jesus told his disciples about, then the end had
come at the time of the false prophets that Josephus wrote about in
the text cited by Holding, so they could not have been the false
Christs that Jesus said would come while the end was "not
yet." Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of
wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass,
but the end is not yet (Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9). Wars and rumors of wars have always been
part of human history, and the time between 30-70 AD was no
exception. Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Although the battle of Jerusalem in AD 70
was destructive and killed as many as one million Jews by some
estimates--probably an inflated figure--this event did not end the Jewish
age by any means. Too bad X forgets it isn't the "Jewish age" that we say ended, but the age of the law -- and that happened when the Temple and the cultus associated with it, which was necessary to practice the covenant, got destroyed. Hadrian, who became emperor in AD 118 was at first
sympathetic to Jews. He permitted them to return to Jerusalem and
even gave them permission to rebuild the temple. He possibly did
this thinking that they would be unable to rebuild, but when
organizational and financial preparations looked as if the project might
actually become a reality, he told them that they would have to build
their new temple in a different location. Um hm. Merely proves our point. They couldn't get that Temple rebuilt. The withdrawal of
Hadrian's permission to rebuild the temple almost precipitated a new
rebellion, but Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah succeeded in pacifying Jewish
leaders, who instead of rebelling outright turned to preparing for
guerrilla wars in the hillcountry. When Hadrian announced plans in
AD 123 to build a new city on the site of Jerusalem, including a temple to
Jupiter, and to name the new city Aelia Capitolina in tribute to Jupiter
Capitolinus, this triggered actual guerrilla war that the Jews had been
preparing for. Their leader was Shimon Bar Kokhba, who proclaimed
himself the long-awaited Messiah. Wrong, actually. One of the rabbis identified Kochba as the Messiah; Kochba silently allowed him to do it. This is in line with the claims of honor and that such a claim had to be recognized by someone other than the putative claimant to be regarded as legitimate. His forces had surprising initial
success. They captured several towns and fortified them with
walls. Altogether, they built 50 fortresses and occupied over 900
undefended villages. They even minted coins with "The Freedom of
Israel" struck on the backside. That's nice. Still waiting for some of this blatter to show us how what happened in this time was worse than what happened in 70. And to show us why we should care. It looks more like X just likes to hear himself talk. Hadrian sent General Publus Marcellus, the
governor of Syria, to help Rufus, who was the procurator of Judea, but the
Jewish forces defeated his army. The Jewish successes required
Hadrian to send 12 legions into Palestine under the leadership of Julius
Severus, who had been one of Hadrian's most successful generals in
Britain. The strategy of Severus was not to engage the Jewish forces
in battle but to lay siege to their fortresses to deprive them of food and
supplies. Only when he thought the Jewish forces were sufficiently
weakened did Severus engage them in direct battle. The decisive
battle came at Bethar, the headquarters of Bar Kokhba, where the Jewish
Sanhedrin was also located. Every Jew in the fortress was killed,
except for Bar Kokhba, who was taken alive and later executed.
Thousands of Jewish refugees had fled to Bethar during the war, so
casualty figures were high. Some estimate that as many as 500,000
Jews were killed in this second war with the Romans, but others think that
these numbers are also inflated. Oh. So it wasn't worse in terms of casualties. Oops. A few minor battles were fought after this, but the Roman
victory at Bethar effectively ended the revolt. The Romans plowed
Jerusalem under with oxen and build [sic] -- so much again for X's spotless record their pagan city, which they named
Aelia Capitolina. Jews
were not allowed to live there, and Hadrian dealt with the survivors
harshly. Many were transported to Egypt and sold as slaves, and
Judean settlements were not allowed to be rebuilt. He prohibited the
studying of the Torah and observance of the Sabbath, and the rite of
circumcision was no longer allowed. These persecutions continued
until the end of Hadrian's reign in AD 138. Very nice and educational. Still waiting for an explanation of how this was worse than 70 -- here it comes, and it's a whopper: The defeat of the Jewish forces at Bethar in
AD 135 brought an end to Jewish power in the region, so that date would be
a much better fulfillment date for the Olivet prophecy than AD 70. "An end to Jewish power"? So where do we see that Jews had any power at all beyind their personal lives between 70-135?
