Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Cold Case Christianity: Why didn't Jesus reveal unknown scientific facts to prove his deity?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled


Several years ago, I had the opportunity to defend the reliability of the New Testament Gospels to the students of San Jose State University. Jane Pantig (the director of the local Ratio Christi chapter) invited me, and I was delighted to come. I’ve been working with Ratio Christi across the country to defend the Christian worldview on college campuses. If you aren’t acquainted with the work of this growing apologetics movement, you really ought to familiarize yourself with Ratio Christi and find a way to support their efforts. At the end of my presentation, during the question and answer period, a polite young skeptic asked why Jesus didn’t reveal scientific facts in an effort to demonstrate His Deity. Why didn’t Jesus describe something well beyond the scope and knowledge of His contemporaries as a prophetic proof? He could easily have described the role of DNA, the proper organization of the Solar System, or the biological complexity of cellular structures. The questioner believed this sort of knowledge would have been persuasive to him as a 21st Century skeptic, and without it, he remained unconvinced.
First of all, there is no denying that the request is valid.  Jesus could have said "there are bugs living on our skin and inside our bodies that are too small to see," and that prediction would have been confirmed shortly after the invention of the microscope.  And since no first-century person could possibly have detected such tiny bugs, this would have been a powerful proof that Jesus was, or had access to, unearthly powers, helping substantiate his claims.

Second, people usually and reasonably respond to idiots who claim godly powers, by demanding a demonstration.  If any such idiot boasts "I can levitate my body using nothing but the powers of my mind during prayer", we will not launch into research about that person's credibility, or whether his friends make claims to have seen this happen...we will simply say "let's see it, otherwise, why are you boasting of such ability while being unwilling to demonstrate it?  Is there a reason why we should distinguish between miracle-claimants like you, and lying bastards who exaggerate their abilities because they are attention-whores?"

I thought this was a great question, and one I often receive but seldom talk about on the podcast or here on the blog.
perhaps because it is too difficult for you to reconcile "God is very concerned about your soul" and "God refuses to do the best that he can to convince you that you are in spiritual danger".
There are a number of problems with this expectation of superior anachronistic scientific wisdom:

The Nature of the Gospel Accounts
The New Testament authors repeatedly referred to themselves as eyewitnesses.
That's not the issue.  The problem is Jesus failing to do something that was within his logical power to do, and which would have been an undeniable proof of his deity, especially given all the apologists of today who insist that some biblical authors made amazingly accurate predictions of future events at a time when no human could possibly have guessed such things.  Jesus telling the world about our bodies being filled with bugs too small to see, isn't different, from an apologetics standpoint, from the alleged mathematical accuracy of the messianic prediction in Daniel 9 that some apologists insist was a very precise prediction about Jesus made hundreds of years before he was born.  Apparently, God is not against telling the current generation things they couldn't know or verify until thousands of years later.
In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, John tells us he is testifying and his testimony is true.
No, in the last chapter of John's gospel, the persons who tell you John testified and wrote those things, is not John, but a group of two or more people:
 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"
 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. (Jn. 21:23-25 NAU)
 Wallace continues:
Language such as this presumes the author has seen something he is describing as an eyewitness.
The plural "we" who "know" John's testimony is true, neither express nor imply how it is they know it to be true (i.e., whether they saw the same Jesus-events he did, or whether they merely trust his stories to be historically accurate, or whatever...).  And back in the first century, hearsay wasn't as odious as it is today, so there is a substantial possibility that the "we" knew John's testimony to be true, for reasons other than having witnessed the same events he did.  Universal church tradition has John writing late in his life too, so there's an increased risk that the "we" are not contemporaries equally as old as him, but younger persons who were not yet born, or else very young, when Jesus was preaching.
In addition, John and Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who directly observed Jesus, and were not inventing clever stories (1 John 1:1,3 and 2 Peter 1:16).
Unfortunately, they do not express or imply that they were eyewitnesses of a resurrected Christ.
NAU  1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--
 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--
 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 Jn. 1:1-3 NAU)

 15 And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.
 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "--
 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (2 Pet. 1:15-18 NAU)
Let me know when you discover which precise words in your two preferred bible cites you think constitute testimony that they saw Jesus alive after he died.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: generously forgetting about fatal problems of author identity, at best there are only three NT authors whose resurrection testimony comes down to us today in first-hand (eyewitness) form:  Matthew, John and Paul.

