While I normally would not quote in public forums something somebody told me in confidence over email, at the same time, I have very little respect for conservative Christian bible scholars who in their professional and publicly known judgment do not approve of foul-mouthed Christian "apologists" of today,
but who also, hypocritically, refuse to do their Christian duty to rebuke such Christians when opportunity knocks.
Between 2003 and March 2015, I had endured thousands of insults from James Patrick Holding and his friends over at
theologyweb.com. I was routinely told that those bible verses that appear on the surface to condemn slandering others, are either a) only forbidding slander of other
Christians, or b) do not apply to the situation of the person
publicly criticizing Christianity. During this time I found a
website that was dedicated to preserving Mr. Holding's sordid internet history of highly charged verbal abuses and juvenile sexually inappropriate mockery of others.
In April 2015, I emailed to bible scholar
Craig Blomberg the following questions about whether the bible supports modern-day Christians who insult and belittle their critics:
From: Barry Jones
Sent: Tuesday,
April 21, 2015 7:57 PM
To: Blomberg,
Craig
Subject: questions
on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26
What is your
opinion of modern day Christians who persistently insult critics of
Christianity?
I noticed that you
yourself never attempt to characterize your winning some debate about the
bible, by using euphemisms that describe the sexual parts of the human body,
and you never use insulting rhetoric, when you communicate with unbelievers or
heretics who criticize the faith. Are
these things missing from your demeanor solely by reason of personal preference/choice,
or are they missing because you believe that the bible without exception
forbids Christians acting like that?
How would you
respond to the argument that "because Jesus and Paul insulted critics of
Christianity, this is license for modern Christians to do the same?"
It is my opinion that when 2nd Timothy
2:24-26 says "the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind
to all...", the "all" includes unbelievers who criticize and
attack Christian faith. Do you agree or
disagree, and please provide your reasons.
Some Christians have given me what appears to be very tortured exegesis
in the effort to argue that this passage is consistent with their daily
ceaseless persistent foul-mouthed insults against skeptics and atheists. They say I only disagree with them because I
don't know enough about honor/shame cultures or the ANE to speak on the
subject. I'm certainly no scholar, but I
don't see anything in the scholarly literature about the ANE or honor/shame
cultures, that would justify saying this passage is consistent with modern day
Christians who routinely insult and belittle atheists and skeptics.
Are you familiar
with the work of the "Context Group" (i.e., Malina, Rohrobough,
etc)? If so, can you think of any
contribution to biblical studies they ever made, which could reasonably be
taken to support the idea that the New Testament approves of Christians who
daily and routinely insult their critics?
I certainly appreciate their work, and most of it is not even hinted at
in standard protestant commentaries, but I also cannot, for the life of me,
find anything in their works that would suggest biblical justification for
modern-day Christians routinely insulting unbelievers who attack Christian
faith.
Thank you,
Barry Jones.
Dr. Craig replied that those who act like this today, do a fair amount of damage to the Christian cause, and that he is not aware of anything in the Context Group scholarship of Malina or Rohrbaugh which would provide justification for modern Christians to insult and belittle those who publicly criticize Christianity:
From: "Blomberg, Craig"
<Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26
A thorough study of the NT discloses that Jesus and Paul
consistently reserve their harshest criticisms for the religious insiders to
their movements (Pharisees, Judaizers) who are overly conservative and should
know better but are unexpectedly solicitous to outsiders in hopes of wooing
them into the kingdom. Unfortunately
some modern-day Christians precisely invert those priorities and usually do a
fair amount of damage to the cause in the process. No, I know nothing about Malina and
Rohrbaugh’s work that would justify what you describe.
I responded with a few follow-up remarks and further questions:
From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
To: "Blomberg, Craig"
<Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26
Mr. Blomberg,
Thank you for your response.
Just a few quick followup questions: How familiar are you with the work of Malina
and Rohrbough on the subject of honor/shame cultures?
Is it your opinion that there is absolutely nothing in the
New Testament justifying those modern-day Christians who routinely insult and
belittle the atheists who criticize Christianity?
How exactly would you respond to the argument that, because
Jesus and Paul insulted those who criticized Christianity, this constitutes
license for modern-day Christians debating atheists, to imitate this behavior
today?
Can you think of any Christian or non-Christian bible
scholars who have ever opined, either publicly or privately, that the New
Testament justifies modern-day Christians in insulting those who oppose
Christianity?