In the first war in 66-70, Jerusalem was destroyed, but it was more
thoroughly destroyed in AD 135, when it was plowed under so that a new
Roman city could be built on the ruins. Pfft, hack -- yep, Hadrian took the itty bits and stomped them into itty bittier bits. That was much worse. So why do Holding and his preterist cohorts
pick AD 70 as the date for the "coming of the Lord"? Well, they need
a fulfillment scenario to explain away the obvious failures of the many
predictions that the coming of Jesus was imminent. If there had been
no prophecy of an imminent return, there would have been no preterist
movement. Well, we pick 70 because that's when the Temple was destroyed, per Jesus' specific prediction. Hello? Now let's look at Holding's list of
fulfillment events that happened before AD 70. Holding: Skeptic X: As for Gaius Caligula's attempt to erect his
statue in the Jewish temple, this did not result in any serious danger to
public peace. The Syrian governor, Petronius, and Herod
Agrippa both stalled in carrying out the decree, and the Jews were
pacified. When Caligula died in AD 41, the decree to erect the
statue died with him. Um, yeah -- that sounds like a rumor of war happened. Hello? Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Besides this, Alexandria and Damascus were
miles away from Jerusalem, where Holding and his preterist cohorts say that
fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies was localized. What would
events happening in distant towns have to do with the fulfillment of a
prophecy that was to be localized in Jerusalem? Apparently Holding is
arguing that wars, rumors of war, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes
that happened anywhere in the world would fulfill a prophecy that the
"end" would come only to Jerusalem and environs. It's this kind of tragic argumentation that earns X his mockery. I and my "preterist cohorts" do not say that ALL of Olivet's fulfillments were localized to Jerusalem; this is something X made up on the spot because he doesn't even know what the preterist position is. This is a sorrowful mixup of the preterist position, which says again that an AGE ended -- not the physical world. X can't even keep his opponents' position straight. Well, why not? That makes about as
much sense as 99.9999999999% of the nonsense that they spew in support of
biblical inerrancy. Speaking of spewing, we have an authority on spewing in our midst. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Does everyone see what I pointed out
above? Holding's position is that the fulfillment of the Olivet
prophecies occurred only in Jerusalem, but to find some kind of "evidence"
of prophecy fulfillment, he is citing "distrubances" [sic]
insurrections, war, and commotions that happened in far away places like
Germany, Africa, Gaul, Parthia, Britain, and Armenia. This is what you call desperation to find
fulfillment evidence. This is what you call burning a straw man due to your own ignorance. I wonder how many in Jerusalem were aware of
these "distrubances" [sic] in Germany, Britain, Gaul, etc.? Well gee, since Rome drew resources and taxes from all over its Empire, I'd say that quite a few people were aware of when there was trouble in another part of the Empire. Problems! Problems!
Problems! Ignorance! Ignorance! Ignorance! And this is stuff that X wants me to quote ("EVERYTHING")so that his arguments won't be debilitated or edited. Holding: Skeptic X: Does Holding ever think
before he writes? Does X ever read before he responds? On the other hand, these
"especially pronounced" wars would have happened long enough before AD 135
to make them the wars and rumors of wars that Jesus prophesied would
happen before "the end" came. Anyway you cut it, if Holding's
"evidence" for prophecy fulfillment is applied to the Bar Kokhba
rebellion, it will become a more likely fulfillment event than the first
Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. No need to repeat ourselves like X does. Holding: Matthew
24:7-8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and
earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of
sorrows (Mark 13: 8). Luke 21:11
And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and
pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from
heaven. Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: If Holding will cite a specific source for
this Tacitus reference, I'd be glad to check to see if it has any
relevance to his claim that events of AD 70 fulfilled the Olivet
prophecies, but I am under no obligation to read both of the books by
Tacitus to see if I can find what Holding was referring to. Nope, X is under no obligation to be an informed student of people and documents from the era he is dealing with. Holding: Skeptic X: Think, Holding, think! Burp, X, burp! Have some more Pringles! This BTW is the sort of insult X throws around, because he hasn't the creative ability to do better. Holding: Skeptic X: Besides all of this, Philippi was located in
Macedonia about 500 miles from Jerusalem, so how could such a far-flung
event have been a sign for the people living in Jerusalem? Does
Holding seriously think that the people of Jerusalem felt this quake and
said, "Hey, there's another fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen
before the end came"? Sure would be a sign to Christian converts or potential converts in Phillippi. Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: And now did the
Idumeans make an acclamation to what Simon had said; but Jesus [a priest
next in rank to Ananus] went away sorrowful, as seeing that the Idumeans
were against all moderate counsels, and that the city was besieged on
both sides. Nor indeed were the minds of the Idumeans at rest; for
they were in a rage at the injury that had been offered them by their
exclusion out of the city; and when they thought the zealots had been
strong, but saw nothing of theirs to support them, they were in doubt
about the matter, and many of them repented that they had come thither.
