see my Twitter posts

 https://twitter.com/barry35962347

#lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding

James Patrick Holding: libelous according to his own domain provider webnic.cc

Here is the email I sent that second domain provider, followed by their emails to me indicating they suspended the website:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 12:40 PM
Subject: one of your websites is hosting illegal content
To: <compliance_abuse@webnic.cc>

Hello,

Please send me a full copy of the "terms of service" that explain what website content you will allow and disallow.

My name is Christian Doscher.  I live at 6435 Doe St. SE Tumwater, WA. 98501, phone: (360) 339-3257.

email barryjoneswhat@gmail.com.

In 2008 I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, and I still receive social security benefits for 

this disability.

I am currently suing James Patrick Holding for libel.  

Doscher v. Holding, Florida Middle District, Case No. 6:19-cv-01322

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/29133402/Doscher_v_Holding  

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15937648/doscher-v-holding/ 

Most of the basis for such lawsuit arises from the content Mr. Holding posted to lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com.  

See attached Complaint, page 3, footnote 1 ff.  The name of that website appears more than 20 times in that Complaint.

That website was previously suspended and removed from public access back when the domain provider was InMotion Hosting.  Here is their email to me:

InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team
<legal-trac@inmotionhosting.com>
Tue, Jul 21, 4:32 AM to [External]
Hello, We have reviewed the account and have confirmed that the material or materials listed in the complaint were still present.  The account has now been suspended.
At this time we have closed this complaint.

As you can see, Mr. Holding is incapable of admitting wrong-doing, he simply resurrected this defamatory website by switching domain owners. 

Since InMotion Hosting removed the website because it was central to a currently pending libel lawsuit, I would ask you to do the same.

Mr. Holding actions are egregious, as not only are the comments about me on that website false, misleading and libelous, but Mr. Holding has known since 2015 that I suffer from an emotional disability, and he has previously manifested joy and glee in smearing me like this.  He does the same thing on his YouTube site tektontv, and at his other website tektonics.org, which contains a link to the libelous website I'm asking you to suspend.  See http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm

As I assume you refuse to host websites containing libelous content, especially where the content, as here, is the subject of currently pending litigation, you might consider a lawsuit against Mr. Holding yourself, for fraud.  He likely knew that if he had honestly told you about the content of the site he intended to upload, you would never have accepted his business, so he in effect defrauded you.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher, Plaintiff

================================

First webnic.cc reply:

WebNIC Customer Support <support@webnic.cc>	Sat, Aug 22, 8:49 PM (6 days ago)
to me

Dear Team,
Greetings.
Thank you for highlighting this issue to us.

We have notified the respective parties to investigate this issue and take the necessary action.

We will revert back to you once there's any update.
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
Support
WebNIC

=================================


Second webnic.cc reply:

WebNIC Customer Support <support@webnic.cc>	Mon, Aug 24, 4:03 AM (4 days ago)
to me

Dear Team,
Greetings.
Kindly informed domain has no longer in use.

Should you need further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Thank you.

Warm Regards,
Support
WebNIC

===============================


I think Mr. Holding's "followers" are equally as thick-headed as himself.  Every one of Holding's victories is a victory even if his follows neither know nor care about the details, and every time Holding gets shot down, this is surely also a victory since it merely proves one or more of God's enemies are unrighteously persecuting Holding.  LOL.

Which is stupid because all Christian scholars who know about Holding's juvenile delinquent antics are in agreement, including Mike Licona and Gary Habermas, that Holding's filthy obsessive libelous language is condemned 100% in the bible...no exceptions for responding to critics who publicly bait, criticize or taunt.

You can talk forever about how I'm "wrong".

But what you'll never prove is that I'm "unreasonable" to agree with all such scholars against Holding.

And if you are the type who thinks Holding has proven that most Christian scholars are just morons, then I guess I understand why you send your money to him, just like I understand the stupid fools who still send money to Robert Tilton despite his deserved downfall.

James Patrick Holding: Libelous according to his own website domain provider InMotion Hosting

Recently i sent the following email to the company hosting the website that Holding had used to libel me, InMotion Hosting, the website that forms a large part of the current libel lawsuit:
---------------------------------------------------------

request for removal of a libelous website you are hosting
Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>
Thu, Jul 16, 3:43 PM
to quality, abuse, legal

Hello,

Your Acceptable Use Policy prohibits your customers from posting libelous information to the websites you host:

from https://www.inmotionhosting.com/acceptable-use-policy

4. Prohibited Uses

---c. Utilize the Services in connection with any tortious or actionable activity. Without limiting the general application of this rule, Customers and Users may not:
Utilize the Services to publish or disseminate information that (A) constitutes slander, libel or defamation, (B) publicizes the personal information or likeness of a person without that person’s consent or (C) otherwise violates the privacy rights of any person. Utilize the Services to threaten persons with bodily harm, to make harassing or abusive statements or messages, or to solicit the performance of acts or services that are illegal under applicable law.

