James Patrick Holding; still the pretentious trifling hypocrite he always was

James Patrick Holding, a closet-homosexual apologist whose lies I've exposed on this blog many times over, has attacked me personally in his childish video cartoons uploaded to YouTube, apparently intended for dolts who mistake a relationship with their computer for a relationship with Christ.

Punch Bowling 3, v2: Alcoholic Rx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYK4uokq4Y

Detective Joe Fundy, Episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52zioplT9XI

Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation Part 15, v2: Romans 7 and Sin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaTC2fR2roo

Dumb Question of the Month 32, v2: Gentile Evangelization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEMFv3e_Ldc

---------------

Before I start in with the rebuttals, some general comments are in order:

First, Holding always caricatures himself in these videos as some type of moose-thing that is bigger, stronger and smarter, and caricatures me as an angry looking man who is smaller, weaker and stupid and wears a propeller-hat.  The conclusion that Holding expects most of his viewers to be on the mental level of a juvenile delinquents afflicted with ADHD, is irresistible.  

Second, Holding has banned me from commenting on his videos.  Fearsome warrior at the front of the battle, he is not.  He has also intentionally configured his tektonics.org website so that the person using my ISP, if they click on his website, will be given only raw and virtually unreadable html code instead of the normal webpage.  Apparently, not only does Holding fear my comments, he doesn't even want me to access his materials in a normal manner.

Third, Holding has banned my email address too, so apparently, he feels so threatened by me that he takes steps to decrease the chances, to the extent he can, that I will confront him with a charge of error, libel or misrepresentation.  In his private emails and messages sent in 2015 to other people, he admitted that he was frightened of me and that he had to take steps to calm his anxiety so his mind could focus on other things. He also admitted to his attorney that when he thinks his loved ones are being attacked, he gets irrational.  Don't believe me?  I'll provide those emails to anybody who asks.  

Fourth, what I said in court documents, or what others said about me in court documents, has nothing to do with the arguments I make to justify my interpretations of bible passages, but no, in all four above-cited videos, Holding gleefully taunts the reader with quotations of myself or others from my past lawsuits, asks them to guess who this is, then promises a free e-book in the future answering that question, as if their hearts should beat faster in anticipation (!?).  

In other words, despite knowing such quotes are irrelevant to my academic arguments on the bible, Holding still has faith that most of his followers have a Jerry Springer audience mentality that motivate them to leap fallaciously from "disapproved by another person!" over to "must be wrong about anything he has to say!" But since Holding's followers know there's a large group of people, including Christian scholars, who think Holding is a piece of shit scumbag deserving to be completely ignored (a conclusion they reach despite their knowing he holds the essentials and is likely saved), these followers of Holding apparently don't agree with Holding that disapproval by others indicates ignorance of biblical hermeneutics.

Fifth, it wouldn't matter if Holding's rebuttals were as conclusive as his salivating followers believed, none of his critiques of my views on bible alcoholism or Gentile salvation, etc, disturbs in the least any of my evidence or conclusions argued at this blog, that Holding

• is a homosexual, making him deserve to be killed, Leviticus 20:13
• has a filthy mind and mouth, violating Colossians 3:8
• is a bitter slanderer, violating Ephesians 4:31
• is the type of reviler that Paul said Christians should disassociate from, 1st Cor. 5:11
• has a bad reputation with those outside the church, violating 1st Timothy 3:7
• "obviously perverts" Context Group scholarship, according to co-founder Richard Rohrbough
• gives Christianity a bad name, is a boor with no manners and deserves no respect (Rohrbough).
• is a hypocrite afflicted with cognitive dissonance, given how he a) insists none of his words about me ever rose to the level of actual "libel", yet b) appears to have taken down his "internet predator alert" on me (something a gleefully shit-talking asshole like Holding would never do if he seriously believed his language wasn't libelous), and c) he refused to seek dismissal of the suit on the merits (i.e., by arguing that his comments were protected opinion or otherwise truthful), even though by his loud-mouthing one would think he'd have found it a piece of cake in court to defend his language as constitutionally protected free speech.
• is a hypocrite afflicted with cognitive dissonance, given how a) he said in private emails to his attorneys how scared he was that I might attack him or his family, and his 3,000 miles distance from me was the only reason he wasn't buying a gun for protection, b) he said I was "no different" than physical hostile inmates in a prison psyche ward, but c) still talks shit about me through his videos.  If you thought a person was likely to attack you physically, would you continue talking shit about them online?  Or did I forget that Holding's followers are afflicted with hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance like he is
• is a liar (i.e., in an email to Gary Habermas in 2015, who used to publicly endorse him, Holding said he is moving away from the "strong comeback" style), making him a liar since it is clear that Holding still loves "strong comeback" no less than he did between 1998 and 2014.