But the shame that would attend them in case they returned without doing
any thing at all, so far overcame that their repentance, that they lay all
night before the wall, though in a very bad encampment; for there broke
out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very
strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings,
terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the
earth, that was in an earthquake. These things were a manifest
indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of
the world was put into this disorder; and anyone would guess that these
wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.
This
earthquake happened when Jerusalem was besieged on two sides by the
Romans, so for reasons noted above, it could not be considered an
earthquake that fulfilled the Olivet prophecy. Jesus said that wars,
rumors of war, famine, and earthquakes would be a sign that the end "was
not yet," but the earthquake the Josephus described in this passage
allegedly happened when the "end," as perceived by Holding, was right upon
Jerusalem. Same absurd line of reasoning X has been using like an old sock for his dog. Again, you fans of his wonder why he needs editing? All you have to do is copy and paste the same lines over and over again, and you have an article by X. We will skip past a few lines where X rambles on repeating himself and dissing preterists, for he is doing nothing but repeating himself, and move to: Holding:
Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: If Holding is going to try to prove that
Luke's signs from heaven happened as predicted, then let him present
corroborating evidence that the signs in the following passage happened as
Luke predicted. And just to take up space, X quotes the verses. Luke 21:25
"And there will be signs in the sun, in
the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with
perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26men's hearts
failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are
coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with
power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to
happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws
near." Specifically, what were
these signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars? And why, after
arguing that the astronomical signs were figurative, is Holding trying to
find evidence that these signs happened as predicted? Is he claiming
that the son of man was seen coming in a cloud? If so, when did this
happen? What records were left of this phenomenal event? What
did the people see when they looked up and lifted up their heads? X knows I am about to give my answer, and sees a need to manipulatively pre-empt it with all of these questions that in asking, he implies I will or do not answer. This is again the sort of blattering fluff I edit out, and which X's fans think is solid gold.
If the "heavenly signs"
of Luke were fulfilled, what about the down-to-earth signs of nations in
distress and the roaring of the waves and sea? Were these fulfilled
too? If so, why? If the "end" was going to be just a localized
event in Jerusalem and environs, why have nations located outside of this
region in distress and waves roaring in seas that the inhabitants of
Jerusalem wouldn't have seen? Ditto. X wastes our time with more pre-emptive questions. Why can't he wait until the answer is given before mouthing off? Because doing so would lose him his one advantage -- a purely rhetorical one. Holding: Skeptic X: As the year ended, omens, of impending
misfortune were widely rumoured--unprecedented frequent lightning, a comet
(atoned for by Nero, as usual, by aristocratic blood); two-headed
offspring of men and beasts, thrown into the streets or discovered among
the offerings to those deities to whom pregnant victims are
sacrificed. Near Placentia a calf was born beside the road with its
head fastened to one of its legs. Soothsayers deduced that a new
head was being prepared for the world--but that it would be neither
powerful nor secret, since it had been deformed in the womb and given
birth by the roadside (Penguin Books, 1989, p. 367). Notice first of all that Tacitus referred to
these as "omens that were widely rumoured," but there is no corroboration
that I know of that these events actually happened. Uh huh. Except that the comet itself apparently moved Nero to perform a human sacrifice. At any rate, if
they did happen and were in any way divinely intended as part of the
fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies, look at how the Holy Spirit missed
another great opportunity by not including some of these "omens" in the
prophecy. This one I have to put down as "remarkably stupid objection in context". Out of one side of his mouth X complains that some of the signs we cited were too far from Judaea. Out of the other side of his mouth he now complains that the Holy Spirit bungled a chance to include some really cool signs a long way from Judaea. In the meantime X plays his game of "Why didn't God kiss my patoot" and suggests: It could have been written like the following so that no
one would have failed to recognize that these "omens" were fulfillments of
a divine prophecy. 1 Stupid 24:5-8 (Revised Version):
Take heed that no man lead you astray, for many will come in my name
saying, "I am the Christ," and shall lead many astray. And you shall
hear of wars and rumors of war; see that you are not troubled, for these
things must need come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation
will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be
famines and earthquakes in various places. There will be omens:
there will be lightnings such as the world has never seen, and comets will
be visible in the heavens for as long as a year at a time.
