I responded there as follows:
First, the NT makes perfectly clear that to be a "teacher" is a grave solemn thing because you will receive the greater judgment (James 1:17).
Second, any of your followers who care the least little bit about the authority of the bible for themselves, are forced to agree with it that if you are "morally" disqualified from office, then your intellectual abilities to fulfill that office become moot. A man might be a good pastor, but he should still be defrocked if he fails the moral tests in 1st Timothy 3 and elsewhere. That's why, despite Tag Haggard otherwise being a good leader for a megachurch, he was defrocked when his homosexuality was exposed to God's spiritually alive people, by spiritually dead secular media. The idea that you should retain an office in Christianity because you can perform its functions, despite your failure to fulfill the moral qualifications the bible requires you to fulfill, is decidedly unbiblical.
Third, you are a closet homosexual, and if true, that should be more than plenty for serious bible believers to say you have disqualified yourself from the office of teacher regardless of whatever intellectual acumen they might think you otherwise have. See my growing blog post resurrecting all the homosexual comments made by you within the last 20 years, including Christian apologist Steve Hays who also had to complain in a debate with you that you have an unsavory appetite for homoerotic illustrations and an interest in his anus. See my expose "James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, is a closet-homosexual at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/ But if your followers don't have sufficient maturity to recognize that God cares more about your moral failings than He does about your intellectual abilities (which would seem to be the case given that you couch your apologetics in terms of cartoons, also telling us how it is that you can continue receiving donations despite your unChristian sordid criminal history on the internet...for more information, google "Robert Tilton" and "spiritual blindness") ...please provide the names of any Christian graduate of any seminary, or bible/Christian college, or bible/Christian university, who have published commentary on Titus in physical books, not merely on the internet, who agree with your specific contention that the four descriptors Paul gave (foolish questions, genealogies, contentions, strivings about the law) were attributes of one and the same "particular heresy of the period" as you so characterize it (time-code 0:58 - 1:04).
Clarify whether you also apply your insult of "dumb" to the many other commentators who understand Paul's 4 descriptors to encompass the broad range of separate and distinct issues that would qualify as things in disagreement with Paul's teachings. Your choice to use Youtube doesn't facilitate serious compilation of scholarly sources (that's why you chose Youtube as your platform, anybody that can cite the scholars against you, will be accused of spamming and flooding the tiny little sector you willingly crammed yourself into) but here' s just one example:
"3:9 Of course, there are always traps to be avoided in the Christian ministry. In Paul’s day there were stupid disputes over clean and unclean foods, Sabbath regulations, and observance of holy days. Arguments arose over genealogies, both angelic and human. There was bickering over intricate regulations that had been superimposed on the law. Paul was disgusted with them as being unprofitable and useless. Servants of the Lord in our day may take Paul’s advice to heart by avoiding the following tangents: Pre-occupation with methods rather than with spiritual realities. For example, the ancient debates over whether to use fermented wine or grape juice, leavened or unleavened bread, a common cup or individual cups—as if these were important questions in the Bible! Quibbling over words. Majoring on one truth, or even one aspect of a truth, to the exclusion of all else. Allegorizing the Scriptures until they become absurd. Theological nit-picking that edifies no one. Wandering from the word into political by-paths and into Christian crusades against this and that. What a tragedy to spend precious time on these things while a world is perishing! MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Tit 3:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson."Explain why you do not provide the reader any analysis of the grammar or immediate context of Titus 3:9, when in fact grammar and immediate context are far more crucial to the meaning of the disputed words, than is your opinion about the social context this was written in. Or did I forget that the reason you've reduced your apologetics to cartoons is because the only people that find your stuff compelling are none other than Christians whose maturity is on the level of a 5 year old child, who tunes out anything halfway serious? The reader is encouraged to go to theologweb.com and decide for herself what level of spiritual maturity most of Holding's worshipers are at.
And you can email me at barryjoneswhat@gmail.com if you'd like proof that Holding has recently been attempting to delete his sexually perverted comments from his prior articles. Explain to your readers why you didn't even mention, let alone attempt harmonization with, other similar statement of Paul that condemn your entire internet history to hell in one fell-swoop, and otherwise argue that Titus 3:9 is a generalization not limited to a particular heresy...stuff like "wrangling words" 2nd Tim. 2:14, (Greek: logomacheo, to strive with words), which in the context is generalized, the immediate context does not require defining the wrangling solely in terms of the essentials of the faith that Paul mentions in the context.
If God went back in time and purged history of all communications that involved wrangling of words, you would evaporate, along with everybody's memories of you.
Explain to your readers why Context Group co-founder Richard Rohrbaugh said your magnum opus in showing biblical justification for Christians to demean and insult their critics (located at www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php, in which you quote Rohrbaugh) said this article "obviously perverts" a) ALL Context Group work, b) the New Testament itself, and c) Rohrbaugh's own work in particular, here's his email:
From: Richard Rohrbaugh <rbaugh@lclark.edu>
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?
I glanced at the stuff on the website. It is obviously a perversion of both the NT and ALL Context scholarship, including mine. But... respond? Not worth my time. RLR
sourced at http://lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.blogspot.com/2016/04/context-group-disowns-james-patrick.html Rohrbaugh was saying even worse about Holding in 2008, such as that he "gives Christianity a bad name", see http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthreadc69e-2.html?t=253929 and I'm keeping a copy of this post to use against you at my blog after you predictably delete it, no doubt out of your concern to "provide things honest in the sight of all men" Romans 12:17.====================
Holding made several responses,which he then deleted. Exactly who LucasM1 was originally responding to, cannot be known, but he ends up arguing with Holding regardless:
tektontv6 days ago
That's all you're good at all right. You can go now, moron.
Lucas M replied:
"An immature AND hypocritical comment doesn't deserve a respectful reply."
May 18, 2017
tektontv replied:
"I'd say this vid is worth at least $21,000 in laughs."
May 17, 2017
Update: July 9, 2017:
Holding, consistently with his homosexual interest in other mens' asses, already documented here, just cannot resist causing his Christian followers to get filthy mental pictures. He has recently posted a video that says any atheist work that gets wrong the Tactian reference to Jesus, is not worthy to be used to wipe one's ass with (video at 0:45 ff)
Update: July 27, 2017:
In a 2008 debate I had with HOlding, which Theologyweb tried to suppress, which remains preserved by wayback, Holding shows once again how much he likes the idea of him spanking other men:
Me: Maybe the schoolyard bullies were correct after all, and we should
resort to our kindergarten understanding: the kid who insults and bullies the
most, is faster, stronger, smarter and better than us?
Holding: In this case, that would be wise. The case here,
however, is one of a bully -- YOU -- being paddled by the principal -- ME.
stay tuned for more updates.
