Gary Habermas disapproves of James Patrick Holding's filthy insults

When I sued James Patrick Holding for libel in 2015, I forced him, through the legal process of "discovery", to reveal private emails he had sent to friends and lawyers, and a few of those emails involved apologist Gary Habermas, who had publicly endorsed one of Holding's books in the past.

Thankfully, Habermas started needling Holding about whether the lawsuit made Holding think twice about using "strong comebacks" in the future:






Holding, thinking his private answer to Habermas would never see the light of day, exposed what in his mind were the real reasons for his alleged choice to back off of the filthy slanderous homosexual barbs that Habermas so graciously characterized as "strong comeback":




Several comments are warranted here:

1 - Holding nowhere expresses or implies that it was his getting sued for libel, that might be some of the reason he has backed off the "strong comeback" style.  In other words, when you sue Holding for libel, that does nothing to make him worry that his mouth is unacceptably out of control.

2 - Holding admits in recent times (2015) he wasn't engaging in strong comebacks anymore.  Well then what about all those filthy slanders he publicized for the last 20 years?  Who does Holding think is ultimately responsible for dissauding him in recent years to back off the "strong comebacks", himself or God?  If himself, then he is still obstinately refusing to see the light, since the bible requires Christians to disassociate themselves from any "Christian" (as distinct from an unbeliever) who engages in "reviling":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:9-11 NAU)

  9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Greek: loidoros), nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)

The Greek word for "reviler" is loidoros, and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says it refers to those who verbally abuse others:

449 
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

Holding cannot mitigate the harm to his reputation by saying these bible verses are only forbidding slander of other Christians, since Holding has reviled other Christians just as feverishly as he reviles atheists, as already documented here at this blog.

But if Holding avoids the disastrous first option and chooses the second (it is God who caused him to back off the "strong comebacks"), then he encounters another disaster:  Did God do that because God for his own mysterious reasons wants Holding to act in a different capacity, or because the NT really does condemn "Christians" who routinely vilify and slander others?  The theory that seems best supported by the biblical data is the latter, and Holding cannot call fellow Christians unreasonable to prefer that one, if he cannot show that some other theory better explains his alleged reduced desire to engage in strong comebacks.

3 - Notice that after saying he doesn't engage in strong comebacks too much anymore, he admits he spends more time at a place where he says strong comebacks are expected, Youtube.  Well, I guess the bible doesn't say Christians are guaranteed to be consistent within the space of two paragraphs.  In secular society we call this mental phenomena "cognitive dissonance".  How foolish that Holding acts upon his reduced desire to engage in strong comebacks, by gravitating more and more to the one place on the web where he says strong comebacks are expected!  Yeah, and because I began to diminish in my desire to use prostitutes, I started hanging out in brothels all the more. (!?)

4 - The world's smartest Christian apologist "doesn't know" ('dunno') whether it's new interest in academic writing or simple aging, that explains his backing off the strong comebacks?  I don't know about you, but this is the fruit of atheism:  How could Holding, as a bible-believing Christian, allegedly knowledgable of all those bible verses that prohibit filithy talk and slander and reviling, who allegedly believes himself guided by the Holy Spirit,  not know why exactly he is backing away from the strong-comeback style?  Easy: he's not a bible-believing Christian, he is an atheist who is unable to perfectly mask that fact with all of his Jesus talk-crap.  You shall know a tree by its fruit.

5 - Perhaps worst of all, Holding does not cite to the clear NT prohibitions on slander as his reason for conforming to them a bit more, which means he is so hopeless, the bible is not even his motivation for those times when he does claim to be changing for the better:

  18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)

 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:31-32 NAU)

 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.
 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- (Col. 3:5-10 NAU)

That the revile-prohibition also covers even allegedly "deserved" insults is clear from Paul's own conduct:

 1 Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."
 2 The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.
 3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?"
 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"
 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'" (Acts 23:1-5 NAU)

The first-century "bystanders" understood Paul's degrading insult to be "reviling".  But if Holding had been Paul, he would have said "the command not to speak evil of a ruler of thy people was only meant in the case of good rulers, not evil gospel-rejecting idiots like you, you moron.  We live in an honor/shame culture, so these types of commands are not absolute, you bigot."
 -----------------------


Moving along....the fact that Gary Habermas, who publicly endorsed one of Holding's books, said he was glad Holding was backing off of the filthy language hissing and spitting matches that characterized Holding for 20 years, indicates that Holding's trifles about riposte are perfect nonsense, even his own favorite scholars seem to think Holding's exaggerated way of doing it violates clear NT ethics that one doesn't need a Phd. in NT theology to properly interpret/apply.