Wallace continues:
While Luke clearly states he is not an eyewitness to the events in his gospel, he does tell us he is relying on the true eyewitnesses for his information (Luke 1:1).
And if the Christian scholarly consensus is correct that Luke borrowed extensively from Mark's gospel text, then Luke is the type to avoid telling the reader that a substantial portion of his gospel is drawn from hearsay sources, and he prefers to instead mention only eyewitnesses as his source, and thus give the false impression that everything he reported was drawn from eyewitness testimony. 
The gospel eyewitness accounts record the life and teaching of Jesus in the context of the 1st Century.
Which is why a first-century preacher, telling his people about bugs too small to see are present everywhere in and on the human body, would be a rather shocking proof of his deity.
They record Jesus’ ministry to 1st Century followers. The gospels are not unhistorical volumes containing proverbial wisdom statements; they are specific eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ historic interaction with a specific group in history.
Mark and Luke are not eyewitness accounts, and your trying to avoid their hearsay problem by pointing out that they draw from eyewitness sources, is like a lawyer trying to avoid the hearsay in the witnesses statement "I know she pulled the trigger because my grandma said so" by pointing out that the grandma was purported to herself be an eyewitness of the shooting.  Hearsay doesn't stop being hearsay and thus inadmissible merely because you can show that it quotes the alleged eyewitness.  If YOU didn't see it with your own eyes, YOU do not take the stand as an "eyewitness".
The Nature of the Ancient Audience
The context of Jesus’ ministry and message were defined by the nature (and limitations) of this ancient audience.
Making it completely impossible for modern skeptics to provide a naturalistic explanation for Jesus saying, in the first century, that human body is full of bugs that are too small for sinners to see.  If such statements of Jesus were made, and they were as textual stable as, say, any statement of Jesus found in the triple tradition, skeptics would be unable to plausibly argue that those words of Jesus were added only after Antoni van Leeuwenhoek found such bugs in the 17th century.
Sometimes it’s easy for us to approach the gospels from our 21st Century perspective (bringing our desires, needs and expectations to the text),
Which is exactly what apologists do when they pretend the gospels were written with the intent to that their assertions pass critical tests of historiography.
rather than examining them from the perspective of the first hearers and readers. In order to illustrate this point, imagine yourself as Jesus. You’ve got three years to demonstrate your Divinity to those you live with in the 1st Century. Think about what approach you might take. You could reveal yet unknown scientific facts to your audience, but would this accomplish your goal?
Maybe your goal is not that your immediate audience be wowed, but that your audience from a thousand years later be wowed.
If you describe the role of DNA or the anatomy of the solar system, how would your 1st Century audience confirm your statements?
Why would they need to?  Those who "just believed" would be true followers, and those who were suspicious that the claims were false would be "working for Satan to overthrow the faith".  Stupid Christians can concoct  plenty of ad hoc "what-ifs" to force their theories to work, what's stopping you now?  Maybe the fact that the type of ad hoc bullshit needed here would be the kind that works against your apologetics case?
Surely claims of this nature would be unimpressive to a world without the ability to assess their veracity.
Jesus could have invented the microscope in the first-century, for the limited purpose of having his followers scientifically verify such bugs.  Then cause it to disappear, and then you could be here today, insisting that the  historically reliable gospels assert Jesus invented the microscope, for mysterious reasons he later destroyed it, and skeptics cannot prove such gospel assertions false.  NOW what's your excuse?
In fact, any combination of such claims with other demonstrations of Deity would only serve to dilute the power of your message.
You are high on crack, especially given that you always push your theory that there are plenty of scientifically accurate statements in the bible which the original audiences wouldn't have been able to verify, such as the astronomical accuracy of Genesis 1 and 2, etc.
There are ways you could establish your Deity in front of such a 1st Century audience, but obscure, esoteric claims are perhaps the least effective approach.
Not if the creator of the universe has the presence of mind to invent a microscope Johnny-on-the-Spot to permit verification of his body-bug claims.
The Nature of the Miraculous Evidence
Jesus chose instead to demonstrate His Deity through miraculous supernatural behavior.
None of which was sufficient to get his own mother and immediate family members to believe those claims were true.  See John 7:5 (not even his brothers were believing him) and Mark 3:21 ff (his mother and brothers search for him to put a stop to his public preaching, having concluded that Jesus had gone insane).
In fact, Jesus spoke openly about the evidential value of the miracles he performed.
So does Benny Hinn.  When is the last time you donated to that fool?
He said these miracles were intended to prove his Deity so His audience would believe He was who He claimed to be (John 14:11 and John 10:37-38).
So were the members of Jesus' immediate family very stupid or very smart for not finding his alleged working of miracles to be evidence that he was the son of God?
Miracles of this nature were the perfect tool to reach observers in the 1st Century.
They also seem to be the perfect tool for getting idiot Christians to donate to obvious con artists in this century.  We have to wonder how difficult it would be for a gospel author to do in writing what Benny Hinn's followers do in speech, and spin the facts so that what was just another tent-revival with a lot of hooting and holloring and alleged miracles (which they were probably present to witness), was turned into a public display of God's power that frightened the skeptics away.  GO FUCK YOURSELF.
They were immediately accessible and verifiable.
So are Benny Hinn's tricks.  Yet the obvious falsity of his miracle-claims doesn't slow down thousands of people from flocking to him and believing his specious claims nonetheless.  We can only surmise humanity's general contempt for critical thinking and general preference to misinterpret what they saw so as to feel better about concluding it must have been a real miracle, was even more likely in 33 a.d., than in 2018 a.d.
Unlike obscure statements to be confirmed over the course of two thousand years, these diverse miracles demonstrated the Divine nature of Jesus in a variety of ways available to both contemporary and future audiences.
Which means if James his brother didn't believe those claims (John 7:5, Mark 3, supra), then we have an early church leader plagued with the exact level of credibility problems that today's apologists say modern skeptics are plagued with: refusing to believe the evidence.
Miracles, unlike anachronistic wisdom statements, have the ability to validate the Divinity of Jesus across time.
So basically what you are saying is that Christians who cite  Isaiah 40:22 to "prove" only God could have revealed the global shape of earth to Isaiah in 700 b.c., are idiots, and you are also saying, based on your comments, that whatever god was doing in Isaiah 40:22, he wasn't giving Isaiah in 700 b.c. a scientific truth that humanity would have to wait several hundred years to verify....because in your argument, you think such procedure would constitute an "anachronistic wisdom statement".
The gospels are an account of Jesus’ activity in the 1st Century. They record Jesus’ interaction with an ancient audience, as He provided them with the kind of evidence they would find persuasive.
He may have tried, but his own brothers and mother did not find that evidence very persuasive.  What do you expect today's skeptics to do when they find out that Benny Hinn's brother thinks Benny is a fraud?  Just tell ourselves surely this brother is only jealous that he doesn't get as much attention as Benny?

