see my Twitter posts

 https://twitter.com/barry35962347

#lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding

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.

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 violates his own advice

Mr. Holding introduces Galileo's "insulting" demeanor with "unfortunately".  From "Blowing the Doors Off", p. 375



This is sort of like Hitler telling a friend "Unfortunately, that Nazi guard doesn't know how to treat Jews politely."

But if the reader takes Holding's point to heart, they will conclude that Galileo would have been smarter to learn how to make his case politely. 

Which means they would eventually conclude that James Patrick Holding could similarly have avoided his own legal troubles (multiple lawsuits against him for libel) if he had learned to make his case more politely.

It would thus appear that Holding is willing to give to others the false appearance that he doesn't think it is ever morally justified to use insulting language, including situations where biblical truth is being suppressed or misrepresented.

Yes, PristineKat, the bible DOES promote child-abuse and sexism

James Patrick Holding's followers are up to their usual blissful ignorance again.

PristineKat18 hours ago (edited)

@Logician_Bones Not surprising because he said he found Sunday school boring, so he never paid attention. Did I mention he’s biblically illiterate? Saying the Book condones “child beating” and “sexism towards women”.

See here.

Holding tries to protect his babies from my challenges, by deleting my posts, so here's how I responded to "PristineKat"

He isn't biblically illiterate. 

Child-beating is approved in Proverbs 22:15, the author says bruises from beatings cleanse away evil (20:30), Christian scholars admit the rule of "context" doesn't help much in the case of proverbs which are often strung together without relation to what follows or precedes ("each proverb is an independent unit that can stand alone and still have meaning. Textual context is not essential for interpretation", D.A. Garrett, New American Commentary, Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs, p. 38), which would mean you cannot use the judicial context of 20:30 to pretend v. 30 is restricted to judicial beatings of criminals.  Therefore it is reasonable to say the Proverbs author thought inflicting wounds on children when they disobey is good.

Since Josephus states the obvious in specifying the Israelites killed the women and children of the pagan nations, I'm going to find his commentary on the "massacre passages" more likely true than the stupid hair-splitting trifles of Copan and Flannagan....in which case the fact that the people who told you to beat your kids, were the type to also slaughter children over religious differences, makes it reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to say the author of Proverbs was advising what we today would call child abuse.  The fools who think "use a rod on your child" meant merely "tap them on the butt" are obviously ignorant of the social and cultural context Proverbs was written in.

As far as sexism toward women in the bible, it is reasonable for skeptics to conclude from Leviticus 19:20-22 that the reason the author makes an exception here to the death-penalty he required for adultery in the next chapter (20:10) is because the girl in 19:20-22 had lower social status as a slave (i.e., the author thinks adultery with a slave girl is less sinful than adultery with a free woman, i.e., misogyny).  And worse for you, the fact that Leviticus 19:20-22 neither expresses nor implies the girl has to do anything to atone for her sin, is because the author doesn't think the sex-act he is addressing was consensual (i.e., the man raped the slave-girl).  Even inerrantist Christian scholars admit this was likely a case of rape:

"Since she was still a slave, the guilty parties were not given the death penalty. Rather there was to be “due punishment”...It is worth noting that only the man was considered blameworthy, not the female slave. Being a slave, the woman may have felt she had little recourse in resisting a male who was a free man and thus more powerful both in the social and economic spheres. That the free man must bear responsibility is suggested by the fact the female slave was not required to bring the guilt offering sacrifice."  (Rooker, M. F. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3A: Leviticus (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 260). Nashville: Broadman & Holman)

Gee, how easy would it be to get rid of inerrantist Rooker's interpretation by calling him a black and white fundy?  Where did you learn that empty rhetoric gets you closer to biblical truth?  Peter Ruckman?

The rapist of Leviticus 19:20-22 only has to offer an animal sacrifice to the priests to have his sin forgiven...which isn't much different than limiting the punishment for rape to a "fine"...which means god thinks rape is nowhere near the big deal that today's neo-fundamentalist know-nothings think it is.

