Correcting Craig Blomberg on Matthew 5:22: it;s not *usually* wrong, but *always* wrong, to insult another person

Jesus forbade his followers from referring to each other as "fools" and the like:

 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matt. 5:21-22 NAU)

Craig Blomberg says there must be an implied qualification of "where unjustified" to the v. 22 prohibition on calling another a "good-for-nothing".  Blomberg cites to Jesus himself labeling certain others with similar language as the reason to read at qualification into 5:22:

Jesus illustrates his point that not just murder but also anger is sinful in two additional, parallel ways. First, he considers those who accost their fellow believers with the epithet “Raca” (a quasi-swear word in Aramaic). The expression probably meant something like empty-headed.33 So too those who call someone a “fool” commit a sin. This word (mōros) carries overtones of immorality and godlessness as well as idiocy. As with the commands against anger, both of these prohibitions against the use of insulting names undoubtedly carried the implicit qualification of “where unjustified,” since Jesus himself uses the term mōros in 23:17, 19 (in direct address) and in 7:26 (in indirect address) when the label is accurate. Some have seen an increasing severity of judgment as Jesus progresses from the terms “judgment” to “the Sanhedrin” (the Jewish supreme court) to Gehenna (“fire of hell”)—a reference to the valley south of Jerusalem in which children were slaughtered in Old Testament times and traditionally associated with a perpetually burning garbage dump in later centuries. But given the close parallelism among the first clauses of each illustration, the entire sentences should probably be taken as largely synonymous. All three metaphorically refer to the danger of eternal judgment.
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 107). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

I maintain that common sense refutes Blomberg on this point:

First, Jesus doesn't say the offender would be put on trial in the court for hurling such names at another, he says the offender would be guilty before the Court for saying "raca" and guilty enough to go into fiery hell for calling another a "fool".  Apparently, insulting another in that society was prohibited either without exception, or if exceptions were allowed, Jesus didn't allow for them.  The immediate context thus supports an absolute interpretation and the burden of proof is on any who would say the immediate context supports a relative interpretation.

Second, by saying "where unjustified" Blomberg gives the genuinely guilty offender an alibi:  he's not in the wrong because the person he insulted really was a fool.  Does Blomberg seriously believe that Jesus would approve of Christians fighting amongst themselves on whether or not a specific Christian deserved to be called a "fool"?  Does the immediate context of Jesus' mandate suggest any such exceptions or caveats? Of course not.

Third, the fact that Jesus called others fools provides no contextual backdrop, as Blomberg thinks Jesus is God.  Just because God does something doesn't necessarily mean Christians should imitate it, such as when God inflicts a terrible sickness on a baby and causes it to suffer for 7 days before killing it:

 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:15-18 NAU)

So without more, a mere "Jesus did it so why can't I do it too!" doesn't provide automatic justification for Christians to imitate it.   Jesus also died and raised himself from the dead, allegedly...does that mean Christians should do this too? Jesus also forgave sins not committed against him.  Can Christians forgive the sins not committed against them?  Catholics say yes, how about you?

Fourth, the NT comes to us from the first-century honor/shame societies of the Jews and Romans.  Had God decided not to start Christianity until 1980, and got pregnant some teen girl named Mary living in Tacoma Washington that year, it is beyond question that the NT arising from this circumstance would contain none of the honor/shame bullshit that it does, as Tacoma in 1980 wasn't an honor/shame society or city.  If that raises problematic questions as to how much of the 1st century NT ways of doing things that God wants modern day Christians to imitate/obey, that's Blomberg's problem, not mine.  If God transcends culture, then we have to believe that the honor/shame crap in the NT has more to do with the people involved in Christianity's origin, and less to do with the God who arbitrarily chose which exact culture and time-period in which to start that religion.  

Seems pretty clear to me that if Jesus was born and raised in Tacoma Washington in the 1980's, and then gave his Sermon on the Mount in 2000, it would be stripped of all honor/shame baggage that sermon currently has.  The bible does not require us to imitate the social realities of dead cultures.

Fifth, Blomberg is an inerrantist, and so he must reconcile what he has to say with the rest of the NT, and unfortunately, there are passages that impose on Christians an exceptionless mandate to avoid insulting words, behavior:

8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
 9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. (1 Pet. 3:8-9 NAU)

Sixth, most Christians, at least in developed countries, were not born and raised in honor/shame cultures, and therefore, dealing with them today the way people were dealt with by 1st century Jews could be psychologically harmful.