or does the unbelief of the evangelist's immediate family toward his miracle claims justify initial suspicion toward such claims?  What should skeptics think when Benny Hinn's nephew says Hinn's prosperity gospel preaching is total bullshit, and why didn't you do the same when you first read John 7:5?  FUCK YOU.

Wallace, you have failed to convince anybody that it would been impractical and problematic for Jesus to reveal in the first century scientific truths that wouldn't be confirmed for at least another 1,000 years.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Lawsuit against "Mark Hunsaker" planned

When I advertised on YouTube a few days ago my planned third libel lawsuit against James Patrick Holding, some idiot posting under the name "Mark Hunsaker" committed libel himself by asserting as fact that my prior two lawsuits against Holding were frivolous, that I had abused the Court system, and was seeking a bloated amount of cash that was neither legally nor factually justified.

A google search indicated there are several Mark Hunsakers in the world, but only two who have any connection to Christianity.  One is a pastor of a Lutheran church in Branson Missouri.  The other has been posting under the Mark Hunsaker name for more than a decade, usually in forums discussing issues of Christianity. 

Since the Husaker from YouTube thought it better to play games, like the frightened barking child caught in the act that he is, rather than outrightly admit his true identity, I obtained the corporation documents for the Praise and Worship Lutheran Church where a "Mark Hunsaker" pastor works, googled the names therein and obtained the email addresses of most of the officers and board members, and emailed them, as well as their legal counsel, with the following, in the attempt to perform my due diligence as a libel Plaintiff, as required by law,  i.e., to uncover, to the best of my ability, the true identity of a person libeling me on the internet, before I file a John Doe subpoena and force Google or YouTube to reveal all ISP addresses and other information associated with that account, that leads to or is likely to lead to successfully unmasking the true identity of the specific Mark Hunsaker who posted those YouTube comments.

Lucky for me he cannot post on YouTube unless he first created an account that required some type of identifying information such as phone number.  Whoever that Hunsaker is who libeled me, church pastor or no, he IS going to be found out, so if he has a lot to lose, he can mitigate the storm headed his way by admitting guilt now, which will show he is capable of reform.  If he can only be unmasked the hard way, then the publicity about his initial attempt to hide and to threaten me with violence for forever mar his credibility.

One of two possible inferences can be rationally drawn from the fact that the YouTube Hunsaker threatened me with physical violence if i made good on my threat to find out his true identity:

a - he is a man with a lot to lose, and not just some idiot without a life talking shit on the internet.  that's consistent with a church pastor, even if not infallible proof.

b - he doesn't have much to lose, but doesn't like to be held accountable for postings on the internet he was hoping would never be successfully linked back to him in real life.  In that case, whoever that man really is, he can only ensure his credibility with others will progressively diminish if he refuses to cooperate and must be forced out of hiding.  And that's even worse if he is in fact some type of "Christian" since he would then have to go the rest of his life trying to convince other Christians that sometimes God wants Christians to dishonestly hide their guilt.  Maybe the lawsuit will turn him into a 5-Point Calvinist, who says God causes Christians to sin.

