Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
23 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Effective and Airtight, May 16, 2007
James Patrick Holding's Tekton Apologetics Ministries has long been an excellent resource for historical apologetics, defending the Biblical accounts and putting down such fanciful ideas as the Christ-myth. With his second print release, Holding has put onto paper one of his feature essays, which has long been one of his most effective.
These several arguments present strong historical and social reasons for believing that Christianity couldn't have survived without a literal resurrection. They work together beautifully, and he creates an excellent reason for belief.
Highly recommended for any Christian who wants to be able to defend his faith adequately, and for any non-Christian who wants an incredible reason to believe. Great job, Mr. Holding.
|
|
|
19 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Believing in the "Impossible": A Critical Review., September 22, 2007
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 level stuff.
Richard Carrier has written an in depth refutation of Holding's claims in his book Not the Impossible Faith.
John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity
|
|
|
11 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Excellent Thesis, October 13, 2007
James Patrick Holding is my favorite apologist. He's dealt with a plethora of objections to Christianity having written well over a thousand articles. He's honest, knowing when something is beyond his purview (such as evolution), and sticks to the topic at hand. And last but not least, he does his homework citing only the most credentialed scholars when making his case. In fact, he is one of the few non-credentialed Bible scholars who I take just as seriously (if not more so) than many of those who are. Furthermore, his website -- Tekton Apologetics Ministry -- is one of the few sites I bother to read on a regular basis.
So it may not be much of a surprise to find that the Impossible Faith, while rather short, offers a most powerful and original argument for the truth of the Christian faith. As the back cover states, the book presents "a thesis so powerful, an atheist paid $5,000 [!] for an answer". The book's aim is to show that given the social and historical context wherein Christianity began, that unless there was some overwhelming evidence for its truth, it would not have been able to survive.
In the first chapter, Holding shows what happens to religions that cannot stand up to the obstacles of reality. Using Sabbatai Sevi as a case example, Holding states that in Sevi in 1666 had established himself as the Jewish Messiah in the minds of many. However, one day Sevi appeared before the Sultan's council, only to come out from the chambers a convert to Islam! However, later in his life, Sevi began showing signs of reversing his apostasy and was banished into isolation. It was there where Sevi died. However, one of his followers made the prediction that after 12 months, Sevi would raise from the dead. Of course, this didn't happen and as a result his religion fell to relatively few members. As Holding states, "[s]ocial, theological, and historical pressures inevitably come to bear and force most religious faiths to either change with the times, or cease to exist". Holding's point thus is that somehow, despite "impossible" obstacles, Christianity survived in its earliest stages. And that can almost certainly only be because it's true.
In the second chapter, Holding highlights just how important honor was to people in Jesus' society. Honor was, in fact, "of primary importance". Holding quotes scholar David DeSilva who states, "The promise of honor and threat of disgrace [were] prominent goads to pursue a certain kind of life and to avoid many alternatives". Holding goes on to discuss the crucifixion and how absolutely horrendous it was to the minds of 1st century folk - not merely because of the physical pain which is of more modern concern and emphasis, but because of the nonphysical pain of dishonor. Most Christians are aware of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18. But such extant remarks were hardly limited to the apostle. Josephus, Justin Martyr, Celsus, and an oracle of Apollo all testified to the enormous disgrace and dishonor that the crucifixion was. The point Holding makes here is that the severity of the crucifixion in an honor-and-shame culture such as the first century known world was a virtually insurmountable obstacle for Christianity, and the only way to explain the fact that Christianity did overcome this obstacle is that there must have been some sort of incredible proof that despite what Jesus experienced, that he was still vindicated; a la the Resurrection.
In the next chapter, Holding shows how people in the first century were hardly politically correct! In fact, what we today call stereotypes, meant quite a lot to those of Christ's day. And three in particular counted very much against Jesus. (1) He was a Jew; (2) He was a Galilean; (3) He was of Nazareth. (1) was not good because for a religion that aimed to convert not only Jews but Gentiles also, because as Holding shows in quoting Tacitus, the Jews were thought of as superstitious and were a people considered to despise everything non-Jewish. (2) was of a similar nature. Holding quotes Josephus who states the Galileans were naturally predisposed against Rome that they were "trained for war" against it. Galileans were also thought to lack intelligence. Holding notes a rabbinic account where a teacher spent 18 years trying to teach the Galileans though finally left frustrated by their lack of learning. (3) served as a problem, for in Christ's time your home town said a lot about you. However Nazareth, being a backwater town, could only serve to hurt the earthly image of Jesus. Even so, these obstacles were also overcome.
Holding next notes how the preaching of a physical resurrection was an unappealing message for most Gentiles. Many Gentiles thought the body and material matter not to be good, but evil. As the author states, "[t]he best hope was for us to get rid of our body, not desire for it to be raised again!"
Last but not least, Holding notes the obstacles Christianity made for itself by proclaiming, not unlike Judaism, things such as an exclusive path to God and salvation, and separation from the world. As Holding states, Christianity also taught people to break away from their families, advocated changes in social roles, and abolished the sacred symbols of Judaism. It is hard in our Western age and society, and in a book review no less, to underscore how seriously negative the reaction to these teachings would have been. Indeed all these factors made Christianity a most "impossible faith".
Holding then moves on to apply his thesis to other religions, such as Islam and Mormonism. After all, its not as though other of the more successful religions do not, or have not, experienced some kind of trials. Holding seems most willing to grant this. However, the trials these other religions experience simply were not up to par with what Christianity had to bear. For instance, although Mormons endured much persecution in their early years, being in a modern Western civilization, martyrdom was no more the vehicle of shame that it was for Christianity, but rather served to further its cause. Islam on the other hand was and is an impressive faith in how it came to be, and as Holding acknowledges may even pass the test of being an impossible faith if it were not for one major factor: through the sword was it able to sweep through the Middle East, enforcing and maintaining the status quo. Christianity, on the other hand, totally lacked this major advantage. As Holding asks, if Muhammad's tactical and military victories were instead failures, or simply did not happen, where would Islam be today?
Having established his thesis, Holding goes on in the last couple chapters of the book to defend the Resurrection against alternative, naturalistic hypotheses. Holding tackles the untenable (yet sometimes advocated) swoon theory, as well as theories that someone stole the body of Christ. He rightly argues that these alternative theories to be substantially less supported by the evidence.
In the end, despite all the shame, ostracizing, and contempt that Christianity had to face in its earliest stages, it somehow was able to overcome despite boldly and daringly espousing miracles that were easily verifiable in that day. And if we can discount dishonor as an incentive for converting [!], there can really only be one other reasonable rationale for doing so: the miracles attested in the Gospels and New Testaments were indeed verified to such an extent that all dishonor was overturned and the message vindicated. For it's only by such indisputable proof that such a result could have occurred.
As mentioned at the beginning, Holding has put together quite an impressive and powerful thesis defending the Christian faith. I would recommend it to anyone seriously thinking about and investigating the Christian faith. At just over a hundred pages, it doesn't take much investment out of anyone's extracurricular time to read. Holding doesn't waist any time or words, and so gets right to the point. And even if one is poised to doubt and/or disagree with Holding's thesis, I would encourage him or her to read it anyway. For anyone who is going to claim that Holding is wrong must deal with the facts he has presented. Hand waving and casual dismissal will not suffice.
Overall, highly recommended.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by James Patrick Holding
by James Patrick Holding
by William Lane Craig
by Craig L. Blomberg