Finally, Jude v. 8-10 contradict Blomberg's idea that an insulting accusation is allowed where it describes the target truthfully.  The devil is obviously deserving of many truthful railing accusations, but not even Michael the Archangel dared to accuse the devil with such condescension:

 8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:8-9 NAU)

Well, Mr. Blomberg?  If Michael the Arch-angel had called the devil and foolish stupid idiot moron, would that be an accurate description?  If so, how do you explain Mike's failure to call names even where justified? Could it be that you were too quick to conclude Christians are morally justified to imitate just anything Jesus did?

Like most apologists, Blomberg may say that those outside the church are fools if they know what's being taught and reject it, since he thinks there can be no reasonable skepticism of the gospel, but unfortunately, Christians and especially their leaders are to maintain a good relationship with non-Christians:

 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:7 NAU)

How could Timothy have maintained a good reputation with those outside the church, if he exercised that right you believe he had (i.e., to label as fools all those who know the gospel but reject it anyway)?

1st century Christianity was a high-context society, so that the mandate to maintain a good reputation with unbelievers more than likely included even specific unbelievers who lived nearest too Timothy, and thus were well aware of, but still rejected, the gospel.

For all these reasons, Blomberg is incorrect to read an implied "where unjustified" caveat into Matthew 5:22.  Jesus didn't want his followers calling anybody "raca" or "fool", ever.  

Correcting James Patrick Holding on Matthew 18 and church discipline

Plenty of Christian scholars think rambo apologetics is total bullshit, including specifically Holding's incompetent insult-fests.


 12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matt. 7:12 NAU)

So perhaps Holding seriously wants his critics to insult him with cartoon videos that help incompetent buffoons mistake entertainment for education?

Holding, in yet another cartoon video (telling us about the mentality of the people he takes money from) argues that Jesus' command in Matthew 18 about how the Christian should react when sinned against by another Christian, does not apply to the situation of the Christian sinning against a non-Christian.

Here's the text in dispute:

 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)

Here are the problems with Holding's interpretation:

Before I even get started, how about the Golden Rule?  "Do unto

First, as usual, Holding sets forth his interpretation in a cartoon video that appears to have been created for not much more purpose than for Holding to see some type of real-world realization of his mental fantasy that he is far superior to his critics.  In this video, Holding pretends to be the "judge", I am characterized by the ugly and stupid sounding criminal headed to jail, and Holding's interpretation of Matthew 18 becomes the basis for this fool judge to send me to "debtor's prison" where I am bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate.

(!?)

Second, Holding's cartoon presentation is obviously geared to impress gullible idiots, it is not geared to impress academics or scholars, and thus is a valid basis for accusing him of being more worried to keep fleecing his idiot followers by dancing to their juvenile tune, than being worried to make persuasive argument in a serious context.

Third,  sure, Matthew 18 isn't talking about the specific case of Christians sinning against unbelievers, but nothing in the bible is specifically talking about Christians living in 2018.

Can Holding think of any bible passage that gets closer to the issue of Christians sinning against unbelievers, than Matthew 18? Or did the all-knowing God of classical theism think that Christians weren't capable of sinning against unbelievers?

Fourth, what is Holding's advice to Christians who are guilty of having slandered an unbeliever in a way justifying a libel lawsuit? Since Holding didn't dare attempt to get my two lawsuits against him dismissed on the merits (i.e., arguing that his factual allegations about me were true), Holding's answer to this particular dilemma will be interesting.  One thing we can be sure of, Holding doesn't think he should be held morally or civilly accountable for violating Romans 13 and libeling another person in modern day America, which has laws allowing the defamed person to sue for damages.  Perhaps Holding will now do a Looney Tunes video on how only idiots think America's laws against defamation and libel fall under Romans 13, because those laws make illegal the type of shaming that God approved of in the bible.

Fifth, Holding twice offered to settle my first libel lawsuit against him.  Some might argue that an especially pretentious trifling asshole like Holding would never attempt such a thing if he seriously felt the lawsuit in question was the stupendously frivolous thing he trumpeted it to be.  The point is that Holding, at the time he offered to settle, apparently thought some damn thing or other in the bible applied to the situation of a modern-day Christian being sued by an unbeliever.  If so, then apparently Holding doesn't need to be convinced that a bible passage is directly addressing problems between Christians and unbelievers, before he will be willing to apply their reasoning to his own problems with unbelievers.