here's the email:
---begin email quote----------------------------------


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com> wrote:

 25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
 26 "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.  (Matt. 5:25-26 NAU)

 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. (Matt. 5:40-41 NAU)

To the officers and members of the board concerning the Praise and Worship Lutheran church of Branson, MO., as well as their legal counsel and others, if applicable:

Ron Musolino
Bernie Smith
Rev. Dr. Lee Hagan
Harley Schmitgen:
Shari Smith, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
 Vice President:  Stephen Lindwedel
Treasurer:  Kirk Manion
Linda Reinbold  --->cgrady5383@gmail.com
Ron Jett
Julie Leeth
Ron Musolino
My true name is (deleted).  I live at (deleted).I would hardly positively identify myself if this notice of intent to file suit was frivolous.  I am deadly serious. I have good probable cause to believe the Mark Hunsaker who recently libeled me on YouTube, is the same man as the Mark Hunsaker who pastors your Praise and Worship Lutheran church at 3158 State Hwy 265, Branson MO 65737.
Because I believe the Mark Hunsaker who libeled me on YouTube within the last few days is the same as your pastor of the same name in Branson, MO, who did so while acting within the course and scope of his position as employee of your corporation, if this comes to court, I'll be suing the corporation he works for, not himself personally, and where corporations are sued, nobody can represent it pro se, they are required to hire a an actual certified lawyer in good standing with the bar.   I wish to spare you from the need to hire a lawyer, so please read the following, carefully:

Please retain and prevent the destruction of any files or internet accounts or internet communications initiated by or received by your pastor Mark Hunsaker who works out of your church in Branson, MO. I have good probable cause to believe that
a) he is the Mark Hunsaker who libeled me in the last few days on YouTube, and
b) based on his threat to physically harm me should I pursue legal means of positively identifying him, he has every motive to delete evidence having a tendency to point to him as the guilty Defendant in this planned lawsuit.  If we end up in court and your pastor admits he "lost" any such evidence, that's called "spoliation of evidence" and he could end up enduring much legal trouble for it.

Why all the fuss?  Glad you asked:
After I posted comments on YouTube to the effect that I was planning a lawsuit against disgraced homosexual Christian apologist James Patrick Holding (himself irreparably guilty of ceaseless libel and slander), somebody using the name or pseudonym "Mark Hunsaker" replied there several times, with comments that constituted libel (i.e., the written form of defamation), saying things such as my prior lawsuits were frivolous and constituted an abuse of the court system, and that I was in fact only seeking a bloated chunk of money for damages that were neither factually nor legally justified.  Those comments can be found at

....but in case they conveniently get deleted, here's a copy and paste of what this "Mark Hunsaker" has said so far:
saved April 12, 2018
11:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time

begin quote-----------------
you may have heard about the lawsuit an atheist bible critic filed against a Christian apologist, for libel and defamation. That atheist was me, I'll be suing James Patrick Holding for a third time, see my request to him to preserve evidence at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/03/third-lawsuit-against-james-patrick.html

Third time IS not a charm Barry. If your previous 2 lawsuits failed, it probably is a good indicator that they were without merit. The more times you files suit is not a credit to your cause.

Mark, you apparently don't know jack shit about those two cases, nor the law relevant to their dismissal. There is no legal doctrine in modern jurisprudence that says the jurisdictional dismissal of prior lawsuits argues that the later lawsuits of similar content are probably lacking in merit. But religion makes people so scared of critical thinking that it makes then say stupid shit like you just did. If you gave one rat's ass about the actual truth, you'd be interested in whether my claims were actually meritorious, not what somebody else thought of the case. What, do you think judges are infallible and free from corruption? All they are is lawyers who got elected to the judgeship. They don't become honorable by obtaining that seat anymore than you become honorable by being promoted to assistant crew leader.

Barry, there is a legal term used for this sort of improper use of our legal system. It is called frivolous. Secondly, there IS a legal doctrine for what I am referring to. It is called a legal precedent. I could go on and on, and will, if you require, but please consult with, at least, a junior partner at a law firm before continuing to clog up our court system over your subjective hurt feelings. In addition, since our courts cannot restore your "reputation", I am sure it is NOT your "reputation" you seek to restore, but, in fact, some inordinate and bloated financial award which you don't deserve, to get over yourself. You don't get money, just because somebody offended you, or disagrees with you. If your previous 2 suits failed, the third likely will not succeed.

And you think you are spiritually mature enough to be "pastor" in Branson, Missouri? Yeah Right!

What....are you talking about? First of all, I have said nothing about religion, nor my beliefs. For you all you know, I could be an atheist. Looks like you are drawing some pretty quick conclusions there Barry. Secondly, where did you get the idea, that I am from Missouri, or wanted to be a pastor? Or were you talking to someone else?