What is your opinion of an interpretation of a bible verse
that has indirect scholarly support, but no direct scholarly support from any
bible scholar? Is it pretty safe to
conclude that such interpretations are so unlikely to be correct, that we can
safely dismiss them without argument? It
is my opinion that because there is so much scholarship out there, the idea
that one person should come up with an interpretation of a passage that seems
to have been missed by every single bible scholar on earth for the last 200
years, is so far fetched that they are on the order of Mormonism, Jehovah's
Witnesses, and the "cult" stuff claiming to see things in the bible
that everybody else has somehow missed, and we do far better for believers and
unbelievers to simply dismiss immediately such interpretations.
I once had a Christian attempt to get away from the "do
not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24-26, with the following
argument: that passage is not addressing
Christian conduct taking place in public forums, or places where the
speculators are trying to spread their ideas, it is instead addressing
one-on-one relationships. Do you agree
with that interpretation? does the
"all" in the phrase "but be kind to all" include
unbelievers who criticize Christianity?
If so, can you think of any biblical exceptions to the rule requiring
Christians to be kind to unbelievers who criticize Christianity?
As a foremost authority on the gospels, can you think of any
gospel passages that, in your opinion, absolutely prohibit today's Christians
from insulting those who oppose Christianity?
What is your opinion of the argument that, even if we cannot
initiate the name-calling, we are allowed to return insult for insult when and
if the atheist critic we deal is the one who starts the name-calling?
Do you believe that modern-day Christians who routinely
resort to harsh insulting language against critics of Christianity, are clearly
sinning with this kind of talk, or would you rather say that the circumstances
the Christian is in when using insulting
rhetoric, decide whether the name-calling constitutes sin?
Blomberg's final reply indicated that he felt negativity was to be reserved solely for ultra conservative Christians who need to be rebuked, and that any bible interpretations that lack support from any bona fide scholars are likely false:
From: "Blomberg, Craig"
<Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26
I answered several of these
questions explicity or implicitly in my previous response. I don’t care to expand on it much One can never make absolute statements about
Scripture never justifying insulting behavior.
The Twelve are to shake the dust off their feet for those who reject
them. But, in general, we do much better
to be positive, except to the ultraconservative Christian who needs to be
rebuked. Interpretations that no bona
fide scholars anywhere support are likely to be suspect because detailed
scholarly studies will have canvased them already.
From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
To: "Blomberg, Craig"
<Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26
thank you for your time.
On the same day, I logged into theologyweb.com and sent a PM to several other members, quoting these comments from Blomberg and arguing that they show that Holding's view on riposte is contrary to the view of properly degreed evangelical scholars and is therefore more than likely false. This PM was preserved for posterity by Tweb member "Bill the Cat" for his genius idea of quoting it in full and nominating it for one of Holding's "screwball awards". For brevity I've removed the PM my quotes from Blomberg's email to me, as it has already been revealed above:
Proud Papa of 3
Join DateJan 2014
LocationCentral VA
FaithChristian
GenderMale
Posts4,836
Screwball to Bud for this PM:
Originally Posted by B&H
Hello,
Holding recommends, with one caveat about bioi (not applicable here) the
scholarship on the gospels from Craig Blomberg. See http://www.tektonics.org/books/nthistbooks.php
On April 21, 2015, I emailed Craig Blomberg the following:
beginquote--------(deleted)
endquote-------------
Read his last sentence carefully. I asked whether Craig was familiar with
Malina's and Rohrbough's "context group" work, and if so, whether he
thinks any of it could reasonably be construed to support modern-day Christians
insulting critics of Christianity. You don't have a lot of choices here in your
predictable attempt to atomize and parse to death Craig's response in your
attempt to turn Craig's contempt for riposte into something other than blunt
disagreement with Holding. Craig is a foremost scholar of the gospels, so when
he says "No, I know nothing about Malina and Rohrbaugh’s work that would
justify what you describe", he likely wouldn't have said that if the truth
be that he actually has little familiarity with Malina and Rohrbough's work in
the first place. If that were the case, an honest scholar like Craig would have
admitted he didn't have enough familiarity with Malina and Rohrbough to answer
that particular question. Your predictable excuse that maybe Craig doesn't keep
up with context group work wouldn't wash either. Malina wrote "social
science commentary on the gospels", and Rohrbough wrote "social
science commentary on the gospel of John", two works that any foremost
gospel scholar like Craig would likely familiarize himself with.