Before that, you said:

The Acceptable Use Policy below defines the actions which IMH considers to be abusive, and thus, strictly prohibited. The examples named in this list are non-exclusive, and are provided solely for guidance to IMH customers. If you are unsure whether any contemplated use or action is permitted, please send mail to abuse@InMotionHosting.com and we will assist you. Please note that the actions listed below are also not permitted from other Internet Service Providers on behalf of, or to advertise, any service hosted by IMH, or connected via the IMH network. Furthermore, such services may not be advertised via deceptive marketing policies, as defined by the Federal Trade Commission Deception Policy Statement.

So one reasonable interpretation of this would be that you will remove any content from any website you host, if you feel that content to be libelous. What else is implied by the phrase "strictly prohibited"?

My name is Christian Doscher. I am suing James Patrick Holding for libel.
Doscher v. Holding, Florida Middle District, 6:19-cv-01322

My prior lawsuit against him proceeded upon many of the same facts published at the same website:
Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, et al, 6:19-cv-00076

That suit is currently being appealed. 11th Circuit: Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, et al, Case No. 20-10736-

The vast bulk of Mr. Holding's libelous statements are found on a website you host:

http://www.lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com/

I initiated the latest lawsuit with a 170-page complaint, see attached. All of the statements about me on that website are libelous either in direct fashion, or by juxtaposition, or by failure to disclose relevant facts thus giving a defamatory impression. You can tell from reading the site that Mr. Holding has perused Court records to gratify his insatiable appetite for spite. While I have not yet sought the sealing of my prior court records, Holding's use of these judicial records is contrary to the Courts' intent:

from Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 440 (Dist. Court, SD New York 2018):

Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes" such as using records "to gratify spite or promote scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ("Courts have long declined to allow public access simply to cater to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.").

It appears from your own articles that your company tends to be "Christian" or to view Christianity favorably:

https://www.inmotionhosting.com/employment/latest-news/imh-gives-back

Jesus said slander is a sin that comes from the heart:

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; (Matt. 15:19-20 NAU)

The apostle Paul required you to disassociate yourself from any so-called Christian 'brother' who engages in the sin of "reviling":

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)

This is a request that you remove the website http://www.lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com/ from public access until this suit is resolved.

I strongly suggest you read the attached Complaint in full before you respond. All of the trifles you might have about ways to spin the website's statements so that they are not necessarily libelous, are false. Holding has no immunity, he cannot use the "opinion" defense, he cannot prove the "truth" of the libels, the libelous statements actually are false in every way that case law says statements can be libelous, and the suit was filed within Florida's two-year statute of limitations. The only reason my prior identical libel lawsuit against Holding didn't go to trial was because the judge falsely accused me of failing to follow the rules, an order that is currently being appealed (but the order of dismissal was "without prejudice" thus allowing me to file the same case again). So not even the prior dismissal can possibly suggest the current suit lacks merit.

Rest assured, Mr. Holding's website contains properly actionable libel, and no trifle of law is going to save him this time. You could not possibly do anything bad, and you could only do good, by removing that website from public access until this case is resolved.

I will be happy to answer any question you might have about the possible truth of the statements. You can become better informed of the best arguments thereto by contacting Mr. Holding's lawyer Scott A. Livingston at:

slivingston@cplspa.com
201 East Pine Street Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone: 407-647-7887

Thank you for your understanding.

Christian Doscher
barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
Attachments area





=======================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This was InMotion Hosting's reply:

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

[IMH Legal] #3187: Update to 'request for removal of a libelous website you are hosting'

Inbox

x

InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team <legal-trac@inmotionhosting.com>

Tue, Jul 21, 4:32 AM

to

[External] Hello, We have reviewed the account and have confirmed that the material or materials listed in the complaint were still present.  

The account has now been suspended. 

At this time we have closed this complaint. 

Our office hours are from 9 AM to 9 PM, Monday through Friday, Eastern time. If you have additional questions or concerns you may respond to this message and we will address those matters. Your correspondence will be responded to in the order that it was received so please allow 1-2 business days to receive your response. Best Regards,InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team

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


The "Complaint" with which I've started the new libel lawsuit against Holding (the one which convinced InMotion Hosting that Holding had violated their terms of service, is 170 pages long, and conclusively proves that Holding has committed perjury in Court at least 10 times, as well as shows that all comments about me which Holding uploaded to that website and elsewhere, were indeed libelous "per se".  Download Complaint here.

Maybe the world's smartest Christian apologist can now "explain" why InMotion Hosting's law firm are "dumbasses" or "idiots" or "morons" for finding his excuses unpersuasive, you know, the epithets that he hurls against anybody else who dare to disagree with his stupid pretentious trifling bullshit.

Or maybe you should ask him whether he plans to make good on his previous threat to simply move the content on the website to another domain, should the first domain remove the material in question.

