I keep reminding James Patrick Holding's admirers of how blind they are

Holding's followers constantly shower him with praise for his for "apologetics" at his ridiculous Looney Tune YouTube apologetics channel.  Apparently, they would shower praise on a pastor who committed adultery every day of life, because they think that as long as he is smarter than them in apologetics, this trumps the biblical requirement that he abstain from sin.

Here's how I respond to them (link to video is here).  Since my comments never show up unless I myself am logged into my Google account, I have to assume that Holding is routinely deleting my comments.  Rest assured, Holding will be held accountable for all of his actions toward me. 

Text:

The bible requires you to disassociate yourself from any Christian brother who is a "reviler":

 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. 5:11-13 NAU)

If you would see a serious problem with a Christian brother who committed any of the other sins Paul lists there, why don't you see a serious problem with Christians who routinely commit his listed sin of "reviler"?

Holding's history of "reviling" everybody he disagrees with is undeniable, and I am currently suing James Patrick Holding for Defamation/Libel, and my 534-page Complaint extensively documents exactly how reviling, hateful, spiteful and downright disgusting Mr. Holding's speech toward others has been consistently since 1998.

You can download that complaint for free at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html

I suggest you start on page 486, "tenth act of perjury". Holding lied under oath, stating in answer to an Interrogatory that he had never deliberately intended to insult anybody.  

  I use up about 30 pages to show that Holding knew he was lying when he gave that answer, and thus he committed "perjury".

  When Holding tells you the accusations in my complaint are false, ask him why he doesn't counter-sue me for abuse of process. 

You might also ask him what happened to his aggressively mouthy nature.  If he  seriously thinks God's requirements upon him are more important to obey than any earthly authority, then why isn't he obeying God's command to keep insulting me?   When faced with a conflict between godly and earthly authority, true Christians always choose to obey God and willingly suffer the consequences the earthly rulers impose (Acts 5:29), right?

If Holding is so sure Christians should be imitating the honor/shame riposte of ancient Jews, why isn't he equally sure that they should obey God when faced with a conflict between the rules of God and the rules of earthly authorities, the way Peter did in Acts 5:29?

My reply to R.L. Solberg on Jesus and Isaiah 53

 R.L. Solberg is a Christian apologist and attempts at his blog to respond to Jewish objections to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, here.

I posted a reply as follows, which is crossposted here, given my experience of Christian apologists deleting my polite and scholarly challenges

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Barry Jones

June 16, 2021 8:37 pm

The NAU of Isaiah 53 translates the Hebrew words “zerah” and “tseetsa” as “offspring” and in the immediate context of each, only “biological” offspring is meant. You are thus forced to argue that the meaning of zerah in Isaiah 53:10 is an exception to the rule.

What would be unreasonable in the skeptic who says “offspring” in Isaiah 53:10 means only naturalistic biological offspring, so because Jesus didn’t have any naturalistic biological children, he is not the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?

How do you know the canonical gospel authors weren’t simply creating fictions about Jesus to make him sound more like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 than he really was? Of course you will tout the historical reliability of the gospels, but I would provide scholarly resistance to that conclusion every step of the way. The question is not whether YOU can be reasonable to see Jesus as the Isaiah 53 servant but whether skeptics can be reasonable to deny this allegation.

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

I could have thrown many other reasonable objections at him:

Isaiah 53:10 says if the servant offers himself as a guilt offering, he will prolong his days.  Christians will blindly insist that because Jesus died for our sins as a guilt-offering, God raised him to immortal life.  But because there is no record of any Jew in the 1st century or before thinking that the messiah would have to die and come back to life, its pretty safe to assume that Isaiah's originally intended recipients would have understood "prolong his days" to take the normal sense of "delay the day of his death".

Worse, if it is not unreasonable for a person to refuse to get drawn into the reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with the 9th Circuit on whether the 2nd Amendment created a right to private gun ownership, simply because it seems to be an unresolvable quarrel of fatally ambiguous words, then the fact that Christians and Jews have been disagreeing on Isaiah 53 for 2,000 years would similarly make reasonable the unbeliever or skeptic who considered such a debate too convoluted to justify an expectation that any amount of study would be capable of yielding conclusions of any degree of reasonable certainty.  And the disagreements about the meaning of Isaiah 53's words would also constitute the "word-wrangling" which apostle Paul forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14.