my attempt to warn people that James Patrick Holding is a spiritual midget

 I posted the following to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5zo6UOGl4k:

1st Corinthians 5:11-13 requires you to disassociate yourself from any so-called 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)

--

(note esp. v. 13, Paul equates the "reviler" with the "wicked man" which Deut. 13:5 and 17:7 say should be removed from the congregation). So any attempt on your part to trivialize the biblical seriousness of Holding's sin, will under biblical logically be equal to trivializing the seriousness of sinful activity which god through Moses said requires the congregation to excommunicate the member.

Holding is currently being sued in court because his "reviling" nature has caused him to commit libel (what the bible calls the sins of slander and gossip). A complaint that uses 534 pages to document Holding's sin of slander (including his numerous acts of lying under oath in court documents (perjury) can be downloaded for free here https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html.

...do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)

He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter. (Prov. 11:13 NAU)

Jesus condemns slander, Mark 7:22

Paul requires Christians to cease all slanderous activity, Ephesians 4:31

Paul condemns abusive speech, Ephesians 5:4, Colossians 3:8

Peter forbids slander, 1st Peter 2:.

He also condemns "insult for insult", 1st Peter 3:9, which Holding has made a living out of for the last 20 years.

Holding lauds the Context Group (or did before he found out they think he is a dishonest immoral perverter of basic biblical morality), and yet the Context Group thinks Peter requires modern Christians to avoid insulting the unbelievers who insult them: ... this is what John H. Elliott, chair of the Context Group, had to say about riposte when discussing the instruction given by Peter to the addressees of 1 Peter.

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

"First, the addressees are warned not to engage in the usual spitting match of riposte and retaliation. They are not to return "injury for injury" or "insult for insult" (3:9; see also the proscription of slander in 2:1), just as Jesus when insulted did not retaliate (2:23, echoing Isa 52:7and details of the passion narrative [Mark 14:61//Matt 26:63; Mark 15:5//Matt 27:12-14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9]). Rather, they are urged to bless their insulters (3:9c) and to disprove their slanderers with honorable and irreproachable modes of behavior within and beyond the community (2:12), for actions speak louder than words (3:1-2)."

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

See my entire argument here:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-fine-example-of-why-james-patrick.html

Holding has never "blessed" anybody who insulted him or did him wrong. Every time he can be documented to reply to somebody speaking negatively about him, he violates the Context Group's view, supra, and simply bites back at his opponent with hissing and spitting and verbal abuse.

Peter says the example Jesus left you was to avoid reviling others who revile you, 1st Peter 2:21 ff.

If you wouldn't attend the church of a pastor who committed adultery every day and seriously denied that this was sin, why would you accept arguments from an "apologist" who lives in the sin of "reviling" every day?

If you would speak out against any "Christian" who routinely engaged in the sin of theft, why don't you speak out against Holding for his ceaseless sins of "reviling" ?and slander?

Holding wrote an article defending his stupid trifle that the bible allows Christians to hurl insults at skeptics who publicly attack Christianity, but I've refuted that article in point-by-point fashion.

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/06/new-reply-to-james-patrick-holdings.html

What we can be sure you WON'T be doing is pretending that you seriously believe Holding's trifling sinful bullshit.

 

I guess we can see how poorly James Patrick Holding will do in trial

 James Patrick Holding posted this point by point answer to another critic, and I show how fucking absurd Holding's logic is

tektontv1 day ago

All of these whines seem to designed to avoid engaging real arguments rather than answering them. It also hoists itself on its own petard repeatedly.

Empty rhetoric that any fool could use, but I'm sure your followers do what you do, and mistake rhetoric for actual substance. 

>>>"1. The vast majority of Jesus nation didn't accept him, despite the miracles he may have done.

So? the vast majority of the Egyptians, Moabites, Canaanites, etc never accepted Judaism in spite of the miracles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, etc.

Probably because the Egyptians, Moabites and Canaanites never had any reason to think Moses, Joshua or Elijah could do real miracles. 

>>>So accepting the claims of small cult (of Jesus) is less rational than accepting the decisions of vast majority of the people back then.