Holding has apparently missed an important nuance in the eternal debate:  When HE is guilty of immorality and slander and homosexuality, that hurts him more than accusations of my own errors hurts me.

I don't claim to have living inside me some magic man from the first century

I don't claim to have the power of the Holy Spirit

I don't claim to follow any of the morals of the bible.

I'm an atheist, I claim NO spiritual progress whatsoever.

But Holding makes all these claims.  Therefore, Holding's problem is hypocrisy and dishonesty.  And according to his own bible, the fact that he advertises himself to the world as a 'teacher' means his god finds his sins far more serious than this god finds the sins of non-teachers:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. (Jas. 3:1 NAU)

But for those interested in a more direct rebuttal...

Punch Bowling 3, v2: Alcoholic Rx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYK4uokq4Y

 

At 7:20-22, he ends this quote with "that's all, and that's all there is too it".  

Really?  Better break out that "I was just being sarcastic" excuse again, you'll need it for this blooper.

"Proverbs 31:6-7" say nothing about people in power.

It says nothing about them having a responsibility to avoid drunkenness.  

Here's what "Proverbs 31:6-7" says:

New American Standard, 1995 Update:
 6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.
 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more. 

New Revised Standard Version
 6 Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
 7 let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more. 

Holding, himself constituting the inerrant presence of God on earth, will never admit getting something wrong.

After all, its not logically possible for the creator to get something wrong.

So he will more than likely attempt damage control here of a rather trifling variety, and argue that he was "obviously" talking here about what those verses meant "in context".

In other words, Holding seems to be saying v. 6-7 cannot mean what they say, because v. 4-5 say something more easily acceptable to modern day inerrantists.

So the question to Holding is still relevant:  

Even assuming the "give" of Proverbs 31:6 is not a mandate, would God approve of Christians obeying the advice in Proverbs 31:6-7 today?  If not, when in the last 3,000 years did obedience to these specific verses become wrong for God's followers?  If yes, then what specific sort of "perishing", "bitter distress", "poverty" and "misery" would a person have to experience, to provide biblical license for a present-day Christian to provide the suffering person with enough alcohol to drink that they "forget" their poverty and "remember" their misery no more?

One more question:  When a person intentionally drinks alcohol with the intended goal of forgetting whatever is troubling them, is that a legitimate form of alcoholism?

But drinking heavily as a coping mechanism is often a sign of alcohol abuse or dependence. If you drink when you are depressed, you are probably making matters worse. Alcohol is a depressant, so using or abusing alcohol can cause or intensify feelings of extreme sadness or depression.

-----------

As far as the Romans 7:7 issue, 

• Paul's saying "I would not have known" constitutes a denial that Holding honestly thinks is irrelevant to the text.  Holding's commitment to bible inerrancy forces him to trivialize a bible author's qualifying comments where expediency dictates.  
• If you could have known exceeding the speed limit was unlawful by means other than reading the specific law in the city's legislative codes, you do not say "I wouldn't have known speeding was illegal, except the city code had said..."  So either a) Paul really meant what he said, thus implying you cannot show "sin" where you cannot show the act to be prohibited in Mosaic law, or b) Paul erred by choosing to phrase his meaning in absolutist terms.  Indeed, most Christians would not speak in the absolutist way Paul did if they wished to make the point they think Paul was trying to make.
• It also doesn't even matter if Holding is correct and sin can be "known" without knowing it is condemned in Mosaic law.  Holding thinks that in the days of Moses, Yahweh disapproved of any Jew in his 20's sexually consummating his marriage to a 7 year old girl.  Does Holding dogmatize about God's opinion on the matter?  If so, where does the bible set forth this divine view with sufficient clarity that it deserves to be called an "obvious" truth about God? 
• If Holding does not dogmatize about God having such view, then would he refuse fellowship to a Christian man in a third-world country whose sexual relations with his prepubescent wife were authorized by the applicable governing law of the land?  Holding cannot condemn him under Romans 13, so why would Holding say such a man was sinning?
• If Holding lived back in 19th century Delaware, where the age of sexual consent was 7, what in the bible would Holding have pointed to as justification for declaring sinful the adult man who married and sexually consummated same to a girl of 7 years old with her parents' approval?
• Is the bible-god's alleged disapproval of sex within adult-child marriages really so "clear" that it is a valid test of spirituality, salvation, orthodoxy?  Is God's biblical disapproval of sex within adult-child marriages seriously as "clear" as his biblical disapproval of adultery is, yes or no?

