My latest messages to homosexual Christian James Patrick Holding

from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIOe0qfXnQ

Sent April 5, 2019

Barry Jones3 hours ago

Mr. Holding,

I didn't talk slanderous about you to Evan Minton, but after you posted to his blog a cut and paste of the libels for which I'm currently suing you, I convinced him in my final post to delete your slanders.  

http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-evidence-for-jesus-resurrection_2.html

So had to delete from my blog the post I was authoring at the same time Minton was deleting your crap:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/04/cerebral-faith-plea-for-evan-minton-to.html

You shouldn't do another video on me on this account, since everything I said about you was factually and legally true.  But if you disagree, all I ask is that your video not be libelous.  Yes, I recognize, from your past history, that is probably asking too much of you.

If you cease libeling me, the jury in our current lawsuit will be told that when you really want to, you know what libel is and how to keep it out of your online screeds about me.  Therefore any other posts or videos you ever made about me, which were libelous, you posted with the INTENT to lie about me and unfairly hurt my reputation...thus justifying a much higher award of punitive damages.

If you continue libeling me in future posts/videos, the jury will be told that because you were sued twice for libel in the past, and because you hold yourself out as a smart guy, your continuing to libel me in your online screeds is not due to mistaken legal knowledge on your part, but due to an INTENT to libel me.  "Smart" assholes like you are forever foreclosed from employing the "wow I didn't know that was wrong" excuse.  When you libel me, you KNOW what you are doing...thus justifying a much higher award of punitive damages.

In other words, the only thing you could possibly do to lower the amount of damages the jury will award, is to just shut the fuck about me, completely...which would make the jury suspicious that the ONLY reason you ceased your illegal conduct was mere fear of the consequences, not because you were genuinely remorseful...thus justifying a higher award of punitive damages.

If you take down your other online posts about me, the jury will have to decide whether this indicates you came to your senses and showed true remorse for obvious wrongs, or if you are just a scared asshole criminal trying to give the false appearance of contrition, now that he knows he cannot do anything to avoid legal consequences completely.

If you don't take down any of your other posts about me, the jury will remember that you knew well enough those posts were libelous, so your refusal to take them down cannot be explained with a "wow I just didn't know they were libelous", but only explained with "I committed myself to being a smart guy, and if I fold up shop now, my babies will give up on their faith, and I'd rather engage in libel than risk having my babies view me as a real sinner in need of actually serious repentance"

And just in case you think the Court's latest ruling somehow means my current lawsuit against you is frivolous, the Court would hardly give me leave to amend the Complaint, as it obviously did, if it was "frivolous" (i.e., if the alleged facts could not possibly support any legally justified tort claim against you).  

Christianity's most belligerent cocksucker lives in the one state that has the toughest libel laws.  God works in mysterious ways. 

So you think everything is currently going great? That's what the Jews said to Jeremiah, before disaster struck.  FUCK YOU.
==============

I sent a later message too, but like the previous, Holding made it unviewable:

The Authorship of John 8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ6JYdrXT8

April 9, 2019

Barry Jones 1 day ago

And Mr. Holding continues, straining himself to the point of hernia, throwing dust and ashes on his head, and praying like mad that something happens, somehow, to prevent Doscher from timely filing a 1st Amended Complaint + a motion for reconsideration.

Cerebral Faith: A plea for Evan Minton to be realistic...and the plea was successful

 Update April 5, 2019, 1:50 p.m.

This was a comprehensive post addressing Mr. Minton's allowing legally actionable slanders of me at his blog.  I had noticed Minton classified as "slander" speech toward him from YECs that was even less abusive and libelous than what Holding posted at his blog about me.  I argued that under Minton's understanding of slander, he surely thinks Holding's mouth is even more out of control than the YECs.

Apparently, at the exact same time that I was authoring this post in the last few minutes, Evan Minton was deleting from his blog that post from James Patrick Holding that was so slanderous.  That is, Mr. Minton granted my request that he remove Holding's libelous post.

Thank you, Mr. Minton.  You did the right thing.  At the end of the day, there really isn't any serious arguing about what "reviler" means in 1st Corinthians 5:11-13 means, nor what that passage compels true Christians to do.  You've shown a level of spiritual maturity I never see in Holding's own followers.  Hopefully you aren't one of his followers.

So while I had completed a full post on this very subject, I've chosen to delete it.  Minton did the right thing, so continued criticism of him on that count is unwarranted.  I will simply remind the Christian reader of biblical truths that Holding has never had the slightest interest in obeying:

Christians are to disassociate themselves from "Christians" who constantly "revile" others:

 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)

 Don't know what "reviler" means in v. 11?  I already addressed that in a prior blog post here. I said:

"Reviler" in the Greek is  λοίδορος---loidoros, and several lexicons make clear it is talking about the person who goes around insulting and slandering others.  From TDNT:

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]---------Source: here.

Danker:

4004  λοίδορος
λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10. 
Source:  here.

Don't know what "insolent" means?

in•so•lent \-s(ə-)lənt\ adj

1           : insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct :  overbearing

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary.
Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 Paul was very clear that Christians who manifest ceaseless anger and abusive speech are only showing they aren't truly transformed by Christ:

 1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
 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.
 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them;
 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (Eph. 5:1-8 NAU)

 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.
 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
 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. 3:4-10 NAU)

...And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

Jesus said slanders are something from within a man that defiles him:

 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."   (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)

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

 19. Gossips are treacherous; cf. Instruction of Amen-em-ope: “Spread not thy words to the common people, nor associate to thyself one too outgoing of heart” (ANET 424a).20.

ANET J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (rev. ed.; Princeton, 1955)

Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E.
The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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)?