My Trinity-rebuttal to AnnoyedPinoy

"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue.  See here.  He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.

I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).

I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:

Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus' confession of ignorance solely to his "human nature".  But since one's "nature" is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something). 

The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged "natures" is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time. 

You probably believe that a person's mind is their "spirit", and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a "real" human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body).  Ok, was Jesus speaking with his "mind" when he confessed this ignorance?  Is Jesus' "mind" the same as his "spirit"?  Was Jesus' speaking from his "spirit" by divulging the ignorant state of his "mind" in Mark 13:32?  What exactly would be "unreasonable" in saying Jesus' was speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32?   

Was Jesus' spirit separate from the Holy Spirit?  Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons...which implies that Jesus' "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser "human spirit" in addition to his "Holy Spirit".  Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says "receive ye the Holy Spirit" powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called "human spirit" in existence here.  

Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his "mind" in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit's ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance. 

Was the day of Christ's return missing from Jesus' "mind"?  Was it missing from his "spirit"?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a "human mind" that was separate from "Holy Spirit", you'll end up with 4 people in the Trinity...at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation. 

Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!

Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn't even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.

So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

I personally prefer  the second.  Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.

Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite  reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. 

This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God. 

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.

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".

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 13:5-6

I have decided to start a new series at this blog. 

James Patrick Holding is a Christian apologist, who for the last 20 years has not made himself known by anything much more than his love of slander and insulting rhetoric against anybody who disagrees with his view of the bible.

Mr. Holding lives in both perpetual and willful violation of those biblical ethics that most Christian scholars agree apply to the modern-day Christian.

The first four words for the title to each of these new blog-pieces will be  "James Patrick Holding violates", and the words that follow will describe the specific bible verse or passage that Holding lives in violation of.

Try to keep in mind, as of the date of this first post (noon, October 25, 2019), my third defamation lawsuit against Holding is still pending.  It was filed earlier this year, and despite Holding's attempt to suppress the truth by filing a frivolous motion to dismiss, the Court delayed so long ruling on it that we were required to start exchanging discovery.  But Mr. Holding's reply to my first round of discovery questions was dishonest and illegal.  I will give those documents to anybody who asks.  Email me at barryjoneswhat@gmail.com, or reply to this post here. 

Mr. Holding's lawyer is also a professing "Christian".  So you might wonder:  Even if there is no necessary contradiction between being a Christian and being a lawyer, what should we think of a "Christian" lawyer who refuses to advise his client to plead guilty, and pretends that his client's obviously libelous words justify the thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend in front of a jury, when a simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong", would more than likely save everybody the trouble?

You can answer that question for yourself.  I think it has something to do with sin and the unsaved person's reluctance to admit guilt.

Mr. Holding violates Proverbs 13:5-6:

 5 A righteous man hates falsehood, But a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully.
 6 Righteousness guards the one whose way is blameless, But wickedness subverts the sinner. (Prov. 13:5-6 NAU)

Mr. Holding has been spreading lies about me since even before 2015, but it was in 2015 that he began his most concerted effort to do so.  I will send to anybody who asks the 2015 Complaint, the 2016 Complaint and the 2018 Complaint that started those three lawsuits.  These extensively document not only Mr. Holding's specific words about me, but why they were lies (i.e., libelous).

The 2016 complaint contains the most extensive documentation for my more nuanced claim that Holding is a closet homosexual and talks like a completely demented 6 year old raised by criminal gangs.

What follows is commentary on that passage from a Christian who accepts "biblical inerrancy", therefore, neither Holding nor his idiot followers can wipe them off the page as heretics (one wonders what they'd think if atheists wiped apologists off the page merely because they were apologists?):

Type: Parallel, Catchword (13:5–6). 13:5–6 These two proverbs are set in parallel on the basis of “righteous” and “wicked” in v. 5 and “righteousness” and “wickedness” in v. 6. The NIV translation of v. 5b is flat; it ought to be rendered, “But a wicked man makes a stench and causes shame.” The tie between the two cola of v. 5 is that whereas the righteous are concerned for the truth (over against malicious gossip), the wicked promote scandal. By itself v. 6 is a rather colorless proverb. In context with v. 5, however, it implies that disregard for truth and the spreading of scandal is ultimately self-destructive. Those who care about the truth, however, are preserved by their integrity.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, 

Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.). 

Logos Library System;The New American Commentary

(Page 135). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The "Word Biblical Commentary" might not be "inerrantist" in ideology, but is still conservative "evangelical" for its strong promotion of Christianity.