Or maybe you should ask him how you can be sure your donations to him aren't being used to pay his lawyer to fight this lawsuit.  But read the downloaded Complaint, supra, first, as Holding appears to the be type that will lie about his finances when he thinks he won't get caught.

you can contact Holding at tektonics.org, or his email jphold@att.net

James Patrick Holding has committed perjury at least 10 times

My 5th libel lawsuit against James Patrick Holding starts with a Complaint that is 170 pages long, includes most of the content of the previous Complaints, and proves Holding has committed perjury in a court document at least 10 times.  

Update February 9, 2021:

I have since filed a "Third Amended Complaint", which is 534 pages long.  You'll be surprised to know that in Florida, where Holding lives and where I thus filed this lawsuit, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation.  If the truthful comment was posted with a bad motive, that is sufficient to impose defamation liability on Holding, and not merely on his Apologetics Afield corporation, but on Holding personally, as explained in the Complaint.  And what fool doesn't know that Holding, for the last 20 years, has demonstrated little more than an attitude of hostility, spite and ill-will toward everybody who dare challenge his religious opinions?  This Complaint compiles all of the disputed libels and demonstrated that Holding has committed the crime of perjury numerous times.  Download here. (update, October 13, 2021: the Court has since required that I filed a fourth amended Complaint. So I did, but it is less comprehensive than the earlier one.  The details that will satisfy Christians that James Patrick Holding is an unrepentant slanderer are not included in the fourth amended complaint, but regardless, that complaint still highlights Holding's illegal tax schemes.  Download here.

The most egregious of these instances of perjury was what I documented as his "tenth" act of perjury, namely, his having stated in a response to an interrogatory in 2015 that he has "never deliberately intended to insult anyone by his communications", an answer that is followed by his attorney's signature.  See page 486 ff.  You probably don't need to be told that I then use up 30 pages of the Complaint proving that Holding was not only lying here, he KNEW he was lying when he gave that answer.

James Patrick Holding never deliberately intended to insult anybody?  ARE YOU HIGH ON CRACK?

In a prior settlement offer, Holding proposed that I submit my counter-apologetics book drafts to him for editing, then he would assist me in getting them published.

So you might want to contact Holding and ask him what precedent there is in the New Testament for Christians to help anti-Christians publish anti-Christian works. jphold@att.net. His newer email address is: jphold99@gmail.com.   Or contact him by responding to one of his videos here.

Maybe he'll do a video on that subject, and shock the Christian world with an argument that Jesus might very well want a Christian to help a non-Christian publish blasphemy.

Then you might want to ask the world's smartest Christian defender of biblical inerrancy why there seems to be a contradiction between his desire to help anti-Christians publish anti-Christian works, and the apostle Paul's belief that anti-Christian speech must be suppressed (Titus 1:11, Psalm 101:3, Matthew 23:15).

UPDATE:
You may wonder whether Mr. Holding now understands that his prior "insult" style of apologetics was sinful.  I think he does, but he is also aware of the problems that bit of honesty creates.  If he admitted his slandering people in the past was sinful, he'd have to apologize to them, or at least to those whom he slandered the most, like me.

Mr. Holding is a big-mouth "know-it-all" who has constructed his internet presence to make sure he is constantly surrounded by decidedly less informed and fawning fans who salivate at his every word.  Apologizing would be a blow to his pride.  When you are plagued with the sin of pride as deeply as Mr. Holding is, you will not do anything that would entail that you apologize to anybody, ever.  If Holding was arrested for deliberately running over a small child in anger, he'd probably become a Calvinist before he ever got into the cop car.  If James Patrick Holding did it, then it cannot possibly be a sin.  But notice how the bible condemns Mr. Holding's filthy slanders and "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.
 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)


 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; (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Eph. 5:3-5 NAU)

 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. 3:6-10 NAU)

I offer more here.  And here.  And here.

See especially my 2017 blog entry providing all the reasons Holding (a closet homosexual) is disqualified, under biblical criteria, from possessing any Christian "teacher" position.  See here.

I also just advertised this post at Holding's YouTube channel, here's a screenshot:

======================----------------------------

I also disclosed the latest to one of Holding's followers "Zachary Cawley", who surprised me with his wisdom in refusing to draw a conclusion until the end of the case:

The following was posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbSUszyDIZQ   on August 4,  about 4 pm Pacific Standard Time.

Barry Jones

2 hours ago

Praise Report:  "Christian" apologist James Patrick Holding was sued for libel due to many false statements he posted to a domain he purchased exclusively for the purpose.  The domain provider, InMotion Hosting, agreed with me that the content violated their terms of service, and accordingly suspended the website.

Just how much do you suppose that's going to hurt Holding's defense at trial?

