Probably won´t work

"And remember, J P Holding is even worse
than that Carrier bloke!"

Lighter bedtime reading.

A Primer on Islamic Counter-Apologetics

"Expended" edition

A review of "Alternate Book of Revelation Explained (Expended Edition)" by Michael Smulkovski 

A troll post making fun of Christian fundies and others to whom the Biblical Book of Revelation means whatever they want it to mean. The author argues, with a seemingly straight face, that Revelation is about a U.S. Marine who has wild group sex with seven lush female dancers! Who knew? Don´t show this to J P Holding, he might decide to include it in his next e-book on sub-Xian conspiracy theory…

Happy Yuletide, Brother Holding

[Originally posted on Amazon. The intemperate attacks in the discussion thread refers to that site] 

This is an e-book published by Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministries, the one-man organization of J P Holding (also called Robert Turkel). Holding is a fundamentalist evangelical based in Florida who occasionally tries to sound more “main line Protestant” by attacking cultists, conspiracy theorists and other fundamentalists. Another recent Tekton pamphlet debunks the claim that Donald Trump is the Anti-Christ! J P Holding used to be well known among skeptics and was Richard Carrier's polemical target in “Not the Impossible Faith”, a book I review elsewhere on this site. Holding has also acquired something of a “reputation”, due to his often intemperate and bizarre attacks on both Christian and atheist critics (some examples can be found in the commentary thread below, where the former prison librarian attacks an earlier version of this review).

“Christmas is Pagan…and Other Myths” is a rather bad pamphlet written in a jocular and frivolous style, which makes it sound like an extended troll post. It's directed against Christian groups which don't celebrate Christmas. He wonders whether the anti-Christmas fundamentalists are high on cannabis, or drunk on spiked eggnog. The author has little trouble debunking the more peculiar anti-Christmas arguments, such as “in 1909, the name of the Persian deity Mazda was used as a brand name for Christmas lights by General Electrics. Therefore Christmas is a pagan Mithraic cult”. However, he never disproves what many non-Christmas Christians consider to be *the* central argument against the celebration: that December 25 is really a pagan holiday, more specifically that of Sol Invictus, which was taken over by the Church during its Catholic or proto-Catholic apostasy from the true faith. In fact, Holding is forced to concede that December 25 might very well have been the ancient date for the winter solstice (usually given as December 21). Nor does he manage to disprove the broader point often made by those who don't celebrate Christmas, i.e. that the holiday really isn't particularly “Christian” to begin with, certainly not if you're a Protestant. It's clear from the author's own account that Christmas is a bundle of many different traditions, some coming from folksy Catholicism, others modern, while still others may be pagan or at least pagan-inspired (pagan survivals can exist in folk customs). The only thing Christian about Christmas seems to be, surprise, the claim that Jesus was born on this particular date, a claim never made in the Bible, although there may be a late second century or early third century source for the tradition, the Church Father Hippolytus.

Holding's *real* argument is that it *really doesn't matter* whether December 25 was Jesus' birthday or not, or whether the day was originally a pagan celebration. Nor does it matter whether or not certain Christmas traditions are strictly Christian or not. Jesus redeems all pagan traditions, and it's silly legalism to worry about such things anyway. However, he never offers a sustained theological argument for his position in the pamphlet.

The last section of “Christmas is Pagan” isn't a polemic against Christian “anti-Christmas crusaders” at all, but a lengthy attack on atheist skeptics, who believe that the contradictions between Luke and Matthew show the Christmas story to be sheer myth anyway. Holding begs to differ and attempts to harmonize the two stories, arguing that the discrepancy between the two Gospel writers is easily explained if we assume that they had different sources. Luke's source may have been Jesus' own family, while Matthew had talked to the Magi, but not to Mary and Joseph. Also, Luke adapted his message for a Roman audience, perhaps even for the Roman authorities. This suggests that the Gospels, while historically true, aren't “inerrant” or “inspired” in the strict evangelical sense, in effect an adaptation to a more mainline Protestant perspective!