You mean like Judaism, the small cult that came out of Egypt to found what, politically speaking, was a puny and insignificant nation?? Do tell.

That wasn't a rebuttal.   

>>>2. The Old Testament doesn’t prove Christianity, because we do see that Jews explain the same verses completely different. When you have more than one way to interpret something, it can't be a proof.

I don't know what he means when he refers to the OT "proving" Christianity. I would never say it does.

Then you never read 2nd Timothy 3:16.  It is talking about the OT when it says the scripture is profitable to the Christian for "doctrine", and apostle Paul curiously grounds doctrine always in the OT, never on the words of Jesus.  Paul's allegedly grounding completely obvious common sense on something Jesus said (1st Timothy 5:18) is less about grounding something and more about telling the world just how little Paul thought of the pre-resurrection Christ.  

>>>3. Christianity is no valid more than Islam or other religions, because that if God changed the religion so drastically (Old Testament commandments does not required anymore, and so on) - why stay there? Let's accept that God came again to Muhammad, or Joseph Smith.

Non sequitur.

No, your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur:  he wasn't arguing that God surely did change religions.  he was only arguing that it would be reasonable for a person to believe that was the case.  The only time "non-sequitur" can validly apply is when the critiqued argument was saying a certain conclusion "necessarily" followed.  You'd be surprised at how often apologists say "non-sequitur" to a skeptical argument, when in fact the argument is not about what is necessarily true, but what is reasonable to believe. 

>>>4. The trinity sounds absurd when you believe in monotheistic God, in comparison to the way Judaism see their God.

Too bad this dumbass never heard of Trinitarian precursors in Judaism like hypostatic Wisdom.

Except that Judaism's hypostatic Wisdom is equally absurd as Trinitarianism, unless you kick the Christians out of the room and stop pushing the personification of wisdom so literally.  But the jury will find it interesting that with the remark "dumbass", the world's smartest Christian apologist cannot stop insulting people.  Download the 534-page Complaint here, then start at page 486.  There's about 35 pages of proofs that Holding lied when he testified under oath that he has "never deliberately intended to insult anyone by his communications", a statement that both he and his lawyer choose to leave unqualified. 

>>>>5. Judaism apologists disprove Christianity proofs easily. As Judaism is non-missionary religion, they have no motive to religion debate everywhere. That’s why most of the "proofs" over internet are one sided and you miss the Jews real point of views in the matter.

I smelled the elephant he hurled but I don't see it.

Then read 2000 years of church history, that's how long the Jews have failed to be impressed by Christian arguments, so apparently, the OT statements that NT authors use to prove something about Christianity, are not quite as rock-solid as the tearful inerrantist on Sunday morning would like to think. 

>>>Most people are not resisting to Christianity or any other religion because they are evil or stupid or stubborn. There are many rabbis, priests, Muftis and others that knows the truth and can win any debate.

Basically this guy has nothing but slogans to offer.

That would hardly matter.  I could kick your fucking head off in a debate about bible inerrancy and Jesus' resurrection, and the most you could do about it is post a defamatory cartoon video to YouTube.  Then YOU accuse other adults of having the mentality of a two-year old (!?) 

By the way, Mr. Holding, if you are so fucking serious that God approves of you calling your enemies "dumbasses", do you plan on calling ME a dumbass when you take the witness stand in front of the jury?  It doesn't matter if the earthly judge prohibits this, the true Christian obeys the higher spiritual moral where it conflicts with an earthly secular rule.  Acts 5:29, "we must obey God rather than men", so you can forget about pretending that Romans 13 requires that you obey secular authorities.  The earthly judge would be violating your idea of higher spiritual ethics in telling you to address me in a courteous manner.

my reply to James Patrick Holding's idiot-followers

 James Patrick Holding "warned" me that he "wasn't playing anymore" and that he'd post more videos about me should I dare to speak disparagingly of him to third parties.  So I took up his challenge with a prior blog post wherein I show the world that I recently spoke disparagingly about Holding to a church pastor that knew him back in 2007.  See here.  I then advertised this post to the comment section of one of his YouTube videos about me, to make darn sure he knew about my violation of his warning as quickly as possible.