See the details at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/08/james-patrick-holding-libelous.html

Maybe the world's smartest Christian apologist can now explain why he thinks InMotion Hosting's lawyers are "morons" or "dumbasses", since those are the epithets Holding has, for the last 20 years, hurled at anybody else who dare disagree with his opinions.  Only in this case, InMotion Hosting's lawyers are also disagreeing with the opinions of Holding's own lawyer, Scott Livingston. 

Zachary Cawley
35 minutes ago (edited)
What Holding's case has to do with this vid, I cannot fathom. Regardless, the types of people he calls "morons" are the ones that would not hesitate to hurl insults at him just for being a Christian. In which case, they receive their just desserts when called out for critcal errors in their exegesis of any given biblical text.
 So far as the civil case regarding "libel," it's probably going to end up the same as all the other defamation cases Doscher filed. Does he even have a reputation to speak of?
 EDIT: I find the fact you chose to bring that up here, when I said nothing of Holding and Doscher in the video, to be extremely telling. You are so eager to bring him and his supporters down, you are willing to disrupt the flow of the actual topic in order to do it. That is the impression I am getting, anyway.
 

 Barry Jones

30 minutes ago

@Zachary Cawley yes, he does.  But perhaps the more important concern for you is the bible's teaching that Christian "brothers" who constantly 'revile' others are not qualified to be "teachers", so that you need to stop viewing Holding as a teacher until he repents of his slanders:

 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)

Doesn't it bother you that while Mr. Holding wants to be viewed as a christian "teacher", he fails the biblical criteria for such office? 

 Zachary Cawley
19 minutes ago
@Barry Jones Last I checked, he is not a pastor anyway even if what you say is true. Also, I never said he was a teacher, so I have no idea where this is coming from. You have yet to even establish what those "slanderous" accusations were. I will wait for the close of the case to conclude anything, as I was not even aware of this new case you refer to. Quick to hear, slow to speak, in other words.

 Barry Jones

16 minutes ago

@Zachary Cawley You said "the types of people he calls "morons" are the ones that would not hesitate to hurl insults at him just for being a Christian."

I reply:

If he calls them names for the reason you gave, then he is violating NT ethics, which forbid retaliatory name-calling.   1st Peteter 2:21-23.

You said:  " In which case, they receive their just desserts when called out for critcal errors in their exegesis of any given biblical text."

I reply:

You got it all wrong, bro.  the bible specifically forbids you from fellowshipping with "brothers" who constantly "revile" others, 1st Cor, 5:9-13.

You said:

So far as the civil case regarding "libel," it's probably going to end up the same as all the other defamation cases Doscher filed.

I reply:

If InMotion Hosting's lawyer felt the content was sufficiently libelous to deem it a punishable violation of their terms of service, that counts as the professional legal opinion of somebody other than Doscher, that the libelous comments documented in his latest Complaint really are libelous.

You said:

 Does he even have a reputation to speak of?

  

I reply:

You don't understand Florida's libel law.  Florida does not accept the "libel-proof" doctrine, therefore, Florida does not recognize the notion that someone has such a bad reputation that it cannot be further tarnished by libel. 

You are also manifesting your spiritual immaturity.  the issue is not whether I have a reputation to speak of, but whether Holding has violated any biblical ethic applicable to him in defaming me.  He did.  Go ahead, google "bible defamation gossip slander reviling", the bible says nothing good about these vices.

You also forget that Holding's own mentor Gary Habermas stopped publicly endorsing him because of Holding's foul unChrist-like mouth.  Both Habermas and Licona condemn Holding's insulting-style in no uncertain terms, along with Dr. Rorhrbough, founding member of the Context Group, who said Holding's article justifying insulting speech was an "obvious perversion" of Rohrbaugh's work and the NT itself.  I can provide the documentation if you are interested

Barry Jones
11 minutes ago
@Zachary Cawley You said:
@Barry Jones Last I checked, he is not a pastor anyway even if what you say is true. "
 I reply:
that's irrelevant:  you can be a "teacher" without being a "pastor".  So his failing the teacher criteria continues to condemn his ministry, especially given that the express purpose of his ministry is to create "educational" materials.
 You said:
Also, I never said he was a teacher, so I have no idea where this is coming from.
 I reply:
You don't need to say he is a teacher.  Holding holds himself out as a Christian teacher, that's enough, it doesn't require your acceptance before his claim can be refuted from the bible and his own long list of "reviling" sins.
 you said:
You have yet to even establish what those "slanderous" accusations were.
 I reply,
that's why I gave you the link to that latest 170-page Complaint. Read it.
 Here's the blog page with the link, again:
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html
 You said:   I will wait for the close of the case to conclude anything, as I was not even aware of this new case you refer to. Quick to hear, slow to speak, in other word
 I reply:
that's far wiser than most of Holding's followers, who cannot imagine him as anything other than a manga warrior who never does anything worthy of cutting off fellowship.
 