Sixth, now the question is:  If Matthew 18's reasoning shouldn't be applied to the situation of a modern-day Christian libeling and thus sinning against an unbeliever, then does Holding seriously think that because the bible doesn't directly address that situation, his god finds it morally good for Holding to run away and hide from the merits of legal accusations against him?

If a Christian stole the life-savings of an unbeliever, would Holding argue that there is nothing in he bible requiring the Christian to pay the money back, given his black and white fundy view that the bible also doesn't specifically require Christians to rebuke other Christians who have sinned against third-parties?

Seventh, did Jesus's teachings harmonize or contradict?  If they harmonize, as Holding would insist given his absurd obsession with "inerrancy", then Jesus required Christians to love their enemies:

 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 NAU)

Nothing could be more obvious from Holding's obsessive reactionary stance against me that he and his followers view me as an "enemy", they think my lawsuits against Holding were frivolous and therefore I was "persecuting" him through the Court system, they also think my blog exposing his homosexuality and other obvious moral failings constitute similar "persecution", and both he and they view me as "evil" and "unrighteous".

Meaning, Jesus puts Holding under a duty to "love" his enemies, one of which is me, a person he says is evil.  Now all that needs to be addressed is how Jesus defined the specific sort of "love" he wanted the disciples to express toward evil people who persecute them.

Let's indulge Holding's dogshit obsession with inerrancy:  Jesus and Paul surely must have agreed on what constitutes "loving one's enemies", right?

10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
 11 not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
 12 rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer,
 13 contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
 16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.
 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
 20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:10-21 NAU)

To make sure Holding and his followers further breach the existing fracture that already divides them from the conservative inerrantist Christian scholarly community, I supply below a lengthy quote from inerrantist evangelical scholar R. H. Mounce, writing for the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary:

12:17–21 The natural impulse is to return injury for injury. But retaliation for personal injury is not for those who claim to follow the one who told his disciples to turn the other cheek and go the second mile (Matt 5:39, 41; cf. Gal 6:10; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). Instead, believers are to be careful to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone (cf. Prov 3:4). The early church understood the necessity of having a good reputation with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7). Although it is imperative that believers take pains to do what is right in God’s sight, it also is important that what we do, as long as it does not violate Christian ethics, is well thought of by the world (cf. 2 Cor 8:21). In so far as it is possible, we are called to live at peace with everyone. Wickedness is to be opposed and righteousness lauded, but Christians must be careful not to allow their allegiance to God to alienate them from the world they are intended to reach with the gospel. Jesus pronounced a blessing upon the peacemaker (Matt 5:9), and the author to Hebrews wrote that we are to “make every effort to live in peace with all men” (Heb 12:14).

Christians are never to take vengeance into their own hands (v. 19; cf. Lev 19:18). Rather, we must allow the wrath of God to follow its own course. After all, it is written: “It is for me to avenge. I am the one who will repay.” Christians are not called upon to help God carry out divine retribution. God has promised to “pay back trouble to those who trouble you” (2 Thess 1:6). He has no need of our help or advice. Genuine trust will leave everything in his hands. Rather than to take revenge we are to feed our enemies if they are hungry and give them something to drink if they are thirsty. In this way we will “make him feel a burning sense of shame” (Moffatt). Verse 21 summarizes much of what has just been said. Instead of allowing evil to get the upper hand and bring defeat, win the victory against that which is wrong by doing what is right. Bruce comments, “The best way to get rid of an enemy is to turn him into a friend.” Our most powerful weapon against evil is the good. To respond to evil with evil is not to overcome it but to add to it. Believers are called upon to live victoriously in a hostile world by continuing to live as Jesus lived. Right will inevitably prevail against wrong. God is on his throne, and though all is not right in this world, he is the one who will avenge the wicked and reward the righteous.

Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 240).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Because America has laws allowing lawsuits for defamation/libel, it is clear that, without argument that such secular laws contradict the bible, Romans 12, supra, is requiring today's Christians to do what is right in the sight of modern America (i.e., to refrain from libel and slander).  Maybe Holding will be sure to remind his readers, while he is contradicting Mounce, that Mounce is a "moron" for seeing things differently than Holding.