So because Craig chose to say he doesn't know of any work by those scholars
that would justify the insulting rhetoric behavior I describe in my email,
Craig more than likely means that he is familiar with context group
work, and despite this, cannot think of any part of it that would justify
Holding's insulting demeanor.
You are free to predictably argue that because Craig is neither perfect, nor
God, his review and conclusions from context group work may have missed
something, but that speculation will have no more force than saying because
Holding is neither perfect, nor God, Holding's reviews and conclusions from
context group work may have missed something.
Context group scholar Malina has already stated that Holding is being
"silly" to be using honor/shame mentality in modern-America:
Email to Malina----------
"There is an apologist(internet and some articles for Christian Research
Journal) who cites your writing as justification for what reasonably appears to
be abusive comportment with opponents. The only thing he actually cites is the
last line in the following paragraph, taken from a short article."
"'Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social
groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such
processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor
claims: "...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one
that must be played out in public.[42]"'"
"He's educated, thorough, and really very clever at times but something
wrong is lurking there."
---------Malina's reply----------
"It sounds as though the person you refer to is using my description of
behavior in the Mediterranean world of antiquity to sanction his behavior in
the 21st century. If that is the case, then he is being silly. We live neither
in the 1st century nor in the Mediterranean."
"People have been citing the bible for centuries in the name of some 'My
Will Be Done' project (or religion). That some are doing this with my writings
is no surprise."
from http://the-anointed-one.com/quotes.htm
Richard Rohrbough was a co-founder of the Context Group and said that modern
Christians insulting others has nothing to do with the bible ‘one way or the
other’, that Holding deserves no respect, doesn’t deserve to be given the time
of day, should be ignored, is equal to KJV Onlyist Peter Ruckman in being a
‘boor with no manners’, he says inerrancy is a purely modern notion that makes
no sense at all, and that Holding “needs serious help”. http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/....html?t=253929
If two major scholars of the context group are saying Holding's use of their
work is "silly" and that he gives Christianity a bad name, then the
greater probability is that scholar Craig cannot find any Malina or Rohrbough
work to support Holding precisely because there is none to be found in the
first place, and in that case, it is Holding's belief that context group work
supports him, which is the "silly" position that gives Christianity a
bad name.
a copy of this email will be PM'd to other ardent supporters of Holding.
Needless to say, Holding's buddies at Tweb banned me for this (and yes, they were technically correct to ban me anyway because I had been previously banned and broke that rule by signing up again. The reader should realize that I loudly wail and cry every night in deep despair over having been banned from Tweb).
Settling Dr. Craig's view on modern Christians who routinely insult others, is important, because after I made clear to him that an apologist he publicly endorsed (James Patrick Holding) had viciously libeled and defamed me in a disturbingly obsessive way, Dr. Craig consciously chose to avoid responding to me, and in his later private emails with Holding, neither expressed nor implied that Holding's libeling of me was contrary to basic NT ethics.
On July 5, 2015, I emailed Blomberg with cc to scholar Danial Wallace, providing a detailed and comprehensive explanation of Mr. Holding's libels against me and his defiant juvenile-delinquent attitude toward the whole matter, and requested that they communicate with him in the spirit of Matthew 18:
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)
What follows is the full text of such email:
On 7/5/2015 9:49 PM, Barry Jones wrote:
Mr. Blomberg and
Mr. Wallace,
This email is a
good-faith attempt to get third-parties who might exercise spiritual leadership
over James Patrick Holding, to peaceably resolve a problem Holding has started
and which has now spun completely out of control to the point of criminal behavior
also justifying a civil lawsuit. Holding
has maliciously defamed and libeled me at his own website tektonics.org, and
the same at theologyweb.com.
I address this to
Wallace because he favorably reviewed Holding's book, and appears to be a mature
Christian scholar who would realize that apologetics can get so out of control
that it can bankrupt a ministry all because somebody doesn't know how to bridle
their own tongue.
I address this to
Blomberg because of Blomberg's interpretation of Matthew 5:25, 40 in the New
American Commentary, in which Blomberg takes a position totally consistent with
the intent of the language Jesus uses about what Christians should do when sued
or are about to be sued. Mr. Blomberg,
when I emailed you a few months back asking about biblical justification for
modern-day Christians to go around insulting people, I was talking about James
Patrick Holding. Not only does he
regularly insult, defame and belittle those who criticize him, but he also
doesn't care about any Christian scholarship that says his manners are out of
biblical bounds. He is the perfect
definition of a loose canon.