You are hereby requested to preserve any and all internet-based communications you have posted, sent or received, including avoiding deleting the account or accounts that allow you to post comments on YouTube, including any communications you have with any third-parties about me, regardless of the medium by which those comments are communicated.

There are only two Mark Hunsakers that show up in a google search as having any interest or connection to Christianity. One is a pastor of a Lutheran church in Branson, MO., whose mannerisms in his videotaped sermons suggest a 12-year old trying to educate adults on what they already know, and the other is a man of the same name who goes around the internet posting comments about the bible, apologetics, and Lutheranism. I have good reason to draw the legal conclusion that your comments about me were genuinely and actionably libelous.

I'm going to file a John Doe Subpoena in a federal Missouri Court, and a judge will order YouTube and/or Google to turn over all ISP addresses and identifying information for your specific account, to narrow down to the state and hopefully city that you actually post from. We are going to find out, within the next two months, whether my quick conclusions were actually true or actually false. FUCK YOU.

 If you would like to mitigate the storm of successful attacks on your honesty and credibility that are now looming large (which can only spell disaster if you are indeed a "pastor"), you might wish to email me at barryjoneswhat@gmail.com, or contact me at my blog turchisrong, and maybe we can settle out of court. Otherwise, I will pursue the above-mentioned methods of unmasking your true identity, so I can then file the libel lawsuit in a court of proper jurisdiction. The more you continue toying with me, the more I pursue legal methods of uncovering your real identity. Do you wish to trifle, or get honest?

i think you are spoofing me. Thanks for the good laugh though. I am beginning to have doubts as to your mental stability. Btw, you don't have a clue what you are talking about legally. And you suck at research. Do anything like what you threaten and there might be much more than your alleged reputation that needs repair. Later.
------------------end quote--------------------
 ==============================================

 15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
 (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)
(by the way, you can tell that I employed the first part of Matthew 18 here.  I wasn't able to go to him privately because he refuses to identify himself sufficiently to enable that, so I warned him of the error of his way in the only forum I knew I could communicate with him [here, he sinned by violating Romans 13, by violating secular laws prohibiting libel, laws which are consistent with biblical injunctions against slander, and therefore secular laws that Christians are obligated to follow], and he did not listen.  The next step was taking a witness, and there were already witnesses there in that forum, and I otherwise wouldn't be able to get a witness to participate due to his refusal to identify himself more particularly so as to enable any such private meeting.  He still isn't listening, so I am properly employing the third step, and  "telling it to the church", or the portion of the church whose authority Hunsaker would more than likely acknowledge and submit to, if indeed it is the pastor from Branson MO who is the person libeling me.)
The problem is that according to Jesus, if telling it to the whole church does not get him to truthfully admit his fault, you don't have any other options...you are to view that person the way first-century Jews viewed heathens and tax-collectors...which means you cannot justify continuing to retain him as a pastor, if indeed it is found out that this pastor was the one who in fact libeled me on YouTube.

You will also notice that the Hunsaker who libeled me, denied that he is the pastor of the Branson, MO church, but did so without making the denial explicit.  But explicit denial is what one would expect if in fact he wasn't a pastor in Branson.

A google search returned several different men with this name, but only two of them are associated in any way with Christianity.  One is the Mark Hunsaker who pastors your church in Branson, MO.  The other is a man who has been going around on the internet for more than 10 years, posting under the name "Mark Hunsaker" and posting on issues of Christianity and Lutheranism. 
This, of course is not infallible proof that the person who libeled me on YouTube is the same as the man who pastors your Branson, MO. church.  But regardless, because somebody libeled me, I can, and will, file a lawsuit against that man and subsequently file a "John Doe" subpoena, forcing YouTube and/or Google to reveal all the ISP and other identifying information they have based on the places from which he typically signs in, and whatever he might say about himself and his contact information in his profiles.
And unfortunately for that person, you cannot post on YouTube unless you have previously done what Google or others asked, and provided a phone number and other positively identifying information to set up such account.  Unless the person who libeled me is an extremely clever hacker who is a pro at hiding his internet tracks, that man's true identity is going to be unmasked one way or the other, so whoever the guilty party actually is, they are a fool if they think they can forever mask their guilt with their games and denials.

That this Mark Hunsaker who libeled me seems to think he has much to lose, may be inferred from his quite unnecessary implied threat of physically harming me:

"Do anything like what you threaten and there might be much more than your alleged reputation that needs repair."

Therefore, instead of blindly assuming your beloved pastor would never stoop this low, you should play it safe and not reveal my real-world contact info to him.  I would ask that you first question him about the incident and determine for yourself whether his denying guilt rings true.
If your pastor is guilty as charged, he has a lot to lose given what he foolishly chose to post already (i.e, physical threat to me and mocking denial that he is a pastor in Branson). You Lutherans probably couldn't chalk this up to typical sin, but would make a finding that such a mentality exhibits a severe spiritual immaturity that is disqualified from being any kind of leader or teacher of other Christians.  The Hunsaker who libeled me clearly fails some of the criteria for leaders and teachers as mandated in 1st Timothy 3, whether he is or isn't the pastor from Branson.