What's worse, most conservative Christian scholars see nothing in the bible justifying ceaseless vitriolic attacks on bible critics, so that Holding's doing this means he isn't just contradicting what's right in the sight of all men, he lives in contradiction to what most genuinely born-again and thus Spirit-filled conservative Christian scholars think is the right way.

The Samaritans were bitter enemies of the Jews in the first century and before, so it is significant that Jesus teaches that the Christian's "neighbor", whom the Christian is supposed to "love", is a Gentile and a bitter enemy of the Jews:

 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"
 27 And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
 28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."
 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
 30 Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.
 31 "And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
 32 "Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
 33 "But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,
 34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
 35 "On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.'
 36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?"
 37 And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."   (Lk. 10:26-37 NAU)

Inerrantist R. H. Stein says Jesus' teaching here requires Christian love to transcend natural and religious status:

10:33 But a Samaritan. The term “Samaritan” is in an emphatic position in the sentence. Jesus deliberately chose an outsider, and a hated one at that, for his hero in order to indicate that being a neighbor is not a matter of nationality or race. The mutual hatred of the Jews and the Samaritans is evident in such passages as John 4:9; 8:48... Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.So great was Jewish and Samaritan hostility that Jesus’ opponents could think of nothing worse to say of him than, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” (John 8:48; cf. also 4:9)...Jesus and Luke sought to illustrate that the love of one’s neighbor must transcend all natural or human boundaries such as race, nationality, religion, and economic or educational status.

Stein, R. H. (2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 317-319).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers

Holding, being a fundy trapped in the very black and white thinking he trashes everybody else for, will trifle that I have "missed" the fact that this bitter enemy of the Jews showed a kindness to the disciple.

No, I haven't missed that.  I showed a kindness to Holding in suing him twice for libel, so I'm not really that much different from the otherwise hated Samaritan who similarly showed kindness to a Christian.

Some would argue that, given how utterly out-of-control Holding's mouth was at the time I filed the two lawsuits against him, my doing so was a kindness to him.  After all, he was genuinely guilty as charged (which is why he didn't dare attempt to seek dismissal on the merits), and I sought punitive damages in both cases, and the legal purpose of punitive damages includes deterrence and to educate:

The arguments for punitive damages have generally been delineated as these four: compensation, punishment and deterrence, revenge, and promotion of justice. Long, Punitive Damages: An Unsettled Doctrine, 25 Drake L. Rev. 870 (1976).   

In Florida, the rationale is that of punishment and deterrence: 

Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded as punishment to a defendant and as a warning and example to deter him and others from committing similar offenses in the future.

Barr v. InterbayCitizens Bank, 96 Wash. 2d 692 - Wash: Supreme Court 1981

citing Miami Beach Lerner Shops, Inc. v. Walco Mfg. of Fla., Inc., supra at 236.

While I am not a deadly threat to Holding, it isn't really that hard to figure out where some shit-talking fool lives.  See here.

That even Holding is aware his shit-talking campaign was likely to induce people to murder him is proven from the way he expressed his genuine fright that I would try to murder him in a courtroom, in an email to his lawyer that Holding didn't think would ever see the light of day, even though the only basis for his fear was my having filed the lawsuit against him (i.e., my anger over his shit-talking):

From: J. P. Holding <jphold@att.net
Sent: " Tuesday, October 06, 2015 3:17 PM
Subject: I think this guy wants to kill me!

 Seth, I really need some input on this. If he weren't 3000 miles away I'd go buy a gun right now to protect myself and my loved ones.

 I'm serious. This is getting scary. He has borderline personality disorder, and I've worked in a prison with a mental health unit full of guys like this. He also had a restraining order put on him 20 years ago by his thenwife, over a domestic violence issue. For years now he's had this "thing" about getting me in front of my church, or in a live debate, or in some way confronting me in person. I didn't think much of it before, now it's starting to take on a darker light. "The last thing I ever do on earth"???? There's no way I can be in the same room with this guy. He'll try to strangle me with his bare hands!

 What do I need to do? Motion for protection order? Declaration to the court expressing my concerns?