But if you carefully restrict your happy blissfully ignorant world to just tektonics and tekton tv, you do a fair job of protecting yourself from getting your teeth kicked out the back of your skull by skeptics who know their bibles better than you.  Whenever you feel like the Holy Spirit is in the mood to do what Jesus promised in Matthew 10:20, consider yourself challenged.  Goto

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/09/cold-case-christianity-why-would-god.html

and search for "Leviticus 19:20"

Maybe you could gain more from bible study if you knock off the ignorant zeal and exhibit genuine humility when you are actually ignorant of the biblical matter you speak about?

screenshot proving I posted this challenge to tekton tv

Most inerrantists are blind to the obvious meaning of 2nd Timothy 3:16

Roger Pearse recently gave some insightful comments about the history of the KJV here.

His last comment made me think of my own basic rebuttal to biblical inerrancy.  He said:

This claim is not what Christians believe about the scripture.  It is merely a strawman, designed to require something that does not exist and never did exist.  Jesus himself talked about the rolls of the law as inspired; but these were written by men.  However divine inspiration works, it can certainly cope with spelling mistakes, human error, and all the business of living in an imperfect world.

This reminded me of my infallible argument refuting the "inerrant only in the originals" belief of modern-day inerrantists, and I posted the following in reply to Pearse.  The comments did not show up after I clicked "reply" to we'll have to wait and see whether this was because he already blocked me, or if he elects to approve of comments before allowing them to post.  Here's what I wrote:

Your last comment implicates a powerful rebuttal to the modern inerrantist movement represented in Geisler/Archer and the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy. 

Most modern inerrantists sidestep the obvious errors in the bible by imposing a standard that is not reasonably checkable:  the bible is inerrant "only in the originals".  This amounts to little more than mooting the significance of the obvious copyist errors by fiat.

But in the bible, whenever the authors speak about the divine inspiration of some writing, they never express or imply that they mean "only in the originals".

Therefore, their unqualified statements about scriptural inspiration are most likely talking about the nature of the thing that their contemporaries can actually read and touch...the copies...even if they are also talking about the "originals".  That is, the most natural reading of passages like 2nd Timothy 3:16 is that the copies are inspired too.  In context Paul is talking about the scriptures Timothy knew in childhood or in the 1st century (v. 15).  Obviously, Timothy did not know "the originals".  No scholar thinks the pieces of parchment and papyrus that Moses and Isaiah actually set their pens to, survived into the 1st century.  The only "scripture" he knew were the copies.  Those copies are what Paul is according "inspiration" to, even if he "also" means the originals. 

The point is that the sense of copy-inspiration (i.e., the sense that would put the final nail in the coffin of modern-day inerrancy theory found in the CSBI statement) cannot be reasonably excluded from Paul's wording.

If then inerrantists continue standing by their other premise that "inspiration = inerrancy", then because the biblical authors taught that the copies were "inspired", the biblical authors thus also necessarily taught that the copies were "inerrant".  The very fact that the inerrantists themselves clearly deny inerrancy to the copies ensures that whatever change they make to avoid the implications of this argument, that change will imply that they have been missing the forest for the trees for decades. 

Since they cannot deny the reasonableness of the interpretation, what are they going to do?

Say Paul got it wrong?
Admit the CSBI was framed more out of a desire to avoid the obvious than by concern to be "biblical"?
Admit that the biblical "truth" they've been dogmatic about for decades, was the "wrong interpretation"?

The issue is not whether modern inerrantists can be reasonable to believe they way they do.  Maybe they can.  The issue is rather whether the bible skeptic's above-cited argument against biblical inerrancy is "reasonable".  If not, why not?  How does the "the-first-century-copies-were-inspired-too" interpretation violate anything in the grammar or context of 2nd Timothy 3:16?

But if the skeptical interpretation of Paul here is reasonable, it would appear today's inerrantists are (in light of their own commitment to "truth") under a moral compulsion to stop characterizing the skeptical affirmation of error in the bible as "absurd" or "false", to stop pretending biblical inerrancy is "obviously true" or stop being so obsessed about defending it...and to allow that the skeptical view, supra, is at least no less reasonable than their own position on the subject.