Two-headed offspring of man and beasts will be born and thrown into the
streets, and a calf will be born beside a road with its head fastened to
its leg. All these things will be but the beginning of
sorrows. Exactness like this would have enabled
people to recognize fulfillments of the prophecy, but the omniscient,
omnipotent one apparently couldn't "inspire" such clarity. Um, yeah. And if that had been done, X would whine in the other direction about the absurdity of believing in two-headed calves and such, especially as an eshcatological sign for people in Judaea. And out of the third side of his mouth he has already said that these might just be "rumours" to begin with. Whatever takes hold, he'll argue it. He had to
wait for preterists with great insights to come along and tell us what
everything really meant. Ironic comment from a guy who had to be told that guilt didn't exist in the ancient world and needed the great insight of a scholar with decades of social science training to correct him. Aside from this, I don't believe that the
Olivet prophecies said anything about comets, did they? No, I guess a comet isn't a sign in the sky. How silly of me. As I have said before, consistency is not
one of Holding's virtues. Neither is following arguments correctly one of X's virtues. Luke's passages is NOT taken from Isaiah, and his part about signs in the heavens is clustered with warnings about earthly events such as pestilences. Luke's parallel to the figurative aspect comes starting in v. 25, clustered with other metaphors. As usual X just crassly compares the texts across the board with no concern for genre or intent or source. Holding: Skeptic X: Thus there was a star
resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued
a whole year. Before I discuss the likelihood of a comet
that stayed in the sky a whole year, let's take a look at the context in
which this statement was made. I will highlight in bold print the verse
quoted above and italicize other claims about "signs" in this passage and
ask Holding to tell us if he believes these things really happened as
Josephus claimed. Whoopsy, X is playing the same ding-danged game again, and he still hasn't realized that I answered this implied question of his ages ago. But let's allow him to prattle on: Thus were the miserable people
persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they
did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did
so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated,
without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the
denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a
sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole
year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those
commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great
crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month
Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light
shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright
day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a
good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes,
as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the
same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be
sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the
eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and
vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested
upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the
firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be
opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those
that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the
temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without
great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to
the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the
gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the
security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the
gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly
declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon
them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth
day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and
incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to
be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the
events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such
signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their
armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of
cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the
priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their
custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the
first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after
that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove
hence." A comet is a gaseous, icy body that orbits
the sun, and it becomes visible when during its approach to the sun,
radiation pressure produces a luminous tail, which disappears after it
loops around the sun and continues its orbit into deep space.
Therefore, a comet would not be visible for an entire year or anywhere
close to an entire year. If such an event like this actually
occurred, it would have necessarily been some kind of miracle, but if
Holding is going to claim a miracle, he must prove that the event really
happened. Like heck I do. X just has an anti-miracle bias, which makes him think that miracles require special explanation. If we appeal to Occam's razor, this alleged phenomenon
could be explained by more likely hypotheses than the miraculous one,
which would include the simple explanation that this year-long comet,
appearing in a context that claimed many other miracles, was probably just
another alleged "sign" of many that were routinely reported in this time
period by people caught in the throes of hysteria. I.e., we shave with Occam's Razor by claiming that people were in hysteria for an entire year or more seeing this object that Josephus reports. Oh, I know, I know. God did it!