----------

Regarding Gentile salvation and Acts 11:18:

Did Jesus, before he died, teach Gentiles how to get saved, yes or no?  Under biblical inerrancy, the answer is "yes":

 15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
 16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 18 "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
 19 "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
 20 "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
 21 "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." (Matt. 12:15-21 NAU)

 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law,
 28 then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
 29 "Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, According to Your word;
 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
 32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel." (Lk. 2:27-32 NAU)

Did Jesus, before he ascended, teach Peter about the realities of Gentile salvation, yes or no?  Under biblical inerrancy, the answer would have to be "yes", because Jesus a) had a Gentile ministry, and b) he specifically exhorted Peter along with the other 10 original apostles that they were to take the gospel to the Gentiles:

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

In Matthew 28:19-20, was the resurrected Jesus exhorting his apostles to engage in a mission they still didn't know how to properly carry out, yes or no?

Did the risen Jesus characterize the future movement of the Holy Spirit in the apostles as empowering them to preach the gospel to the Gentiles?  Under biblical inerrancy, the answer would have to be "yes", because in Acts 1, Jesus links the empowering by the Holy Spirit, not just to the apostles, but to their need to evangelize the "nations":

 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me;
 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:4-8 NAU)

Did Jesus, at any time between his birth and ascension, ever inform the apostles that Gentile men can be saved without circumcision, yes or no?  

If Jesus really did have the Gentile ministry mentioned in Matthew 4:15, 12:21 and Luke 2:32, it would be rather absurd to say that by some miraculous accident Peter just never noticed the criteria Jesus laid out for Gentile men to be saved and to fellowship with their Jewish fellow believers. 

Holding, like any jailhouse lawyer, intent on making the apostles look as good as possible, will trifle that the only people criticizing Peter in Acts 1:1-3 are followers of the apostles, that way, the stupidity of their anti-Gentile sentiment cannot be linked to the apostles themselves:

1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
 3 saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."
 4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying, (Acts 11:1-4 NAU)

Holding will scream his head off that the phrase "those who were circumcised" surely refers to nobody else in the world except the followers of the apostles.  So I have several questions:

In the context, what is the nearest antecedent to "those who were circumcised" (v. 2)?  Wouldn't it be "the apostles and brethren" (v. 1)?    

In Acts 10:45, all the "circumcised believers" were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on Gentiles too.  Why?  Had they been taught by some apostle that Gentiles cannot receive the Holy Spirit?

Why does the Acts-author in 11:1 make a  point of saying the "apostles and brethren" who were throughout Judea "heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God"?  Was there something significant about apostles in Judea hearing that Gentiles had received the word of God?  If so, what?  

John W. Martens, Ph.d,  is a scholar of Paul and biblical interpretation.

Martens analyses Acts 11:1-3 and concludes that identifying the apostles in Judea  (11:1) as those Luke intended to include in the phrase "those who were circumcised" (v. 2), is the best way to read the passage:

According to Luke “the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God” and when “Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” (Acts 11:1-3). Peter then began his “step by step” explanation (Acts 11:4). 

Note the difference between “the apostles and the believers” in Judea who had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God and the “circumcised believers” who are critical of Peter’s behavior when he went to Jerusalem. Johnson believes that Luke makes a “deliberate distinction” between these two groups and that it implies that the other apostles accepted Peter’s behavior since the Gentiles are described as having “accepted the word of God” (Johnson, Acts, 197). This is only an implication, though, since it is also possible to read the “the apostles and the believers” as the same group which in the next verse is described as the “circumcised believers.” If this is the case, Acts 11:1 simply describes the news drifting back to Judea andActs 11:2 gives us the response of “the apostles and the believers,” here just classified as “circumcised believer.

It is difficult to know which reading is correct, since Peter explains the salvific events among the Gentiles and by the end of the passage (Acts 11:18) they “all” glorify God. It is more likely that this describes “the apostles and the believers” who are themselves also named as “circumcised believers” and are convinced by Peter’s explanation of the Holy Spirit working among the Gentiles. On the other hand, if the “circumcised believers” have been convinced, why was a gathering of the Church necessary, as we will see in Acts 15? 

Mr. Holding, now that you've been informed that properly credentialed bible scholars with expertise in Greek, Paul, early Christianity and bible interpretation methods, agree with me that "It is more likely" that Luke's "they who were circumcised" (11:2) includes at least some of the "apostles" (11:1), will you continue insisting that my interpretation of the passage is moronic?

Yes or no?