If skeptics can be reasonable to argue Paul did not mean "only in the originals", then they are reasonable to say he accorded inspiration to the copies too, in this case 1st century copies. And since no scholar thinks the 1st century copies of the scriptures were inerrant, we are reasonable to turn away from modern-day inerrantists until they interpret Paul correctly.

One homosexual inerrantist once trifled that the "only in the originals" caveat need not be "biblical", but he is obviously stupid:  the Christian's view of inerrancy needs to at least correctly reflect what Paul meant in 2nd Timothy 3:16, and they aren't doing this when they exclude copy-inspiration from Paul's comments.

Therefore, the modern-day inerrantist's "only in the originals" caveat is not merely some viewpoint of possibly arguable merit that falls within acceptable hermeneutical practice.  The "only in the originals" caveat is positively contrary to Paul's beliefs because it is neither expressed nor implied in his wording, therefore, to insert the caveat into his wording anyway is nothing less than changing what he really meant to avoid falling into the same pit that Paul himself dug.  Good luck giving an interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16 that seriously insists the specific "only in the originals" nuance is what Paul meant.

Some trifling inerrantist will insist that this present rebuttal doesn't hurt them because they don't adopt the version of inerrancy espoused by Geisler/Archer and CSBI they adopt a more modern form that avoids the pitfalls of the traditionalist notion.

But whether we skeptics are reasonable to view as false the "new inerrancy" , is another subject appropriate to a future blog post.  There certainly are a lot of stupid inerrantists out there who adopt the traditional CSBI form of inerrancy, so the atheist goal of "refuting the Christian view" has obviously been achieved in large part by refuting what millions of Christains and their capable scholars have believed for centuries.

I've made obviously significant headway by bulldozing a major Christian position to the side of the road.  You're next.

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.

My email about James Patrick Holding to Orlando Baptist

(See end for updates:  Holding threatened to post more about me if I talked disparagingly about him to third-parties, so I plan on talking disparagingly about him to as many third-parties as I have time to notify. Of course, ALL factual allegations I communicate to third parties concerning Holding are true).


Hello, 

I'm sure that you yourself as a Christian do not go around insulting everybody who disagree with you.  It's just sort of obvious that such conduct is unbecoming anybody naming the name of Christ.

But there is a Christian "apologist" living near you who does this, and you might find that his pathological need to constantly hurl filthy slurs at his critics might be a case of a sinful brother that could use your prayers.

His name is James Patrick Holding (formerly Robert Turkel). 
His address is  2609 GREYWALL AVE. OCOEE, FL 34761

His email is jphold@att.net

Jesus required you to view unrepentant sinful brothers the way 1st century Jews viewed Gentiles and tax-collectors:

 15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
 (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

The bible makes perfectly clear that Christians are to put away abusive speech and filthy language:

Ephesians 5

 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. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)

Colossians 3

 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)

The bible also makes it clear that if you know any "Christian" who commits the sin of "reviling", you are to disassociate yourself from him:

 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)

D.A. Carson notes that the modern church's shocking apathy toward this command of Paul:

The ease with which the present day church often passes judgment on the ethical or structural misconduct of the outside community is at times matched only by its reluctance to take action to remedy the ethical conduct of its own members. We have reversed Paul’s order of things.

Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed.
edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (1 Co 5:9). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

The NAU uses the world "reviler".  This word means "to subject to verbal abuse, vituperate, to use abusive language, rail..."
Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.)

"Revile" in the Greek is λοίδορος / loidoros, and the standard lexical authorities say it refers to a person who constantly hurls abusive insulting speech at others:

Kittel-Bromiley
 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]

"The cognate noun λοιδορία, according to BAGD, 479, means “verbal abuse,” or “reproach.” 

D. B. Garlington, "Burden Bearing And The Recovery Of  Offending Christians (Galatians 6:1–5)"
Trinity Journal 12:2 (Fall 1991) 162

Every time this Greek word is used in the NT, it always carries the negative connotation of verbal abuse:

NAU Ps. 74:18  Remember this, O LORD, that the enemy has reviled, And a foolish people has spurned Your name.
NAU Jn. 9:28 They reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
NAU 1 Cor. 4:12  and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure;
NAU 1 Pet. 2:23  and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;

The NET bible has "verbally abusive" at 1st Cor. 5:11, the NIV has "slanderer"

Mr. Holding generally identifies as Southern Baptist, but they are also strongly against the sin of slander. 
See http://www.sbclife.net/article/1549/acceptable-sins

Holding sometimes writes for the Christian Research Journal.  But CRI is also strongly against the sin of slander. 

