The Impossible Faith [Paperback]

James Patrick Holding (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 1, 2007

A Thesis So Explosive, An Atheist Paid $5,000 for An Answer The Impossible Faith offers the proposition that Christianity could not have succeeded unless it had indisputable proof of the resurrection of Jesus. Had there not been such evidence, Christianity would have been an "impossible faith". Using his seventeen years of experience in apologetics ministry, the author will demonstrate the impossibility of Christianity in the eyes of the people of the first century and present an apologetic for Jesus' resurrection. Christians will be encouraged and emboldened by the message of The Impossible Faith, realizing "how firm a foundation" they have in Christ Jesus. Non-Christians will be challenged to consider the truth of Christianity in a new light. The arguments in this book are so powerful that one atheist paid over $5,000 for a response. It is impossible to estimate the evangelistic impact that is possible because of The Impossible Faith. James Patrick Holding is President of Tekton Apologetics Ministries , one of the leading apologetics ministries on the Internet. Tekton Apologetics Ministries was recommended by apologist and prominent author Lee Strobel on Hank Hanegraaff's The Bible Answerman in December, 2001. Holding has written over 1700 articles for his ministry, as well as articles for the Christian Research Journal and for the publications of Creation Ministries International . He has also published The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-Day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible. He lives in Central Florida with his beloved wife and a very small, very spoiled poodle.

Product Details

• Paperback: 112 pages
• Publisher: Xulon Press (May 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1602660840
• ISBN-13: 978-1602660847
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 4.8 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (23 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,538,006 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

217 of 263 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Believing in the "Impossible": A Critical Review., September 22, 2007

By 

John W. Loftus (Indiana) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Impossible Faith (Paperback)

Anyone who reads much of what Holding says on the web knows that he majors in ad hominems against those who disagree, and it should be well known that I do not like him. He's a non-credentialed arrogant hack who has gained a following mostly from the uninformed. No wonder he had to self-publish this book. He claims that one of the reasons Christian publishers won't publish it (which leads me to think he tried to get it published) is because, in his own words, "I won't write Left Behind style crap, and the market for Christian lit is glutted, unlike the atheist market." I think there is another reason.

The book reminds me of one of the good college term papers I've read, which I'd give him a "A" on if I were grading it, but that's it. "Good," in so far as he read a few books and strung together some decent information from which I learned a little. "College term paper," in so far as he lacks a breadth of knowledge on the issues he writes about beyond that level. Among Christian publishers who are looking to publish in the area of apologetics, they are looking for something better.

On the back cover Holding claims to have 17 years in apologetics ministry. If he's 38 years old now (a guess), then that means he started his ministry when he was 21 years old. What can that mean? That a 21 year old on the web arguing for Christianity has an apologetics ministry? Hardly. He also claims "It is impossible to estimate the evangelical impact that is possible because of The Impossible Faith." Since he capitalizes and italicizes the words, "The Impossible Faith" here, it's hard not to escape the conclusion he's referring to his own book. Such wildly overstated self-promotional claims usually come from college sophomores who think they know everything simply because they're not yet informed enough to fully grasp the serious objections to their own arguments.

The "explosive proposition" of his book is that "there is simply no possibility that Christianity could have been accepted by anyone in the ancient world, unless its first missionaries had indisputable proof and testimony of the faith's central tenant, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Had there not been such indisputable evidence to present, Christianity would have been an impossible faith." (p. viii) This is a very large claim! It's widely recognized among educated people that the larger the claim is, the harder it becomes to prove it. But if you think this is a large claim he goes even farther. When discussing the skeptical argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, Holding writes: "It is impossible that Christianity thrived and survived while making such audacious claims falsely, and even more incredible to suppose that such claims were made with the full and continuing knowledge that the result in most cases would be rejection, ostracization, and persecution." Then in the next paragraph he adds, "There are two added layers of difficulty..." So, first Holding claims such a faith is "impossible," but that's not enough. He adds that beyond being impossible, "it's even more incredible..." But that's not even enough, for he goes on to talk about "two added layers of difficulty." (p. 97). How he can pile up "two added layers of difficulty" on top of an already "incredible" skeptical argument on behalf of an "impossible" scenerio, is beyond me. Educated people know not to claim more than what their arguments actually show.