Holding has
publicly posted various defamatory and false statements about me on his
commentary forum theologyweb.com, each allegation accusing me of something that
is an immorality. He calls me
"skepticbud" and says I file multiple frivolous lawsuits, and that he
is warning other readers about me "for their safety" and calls me
"mentally unstable." See it
all at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka
He does the same
with an "internet predator alert" that he devotes exclusively to
defaming me. Note that at no time in the
"secret identity" thread, nor in the original version of his
"internet predator alert", does he give my full legal name. The original version of the internet predator
alert is attached hereto as "skepticbud", using Holding's original
title.
Notice also, he
calls it an "internet predator alert". A google search for the phrase "internet
predator" returned hits for nothing but links related to men convicted of
sexually molesting children. What are
the odds that Holding, with a master's in library science, and 20 years of
debating his religion on the internet, honestly 'didn't know' that
"internet predator" is a phrase on the internet used nearly
exclusively about pedophiles?
Did you get what
Holding is doing? He entitled his
article "internet predator alert" so that anybody who searches google
for "internet predator", as they usually would to find out something
about people who sexually molest children, will discover his defamatory article
about me in the search hits. He probably
thinks that because he doesn't directly say I'm a pedophile, all is well. He has a rather nasty legal surprise coming
his way.
Although Holding
has now updated the internet predator alert to include my name
(http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm), this doesn't change the fact that
the original version, attached to this email as a document, stood in the public
sphere for most of June 2015 without having included my real name.
You may be
asking: What is wrong with his accusing
you of immoralities in an article that doesn't reveal anything about your real
name?
Because Holding
lives in Florida,
and Florida Statute 836.02 requires the accuser asserting immorality in
another, to give their full legal name within said article or published work,
and failure to do so is a misdemeanor.
see
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0836/Sections/0836.02.html
This misdemeanor
can be enhanced to felony under the other statutes cited therein, namely
775.082 or s. 775.083, if prejudice can be shown.
I'm not done
listing the false allegations of immorality Holding has libeled me with.
Holding has
publicly accused me of causing his email address to be signed up to receive
gay, pornography and other unsolicited subscriptions:
"Since Bud is
still signing me up for pornographic newsletters, it's time to teach him a
lesson. The Predator Alert is now updated." See Post # 45 at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka/page5
In post # 48 at
the same link, Holding uses language that necessarily proves that the the
action he accuses me of (signing up his email to receive gay porn without his
permission, a false accusation) is criminal.
He says "And those folks just might be taking some action against
you....how are jails in your area, Bud? Comfy?" Why would he ask me about jails, if he didn't
believe what he was accusing me of was criminal activity?
Worse, in Post #
53, he reveals that its not fun when the unsoliciated email is already a
subject he likes, its only "fun" for him when something shows up in
his email that he doesn't like: "
Ha ha! He's slowing down...only signed
me up for one in the last hour, and it's one I might actually want (Baker
Books). Come on, Bud...it's no fun if I WANT it!" See Post 53 at
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka/page6
What kind of
Christian falsely accuses somebody of illegal use of email, then taunts them in
gleeful fashion to keep doing it because of the "fun"? What kind of Christian does this while
himself defining the "fun" as criminal activity that could send
somebody to jail?
In this case, that
would mean that Holding, allegedly a morally conservative Baptist and
Evangelical, finds it "fun" that somebody keeps signing him up to
receive gay pornography.
Maybe now you
aren't quite so enchanted with "the hardest hitting apologetics site on
the internet"?
In Post # 56 at
the same link, theologyweb.com owner/moderator John "sparko" Sparks, not only asks
Holding for my address, but ends the request with a deviously smiling smilie,
making it clear that he intends to put his knowledge of my home address to
uncivil or illegal use "Do you have
an address for him? I might be down in his area this weekend. "
Could reasonable
persons seriously disagree on what this type of language is implying?
Since Holding thus
acts in a way that makes laughable any idea that he subjects himself to any
local pastor, I call on others whom he likely holds in high regard, to do some
things that you are commanded to do in the bible anyway:
1 - Discuss with
Holding the way Jesus' legal advice (Matthew 5:25, 40) applies to the
modern-day Gentile Christian. Remind him
that the 'context group' scholars also don't have anything to say about this
bible passage that would facilitate Holding's aggressive legal
remorselessness. I expect nothing from
him but an insulting taunt to just "bring it on".