Barry Jones

6 minutes ago

@Zachary Cawley You said:

EDIT: I find the fact you chose to bring that up here, when I said nothing of Holding and Doscher in the video, to be extremely telling. You are so eager to bring him and his supporters down, you are willing to disrupt the flow of the actual topic in order to do it. That is the impression I am getting, anyway.

I reply:

that's the  wrong impression, I had no intention of disrupting a conversation, but I had no other way to get in contact with you, and regardless, if your faith hero is biblically disqualified from holding any office of Christian "teacher", that's probably more important, from a spiritual standpoint, than your youtube notification that you don't want to become involved in a spat between "eso" and "filthy".

The sanctification argument for refusing to listen to certain Christian apologists

Here is an argument I posted at another forum.  I argue that despite the fact that many bible scholars are consistently Christian in their faith, their unwillingness to break fellowship with other Christians they know are living in sin, proves that such scholars probably aren't true Christians to begin with.  The internet allows Christians who live in the sin of slander/reviling to run wild with little to zero chance that their local pastor, will ever know, and when the pastor is told, he typically brushes this off without employing the admittedly emotionally difficult disciplinary measures required in Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 5:9-13
==============================

In my experience, while some Christian might have a lot of knowledge of bible scholarship, they are often shockingly lacking in sanctification.  I've known really smart Christians who are routine drunks, really smart Christians who routinely engage in pre-marital fornication, etc.  God only knows how many Christian "internet apologists" there are who download pornography while posting defenses of biblical inerrancy to debate forums.

The problem is bigger than just the Christians who "live in sin" as we typically use that phrase.  The problem includes Christian scholars and leaders who exhibit zero motive to fulfill the harder parts of the bible, like obeying Matthew 18 and excommunicating the so-called "brother" who refuses to repent of some sin committed against another. 

For example, many "internet apologists" routinely hurl insults at whoever they are debating.  Apostle Paul told Christians to stop communicating with so-called Christian "brothers" who constantly "revile" other people:

  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)

But how good are the odds that any such sinful Christian's pastor knows about this, and can therefore implement this biblically necessary discipline?

I've witnessed plenty of cases where well-known conservative christian scholars became knowledgeable that one of the Christians they fellowship with routinely "reviles" everybody including other Christians, using language that is in clear violation of Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8...but these scholars did precisely nothing to address it.  They simply never attempted the least bit of biblical response.

How long can a Christian scholar turn away from the more demanding morals the bible requires of him, before the skeptics can be justified to say such scholar is likely lacking in sanctification?  Does 1st Corinthians 5:11 place a burden upon all Christians, or only on local pastors?

I'd like to know what the Christians here would think of the skeptical argument that says a Christian can be safely deemed to lack salvation, if despite a scholarly-level knowledge of the bible, they carefully refrain from addressing issues of sin in their own lives, or in the lives of other Christians whom they regularly fellowship with.

I'm not saying nobody can be a Christian unless they are sinless.

I'm saying the more you disobey the biblical requirement to reprove sinful brothers and disfellowship the unrepentant, the more the outsider is justified to conclude your lack of sanctification testifies to your lack of salvation. 

Sure, the the bible will allow for the husband who commits adultery to still be a Christian.

But does the bible allow a husband to be a Christian if he has been committing adultery every day of the week for the last 20 years?

So the ultimate question is:  even if the skeptical attack is not infallible, can the attack still be "reasonable" in concluding that where Christian scholars either live constantly in sin, or sheepishly run away from a need to rebuke a sinful brother, this lack of evidence of sanctification increases the odds such Christians are not authentically born again?

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate 1st Corinthians 5:11

James Patrick Holding's alleged magnum opus is his absurd defense of insulting his critics (i.e., nothing in the bible or the early church fathers condemns his constantly insulting the non-Christians who disagree with his opinions, see here. (he has configured his website to make sure I cannot access it, probably because he doesn't have anything to fear from my criticisms.)

When apostle Paul required Christians to disassociate themselves from the so-called Christian "brother" who sins, he gave a list of such sins.  One sin listed was "reviler":

 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)

What does "reviler" mean?  According to standard grammatical authorities:

BDAG and GINGRICH say it is an "abusive person"

TDNT says:

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]

DANKER says

λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.  

"insolent" means:

Showing a rude and arrogant lack of respect (English Oxford);
(of a person or a person’s behavior) intentionally and rudely showing no respect (Cambridge);
insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster)

So it's pretty safe to say that the standard grammatical authorities tell us that the "reviler" brother that Paul tells Christians to stay away from is the "brother" who is constantly abusive in speech, or insulting, constantly engaging in angry wrangling/mockery, and doing this in a rude disrespectful way, or otherwise engaging in insultingly contemptuous speech. 

What we can reasonably thus conclude that the smartest Christian apologist in the world is completely blind to the basic NT ethics taught in this passage.

Or perhaps, being so smart, yes he knew about it, but chose to ignore its obvious meaning, likely because he has a genetic defect that causes him to suppress and excuse away anything that might reveal a character flaw and pretend his own opinion is infallible.