His argument has floated around in Christian circles for decades, and maybe even centuries before, with more reserved claims about what it actually shows. It would be interesting to know who first used it. I myself used it as a Christian. But I only claimed the Christian faith was unlikely. The novelty of his approach is that he uses some recent scholarship from the Social Science Group of Malina, Neyrey, and Rohrbaugh, along with McCane's study of burial customs in the New Testament era--books which someone must have pointed out to him and from which he uses like they were the gospel truth. He obviously picks and chooses what he wants to believe by these scholars, since none of them would affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, and McCane may be an atheist for all he knows.

It's worth looking at his main argument.

Holding argues that ancient societies highly valued honor much more than we do today, and as such Jesus' shameful crucifixion and burial would be powerful obstacles to them believing he is the Son of God. Holding asks, "How could a man, subject to such overwhelming disgrace, in a society where honor was so crucial, have come to be recognized as the Son of God? There is only one viable explanation," that Jesus arose from the dead. (p. 17). Really? Only one viable explanation?

Holding argues that in the ancient world people concentrated not on individual identity but rather on group identity such that there were three strikes against believing in Jesus. Strike # 1 is that Jesus was a Jew, hated and despised by the Romans. Strike # 2 is that Jesus was a Galilean, which added to Roman hatred just like Iraq or Afghanistan is to us today. The Galileans were also thought to be "ignoramuses" by the Jews in Judea. Strike # 3 is that Jesus was from Nazareth, which would cause both Jews and Gentiles to scoff at the idea he was the Messiah. Holding writes: "Ethnically and geographically, Jesus was everything that everyone did NOT expect a Messiah to be." (p. 27). Everyone? Really?

Holding argues that the resurrection was a major stumbling block in preaching to the Gentiles because a bodily resurrection went against the philosophical thinking of that day, where the body was considered something to be escaped from, and it was strange to Jewish ears because "no one had conceived of the idea of one UNIQUE resurrection before the time of final judgment" (pp. 29-32). Again. "No one"? What about Herod and some others (Mt 14:1, Mark 16:14-16)?

Holding argues that in the ancient world "innovation was bad." Giving preference to the thinking of the ancestors over innovative ideas was the rule among the ancients. Holding argues this in regard to several particular innovative ideas: 1) Jesus taught that believers should be willing to forsake their families; 2) Jesus reached out to tax collectors and a Samaritan woman; 3) Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed by pagans; 4) Jesus teaching was subversive toward the Jewish perception of patriotism. Since Christianity was such an innovation (an arrogant and exclusive innovation), "it is extremely unlikely that anyone would have accepted the Christian faith--unless there was indisputable evidence of its central claim, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ." (pp. 33-45). Once more. Is it "extremely unlikely that ANYONE would have accepted the Christian faith...?"

Holding turns next to three other religions, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam and argues that none of these other religions passes the test as an "impossible faith." (pp. 47-66). There are differences, no doubt, but they all arose from superstitious people and charismatic leaders. Mithraism actually died out, and by the criteria Holding suggested earlier that an impossible faith would be one that "passed into history" (p. vii) then it should be considered an "impossible faith." When it comes to Mormonism, like Christianity, he doesn't mention how persecution actually fans the flames of a movement.

In the short and remaining mostly superficial chapters Holding argues that there are "three pillars" supportive of the "impossible faith": 1) Miracles; 2) The empty tomb; and 3) The fulfillment of prophecy (pp. 67-75). He argues that the resurrection was not expected by his disciples (pp. 77-82). And he closes by arguing against two old and often debated arguments that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, known as the "swoon theory" (pp. 83-94), and the "theft theory," that someone stole the body of Jesus and perpetrated a lie (pp. 95-105).

Overall Holding wildly overstates his case, doesn't interact sufficiently with his detractors, and bases his arguments on certain implausible assumptions that he doesn't justify. For instance, Richard Carrier has sufficiently refuted his claims, not once but twice, along with Robert M. Price, Brian Hotz, and recently the combative Matthew Green, but Holding doesn't mention their arguments or interact with them at all in this book. While I can excuse him for not dealing with Green's recent arguments, I can't with regard to those written before he self-published his book. Why didn't he? He doesn't interact with the book, The Empty Tomb, either. If he wants to be a scholar, a wannabe, then the one thing scholars do is they show awareness of the relevant literature and interact with it. Holding doesn't do this in his book, even though he does attempt this outside of his book.