Please tell your pastor that because I am going to file a John Doe subpoena in court and force YouTube or whoever to reveal all of the ISP and other identifying information for the person who posted those comments, he can only hurt his credibility and ruin his career as a pastor if

a) he is the one who posted, and
b) he continues to deny his responsibility for the postings.

I will not stop seeking that man's true identity until a court of law tells me to.

If your pastor is responsible, the best thing he can do is honestly admit it, repent, and follow Jesus' advice, supra, to agree to reasonable settlement ($5,000), despite my good faith estimate that my damages are at or exceed the $75,000 minimum federal diversity jurisdictional threshold. 
If you didn't know that anonymous internet posters can be unmasked against their wishes and sued for the libelous comments they never thought they would be connected to in real life, here's an example of a John Doe subpoena which forced disclosure of the true identities of the anonymous people who were formerly only known by their internet pseudonyms:

In determining whether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery to identify anonymous internet users named as doe defendants, courts consider whether:
(1) the plaintiff can identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court;
(2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant;
(3) the plaintiffs suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss; and
(4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible.


Please ask your pastor directly "did you, at any time in April 2018, assert in any posting to YouTube that somebody else's lawsuit was frivolous?"

And if your church seriously believes in "accountability" and if your pastor Hunsaker has nothing to hide by being innocent even in his private internet communications (which you correctly assume are in harmony with Christian ethics, given that you hired him as a pastor and therefore assume his private life coheres with Lutheran ethics just as much as his public life does) then please ask him to turn over to you the passwords to all of his internet accounts so you can do your own check of where he's been and what he's been saying.  Also ask him whether he has deleted any of his internet-based accounts within the last 30 days.  If he confesses to being guilty as charged, none of us need to endure the legal expenses of litigation as I've otherwise mentioned herein.

 21 Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. (2 Cor. 8:21 KJV)
This message is sent in good faith.  I am well aware of Missouri case law on libel, and I will be able to meet every single one of its elements for libel, should this end up in court and your pastor be identified as the one who libeled me.
Once again, given this Hunsaker's implied threat of physical violence, please do not reveal to him my real name or other real-world contact information beyond barryjoneswhat@gmail.com, and my blog turchisrong.  One thing we can know for certain, there is somebody named Mark Hunsaker in the world who wants to be viewed as a spiritual authority in Christianity, but who is disqualified from any such position due to his inability to be honest and eager willingness to slander others contrary to every bible verse mentioning slander.  That person may or may not be your pastor in Branson, we'll soon be finding out for sure. 

Sincerely,

(name deleted)
---end of quoted email------------------------------------
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ---- If you are reading this and you have any information indicating, or likely to lead to, the real-life identity of the "Mark Hunsaker" who made the above-quoted comments on YouTube, please contact me by reply to one of my posts here, or by email to barryjoneswhat@gmail.com.  If you want to help but fear involvement, you can set up a free email account at yandex or at any of the "disposable temporary email" services, without having to provide any telephone number or other privacy invading information, and contact me that way.

I'm actually hoping this Mark Hunsaker isn't the pastor of the same name in Missouri.  Missouri's laws on libel are too conservative for reality.

 Update:  April 12, 2018

here is the email I recently sent to the specific Mark Hunsaker who pastors the church in Branson, Missouri:

begin quote-------------------------


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Hunsaker,

Please retain and do not destroy or delete, or allow anybody else to destroy or delete any computer or internet communications you have sent or received within the last 30 days, including but not limited to internet accounts that allow you to post comments to YouTube, as I am preparing to file a libel lawsuit against a man with your name, and I'm still in the process of unmasking his true identity.  If you have already so destroyed or deleted, please make an effort to recover what was destroyed or deleted, and document your efforts, explaining why any such effort was unsuccessful.
Somebody using the name "Mark Hunsaker" libeled me on YouTube in the last couple of days by asserting as fact that my prior libel lawsuits against James Patrick Holding were frivolous, an abuse of the court system, and that I was seeking damages that were neither legally nor factually justified.
And you cannot blame me for being suspicious that among the many different "Mark Hunsakers" returned in a google search, two them just happen to focus specifically on Lutheranism and Lutheranist perspectives.  Yet despite this coincidence, I do not automatically conclude they are one and the same person.  Hence, my efforts to further investigate.