His babies will scream "there's an exception for skeptics who publicly criticize our faith!"

The trouble is that I've already gotten statements from legitimately credentialed scholars, some of whom previously publicly endorsed Holding, who said they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian to be insulting toward anybody, including critics and skeptics. See here.

For example, see my blog piece showing that Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas likely think James Patrick Holding is a piece of shit scumbag, since even back in 2004 they were jointly insisting that it is biblically unacceptable for a Christian to insult "skeptics".  See here.

Gary Habermas once publicly endorsed Holding.  Licona's daughter is the wife of Holding's ministry partner Nick Peters.  One might reasonably speculate that this family has often had friendly conversations about Holding's infamously foul mouth (I have emails showing Habermas rebuking Holding for it), and not even the world's smartest Christian apologists (Licona and Habermas) can see any biblical justification for, and see only biblical condemnation against, Holding's genetically defective tendency to insult anything he hates.

Holding's babies will scream "we are employing riposte the way Jesus and Paul did", but the clear prohihbition against reviling in 1st Corinthians 5:11 makes it clear that God doesn't want you to do something merely because Jesus and Paul did it.  Whatever first-century "riposte" was, its limits are clearly specified in that verse.  No, the name-calling nature of ancient agrarian cultures doesn't automatically mean you are justified to imitate it. 

For the Holding-babies who continue to support him regardless, you might want to read about God's instituting America's libel-laws in Romans 13, then ask yourself why Holding is unable to escape the current libel lawsuit I've filed against him.

If it is so easy for Holding to prove this current lawsuit to be frivolous or unfounded, why hasn't he prevailed with a motion to dismiss yet?   Might it actually be a bit harder to disprove my allegations, than it would be to state the first letter of the English Alphabet?

Could it actually be that the world's biggest scumbag apologist actually did cross the line into legitimately actionable slander?  Gee, you've never heard of honest-appearing Christians being exposed as scandalous wolves, have you?

If that is a possibility, then why haven't you given serious consideration to apostle Paul's demand that you dissociate yourself from "brothers" who are "revilers"? 

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 26

 17 Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
 18 Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death,
 19 So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?"
 20 For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.
 21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
 22 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.   (Prov. 26:17-22 NAU)

V. 17, Mr. Holding has an obvious history of "exposing" strifes in the lives of his critics.  That's at issue in the current libel lawsuit against him.

v. 18, you cannot escape the condemnation in this verse by pretending that your hurling of arrows was for the cause of "truth".  the person you give that defense to would have to decide whether you are being honest or are instead trying to mask your sinful love of gossip and meddling.

v. 20, the ending of "contention" is presumed a good think to the author.  You cannot escape the condemnation in that verse by saying you started a contention and strife "in the name of truth".  The person yo make that excuse to will have to decide whether you are being honest or dishonest about your alleged concern for "truth", and there is a possibility they will conclude that you couldn't care less about truth, you just love gossip.
v. 21, a general love of starting contentions and strifes is condemned by this author, and given Holding's history of it, no, his excuse that he only does it for the sake of the truth, is bullshit.  Holding has a genetic defect that causes him to love strife more than the average person.

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett:

Type: Thematic (26:17–22). These proverbs discuss anyone who involves himself or herself in the affairs of others, who spreads gossip, or is a general source of mischief. Metaphors of violence and destruction dominate this text since these qualities characterize the aftereffects of the busybody.
26:17 Verse 17 could be translated, “Like one who seizes the ears of a passing dog is the one who meddles.”Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow.
26:18–19 Verses 18–19 could be taken to condemn any kind of antics (such as modern practical jokes played on a groom on his wedding day). While practical jokes can be destructive and hurtful, the larger context here implies that such may not be precisely the nature of the deceit implied here. Rather, this is a person who enjoys gossiping about or tampering with the affairs of other people. Such a person will purposefully confuse others and engage in a kind of social disinformation. When called to account, he or she will treat the whole thing as a game and be oblivious to all the hurt such actions created.
26:20–22 Verses 20–21 describe the slanderer as the fuel that maintains quarrels. In the absence of such a person, old hurts can be set aside, and discord can die a natural death. Even so, we often find a juicy tidbit of defamation irresistible. Verse 22 is a direct warning to the reader. Gossip makes its way to the innermost being of the hearer; that is, it corrupts the soul.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 214).

 

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate Proverbs 20:19

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.
(Prov. 20:19 NAU).

How could you possibly argue that you associate with James Patrick Holding, but you don't associate with a gossip?