From : Raphael

ΤΟ : jpholding

mossrose

One Bad Pig

Sparko

Date : 2015-10-O6 19:39

Title: Re: I think Bud wants to kill me!

[OUOTE=jpholding--|No, I'm serious. I thought about this last message he sent me where he says he wants to get me in front of jury if it's the last thing he does on earth. He's had this "thing" to debate me in person since 2008 and now trying to get me in a courtroom no matter what, even if there's arbitration???No way I'm getting in the same room with him unless he's sedated or under heavy guard. I knew inmates like this, worked in places with psych inmates and a mental health unit. And then there's the fact that his ex-wife had to put a domestic violence order on him.

 See the blog piece where I originally quoted these.

See also the last part of his email to Gary Habermas, where Holding says I'm a "crazy" similar to the dangerous psychos in a prison ward.

See also Holding's "Internet Predator Alert", where Holding himself falsely assumed, despite criticism and despite my own contrary clinical diagnosis showing no such tendency, that my borderline personality disorder made me dangerous.  Wisely, Holding, despite being the type of pretentious obsessive asshole that would never extend critics any mery, took this Alert down before the first lawsuit was dismissed.

Addendum, 8/18/2015: “Dangerous”
 Doscher denies that he is dangerous because of his mental instability. Once again, clinical sources disagree with his claim.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342993/“Individuals with borderline personality disorder are diagnostically and clinically characterized by self-harm behavior, as indicated by the criterion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, “recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.” However, individuals with borderline personality disorder can display externalized aggressive behavior, as well. In an area characterized by considerably less research, empirical evidence indicates that individuals with borderline personality disorder may exhibit physical violence toward partners, physical violence toward known but nonintimate individuals, criminal behaviors that embody externalized violence (e.g., property damage), and, on very rare occasion, murderous behavior (either of family members or anonymous others through serial killing).”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790397/

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

So it is reasonable to argue that in light of Holding doing his best to put himself on a deathlist, it was "loving" of me to attempt to get him to change his ways through a means that most mature civilized adults think is valid and possesses significant likelihood of deterring him from running off at the mouth.

Finally, Holding's black and white fundy view that Matthew 18 doesn't obligate Christians to rebuke other Christians for sins against unbelievers, is opposed by somebody who used to publicly endorse Holding, Dr. Craig Blomberg, who said, commentating in Matthew 18:

There are times, of course, when it is both appropriate and necessary to correct believers for sins affecting third parties, but this can easily turn into meddling.
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 278). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The fact that Gary Habermas tactfully told Holding, in a conversation about my lawsuits,  he is glad Holding is allegedly backing off of the "strong comebacks" indicates that Habermas believed it was proper for him to address Holding about the language that landed Holding in Court, and that Habermas believed he didn't involve himself in this third-party dispute to the point of "meddling".

Maybe Holding will say Habermas is a "stupid moron" for thinking this way?

Craig Blomberg's commentary on Matthew 5 demolishes Holding's entire purpose of ministry:

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 NAU)

Blomberg opines that these passages are requiring Christians to be loving and gentle toward those who mistreat them:

Almost all people look after their own. The true test of genuine Christianity is how believers treat those whom they are naturally inclined to hate or who mistreat or persecute them. Whatever emotions may be involved, “love” here refers to “generous, warm, costly self-sacrifice for another’s good.”52 “Greet” (v. 47) refers to more than a simple hello, namely, heartfelt “expressions of desire for the other person’s welfare.”53 People who so love and greet their enemies and pray for their persecutors thus prove themselves to be those, as in v. 9, who are growing in conformity to the likeness of their Heavenly Father (v. 45).

52 Carson, “Matthew,” 158.

53 R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 99.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 114).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

From Holding's utterly reactionary cartoon videos that appear to be the only way this internally conflicted clown can see any real-world fulfillment of his desire to get rid of me, it is clear that Holding thinks my blog exposing his immoralities and my libel lawsuits against him (which he says were frivolous) constitute "mistreating" him, and he never had any problem seeing "falsely accused" as "persecute" until he found out that such belief would require him to "love" me.

For all these reasons, it would appear that Matthew 18 obligates a Christian in the know to involve themselves in third-party disputes where another Christian has sinned against an unbeliever.



https://www.ligonier.org/blog/how-should-christians-respond-attacks-and-insults/