How silly of me not to realize this. Yes, that is very silly of X. We accept his apology. Since he is grasping for any straw he can
use to offer some semblance of evidence for his preterist belief, Holding
will probably claim that he accepts Josephus's report of these miraculous
signs. If so, I wonder if he would be willing to defend everything
that Josephus said about miraculous events, I'm willing to grant Joe the benefit of the doubt. and if not, I wonder if he
would explain to us what criteria he uses to determine when miraculous
claims reported in ancient, superstitious times should be accepted. The main answer is, "Who cares?" Most such miracles have no meaning for today. I can take them or leave them. I noted this is a reply to X related to the Land Promise issue -- one of about 250 diversions he made in that subject area -- but he hasn't got to it yet.
The most reasonable view for such claims is that they were simply a
product of the times and cannot be verified, and if they cannot be
verified, they cannot be used as proof of anything, much less a prophecy
fulfillment. "Reasonable" here means "in line with what X accepts within his worldview." Holding has mentioned Tacitus, for example, so I wonder if he
accepts the other miraculous claims that Tacitus reported. My answer is the same, but X always sees a need to repeat himself with extended, multiple examples. An entire
chapter was devoted to "Signs and Wonders" in The Histories
(Penguin Books, 1995, pp. 272-276]. Among these were the claim that
Vespasian healed two men who had been sent to him by the god
Serapis. According to the report, which Suetonius also reported
[The Twelve Caesars, Penguin Books, 1989, p. 284), one of the men
was blind and the other had a "withered hand." Vespasian healed the
blind man by "anoint[ing] his cheeks and eyeballs with the water of his
mouth," and healed the other man's arm by touching the withered arm with
the heel of his foot. These miracles are suspiciously similar to
miracles attributed to Jesus in Matthew 12:10ff and John
9:1ff, "Suspiciously similar"? So what s X arguing? That Matthew and John independently stole these miracles from Tacitus, and just happened to each pick one from the pairing of two? No, X just threw this in for the heck of it, having no actual argument to present other than holding up the two conditions side by side and adding the implied gasp of amazement, with no concern for actually arguing substantively for borrowing. It's brownie-pointing with his gullible readers, plain and simple. X blatters on for another few lines listing miracles reported by these writers and asking if I accept their account -- I have already answered this, so I will spare the reader the needless blather and repetition.
Holding: Matthew 24:9-10 Then shall they deliver you up to be
afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my
name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one
another, and shall hate one another. Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall
deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and
ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony
against them. Luke 21:12-19 But before all these, they shall lay their
hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and
into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your
hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a
mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay
nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and
kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to
death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there
shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your
souls. There can be little doubt that such events
as alluded to here took place between 30 and 70, Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Hebrews 12:3 For consider Him
who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become
weary and discouraged in your souls. 4You have not yet
resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. What the writer said here is inconsistent
with other New Testament whinings about persecutions, but inconsistencies
in the Bible are nothing unusual. Oh, sure. You had to shed blood to be persecuted. Holding: Skeptic X: I wonder if he can say, "Circular
reasoning." I wonder if X can say, "Professional historians would say I, Skeptic X, am a doofus." He sure won't find any that back up this argument by conspiracy nonsense. Holding: Skeptic X: Matthew 24:9
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill
you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's
sake. I quoted this from the
KJV so that the archaic nominative ye will show that this was the
second-person plural personal pronoun. In other words, Jesus was
saying that you, i. e., the apostles he was speaking to,
would be delivered up, afflicted, killed, and hated of all nations, and he
was speaking to his apostles. Hence, this part of the prophecy was
saying that the apostles would be delivered up, afflicted, killed, and
hated of all nations, so Holding proves nothing about fulfillment of this
part of the prophecy by referring to a persecution that probably did not
include the apostles. At any rate, I would like to see Holding
present evidence that the apostles were "hated of all nations" at any time