"Jesus’
second illustration of the urgency of reconciliation pictures an out-of-court
settlement between fellow litigants. These verses offer good advice at the
literal level of legal proceedings, but in light of vv. 21–22 they obviously
refer primarily to the spiritual goal of averting God’s wrath on Judgment Day
before it is too late to change one’s destiny. As a metaphor with one central
point of comparison, the details of vv. 25–26 must not be allegorized."
Matthew
5:25---Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library
System; The New American Commentary (Page 108). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
2 - Begin the
Matthew 18 process of moving toward inevitable repentance/excommunication. Would any fool argue that if a sinning
brother is not living near their local congregation, he must be somebody else's
problem? I already revealed that Holding
appears to be subject to nobody's authority but his own since he bounds around
on the internet like a toddler with a loaded shotgun. I wouldn't be addressing you if I know who
his local pastor was.
3 - Mr. Craig, you
specifically say in the New American Commentary on Matthew 5:38-42 that
"Each of
these commands requires Jesus’ followers to act more generously than what the
letter of the law demanded. “Going the extra mile” has rightly become a
proverbial expression and captures the essence of all of Jesus’ illustrations.
Not only must disciples reject all behavior motivated only by a desire for
retaliation, but they also must positively work for the good of those with whom
they would otherwise be at odds."
Nothing could be
more obvious than the fact that Holding chose to expose my real identity and
defame me, for no reason whatsoever beyond pure retaliation for my having
notified his theologyweb buddies that although Holding quotes the Context Group
with great approval, Context Group co-founder Richard Rohrbough said Holding
gives Christianity a bad name, and that the Context Group as a whole wants
nothing to do with him. See Post # 907
at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6136-Does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia/page91
All of Holding's
accusations about me are either false, or presented in a way so as to give a
false impression. I am not mentally
unstable, I am not a danger to anybody's safety, I am not a stalker or
cyberstalker, and I did not sign up Holding's email to receive anything, still
less to receive gay pornography. However, rest assured that I will be
subpoenaing his email server to find out from what IP the alleged misuse of his
email originated from.
I recently emailed
Holding as follows:
-----------------
Hello again,
You boast that you
can post 'link after link' showing me embarrassing myself in public.
Please provide me
with those links, or at least provide references identifying the material which
you believe shows me embarrassing myself in public.
Barry
-----------------
Holding responded
in a way contradictory to all those verses in the bible that forbid retaliation
and instigation:
-------------------------------
From: J. P.
Holding <jphold@att.net>
To: Barry Jones
<barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday,
June 9, 2015 12:13 PM
Subject: Re:
mentally unstable?
Sure you don't
know, "Barry".
I'll tell you for
a cost of 33 million dollars. How's that sound?
Now shut up and
keep out of my way. Everything about you is out in the open and can be shown
with a simple link. I don't need to write a word about it -- all I need to do
is post link after link after link of you embarrassing yourself in public
records.
------------------------------
Notice, it was on
June 9, 2015 that Holding said he didn't need to say anything himself, his
links about me would do the job of showing me embarrassing myself in public
records. However, a few weeks after June
9, Holding updated his "internet predator alert" and did not just
provide links, but plenty of his own defamatory words, despite his prior
admission that he didn't need to say anything.
http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm
A better example
of a modern Christian who couldn't bridle his tongue to save his life (James
1:26) could not be imagined.
I once forwarded
to Holding the comments by a Fuller Theological Seminary professor against
modern Christians using shame-riposte.
His first response was to threaten to report me for stalking:
-------------------
On Thu, 5/7/15,
jphold@att.net <jphold@att.net> wrote:
Subject: Re:
Fuller Theological Seminary thinks you are 'absurd'
To: "Barry
Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday,
May 7, 2015, 4:49 AM
#yiv5566510580
v\00003a* { }
Sounds like good reason
for me to report you for stalking!
------------------
Holding's next
reply was to tell me that I have certain sexual obsessions:
----------------
Re: Fuller
Theological Seminary thinks you are 'absurd'
YAWN See a psychologist about your sex obsessions.
http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm
Still comes up first in a search! :D
-----------------
When I received
D.A. Carson's response to my email about modern Christians using insult in their
"ministry", I forwarded this to Holding. Yup, you guessed it, Holding would not
respond to any of the points, he simply shot back something about my lying
about having been a brother:
-----------------------
From:
"jphold@att.net" <jphold@att.net>
To:
barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday,
May 6, 2015 5:54 PM Subject:
RE: D.A. Carson
says you are a waste of time
You lied by saying
you were a "brother". That
will look gret on th e Predator Alert!