Maybe you think the "gossip" condemned here is something different than James Patrick Holding's obsessive need to dig up personal strifes and evils in the lives of his critics?  Break out the chocolate, you are about to have a bad day.  Evangelical Christian scholar R.E. Murphy:

19 The first line is very similar to 11:3a. The slanderer is one who goes about talking, although the etymology of the word רכיל is difficult. Naturally, such a person is to be avoided. The parallel with the “open mouthed” (see Note 19.a.*) would seem to indicate a character that we would term “loose-lipped.”
* 19.a. This verb seems to have two meanings: “open” and “simple/foolish.” In either case, irresponsible speech is meant.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 152)

The dictionary defines "loose-lipped" as "fond of gossip".  If you think Mr. Holding only yaks about issues of biblical scholarship, you might ask him

a) why he is being sued for defamation for the third time, and
b) why his lawyer has told him he won't be escaping this third one with a Phariseeic technicality, like he did the last two times, but must answer to a jury on the merits

Or maybe you are a clever person, you caught the gag, and you won't be asking Holding any such thing, because to do so is to perhaps reveal that you love hearing gossip, which makes you just as bad as the person who spreads gossip, see Proverbs 17:4.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate proverbs 18:5-8

 5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
 6 A fool's lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows.
 7 A fool's mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul.
 8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body. (Prov. 18:5-8 NAU)

Once again, the fact that some strife is logically required in our search for justice, does not mean gossip is holy.  The fact that you can say you were searching for "truth" by inquiring into the strifes others have endured, doesn't mean you are free from the charge of loving gossip for the sake of gossip.  The person you speak with will have to decide whether you pay attention to strife so much because of your excuse that you are a truth-robot, or if that's just a bullshit excuse to cover up your sinful love of strife.  They might be reasonable to say you are full of shit, you only care about the thrill of gossip, you care nothing for actual truth.
This is more especially so with Holding's idiot followers who have been manifesting their spiritual depravity/immaturity for years. 

Holding's libelous words about me qualify as little more than the gossip and strife which this proverb condemns.  Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

18:5–8 The chiasmus in vv. 6–7 is obvious (lips, mouth, mouth, lips). Somewhat less conspicuously, v. 5 refers to heeding evil talk at the gate, and v. 8 describes the pleasures that malicious slander can give. This section appears to be further commentary on 17:27–18:4. In official proceedings, whether they be court cases or community decisions, one obviously should not take the side of an evil person (v. 5). The odds of such happening are reduced by the fact that caustic and selfish people347 expose themselves by their words (vv. 6–7). On the other hand, many have a perverse attraction to malicious gossip (v. 8). This points to the need to be a judicious and thoughtful listener.
347 One needs to bear in mind that the “fool” of Proverbs is not a buffoon or simpleton. He or she is rather an obstinate, selfish, and obnoxious individual.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 164)

The word "caustic" means : "marked by incisive sarcasm" or "sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way".

Gee, Holding has never been guilty of being "caustic" has he?  Of course he has, Gary Habermas rebuked him for it according to email communications between the which I forced Holding to disclose, but which Habermas asked me not to divulge the contents of.  

Evangelical Christian scholar R. E. Murphy says:

6–7 Both of these verses deal with the organs of speech (lips/mouth used chiastically), as employed by a fool, and hence they point out the bad effects of his talk. 6 It is not clear if the “blows” in line b are to be understood as a punishment that the fool receives (therefore, in a judicial case), or merely as a violent dispute that is brought about by his heedless speech. 7 This verse is a drastic and dramatic description of the price the fool will have to pay for his unbridled speech: it is a deadly trap; see also vv 20–21.

8 This verse appears also in 26:22, where it is perhaps more suitable to the context. ...“Dainty morsels” is a common, if uncertain, translation. Experience bears out the attraction that gossip exerts over human beings; it enters deeply into a person; the second line suggests this penetration and perhaps the hearer’s relishing, if the translation of v 8a is correct. For harmful effects of gossip, cf. 16:28.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 135). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

Since Holding is obviously guilty of being obstinate and obnoxious gossip, and since he has never manifested the slightest desire to repent of these moral defects, you will have a difficult time trying to reconcile your belief that "scholarship is all that matters for a Christian teacher" with the bible, which requires teachers to be morally qualified too.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate Proverbs 17:4

 4 An evildoer listens to wicked lips; A liar pays attention to a destructive tongue. (Prov. 17:4 NAU)

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

17:4 Taking gossip seriously is itself a form of malice practiced by those who have no respect for the truth.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 158).

 To the best of my knowledge, with exception for a few idiots who replied with a few trifles on some of my blog posts indicating they are more interested in defending Holding, no follower of James Patrick Holding has ever asked for my side of any story.  The one that came close, chose to slink back into the shadows after I convinced him he was libeling me.

This proverb is interesting because it shows he thinks those who take slanderous gossip seriously without doing any checking, are themselves equally as corrupt as the gossiper himself.

If Holding babies read this and feel themselves exonerated since they might have asked a few cursory questions before they believed Holding's gossip, they are reminded that there is a third libel lawsuit currently pending against Holding.  He was forced to hire a lawyer, he filed a motio to dismiss, and the Court chose to delay ruling on it, forcing Holding to pay the expense of answering discovery.