In the end, I don't think Tekton Ministries have managed to defeat the “crusade” (or the spiked eggnog). The weakest flank may be in serious disarray, but the castle is still standing! Will a theological siege ensue, I wonder?

Happy New Year, Brother Holding

This is a short e-book by J P Holding (Robert Turkel), who is best known as Richard Carrier's target in “Not the Impossible Faith”. Holding heads a small apologetics ministry in Florida and seems to be a fundamentalist with some “main line” traits. Since the intemperate author attacked me after posting a perfectly normal review of another e-book of his, I suppose I shouldn't be doing the man's advertising for him, but as a maverick born again Trumpocrat, I just couldn't resist this material!

On his blog, the author discloses that he didn't vote for Donald Trump, instead spoiling his vote by choosing Rocky De La Fuente (who got less votes than the Stalinoid “Party for Socialism and Liberation”). In effect, he therefore supported Hillary Clinton. Despite this, Holding doesn't believe that Trump is the literal Anti-Christ (nor, presumably, literally Hitler). In this e-book he takes on fringe elements within the fundamentalist milieu, most of whom remain unnamed, who *do* claim that The Donald is the Beast of Revelation whose number is…wait for it…666.

I readily admit that J P manages to disprove the Anti-Christ Brigade with relative ease. Trump isn't the first U.S. president to be dubbed the Anti-Christ (or an Anti-Christ), and the arguments are often strikingly similar in form, although not always in concrete detail. Thus, Ronald Reagan was said to live on 666 St Cloud Road after his retirement, while Trump supposedly owns a building on 666 Fifth Avenue. But perhaps JFK was the Anti-Christ, since he was (supposedly) elected Democratic nominee by 666 convention delegates? The trick is to find as many references to “666” as possible, no matter how farfetched, which somehow cumulatively proves that the man under attack is the Evil One. Thus, the Trump family paid 1.8 million dollars for their property at Fifth Avenue. 18 = 3*6 = 666. Sometimes, the arguments make no sense at all, as when some conspiracy theorists allege that Trump lives on the 66th floor in the Trump Tower. 66 isn't 666, of course. Other arguments for Trump being Mr End Times are actually quite funny, for instance that an *opponent* of the GOP nominee was once spotted wearing a T-shirt with the number 999, which is 666 upside down! Unknown to a non-gambler like me, the sum total of all numbers on a roulette wheel is apparently 666, and Trump is, of course, a prominent player in the casino business…

The original “number of the Beast” was a coded name (or a name and a title, if you believe it was Nero Caesar), not a fistful of dollars or a floor in a futuristic skyscraper. Apparently, the fringe hasn't managed to turn the name “Donald Trump” into 666, but it seems that “Don Drumpf”, a name never used by the God-Emperor, pardon, president-elect makes 666. Holding points out that the name of the Anti-Christ must be Hebrew for the code to make sense. Don Drumpf is, alas, not Hebrew (not even anti-christic Kabbalistic Hebrew). A point not made by Holding is that the name of the Beast must also add up to 616 in Greek! Theology buffs may take note of the fact that Holding argues that 666 can only be interpreted on the basis of how it must have appeared to readers of Revelation during the apostle John's lifetime – in effect a historical-critical argument which if applied consistently would destroy most Bible prophecy, which is often incomprehensible until fulfilled (at least if you believe the standard evangelical arguments).

There are two problems with this short e-book. First, it doesn't explicate the author's theology, which seems necessary for a Christian apologist attacking other Christians. Second, it contains few (if any) references. Who said all these outrageous things, and where? Still, if you are a fringe-watcher, I suppose this could be of some entertainment value. I therefore graciously give this text three stars. However, you engage with the author at your own risk…

Richard Carrier on the attack

Atheist scholar Richard Carrier (whom we met before - see my review of J. W. Loftus' "The End of Christianity") is unleashed all by himself in this book, "Not the Impossible Faith", a somewhat weird work which looks like a cross between a scholarly tome and a self-published freak work. This attack dog of atheism is out to get one J.P. Holding (a.k.a. Robert Turkel), who is otherwise quite unknown (and self-published).

