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.
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
237 of 302 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
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."
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."
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
In the 21st Century Christian Apologists have used a multi-faceted approach to defend the traditional view of Jesus.
The first argument used is the radical nature of Jesus, that in some way he felt he was at least in a special relationship with Yahweh and he engaged in behavior that would only be appropriate for Yahweh. This can be explored in Jesus According to the Scripture by Darrell L Bock.
The second argument is how exactly did Christianity get started after Jesus died on the cross? Christian apologist have argued that only the resurrection could have changed the disciples from frightened men into evangelical defenders of the faith. Skeptics do not feel the resurrection is necessary to explain this and tend to explain away the resurrection appearances as hallucinations. A good book on this is Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. It provides both the Christian view and skeptical arguments.
The third argument is the conversion of enemies of Jesus, in this case his brother James and Saul of Tarsus. The conversion of James could be explained as grief based and opportunist as he eventually became the leader of the new Christian movement but explaining the conversion of Saul tends to be more difficult. Skeptics tend to postulate hallucinations and unknown psychological problems to explain Saul's conversion. Christians argue the above would not be enough to have a truly life changing effect on him. This argument can also be explored in Licona's book.
The forth argument is that Christianity would have been unpopular to both Pagans and Jews because of various features in it. The argument is that by 64 AD the early Christians converted enough people to be noticed by the Roman Government and to be used as a scapegoat for the fires of Rome. Obviously this had to be a sizable population to be noticed and to be useful in this manner. How were they converted period when Christianity would have seemed so unattractive for reasons explored below?
The fifth argument would be the martyrdom of the Apostles and Paul. While some of the martyrdom accounts cannot be verified it is certainly historical that James the brother of Jesus, Peter and Paul died for their convictions. Skeptics argue correctly that in of itself martyrdom means nothing as many people die for false beliefs but Christians are also argue correctly that no one dies for beliefs they know to be false. So it is obvious the above truly believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but was this brought about through hallucinations or a true experience is the debated issue.
Holding is the main creator of the forth argument and I will explore it below.
Chapter 1 focuses on the crucifixion. This is by far Holding's strongest argument.
A man crucified as a dead insurgent would have no appeal to Pagans.
A man crucified for blasphemy would have no appeal to Jews.
Lastly and oddly enough not mentioned by Holding was the implication that if Jesus was crucified you might surely become crucified too!
Chapter 2 dealt with the origins of Jesus a Jew from Nazareth in the province of Galilee. I do not feel this argument is as strong as the argument in Chapter 1 for the following reasons.
It is obvious that Judaism did enjoy some success among the Pagans through both conversion and support. This happened without Judaism being an evangelical religion. Evangelical Christianity would have seemed attractive to at least some of the Pagans who wanted to embrace the ethics of Judaism, without embracing the totality of Mosaic Law. Up until the beginnings of the Judean War it is hard to know if the average Pagan would have been informed enough about Judea to know the low views Jews held of Nazareth and Galilee. Before the 2nd Gulf War how much did the average American know about say Basra?
Obviously Jesus' Judaism would not be held against him by other Jews. However it seems his small town backwater stigma did not greatly impede his ministry during his lifetime so this does not seem to have been a lethal problem.
While this issue might have raised eyebrows I cannot see it as a great impediment to early Christianity.
Chapter 3 deals with the fleshly nature of the resurrection of Jesus. These arguments are explored in a lot more depth by N. T Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God. This argument would have very much created a lot of difficulties among Pagans because it would have seemed both pointless and vulgar. I am not sure if the idea of a singular resurrection would have been a stopper for all Jews, witness the reaction of Herod and others to reports of Jesus' miracles after the execution of John the Baptist, however it certainly would have been a stopper to theologically well educated Jews of that period. For example Paul.
This argument is very strong for its affect upon Paganism but I feel questionable for its use among Jews. I do feel it is by far stronger than the argument of the 2nd Chapter though not as strong as the argument in the 1st Chapter. Other arguments such as women witnesses and the use of people such as Matthew do seem to suggest that the early evangelist were telling the truth as these are not the type of witnesses one would sensibly make up.