during this interval. What we'd like to see is X justify this sort of narrow-minded, pedantic literalism which seems to be his afflication. When a teacher says, "You must not do this or that" I rather doubt he does so intending to give all other followers separated in time and space free license to do whatever it is freely. This is one of those CoC undershirt grabs just about as ridiculous as the "Yahweh can't own the land because of the dangers of coveting" routine. Holding may point to
verse 10, which told what others besides the apostles would do during a
period of persecution. No, I won't; pointing out X's pedantry above is enough, so we'll delete the argument he assumes I'll make and move on. Finally, I would like to ask Holding just
where Josephus "confirmed persecution of Christians." If Josephus
really did this, Holding should be able to cite the specific
reference. Well, uh, what about the death or James? I guess X will tell us that James was the only one and all the other Christians were given free rides. Folks, when Holding makes an assertion, take
it with a grain of salt, because we have repeatedly seen how he twists and
distorts source information to try to make it fit into a preterist mold
that it was never intended to confirm. In turn we have seen how X can't even make his arguments subsist on the limited education he brings to the fore. Why? Case in point next: Holding: Skeptic X: I'll quote just one example. Believe
it or not, when the correspondence began, he demanded that we debate the
issue of whether Marco Polo ever went to China. He brought up this
issue because in an article in The Skeptical Review I had referred
to Frances Wood's belief that Polo's accounts of his travels showed
indications that he had never actually visited China. In my article,
I had taken no position one way or the other on this issue but had merely
cited Wood's conclusion about this as an example to show that critical
historians don't just pick on the Bible but also question the historical
accuracy of other early writings. Exactly. And X was unwilling to defend Wood's criticisms as competent. All he was trying to do was score brownie points with his gullible readers with no concern with whether Wood's practices were valid. If they are not, then he just as well proves that those who do the same to the Bible are open to the same sort of criticism. X's use of Wood was a sound bite. I was willing to debate this issue
just to get Holding into a public forum, but for some reason he changed his
mind about it and decided to drop the issue. Indeed so. When it became clear that X had never even thought through Wood's methodology, or even tried to, or even checked other Polo scholars for responses, it became clear that he was even more of an incompetent than I realized, and that it would be just as well to get right to a Biblical topic. As X rightly quotes me: it is a way of showing something about your methodology, which remains the same regardless of topic. I think you are evading serious stances on Polo and Shakespeare
because you do not wish your core thinking processes, such as they are, to
be subjected to critical scrutiny. So be it. The silence speaks
enough. I have no idea what he meant about my
silence, because the record will show that I had readily agreed to debate
his straw-man issue in order to get him into a public forum where he would
eventually have to defend biblical inerrancy. No, actually, he didn't agree to a darned thing, other than to defend the watery proposition that some disputed Polo's accuracy, which is a "duh" assertion in context. In short X didn't want us getting at the critical processes he employed in deciding that Wood's work was a viable example for his purposes, precisely because there were no critical processes involved in the first place. He just saw something about Wood's work, said, "Ah ha, I can use this as a parallel!" then bopped out his article -- never asking whether Wood knew what she was doing or was backed by other, more educated Polo experts. For all X cared Wood could have gotten her methodology from reading tea leaves. At any rate, he
indicated that he wanted to show everyone "something about my
methodology," and what have we seen by way of his methodology? 1. He has constantly argued by
assertion. Assertions grounded consistently in the works and ideas of educated scholars whose sandals X is unworthy to even lick, and whose work X hasn't got the ability to answer. 2. He has made constant appeals to
authorities, i. e., Demar, Wright, Caird, Longenecker, Glenn Miller
<snicker, snicker>, and so on without even bothering to try to
defend their assertions. X in turn has just wiped his nose on the works of such persons, having no ability again to come to grips with their actual arguments and statements. 3. He has falsely attributed
information to the "authorities" he appealed to, as in the case of
attributing to the 1st-century BC Roman poet Vergil a poem that was
actually written by Alfred Tennyson, a 19th-century British
poet. Gee, one example. I answered this, though, in our previous essays. X is still lagging behind. 4. He has constantly begged the
question of biblical accuracy. Still waiting for an explanation of how X systematically deals with truth claims in other histrical documents. I imagine we'll be waiting a long time. 5. He has repeatedly appealed to
authorities without documenting the citations. As if X were going to get up out of his chair and do much work to begin with. Given the complaint about reading Meeks, I have doubts. In a word, Holding has conducted his part of
these debates as if he doesn't have a clue to what constitutes proper