5–6 These verses are united by the catch words just/wicked. 5 The “word of deceit” is simply plain lies, whatever might be the particular situation. V 5a could refer either to the harm caused to a community by the wicked person, presumably through lies or even calumny, or it may be simply descriptive of his character. In any case, a high premium is placed on honest speech.

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

Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 96). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

For obvious reasons, Holding does little more in life than manifest his love of spreading scandal and lies, and clearly loves controversy and spreading of salacious gossip far more than "honest speech".  It's sad that it was only due to being sued multiple times for libel that he conveniently starting "choosing" to stop being quite as rambunctious about it as he was in 2015 and before.

Read v. 5 again...the Proverbs-author thinks the opposite of the person who hates falsehood, is the person who acts disgustingly and shamefully.  That is, if what Mr. Holding said about me, which justified the lawsuits, was in fact false, his own bible would condemn him as a person who acts disgustingly and shamefully.

This is a strong reason to suppose Mr. Holding is not morally qualified to hold the office of Christian teacher, an office that his own bible cautions most people against holding, James 3:1.  Yet Holding bandies about his teaching-duties as if he isn't doing anything more solemn or grave than showing the kids where extra water balloons are being stored.

My new warning to another follower of James Patrick Holding

Hello, Mr. Holding and his attorney Mr. Livingston:  As you can tell, I'm frightened of the prospect of litigating a defamation lawsuit against Holding.  So much that I even asked the Court to stop delaying its ruling on your pending motion to dismiss.  Here's another one of my recent messages to somebody who recently betrayed their ignorance of Holding's true nature.

-------------------
At Holding's YouTube channel and in reply to one of his starstruck followers, I posted the following

I noticed your flattering words to James Patrick Holding lately.  I'd like to therefore inform you of something you apparently didn't know about.

1st Corinthians 5:9-11 requires the Christian to disassociate themselves from any so-called 'brother' who is immoral, and one example of immorality Paul cites there is "reviler".  To "revile" means to slander, or hurl abusive speech toward. 

 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) 

Did you notice that last verse?  Yeah, apparently Paul thinks Christian 'brothers' who go around reviling others, are "wicked".  Paul there was quoting or paraphrasing from Deu 13:5; Deu 17:7, Deu 17:12; Deu 21:21; Deu 22:21, all of which require the "wicked" person to be killed.  I'm not saying Holding should be killed, I'm only informing you that under your own Christian logic, God views the 'brother' who goes around reviling others, as steeped in sin and having serious issues that attention-deficit YouTube cartoons likely aren't going to fix.

Ephesians 5:4 prohibits filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting, and since you appear to know Holding' s history, you hardly need to be told that most of it consists of filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting, etc.

Colossians 3:8 forbids anger, wrath, malice, slander, and more, and since you appear to know Holding's history, you hardly need to be told that most of it consists of anger, wrath, malice and slander.

Holding's obvious love of "exposing" those who criticize him would also constitute the sin of "gossip", and this would be yet another reason you'd be required, as a Christian, to disassociate yourself from him: 

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

Paul includes "gossip" among the list of other sins he "fears" he will find when he visits the church in Corinth.

 20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; (2 Cor. 12:20 NAU)

Gee, Holding's ministry over the last 20 years could never be fairly characterized as "strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances..." could it?

My blog reveals communications from Habermas, Blomberg and other legitimate Christian scholars who formerly publicly endorsed Holding, who did not know Holding was such a foul-mouthed  asshole.  They have withdrawn their public endorsement of him.  They also told me that they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian engaging in insults against their critics.   That is, not even Holding's few spiritual mentors think he correctly understands basic NT ethics.  How sad is that?

Just how much of a "reviler" is Mr. Holding?  That brings up the subject of my having sued him multiple times for libel/slander:

In 2015, I sued Mr. Holding for libel.  He escaped on a technicality, but only after paying more than $20,000 in legal fees...and only after I forced him to disclose numerous private emails and messages he engaged in with others, wherein he slandered me even more...messages which for obvious reasons he would never have disclosed unless I had forced his nose to the legal grindstone.  That is, I am reasonable to believe Holding's slanders aren't limited to what he says publicly, and its nothing but blind luck if I manage to uncover otherwise unknown instances of defamation.

In 2016, I sued him a second time for libel, again, he escaped on a technicality.  Both times he successfully avoided having to answer the charges on the merits.  That's what "escape on a technicality" means.

You might figure that even rabid pit bulls become dissuaded to continue biting after they are jack-hammered to hell and back.  Not so.  After paying $20,000 to escape the first lawsuit, and luckily escaping the second, both due to technicalities, Holding, like a mentally deranged pit bull, continued slandering me anew.