I currently don't know whether you are that specific Mark Hunsaker, but regardless, i cross-posted to my blog a full copy of the email I sent a few minutes ago to all of the officers and board members and other people associated with the Praise and Worship Lutheran church that you pastor:

Ron Musolino
Bernie Smith
Rev. Dr. Lee Hagan
Harley Schmitgen:
Shari Smith, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
 Vice President:  Stephen Lindwedel
Treasurer:  Kirk Manion
Linda Reinbold  --->cgrady5383@gmail.com
Ron Jett
Julie Leeth
Ron Musolino
I'd like to attempt settlement.  $5,000 will cause me to stop investigating and drop the entire matter without further question.

Otherwise, because I believe Hunsaker libeled me while acting in the course and scope of his duties as employee of the corporation, I will be naming the corporation as the Defendant, and that means it is mandatory that they hire a lawyer, and that means one year's worth of pre-trial motions back and forth, and every hour your lawyer spends responding to my stuff, he gets his fee, and corporate lawyers usually charge $350 per hour.  Most people think $5,000 in settlement is cheaper than $10,000 in lawyer fees.

If you aren't that specific Hunsaker, you have nothing to worry about; none of the facts I will be uncovering in future litigation will be pointing toward you as the guilty party.  But if you are, you can avoid a rather expensive and embarrassing future impeachment of your credibility (perhaps enough to motivate the board of directors to think you are spiritually immature and thus biblically disqualified from holding any teaching position, i.e., losing your job) by being honest here and now, that is, BEFORE I unmask that man's true identity the hard way through a John Doe subpoena.
The libelous YouTube comments are found here:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFig3n1N9s
Here's a copy and paste of the comments in which the libels were posted:


you may have heard about the lawsuit an atheist bible critic filed against a Christian apologist, for libel and defamation. That atheist was me, I'll be suing James Patrick Holding for a third time, see my request to him to preserve evidence at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/03/third-lawsuit-against-james-patrick.html



Third time IS not a charm Barry. If your previous 2 lawsuits failed, it probably is a good indicator that they were without merit. The more times you files suit is not a credit to your cause.

Mark, you apparently don't know jack shit about those two cases, nor the law relevant to their dismissal. There is no legal doctrine in modern jurisprudence that says the jurisdictional dismissal of prior lawsuits argues that the later lawsuits of similar content are probably lacking in merit. But religion makes people so scared of critical thinking that it makes then say stupid shit like you just did. If you gave one rat's ass about the actual truth, you'd be interested in whether my claims were actually meritorious, not what somebody else thought of the case. What, do you think judges are infallible and free from corruption? All they are is lawyers who got elected to the judgeship. They don't become honorable by obtaining that seat anymore than you become honorable by being promoted to assistant crew leader.

Barry, there is a legal term used for this sort of improper use of our legal system. It is called frivolous. Secondly, there IS a legal doctrine for what I am referring to. It is called a legal precedent. I could go on and on, and will, if you require, but please consult with, at least, a junior partner at a law firm before continuing to clog up our court system over your subjective hurt feelings. In addition, since our courts cannot restore your "reputation", I am sure it is NOT your "reputation" you seek to restore, but, in fact, some inordinate and bloated financial award which you don't deserve, to get over yourself. You don't get money, just because somebody offended you, or disagrees with you. If your previous 2 suits failed, the third likely will not succeed.

And you think you are spiritually mature enough to be "pastor" in Branson, Missouri? Yeah Right!

What....are you talking about? First of all, I have said nothing about religion, nor my beliefs. For you all you know, I could be an atheist. Looks like you are drawing some pretty quick conclusions there Barry. Secondly, where did you get the idea, that I am from Missouri, or wanted to be a pastor? Or were you talking to someone else?

You are hereby requested to preserve any and all internet-based communications you have posted, sent or received, including avoiding deleting the account or accounts that allow you to post comments on YouTube, including any communications you have with any third-parties about me, regardless of the medium by which those comments are communicated. There are only two Mark Hunsakers that show up in a google search as having any interest or connection to Christianity. One is a pastor of a Lutheran church in Branson, MO., whose mannerisms in his videotaped sermons suggest a 12-year old trying to educate adults on what they already know, and the other is a man of the same name who goes around the internet posting comments about the bible, apologetics, and Lutheranism. I have good reason to draw the legal conclusion that your comments about me were genuinely and actionably libelous. I'm going to file a John Doe Subpoena in a federal Missouri Court, and a judge will order YouTube and/or Google to turn over all ISP addresses and identifying information for your specific account, to narrow down to the state and hopefully city that you actually post from. We are going to find out, within the next two months, whether my quick conclusions were actually true or actually false. FUCK YOU. If you would like to mitigate the storm of successful attacks on your honesty and credibility that are now looming large (which can only spell disaster if you are indeed a "pastor", you might wish to email me at barryjoneswhat@gmail.com, or contact me at my blog turchisrong, and maybe we can settle out of court. Otherwise, I will pursue the above-mentioned methods of unmasking your true identity, so I can then file the libel lawsuit in a court of proper jurisdiction. The more you continue toying with me, the more I pursue legal methods of uncovering your real identity. Do you wish to trifle, or get honest?

i think you are spoofing me. Thanks for the good laugh though. I am beginning to have doubts as to your mental stability. Btw, you don't have a clue what you are talking about legally. And you suck at research. Do anything like what you threaten and there might be much more than your alleged reputation that needs repair. Later.