Furthermore, Holding quotes from the New Testament showing no awareness of Biblical criticism, the debates about Biblical inspiration, or whether Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. To blithely quote from a gospel (or the New Testament) without some understanding of the strata of gospel origins and the debates that ensue from them is just superficial stuff. He also assumes the people in Biblical times were not superstitious people in comparison to our own modern educated societies. He thinks people believed Christianity because of evidence even though they believed in Artemis, Zeus, and Janus, and that's merely college student level stuff.

For a detailed refutation of Holding's book see Richard Carrier's book, Not the Impossible Faith.

-----------

I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the forthcoming edited book, "The Christian Delusion."

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Apologetics primer, still not refuted, June 28, 2011

By 

Benson Shays (Out West) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Impossible Faith (Paperback)

Christianity is often wrongly labeled a baseless faith, believed in the absence of evidence. Richard Dawkins and other peddlers of tomfoolery have made that claim for years, so it's excellent to see books available like The Impossible Faith (TIF), which convincingly argues that Christianity succeeded primarily because of the overwhelming evidence - mainly the resurrection - that backed up the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.

The book serves essentially as a primer on the social world of the Bible and it's aimed at an audience badly in need of understanding - average American Christians. After finishing TIF readers will have an easier time contextualizing difficult passages, for example, Jesus' teaching in Matthew 12:49-50 to forsake family if necessary. To the modern mindset such a command doesn't make much sense, but in light of the fact that identity in the ancient world was determined by which social groups individuals belonged to, the significance isn't as difficult to see.

My favorite chapter, however, consists of a discussion about Christianity's uniqueness. Skeptics have an irritating habit of treating all religions as if they are equal and easily dismissed. "What makes Christianity so special?" is the typical cry, and in my teenage years I couldn't give a good answer, which is probably the case for many new Christians. Holding answers by succinctly comparing Christianity with three of it's major competitors, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam, illustrating just what makes the faith so special. Parenthetically, Holding's comparison does much to debunk the idea that Jesus was somehow copied from another ancient deity.

The online version of the book contains an argument that I find particularly interesting. Potential converts to Christianity in the first century were encouraged to test its claims. Why would the founders of a fledgling religion encourage people to try to debunk it's claims if they were making things up? As Holding puts it,

"As if the apostles weren't making things hard enough for themselves by making extraordinary and testable claims in a social environment where it was difficult to keep secrets, they increased the odds significantly by actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof is a guaranteed way of ensuring that your fledgling cult is a flop - unless, of course, those claims hold up under the scrutiny that your encouragement will undoubtedly generate."

But perhaps the best thing about TIF is the response it has elicited from critics. They would undoubtedly deny the strength of Holding's argument, but the fact that the brains of the modern atheist movement have responded so fervently since the book was published says a lot. I don't think the rebuttals count for much, since they amount to "well, other ancient religions had a tough time too!" But I think reading TIF and the rebuttals, particularly Richard Carrier's book-length attempt, is well worth it.

39 of 58 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars what a Joke, July 12, 2009

By 

Will (Indiana) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Impossible Faith (Paperback)

This book is full of historical misunderstandings. I am trying to decide whether or not Christianity is for me. After reading this, i am starting to doubt the historical claims of Christianity even more than before. This work is certainly a piece of shoddy scholarship that would not survive in any kind of peer-review process associated with the secular academy. If this book is representative of apologetical scholarship on the historical issues of Christian origins, then the faith is hanging on by a thread. And I suspect that thread is the mere emotional needs of the believers.
I did read Richard Carrier's rejoinder, "Not The Impossible Faith", and can tell you that he is a first rate historical scholar. Carrier's book confirmed my own criticisms of Holding's work and added several more, all of them solid.
For anyone interested in the topic, I recommend Richard Carrier's book instead. You will actually learn something. Holding's book is just fallacious apologetic drivel masquerading as historical scholarship. "The Impossible Faith" is a waste of time for anyone interested in learning and not just trying to reinforce cherished beliefs.