See https://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/

I think it appropriate to notify you and warn you of this Mr. Holding, since despite my having sued him for libel 3 times now, he has never once expressed the least bit of remorse for his sins of slander and reviling.  In fact, he appears to have been emboldened by each lawsuit to just go out and revile and slander me even more, hence the repeated lawsuits.  For these reasons, this is one of those exceptional situations calling for employment of Jesus' advice that we should tell the entire church about an alleged brother's consistent sinning and lack of remorse (Matthew 18:17).  

The problem is that Mr. Holding obviously wants the Christian world to believe he is properly qualified under biblical criteria to be a Christian "teacher".

Obviously he's delusional on that point, James 3:1 says:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren,
knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

What fool would say a Christian "apologist" who spews filthy language, can still somehow also be spiritually mature enough to qualify as a "teacher"?  

Let's put that another way:  How long can a Christian "apologist" live in direct defiance of Ephesians 5:4, and Colossians 3:8, before we are justified to say his claim to being genuinely born-again is suspect?    

If God really does view all sins as equally wicked (James 2:10-11), then it would not be consistent with the NT to trifle that Holding's slanders are less sinful than the sexual sins of a Christian who constantly commits adultery.  Now if you wouldn't allow a ceaselessly remorseless adulterer to teach Christians, why would you ever allow a ceaseless slanderer to teach Christians?

Holding's slanders became so incessant that two properly qualified Christian scholars, who formerly endorsed Holding's ministry, no longer do so.  I'm talking about Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas.  Both men always advise Christians to avoid insulting people during apologetics discussions.

See here:   https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/04/mike-licona-likely-thinks-james-patrick.html

Attached to this email are two pdf documents.

The first attachment is my 2016 libel lawsuit against Holding.  It is the most comprehensive documentation of Mr. Holding's sinful slanders, which makes it useful to those Christians who are, somehow, unaware of Mr. Holding's obsession with this sin. Starting at page 23 and paragraph 106 ff, you will find many quotes from Holding, showing that even other Christian apologists have complained about his homosexual tendencies, and that he uses filthy insulting slurs against anybody he disagrees with.

The second attachment is my current lawsuit against Holding.  Holding appears to have gone from "slander with pornographic filth" over to "slander by misrepresenting somebody's legal cases".

Other Christians constantly tell me that they are aware that Holding can be "harsh" in his apologetics, but I hope the above information will dispel that rumor.  "Harsh" isn't necessarily "sinful", so to call his words "harsh" is inaccurate, as it operates as an attempted but false moral defense of his language.  But as you can see, the person who takes the time to collect a comprehensive catalog of Holding's speech can show that it is more accurate to label it as "sin".

Or in this case, constantly repeated sin that Holding not only never repents of, but thinks is actually holy, just and good (!?).

I have extensively documented Mr. Holding's homosexuality and slanders at my blog:
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/01/james-patrick-holdings-quietly-deleted.html

I sincerely hope you will do what Jesus and Paul obviously required you to do.  If Holding has been doing Christian apologetics teaching for 20 years, and yet still manifests the fruit of a demented 12-year old juvenile delinquent, you'd be reasonable to conclude that genuinely born-again Christians, while having occasional problems with sin, more than likely wouldn't have THIS much of a problem with sin.  The "Christian" whose sins are at this level of obstinate pathology are more than likely fake Christians.  The reason they manifest no fruit of the spirit is precisely because they were never born again in the first place.  

You might consider the stupidity of allowing a fake Christian to teach real Christians about the bible.  Feel free to cc this warning to whomever you will.  I had to make the hard choice that warning other Christians away from Holding is more important than is my preference for privacy.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

 Update: February 25, 2019
I just forwarded this email to info@karlaelgin.com, this is Karla Elgin, counselor at
http://southorlandobaptist.org/who-we-are-2/church-staff/