Holding, as usual, makes good on his libelous "warning" by posting yet another defamatory video about me.

This is my reply to various comments James Patrick Holding's followers post to this libelous YouTuBe video.  Because they are libelous videos, this is an exceptional situation where I will not give the link to the original video, otherwise in jury trial Holding will simply argue that the jury should reduce the amount of damages he must pay since I, by posting links to his libels, helped the public find such defamatory posts..

First, in most of Holding's prior videos about me, he included a link to his secondary website devoted exclusively to libeling me.  But in this current video, which I respond to below, he didn't give that link.

I would be reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that Holding got schooled the hard painful way when he read my current 97-page complaint, and like a mean dog that has been bapped in the eye with a shovel, has decided that changing his ways is probably going to make life easier for him, and maintaining a steady consistent course of libeling me to the degree he did in the past, can only cause the jury to hate him with great passion.  

And since Holding posted this most recent video out of sheer spite and hatred toward me (i.e., he says "I'm not playing anymore"), his followers do not have the option of speculating that Holding voluntarily chose to leave out that link to the secondary libelous website merely because he wished to give me a "break".  

Holding's pathological hatred of me is well-known.  Unless he had been slapped in the head by me or his own lawyer about the libelous nature of that secondary website, he goddamn sure would have included the link to it with this newly posted video.  He has only chosen to break with his recent pattern of libelous activity because he is genuinely frightened that he really is guilty of libel, he is past the point of no return, and the best thing he can do at this point is to act in ways that might motivate the jury to give him some leniency. 

And like all stupid guilty people, his prior wrongs are so extensive, the jury will be suspicious that he only changed his ways for the better this recently because he was afraid of the damages a jury would impose, NOT because he was genuinely remorseful for defaming me.  People like Holding are incapable of genuine remorse, they are too busy, as Pharisees, trying to morally justify every character flaw they manifest.  

Let me know when you find evidence that James Patrick Holding has ever apologized to anybody for anything he ever did in the last 20 years (yeah right, you seriously think Holding, with his 20 years of slandering people, never crossed the line into the actual sin of reviling or slander?).  I suggest you get a seat cushion and place about 2 weeks worth of water and food near your computer, you'll be on the internet for quite a while trying to locate things that never existed.

here are my replies to the comments Holding's babies posted to said recent video:

Published on Feb 22, 2019


Inari19872 hours ago
I haven’t watched the entire video all the way through, but the thing on John Doe being a fraud is perfectly valid to you. Because it’s an indication of dishonesty. And you can use that to poke holes in his honesty all the way through.

 Yup, just like one would expect, a follower of Holding draws quick negative conclusions about somebody's credibility before viewing any source document in full.  I also commented there with:

Barry Jones1 second ago

It's only an indication of my dishonesty if I invented this John Doe. I didn't, but of course, you cannot distinguish yourself from God, which is why you think there's nothing more to say about the issue after you've drawn your infallible conclusions about it. A reasonable mature respectable adult would first ask for my side of the story. Holding did not serve any discovery on me during that 2015 case, telling you how interested his lawyer in that case was in confronting me with this alleged "zinger".

DecKrash34 minutes ago
It just looks like this guy is so desperate for attention that he's trying to pull any & everything out of his backside to try to take you to court just to find something that sticks.

 Sorry, but my 97-page Complaint is available for free download from this blog (see here), and you don't make any rebuttal to any of its actual arguments.  You just talk shit and posture. 

That's the sign of somebody who is mentally deranged.

Making you are even dumber than a mentally deranged person, because you obviously cannot refute their legal arguments.   I authored 97 pages of legal arguments.  Get to work or shut the fuck up.

Can't the courts look over his past suits and find that he's lobbed so many frivolous lawsuits against so many people that they can give him an injunction against making any more lawsuits?

You've now committed the civil tort of libel per se, because your accusation that I filed "frivolous" lawsuits in the past, is false, and tends to cause others to view me with contempt, disgrace, etc. 