debating methods. I.e., I have not kissed X's patoot, which is what he deserves. Meanwhile let's remind the reader of some of X's gaffes: He has regulerly misread clear comments (90% of the website paid for, the priests expected a resurrection) and then tried to shift blame on me for not writing clearly; he has been trounced when crossing paths with an authority (Rohrbaugh) and in his own defense committed what that scholar called a "serious mistake" of trying to use the Bible to defend his own position further; he has used amateurish sources (the Viking Desk Reference) rather than scholarly ones (in this case to define feudalism); he has spoken regularly out of both sides of his mouth (as above, Messiahs being a "dime a dozen" versus there being none at all); he has in the past recommended works which he now claims to disdain, but has never corrected himself (here, Tekton Reserach asistant ghbearman cornered X on TheologyWeb and got him to admit that he no longer endorses the work of Robert Taylor as he once did) or issued a retraction; he has put together ridiculous explanations to get himself out of jams (as in, "Yahweh could not have owned the land because of the problem of coveting); he has resorted to inane repetition and blather; he has charged us with editing his work to harm and has yet to produce an actual effective example; he has lied about me (laid off from my job) and has harrassed me at home with a nuisance phone call; and finally, he admits to a history of being a "skilled rationalizer" who lied his way through funding for a college education and pretended to be a bona fide believer while preaching. X has about as many clues as Daffy Duck stalking the Shropshire Slasher. Holding: Matthew 24:11-13 And many false prophets shall rise, and
shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many
shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
saved. Little needs be said here, again--we have already referred
to false prophets; Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Holding: Skeptic X: Acts 13:6 Now when they had
gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false
prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7who was with
the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for
Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8But
Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them,
seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9Then Saul,
who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at
him 10and said, "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of
the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting
the straight ways of the Lord? 11And now, indeed, the hand of
the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a
time." The text indicates that this man was a Jew,
and the fact that he "sought to hear the word of God" from Barnabas and
Saul would indicate that he was not a Christian Jew, so he could hardly be
an example of a false prophet in the church. Readers should check
very carefully all references that Holding uses, because we have seen that
his references aren't always reliable. He is either very
careless--which I can well believe has been the reason for some of his
boo-boos--or intentionally deceitful for someone who, as I noted above,
entered this debate with the intention of showing my poor
"methodology." Oh. But meanwhile X evades the fact that Simon was a false prophet nevertheless, and at best has found me in a technical imprecision. Just don't remind him that Simon does stand as an example of such a prophet as Jesus spoke of. That's the best X can do is catch me in technical imprecisions, and hope that these can cover the major bonehead errors he is making on other fronts. Holding: Skeptic X: |
Maybe he wants to call Matthew 24 "Fred". in Matthew 24. I have
explained that my first reply to him, which was published in the
September/October 2002 issue of The Skeptical Review, had to skip
several of his points and touch others just briefly because he wanted to insert a long and irrelevant diversion on the Petrine epistles to cover his inability to address the other points. Now maybe we'll shame him into doing more. his rehashing
of Gary DeMar's article Book, actually, and we're still waiting for an explanation of why one can't use source material and not have X make an issue of it with such terms as "rehashing". As if X were the kingpin of original thought to begin with. on the Olivet discourse took up 10 pages and left
me only five pages All the more reason he never should have wagged the Petrine dog's tail into the mix. This is some excuse: "I had little room to reply to your article, so I brought up a different topic!" to reply to a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions that X can't answer, but needs to instill confidence to do so that
he had pieced together from the works of Gary DeMar and other
preterists. Uh 
gee, using sources is such a crime. So any time you see a scholarly article in Journal of Biblical Literature with lots of footnotes, you can diss it by saying that the author "pieced together" his material "from the works of" those he cited as sources. This is just X's typical boo game of trying to distract from the issues by pretending the use of sources somehow is significant and actually detracts from argument quality. I have just completed a 9-part, 120,000-word reply to
Holding's so-call [sic] answer What does he want to call it? "My Daddy"? to my five-page reply. Yep, and we have already 