Other parts of the book deal with other religious movements such as Mithraism, Islam and Mormonism. I am satisfied with Holding's arguments against Mithraism though I think he exaggerates in some ways the difficulty faced by early Mormons. Early Mormonism had the advantage of having a theology that both supported American Manifest Destiny and supported Slavery. The rise of Islam can be in many ways compared to the rise of Nazism as both started out against great difficulties in their early years and when they gained power they killed their enemies. The obvious difference is that Hitler lost his conquests and Mohammed and his followers won theirs. Nothing really remarkable in this.
All and all I think Holding has an interesting argument but it needs to really be developed a lot more strongly. I think in conjuncture with other arguments for the faith is gives one a good reason to consider Christianity.
The first argument used is the radical nature of Jesus, that in some way he felt he was at least in a special relationship with Yahweh and he engaged in behavior that would only be appropriate for Yahweh. This can be explored in Jesus According to the Scripture by Darrell L Bock.
The second argument is how exactly did Christianity get started after Jesus died on the cross? Christian apologist have argued that only the resurrection could have changed the disciples from frightened men into evangelical defenders of the faith. Skeptics do not feel the resurrection is necessary to explain this and tend to explain away the resurrection appearances as hallucinations. A good book on this is Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. It provides both the Christian view and skeptical arguments.
The third argument is the conversion of enemies of Jesus, in this case his brother James and Saul of Tarsus. The conversion of James could be explained as grief based and opportunist as he eventually became the leader of the new Christian movement but explaining the conversion of Saul tends to be more difficult. Skeptics tend to postulate hallucinations and unknown psychological problems to explain Saul's conversion. Christians argue the above would not be enough to have a truly life changing effect on him. This argument can also be explored in Licona's book.
The forth argument is that Christianity would have been unpopular to both Pagans and Jews because of various features in it. The argument is that by 64 AD the early Christians converted enough people to be noticed by the Roman Government and to be used as a scapegoat for the fires of Rome. Obviously this had to be a sizable population to be noticed and to be useful in this manner. How were they converted period when Christianity would have seemed so unattractive for reasons explored below?
The fifth argument would be the martyrdom of the Apostles and Paul. While some of the martyrdom accounts cannot be verified it is certainly historical that James the brother of Jesus, Peter and Paul died for their convictions. Skeptics argue correctly that in of itself martyrdom means nothing as many people die for false beliefs but Christians are also argue correctly that no one dies for beliefs they know to be false. So it is obvious the above truly believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but was this brought about through hallucinations or a true experience is the debated issue.
Holding is the main creator of the forth argument and I will explore it below.
Chapter 1 focuses on the crucifixion. This is by far Holding's strongest argument.
A man crucified as a dead insurgent would have no appeal to Pagans.
A man crucified for blasphemy would have no appeal to Jews.
Lastly and oddly enough not mentioned by Holding was the implication that if Jesus was crucified you might surely become crucified too!
Chapter 2 dealt with the origins of Jesus a Jew from Nazareth in the province of Galilee. I do not feel this argument is as strong as the argument in Chapter 1 for the following reasons.
It is obvious that Judaism did enjoy some success among the Pagans through both conversion and support. This happened without Judaism being an evangelical religion. Evangelical Christianity would have seemed attractive to at least some of the Pagans who wanted to embrace the ethics of Judaism, without embracing the totality of Mosaic Law. Up until the beginnings of the Judean War it is hard to know if the average Pagan would have been informed enough about Judea to know the low views Jews held of Nazareth and Galilee. Before the 2nd Gulf War how much did the average American know about say Basra?
Obviously Jesus' Judaism would not be held against him by other Jews. However it seems his small town backwater stigma did not greatly impede his ministry during his lifetime so this does not seem to have been a lethal problem.
While this issue might have raised eyebrows I cannot see it as a great impediment to early Christianity.
Chapter 3 deals with the fleshly nature of the resurrection of Jesus. These arguments are explored in a lot more depth by N. T Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God. This argument would have very much created a lot of difficulties among Pagans because it would have seemed both pointless and vulgar. I am not sure if the idea of a singular resurrection would have been a stopper for all Jews, witness the reaction of Herod and others to reports of Jesus' miracles after the execution of John the Baptist, however it certainly would have been a stopper to theologically well educated Jews of that period. For example Paul.