The point is that it sure is funny how your faith-hero cannot escape this third lawsuit as easily as you think he should.  Perhaps you might consider that there are truths he isn't telling you about, and THAT's why his slam-dunk defenses aren't working.  Suggest you give him a call.  Then again, your profession of Christ is total bullshit in the first place, probably best if you didn't call him.

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 16:27-28

 27 A worthless man digs up evil, While his words are like scorching fire.
 28 A perverse man spreads strife, And a slanderer separates intimate friends. (Prov. 16:27-28 NAU)

As documented in the Complaints that started my last three defamation lawsuits against James Patrick Holding, the exact way that Mr. Holding goes about slandering me is to "dig up evil" (i.e., he goes through my legal history to look for things he can misrepresent, or to gain quotes from third-parties who lied about me, then he gives more publicity to that information than the files ever would have enjoyed in their original state).

Furthermore, it wouldn't even matter if all of Holding's opinions about me were true.

Truth is not an absolute defense. Under this Proverb, digging up evil makes you worthless.  Nobody is asking whether the "evil" you dig up had some truth-content to it.  I'm sure there was truth-content in the court files generated by the couple down the street who got divorced.  Gee, does the fact that there can be truth in the back and forth name-calling automatically mean the person who gives further unnecessary publicity to that dispute is therefore exempt from the condemnation in this verse?  LOL.

I'm sure there was truth-content in the arrest report generated after some guy raped a woman.  But to "dig up" such "evil" makes a person worthless. 

An obvious exception must be made for courts of law; the biblical author wasn't stupid enough to think that all cases of evil need to be left alone and forgotten.  But the proverbs author is talking about the average person on the street, he isn't talking about judicially appointed fact finders. 

Unfortunately, my criticisms of the Holding's apologetics have nothing to do with putting anybody at risk of criminal harm, and Holding cannot seriously argue there is any logical connection between my legal history and the force of my counterapologetics arguments.

What dumbass thinks "Jesus' family thought him insane so they probably didn't think his miracles were real, see Mark 3:231" is fairly rebutted with "that skeptic filed a frivolous lawsuit against another person!"

James Patrick Holding, that's who.

Notice v. 28 which in Hebrew parallelism is just a new phrase the author thinks synonymous with v. 27:  a perverse man stirs up strife.  Once again, wouldn't matter if Holding's comments about me were all true, the Proverb author neither expresses nor implies that stirring up strife can be morally good if truth is at stake.  Holding didn't qualify as a judicially appointed fact-finder back when he started slandering me on the internet, so he really does qualify as the average man on the street who really IS condemned by this bible passage.

If there are situations where stirring up strife is morally good, then we have to ask:  Why did Holding think my counterapologetics arguments justified his digging up evil in my past and using it to help stir up strife?

Perhaps he thought that if I 'frivolously' sued somebody in the past for breach of contract, that might successfully defend him from the accusation that his own favorite scholars, the Context Group, have disowned him 3 times and have accused him of "perverting" their scholarship?  See here.

Yeah right. 

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

16:27–30 Verses 27–30 describe the man who has evil schemes and are another thematic unity. Verses 27–29 concern the evil machinations of the scoundrel, the perverse man, and the violent man, and v. 30 is a conclusion or commentary on those three descriptions. The winking eye and pursed lips of v. 30 may be taken either as signals among conspirators or as a general statement of shiftiness in the facial mannerisms of scheming people. The point may be that the reader should learn to read the faces of others in order to spot the three kinds of evil men described in vv. 27–29.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 157)

Garret obviously believes Christians should learn how to spot the kind of men this Proverb describes, so the only reason a Christian could have for overlooking Holding's horrific moral failures and pretending his "scholarship" is all that matters, are the Christians who obviously lack just as much joy, peace, patience, gentleness, meekness, kindness, that Holding does.  There is a very good reason why the vast majority of Holding's YouTube followers are safely anonymous nobodies whose individual YouTube channels dedicate more attention to worldly cartoons than to Jesus.  No, it isn't bad luck.  Try again.

You should not pay attention to disqualified "Christian" teachers like James Patrick Holding, since his love of stirring up strife will likely do nothing  more than entice you into committing the same sins:  The bible says people who dig up evil are "worthless" and people who spread strife are "perverse".  Gee, Holding has never "spread strife", has he?  If the biblical author disapproved of strife-spreading methods in ancient Israel, how much more do you suppose he would condemn the same type of person today who can use the internet to spread strife far more widely by use of the internet?

What does it mean when an allegeldy 'Christian' teacher has mistaken sin for holy conduct for the last 20 years?  No, it doesn't mean "we're all imperfect".  It means this is one of those "Christians" who would have done far better to heed the advice in James 3:1, and do something in life other than being a Christian "teacher".