----------------------
So you are
probably starting to agree with me that Holding is an extreme case who
dismisses scholarship at a whim, for whom more extreme measures than simply
private talking need to be taken.
I take no joy in
asking you to do your Christian duty here, but when you read the evidence I
gave you, which is only the tip of the iceberg, you will understand why common
sense says my personal communication with Holding will not do anything more
than fuel the fire and make him feel spiritually vindicated for having taken
such a big crack at me. The fact that
his actions violated both civil and criminal law appears totally lost upon him,
despite the fact that he researched the law just before revealing my full name
and defaming me some more.
Before you counsel
him, I suggest you peruse commentaries on the excuse of the apostles to defy
secular authority, "We must obey god rather than men" (Acts
5:29). I think that merely means that
Christians have a biblical right to oppose secular authority where it clearly
contradicts a biblical mandate. I also
think that since Holding's defamation of me is nowhere supported in scripture
and everywhere condemned by it (the 'example' of Jesus and Paul insulting their
opposition only provides indirect argument, the more direct argument is what
the bible verses say, which indicate their specific governing of Christian
conduct, such as 2nd Timothy 2:24-26.
If Holding takes
down or modifies any of his prior comments about me (I just saved very recent
copies for comparison), the only reason he would do so is because he thought
they were in violation of law, thus helping me prove that he did indeed violate
at least civil law with those original postings. If Holding doesn't take down
or modify anything he said about me in the past, that will just add more
damages to the lawsuit, since he had no excuse earlier anyway, and now has even
less.
And in case you
didn't know, I still suffer from two emotional disorders due to childhood
trauma. Holding knows this due to the
court record he found admitting to same, and exploits it solely for the sake of
spite, without so much as asking me about it.
How ironic that the person with the emotional disorder is the one trying
to resolve things peaceably, and the Christian who insists he is free from all
mental disorder and indeed empowered by the Holy Spirit, is the one who has gotten so out of control
that third-parties need to step in, and likely won't be successful despite
application of clearly biblical principles.
Holding's
irresponsible research is seen most graphically in his exploitation and
selective quoting from my prior lawsuits.
If he would have bothered to ask me, I could have explained to him the
legal basis for my prior lawsuits. Only
an idiot thinks that the Court dismissing a case, or the higher courts
affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss, proves the lawsuit had no
merit. Our highest federal and state
courts very often overturn the order of a lower-level appeal court. And since they have the power to reject
review of any case they please, many legally incorrect rulings by the lower
courts remain uncorrected.
As an example, I
worked for Swift trucking in 2007, they sent me to shippers that did not have a
truck scale. Unfortunately, the truck
itself doesn't have a scale on it, and the law against overweight trucks starts
applying immediately outside the exit gates of the shipper. When I received one too many overweight
tickets because of this, along with my employer telling me bluntly to drive
illegally, I quit and sued for wrongful constructive discharge. Although there is plenty of proof in the
record that my boss told me to drive illegally, the only thing that came out in
the court opinion was that the law regulating truck weight does not require the
employer to provide me with a way to scale my load before driving on a public
road. Before I quit, I endured emotional distress in driving such unscaled
loads, since there was no way to ensure they were of legal weight before
reaching the shipper 10 or more miles down the road, and an illegally
overweight load is a safety risk to the driver and other traffic. Holding, knowing none of these details
because of his shoddy research (the briefing of litigants is available to
anybody for a small charge) and his willingness to believe the first thing he
sees, did not ask me about any of this, and simply asserts in knee-jerk fashion
that Swift's refusal to send me only to shippers who had truck scales onsite is
ridiculous, http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm when in fact employers requiring employees
to act in illegal fashion is the very definition of the wrongful-constructive
discharge exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
I now address Mr.
Holding.
Mr. Holding, since
you now anticipate litigation from me, you are ordered, by me, to preserve any
and all communications from you or to you, whether by email, internet-based or
otherwise, whether public or private, that talk about me, including any past
such communications you still have. I
will subpoena the ISP of tektonics.org and of theologyweb.com to find out
whether anybody suddenly got rid of their email or web-based private messages
on or after today. If you think the
letter of the law means you can ignore this demand, you are wrong for two
reasons: 1) if you destroy evidence
after you anticipate litigation from me, that's called "spoliation",
and can cause the judge to instruct the jury that they are free to infer that
the reason you destroyed that evidence is because you knew it would help me
justify my case against you; 2) Craig
Blomberg clearly held Jesus' comments in Matthew 5:25, 40 to require Christians
to be more generous in dealing with their legal opponents, than simply what the
minimum requirement is under the law.