==================End of quoted commentary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you the same Mark Hunsaker who commented on YouTube about my prior lawsuits, as indicated above,  yes or no? 

A true Christian would both answer and answer honestly.
It is not consistent with Jesus to be guilty of a civil wrong that also constitutes a biblical wrong (slander) and when asked for an accounting, to just clam up, refuse to cooperate, and hope your guilt never becomes publicly exposed.  See Matthew 5:25, 40.

Guilty people are constantly plagued with a fact that is impossible to controvert:  People who are actually innocent, usually DO cooperate in the effort to find the truth. 

Since you are a pastor, whom we must presume has a private life that is just as in harmony with NT ethics as his public life, you don't, in fact, have any private internet communications that you would wish to hide from the officers and board of directors of the Praise and Worship Lutheran Church corporation, do you?
There is nothing in your private internet life that is inconsistent with NT ethics, is there?

Thank you for your time.


Barry Jones

---------end of quoted email--------------------

Update April 12, 2018

Here is the message I sent a few minutes ago through the "contact us" page at pastor Mark Branson's church website http://branson.church/contact/
--------begin quote------------- 

There is a "Mark Hunsaker" on YouTube who has libeled me and will thus be sued.

I suspect, but cannot at present prove, that this man is the same as your pastor.  I have sent an email to your board of directors and officers, this can also be read
at my blog, https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/04/lawsuit-against-mark-hunsaker-planned.html

If you have any information that would tend to support or refute the theory that your pastor is the specific Mark Hunsaker who libeled me on youtube, please reply by email with that info.

I am required by law to engage in a diligent effort to unmask the true identity of an anonymous Defendant hiding under a pseudonym, before a Court will issue a John Doe subpoena forcing Google and YouTube to reveal the poster's true identity and originating ISP for his posts.

Sincerely,
Barry Jones

 -------end quote---------------------------


Update: April 12, 2018

The Mark Hunsaker who is pastor of the Lutheran Church in Branson, Missouri, replied to me as follows:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Mark Hunsaker <mark@branson.church> wrote:
Greetings.

This email arrived in my inbox moments ago. It contains allegations that do not pertain to me nor any of my activities online. Simply put, you have the wrong person.

My online accounts for which I utilize on YouTube are at the below links. You will note that these are not the account which engaged you on the Frank Turek video to which you linked.


I certainly hate to hear that anyone has treated you poorly. I can assure you I would never do anything like this. I would kindly ask that you remove mention of me and Praise & Worship Lutheran Church from your online postings.

Thank you,
Mark

Mark Hunsaker
Pastor | Praise & Worship
Branson, MO

I replied as follows:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com> wrote:
Pastor Hunsaker,
I appreciate your speedy response.  But because the Courts require me to make my own diligent effort to unmask the otherwise anonymous "Mark Hunsaker" before they will issue a John Doe subpoena, I judge that leaving my online posts the way they are will increase the likelihood that somebody who is able to identify the actually guilty party, will see those posts and respond with the necessary information...and therefore increase the likelihood that the court will find my efforts to qualify as "diligent". 

I do not believe a court would find I made a diligent effort if I suddenly took down all posts where I named you all because you responded and denied guilt.  Those posts haven't even been up for more than two days.
For what it is worth, I am sorry that you have the same name as somebody who libeled me.
For now, the fact that you deny guilt tells me that you have no problem with Google or YouTube responding to a subpoena and revealing all information they have on the city and state of the originating IP address associated with your YouTube or other posts, and any other information likely to show from what point in the world your online posts are made.  While I don't need your permission to obtain such an order in Court, I'll do you the courtesy of letting you know that I am pursuing such an order/subpoena.
You could help the cause of truth by going to the YouTube video where those libelous comments are, and clarify that you, pastor of the Lutheran church, are not the same Mark Hunsaker who has previously responded to me there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFig3n1N9s
I'm sure that as a Christian, you have no problems making such a public disclaimer for the cause of truth.
Once again, please do not erase, destroy or delete any computer, computer files, electronic files, internet accounts or evidence of online posting activity that those accounts might contain.  If you must delete anything, first make and retain a copy of it.

Thank you,
Barry Jones





























Cold Case Christianity: Why didn't Jesus reveal unknown scientific facts to prove his deity?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled Why Didn’t Jesus Reveal Scientific Facts to Demonstrate His Deity? Posted...