This argument is very strong for its affect upon Paganism but I feel questionable for its use among Jews. I do feel it is by far stronger than the argument of the 2nd Chapter though not as strong as the argument in the 1st Chapter. Other arguments such as women witnesses and the use of people such as Matthew do seem to suggest that the early evangelist were telling the truth as these are not the type of witnesses one would sensibly make up.
Other parts of the book deal with other religious movements such as Mithraism, Islam and Mormonism. I am satisfied with Holding's arguments against Mithraism though I think he exaggerates in some ways the difficulty faced by early Mormons. Early Mormonism had the advantage of having a theology that both supported American Manifest Destiny and supported Slavery. The rise of Islam can be in many ways compared to the rise of Nazism as both started out against great difficulties in their early years and when they gained power they killed their enemies. The obvious difference is that Hitler lost his conquests and Mohammed and his followers won theirs. Nothing really remarkable in this.
All and all I think Holding has an interesting argument but it needs to really be developed a lot more strongly. I think in conjuncture with other arguments for the faith is gives one a good reason to consider Christianity.
7 of 11 people found the following review helpful
By Reuben
Amazon Verified Purchase
I give this book 4 stars. Really easy and quick read, I would have improved the last chapter where he pleads with the reader to consider the resurrection for what it was. I feel that he should have a little more of a Gospel message at the end and explain a bit about the need not only to believe the resurrection but to repent of our sins and put our faith in Jesus Christ for our salvation and eternal life. Other than that, it was good quick read. I don't think this is meant to be exhaustive but it covers a few basic points.
All of these atheists saying that it's a horrible book riddled with logical fallacies are way over the top. If you're a Christian or a non Christian who isn't antagonistic towards the Gospel and aren't already all filled with hate for God, then you should enjoy this book.
Forget what the atheists have to say about it...they are impossible to please.
All of these atheists saying that it's a horrible book riddled with logical fallacies are way over the top. If you're a Christian or a non Christian who isn't antagonistic towards the Gospel and aren't already all filled with hate for God, then you should enjoy this book.
Forget what the atheists have to say about it...they are impossible to please.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
2.0 out of 5 stars
Poor Christian Character
J.P. Holding has many good intentions, but his efforts in apologetics are marred by his use of mockery and insult. As a brother in the Lord I cannot support Holding's ministry. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Mandude
5.0 out of 5 stars
Apologetics primer, still not refuted
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... Read more
Published 23 months ago by Benson Shays
1.0 out of 5 stars
DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY
Holding's basic thesis is that 1st-century Jews would have regarded worship of a crucified man blasphemous, therefore, the only way Christianity could have gotten started in such... Read more
Published on February 27, 2010 by skepticdude
1.0 out of 5 stars
Already Refuted
J.P. Holding promotes this book by claiming an atheist paid $5000 for an answer, yet curiously he never names the expert who composed that answer or where to find it. Read more
Published on August 14, 2009 by Richard C. Carrier
4.0 out of 5 stars
J. P. Holding Hits the Mark
J. P. Holding's "The Impossible Faith" is a short introduction to a powerful argument to support the Christian faith. Read more
Published on July 24, 2009 by J. K. Jones
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Excellent Thesis
James Patrick Holding is my favorite apologist. He's dealt with a plethora of objections to Christianity having written well over a thousand articles. Read more
Published on October 13, 2007 by S.D. Parker
4.0 out of 5 stars
EXCELENT thesis, but too short.
This book is an excellent resource for finding why Christianity's beginnings were so radically different than any other religion's, and why that is so important to its truth... Read more
Published on September 25, 2007 by Leo Staley
5.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting Book
This book by James Holding is quite different from many of his online diatribes where he frequently uses sarcasm and ad hominems. Read more
Published on September 17, 2007 by D. Mooney
1.0 out of 5 stars
more pulp apologetics
James Patrick Holding, (real name Robert Turkel) is a pulp apologist and former prison librarian (not a biblical scholar) who refuses to link any criticism of his apologetics to... Read more
Published on September 7, 2007 by J. E. Hill
1.0 out of 5 stars
Clear but unoriginal
The writing is fine. The ideas are put together cogently. But it's simple and the arguments are cliche. Read more
Published on August 29, 2007 by Jake S.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