Please employ your masters in library science to the full, and get back
to me when you find any published scholar seriously asserting an interpretation
that disagrees with Blomberg's. Here's a
real kicker that you didn't see coming: stop telling me what the verse doesn't
mean, and tell me what obligations it DOES place the modern-day Gentile
Christian under. Or maybe you suddenly
became a dispensationalist, and now you can just dispense with any pre-Cross
teaching of Jesus that you don't like?
Not so, keep Matthew 28:20 in mind.
If you don't
respond by email with a reasonable settlement offer by July 08, 2015, 5:00
p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, I will file my lawsuit against you, and I will do
so also if we cannot agree on settlement.
I already have documents in place, ready to obtain a subpoena on
theologyweb's ISP to figure out the IP of, and thus unmask the true identity
of, Cow Poke, Christianbookworm and others who also defamed me. I will sue them separately, they can get
their own lawyers, and they have their crucified savior James Holding and his
loud out-of-control mouth to thank. If you
hadn't spouted off so stupidly, these minions of yours likely wouldn't have
become embolden to imitate your illegal ways.
Please contact a
lawyer for yourself as soon as possible, so that they can review the case, and
then tell you why settling for around $15,000 is not only what Jesus would want
you to do, but would be cheaper for you.
If you don't have
enough resources to pay a $15,000 settlement, get on the phone with your
devoted disciples who think you died for their sins in a previous life, and
remind them that I'll be coming after them to discover their true identity with
legal subpoena, if you and I cannot settle.
YOU are the ultimate cause for them defaming me, so the mosquito that
buzzes the loudest gets swatted first.
Go ahead and
research Florida
statute 836.02, then you tell me whether you committed at least a misdemeanor
crime by allowing your "internet predator alert" on me to stand for
most of June 2015 without disclosing my full legal name. You can no more undo that crime by appending
my name to it later, than you can undo bank robbery by giving the money back
later.
I didn't say you
were "convicted" of a crime, I said you "committed" a
crime. Big difference. Lots of people commit crimes but are never
convicted. Like you. And since you falsely accused me of the
crimes of stalking, cyberstalking and unlawful use of your email (which you
yourself said could land me in jail), I can get an award of presumed damages
from the jury, even if I don't prove actual damages (i.e., defamation per se).
Have a nice day,
HOLDING'S ONE-WORD REPLY, INDICATING SHEER LACK OF
REMORSE. HOLDING MUST EITHER HAVE A
DYNAMITE DEFENSE TO MY LAWSUIT, OR HE REALLY IS SPIRITUALLY BANKRUPT. IF WE KNOW A TREE BY ITS FRUIT...THEN...
-------------------------------------end of quoted email
I could not have made clearer in that email the precise reasons why I think Mr. Holding's conduct violated the basic NT ethics that would be held by any conservative evangelical or "southern baptist", the denomination Holding has loosely associated himself with.
But Dr. Blomberg, in private email to Holding, falsely explained that the reason he didn't reply to me was because
he had no idea what was going on. (!?)
Yeah right, read the above email again, then ask yourself whether that would have been sufficient to convince a conservative evangelical scholar, who previously publicly endorsed Holding, that Holding had acted so contrary to his profession of faith that it implicated those bible verses that require you to disassociate yourself from "brothers" who persist in defiant reviling of others:
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. (1 Cor. 5:9-11 NAU)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Greek: loidoros), nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 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]
During the first lawsuit I filed
against Holding in 2015, I propounded several hundred Interrogatories
and Requests for Production to him (the rules of the Superior Court
where I sued him do not limit the amount of such discovery requests to
25, as the federal rules and Courts of other counties do). In Interrogatory # 88, I
asked him to reveal what conversations he ever had with Dr. Blomberg,
where those conversations were about me:
Holding answered by producing printouts of his emails with Blomberg and others:
-------------------
Notice, Dr. Blomberg characterizes my emails to him as "weird". He is saying this on July 7. But it was only two days earlier that I had sent that long email to him expressing my concerns about Holding.
That is, Blomberg wants Holding to believe that a detailed email that makes Holding's sins very clear, is a "weird set of emails".