I don't deny that Carrier's book is extremely interesting, and it's a real pity that it's written in the form of an extended response to a single web apologist. This gives the book the previously mentioned "self-published" air, especially since Carrier admits that he got thousands of dollars from a pseudonymous donor to write it (a certain Johnny Skeptic). Also, a previous version of the work has already appeared on Carrier's website. The reason why Carrier nevertheless singles out J.P. Holding for special attention, is that many ex-Christians have told Carrier that they converted to some extent because of Holding's arguments, and later felt cheated and disillusioned.

I never read Holding's books, but judging by Carrier's critique, his main argument is an over-exaggerated version of the common apologetic claim that Christianity is unique. Usually, the argument goes something like this: "The idea of a crucified God-man being physically resurrected was absurd to both Jews and pagans. Yet, the tradition that the crucified Jesus was a resurrected God-man formed very early after the purported events. Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is that the events recorded in the Gospels really happened. Nobody would willingly make up such absurd notions and start a brand new religion based on them." Holding seems to take this one step further, arguing that the resurrection of Jesus was seen as so bizarre, that everyone who converted surely had access to "irrefutable evidence" proving the resurrection to be true. As I said, I never read Holding's works, but if *this* is his argument, it's remarkably silly, since by "irrefutable evidence" Holding seems to mean something like being shown an empty grave, cross-examining the eye-witnesses, talking to (hostile?) people who were in Jerusalem at the time, etc. However, even the New Testament confirms that Paul didn't convert in this manner - he converted after a supernatural vision, and met Jesus' disciples only later. (Ironically, some Christian apologists use *this* as an argument for the supernatural character of Christianity - what else than a true miracle can account for the conversion of a persecutor like Paul?)

Carrier responds to Holding point by point, and his main thesis is that Christianity wasn't "unique" in the sense postulated by Holding. Nor, incidentally, was it unique in the manner often held by standard apologists. Who would want to believe in a crucified god? Carrier believes that the Sumerian goddess Innana was humiliated and crucified, but then miraculously brought back to life. He also sees similarities between the Gospel stories and the legend of Isis and Osiris. More provocatively, Carrier also points to Isaiah as evidence that some Jews expected the Messiah to suffer. Who would want to believe in a god from the rural backwater of Galilee? Carrier points out that Galilee wasn't universally despised. There was a faction of Pharisees based in Galilee, some Messianic prophecies mention Galilee, and Josephus - who was governor of Galilee for a period - never seems to think this would look bad in his CV. Galilee was given preferential treatment by some Jewish and pagan rulers. Carrier believes that Nazareth wasn't a rural backwater, but a prosperous (though small) town. Ironically, Carrier actually agrees with some Christian apologists, who argue that Nazareth was rich enough to have a synagogue (the one mentioned in the Gospels).

The most important part of "Not the impossible faith" deals with the incarnation and the resurrection. Carrier argues that neither would strike Jews or pagans as bizarre (or rather that some Jews or pagans wouldn't be struck in this manner). The pagans certainly believed that gods could take the form of men. According to Acts, Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for gods by a pagan crowd in Lystra. Some pagans believed in a physical resurrection - the very idea comes from the "pagan" Zoroastrians in Persia (who were also a kind of monotheists). Pagans who didn't believe in a literal resurrection in the Jewish or Zoroastrian sense, still believed that sorcerers or miracle-workers could restore dead people to life. While this isn't identical to the Christian claims about Jesus, it is sufficiently close for pagans to at least pay attention. Pagans also believed in a kind of "heavenly bodies", perhaps similar to those mentioned by Paul in his epistles. As for the Jews, Carrier once again provocatively uses the Bible to show that at least some Jews believed that the Messiah would be resurrected before everyone else: according to the Gospels, some people mistook Jesus for John the Baptist, assuming that God had resurrected the latter. (Personally, I would add that the early Christians expected the speedy return of Jesus, so the fact that he was resurrected before everyone else didn't necessarily pose a problem until a few generations later.) Carrier also points out that while Jews didn't believe in the Trinity, neither did the Christians during the earliest period. Conversely, some Jews believed that the Spirit of God would somehow incarnate in the Messiah. Carrier also points out the frequently overlooked fact that "Judaism" wasn't a homogenous or monolithic religion during the first half of the first century AD. Many Christian ideas which look unique or absurd from a post-Temple/Rabbinic/Talmudic perspective might have been just another version of Judaism during the Second Temple period.