And that's not the worst part.  Holding continued slandering me despite drawing his own firm conviction in 2015 that I was "dangerously mentally unstable". 

Do you know anybody who intentionally provoke dangerously mentally ill people in the hopes that they will fly into a rage and end up in jail?  If you know Holding, then you'll unfortunately have to answer "yes".

So In 2018, I sued him for libel a third time, the court refused to dismiss the case finding that if my claims were true, they would justify jury trial for damages.  The Court expected us to begin the expensive process of exchanging discovery and evidence without ruling on Holding's pending motion to dismiss.   He was forced to hire a lawyer, the suit is not going to be dismissed, and he will end up paying probably another $20,000, at the very least, just to defend himself.   That is, Holding's obstinate nature is so extreme, he will not change his illegal ways even if they end up forcing him to give up most of his retirement nest egg.  one can only wonder how his wife, who is otherwise a good person and unrelated to this mess, feels about her own savings being wasted on lawyers because of her husbands utterly unstoppable mouth.

Try thinking that one over for a while before you donate money to his "ministry".  Perhaps you should ask Holding to setup a paypal donation link for his wife's bank account, she really doesn't want her hard earned money going to pay for stupid sins that she had nothing to do with.

It might behoove you to engage in a bit of critical thinking and research before you extol Holding's virtues too much more:  The bible does not support the stupid juvenile delinquent premise that a Christian "teacher" is qualified to be a teacher merely because they've memorized a lot of information about apologetics.  In light of the bible verses cited above, it's clear that the Christian "teacher" also needs to be walking in the light of Christ (i.e., not living in sin, such as adultery, or in this case, the sin of 'reviling' that Paul puts on equal footing with other sins that the OT required the death penalty for).  Such slanderers cannot be morally qualified for the office of teacher if they are going around committing the sin of "reviling".

Perhaps the saddest part is that Holding is so obstinate, he has never apologized for any of his slanders, including the most recent ones which justified the third lawsuit that is currently in litigation.  Which tells us that he has also never repented of those sins, likely because he is too thick-headed to realize they are indeed "sinful" acts.  Jesus said something about how, if the light that is in you is darkness, the depth of that darkness would be unfathomable.

Gee, how hard would it be to show that a Christian teacher, who refuses to repent of obvious sin, is thus disqualified from being a Christian teacher?

You can find at my blog the original 97-page Complaint that started the latest lawsuit

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.html

I will email you the Amended version if you wish.

If you take exception to my accusation that Holding is a biblically disqualified foul-mouthed idiot, I will also email to you, if you wish,  the Complaint from the 2015 lawsuit, and the Complaint from the 2016 lawsuit.  These extensively document my  claim that Holding engages in the repeated sin of filthiness, reviling, slander, libel, defamation, coarse jesting, silly talk, etc, etc, and often doing so in a manner that sounds like a demended 5-year old who has found it funny and exciting to repeatedly refer to people using disgusting sexual metaphors and defecation.

Those Complaints also document my claim that Holding is in fact a closet-homosexual.  For an introduction to such evidence, see

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017_05_13_archive.html

I have made numerous attempts to get other Christians to initiate the Matthew 18 process (a brother must admit their sin, and if several attempts fail, you are to view them the way 1st century Jews viewed Gentiles and tax-collectors), and nobody seems to care, despite how obvious it is that Holding loves certain sins, has no plans to repent of them and plans to continue committing them with impunity into the foreseeable future.  I have to wonder, as a skeptic, when "conservative" evangelical leaders like Licona, Blomberg, Habermas, express such apathy toward one of their own brothers engaging in persistent sin, whether this would count as a legitimate argument against Christianity.  After all, if I should become a Christian, I could become as smart as those men, maybe even as smart as Holding himself, yet I would STILL foolishly ignore certain biblical mandates that apply to modern-day Christians...perhaps proving that "getting saved" or "confessing Christ" involves no  greater degree of 'transformation' than does confessing Mormonism.

Finally, Holding  quoted the Context Group for years to help justify his stupid contention that it is biblically "good" or "moral" to slander those who criticize his beliefs, but the Context Group has disowned him three times, saying he gives Christianity a bad name, nobody should listen to him, and that he "perverts" their scholarship.

see    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html

While I take something of a risk in revealing the gory details to Holding's followers, I'm hoping that instead of spreading his libels further, you will use these materials to research Holding, make the obviously correct decision to confront him about these obvious sins, and admonish him that until he repents of his reviling slanderous acts, other Christians are very reasonable to view him as the wicked immoral 'brother' whose reviling slanderous mouth requires you to disassociate yourself from him.  1st Corinthians 5:11-15, supra.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

barryjoneswhat@gmail.com