If you don't understand how your comments that my prior lawsuits were "frivolous" constitutes the tort of "libel per se", its probably because you missed the bottom of page 4 of the Complaint.  If I really wanted to, your engaging in libel would justify me to file a John Doe Subpoena to force Google to reveal all information. they have about your real name and contact information.  Go ahead, keep playing with fire, and maybe you'll get first-hand knowledge of what Holding is currently suffering.

Or at least demand that he have psychiatric evaluation?

Unfortunately for you, I've never filed a frivolous lawsuit, so the Courts won't be requiring me to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Something has to be done to shut down this clown's idiocy for good.

And the fact that you cannot think of a way to do it, might caution the reader to consider that my lawsuits in the past and my current one against Holding are not frivolous, and lead to the further conclusion that YOU are the "idiocy" here.  Holding cannot think of a way to do it either, that's why he's been scrambling around for the last two weeks unsuccessfully trying to convince his Christian lawyer friends to rally in support of his lost cause.  If Holding was smart, he'd realize "Christian" lawyers think him guilty, and he'd use his time more productively finding an non-Christian lawyer who has less more scruples than  Christian lawyer. The secular lawyer only cares about winning.  The Christian lawyer won't defend the Defendant if they feel he is morally and biblically guilty of sin.  They don't want to be defending somebody else's "sin", and of course, Holding's libels of me are the sin of "slander" or  "reviling", which require that other Christians expel him from their fellowship:

 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. 5:11-6:1 NAU)

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

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

B. W. Powers, Ph.d is Dean of New Testament and Ethics, Tyndale College, The Australasian Open Theological College (20 years).  This is from his 2009 Commentary on 1st Corinthians


              
The biblically literate Christian lawyer would never agree to defend Holding from the civil charges accusing him of what the bible calls "reviling". 

tektontv43 minutes ago
His state isn't that interested in shutting down frivolous lawsuits. Florida is, though.

Barry Jones1 second ago
And yet a Florida court already found that the allegations in my Complaint, if true, DO state a legally valid cause of action for libel. I filed this 2019 lawsuit "in forma pauperis", which requires the Court to delay approving the case for filing until they decide that the case is not frivolous. See Figueroa v. Orange County Public Schools, Dist. Court, MD Florida, 2019. That is, IF you really did talk about my prior lawsuits the way my Complaint says you did, that really IS "libel per se". In other words, you either respond by saying you never posted the things the Complaint says you did ( a lie), or you allege that the Complaint misrepresents what you posted (a lie), or you pay a lawyer of lot of money to advise you that you'll be losing the jury trial. 

DecKrash33 minutes ago
@tektontv so does Florida have the power to nullify the validity any further lawsuits made by this guy?

Barry Jones1 second ago
Yes, but only if they reach the conclusion that I'm a "vexatious litigant". I'm not, no court has ever found I was, and the fact that a prior court opined I had "abused the discovery process" is about as damaging to my reputation as "we find the lower court judge abused his discretion in excluding this evidence" is damaging to the credibility of the judge whose ruling was overturned. Holding also doesn't tell you that the Washington Court in 2015 ordered him to answer my jurisdictionn and non-jurisdiction related discovery requests before the question of jurisdiction had been settled. So the more Holding chides me for seeking non-jurisdiction discovery before the jurisdiction question was settled, the more he chides the judge.

Peasant Scrublord36 minutes ago
Doscher is a clown.

Barry Jones1 second ago
Yeah, but, can you actually REFUTE any of my ACTUAL legal or factual arguments in the 2019 Complaint? NO. What a fuckhead you must be, you cannot even refute the arguments made by a "clown".

Once again, Holding is a very stupid cocksucker:  If, as he admits, his own lawyer in the 2015 case cautioned him to take down a similarly libelous "Internet Predator Alert" he had posted about me, we have to wonder:  have any lawyers Holding contacted since then, similarly told him what laywers typically DO tell new clients (i.e, to quit making negative public remarks about the case or the other party)?