In another important section, the author discusses why Jews or pagans converted to Christianity. Was it because the apostles had "irrefutable evidence" of the resurrection? Carrier thinks the reasons were very different. The strong community feeling of the early Christian congregations, the large number of (purported) miracles made by the apostles, and the lower-to-middle class appeal of the new religion would have been important reasons. Also, the Christians initially targeted the God-Fearers (righteous Gentiles) for conversion. Since these were already sympathetic to Judaism, a new form of Judaism which was easier to join would have suited them perfectly. The Christians also made frequent appeals to "the scriptures", attempting to prove their stories about Jesus by pointing to various prophecies in the *Old* Testament (the New Testament didn't yet exist!). Since the Jewish Bible was widely admired due to its old age, this kind of argument from authority would have worked with some Jews, God-Fearers and pagans. Even in Acts, people aren't convinced by empirical investigations of some empty grave or interviews with Joseph of Arimathea. They either trust the testimony of the apostles, check out the scriptures, or get supernatural visitations of various sorts.

I haven't "cross-examined" every one of Carrier's claims, but I strongly suspect that the author will turn out to be right on most of his claims. While Christianity may have been "unique" in some sense of that term, it did emerge in a religious milieu in which many of its ideas would be seen as another version of ideas already popular, albeit a very peculiar version. My favourite example is Justin Martyr, who was impressed by the similarity between the passion narrative and Plato's idea about the righteous man being hung on a pole, and the Son of God laying stretched out, cross-wise, across the universe. (I don't remember Carrier mentioning this detail, though.)

The main weakness of the book is that it never explains the empty tomb. Of course, this was never Carrier's intention. "Not the impossible faith" deals with the claim that the success and spread of Christianity was somehow a miracle. Apparently, he has written extensively on the empty tomb on his website and in another book, dutifully titled "The Empty Tomb". The reason why the tomb question is important, is that the conviction of the original disciples (and purported eye-witnesses) has to be explained somehow. Those who heard Peter speak might have been convinced by a vision á la Cornelius, but where did Peter's own convictions about the resurrection come from? Carrier at least hints at three possible (atheist) answers: the Christians were being somewhat liberal with the truth, Jesus never existed and the empty tomb is therefore an allegory, or the Christians didn't believe in a physical resurrection in the first place. The latter scenario seems to be the author's favoured one: if the Christian conception of the resurrection was "spiritual" rather than physical, the question of an empty tomb would never arise. The tomb *wouldn't be* empty. Yet, Jesus would have arisen anyway, presumably with a spirit-body of some sort. Of course, apparitions of the dead could be given a naturalist explanation (hallucinations, etc).

How will Christians react to "Not the impossible faith"? As usual in American works, the book is really a polemic against evangelicalism. Presumably, evangelicals would be scandalized by a crucified goddess. Other kinds of Christians might not. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. He would probably be impressed by the myriad parallels between Christianity, Judaism and paganism unearthed by Carrier, and buy him a pint of beer! Many Catholics, Orthodox and Pentecostals would probably see the combination of miracles, visions, scriptural verses and Peter's personal testimony as sufficient proof for the resurrection (or perhaps even better proof than a forensic investigation á la CSI). They would wonder what more evidence Mr. Carrier would possibly want? DNA from the scene of the crime?

However, as John W. Loftus pointed out in a little polemic against me this Christmas, it's virtually impossible to cover all 1000+ versions of Christianity in one single volume. ;-)

All Christians, non-Christians and seekers should read this book, or at least come to terms with the kind of arguments it presents. Even apart from the fact, that Richard Carrier's book is something of a guilty pleasure...