Notice also: Blomberg says he hadn't replied to me because he knows "nothing whatsoever about all of this!" which shows definite dishonesty on his part, since my prior long email to him included links and references so that he could easily check and be sure that my representation of Holding as defying the basic ethics of his religion were accurate and not just uninformed ranting. For example, I provided Blomberg the two links where Holding was libeling me the most, to repeat:
See it
all at
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7119-The-quot-Secret-Identity-quot-of-Skepticbud-aka-spirit5er-aka-Debunked-aka-B-amp-H-aka
http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm
Does it make sense that a person of Dr. Blomberg's intellectual level (Phd. Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, he also wrote the Matthew-commentary for the inerrantist
New American Commentary series, and of course, is author of
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels) would remain in a state of near total ignorance
after reading my long email to him?
Yeah sure, maybe I could have been a bit more clear in my case that Holding is a scumbag who defiantly violates basic NT ethics and is in need of serious reproof? What, did he need a 5 mile long email, 1 mile wasn't enough for him to "get it"?
A few emails later, Craig sinfully sympathizes with Holding...as if Blomberg, who earlier complained that a long detailed email wasn't sufficient to clue him in to the problem, was somehow able to understand from Holding's far shorter emails, just how false my accusations were:
If the reader doubts just who was guilty, they are reminded that despite Holding asserting before the first lawsuit that it would be ridiculously frivolous,
he did not attempt to answer that lawsuit on the merits, but instead, after litigating the case for several months without a lawyer,
paid a lawyer more than $21,000 to get it dismissed solely on jurisdictional grounds.
This was rather stupid on his part since if he would have continued litigating without a lawyer, he could have filed a motion to dismiss on the merits (i.e, arguing that none of his words about me were libelous or defamatory). He could have appeared in court for the motion hearings solely by telephone since he lived 3,000 miles away, and if he had to attend jury trial, that would have required merely round trip travel expenses from Florida to Washington and back, probably less than $2,000.
That is, as usual, when Holding is forced to put his money where his mouth is (i.e, if yer gonna say the accusations of libel are false,
prove them false on the merits in court, don't just prance around like a ridiculous peacock in front of your financial supporters), he suddenly isn't the fire-breathing truth-warrior his deluded followers think he is.
Later on I cc'd the following to Blomberg:
From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>
To: "taylor@westmont.edu"
<taylor@westmont.edu>; Gary Habermas <ghabermas@liberty.edu>; Craig
Blomberg <craig.blomberg@denverseminary.edu>;
"dwallace@dts.edu" <dwallace@dts.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: about James Patrick Holding
Mr. Taylor,
When I had earlier asked you about modern-day Christians
insulting those who criticize Christianity, I was asking about James Patrick
Holding, whom I intend to sue for defamation.
So since you didn't approve of such insulting, I assumed you would
disapprove of Holding.
Holding has two problems:
he is being very obstinate in his unChristian behavior toward me, and
for this reason it appears that he is not under the spiritual authority of a
local pastor.
I've been cc'ing you, Habermas, Wallace and Blomberg in the
effort to let Holding know that other mature Christians are being apprised of
my efforts and his juvenile-delinquent reactions to me, so as to coerce him
into reacting in a less obstinate manner, but Holding appears to be
intentionally defiant of anything remotely approaching civil Christian
conduct. His responses to my emails
indicate he thinks this whole litigation thing is some type of game, almost as
if he is praying hard for God to cause me to sue him (!?)
I've asked him about Matthew 5:25, 40, but he is silent on
this, probably because his immature behavior cannot be reconciled with what
Jesus said about Christians facing lawsuits.
Do you have any recommendations?
How to begin the Matthew 18 procedure leading toward
restoration or repentance, if Holding is just a fifth-wheel or loose canon with
no acknowledgment of local pastoral authority?
Should other Christians announce on their websites that Holding is
living in sin and unrepentant?
Would the bible justify the Christian leader to just turn
away from this with a quick "not in my jurisdiction"?
Christian Doscher
So here's my open letter to Dr. Craig Blomberg:
Dr. Blomberg,
Before you knew that your friend J.P Holding had insulted me like crazy to the point of legally actionable libel (i.e., libel that Holding didn't dare attempt to answer on the merits in either of my two libel lawsuits against him, preferring instead to spend $20,000 in lawyers fees seeking dismissal on grounds other than the merits, that'a his idea of economically efficient litigation), you gave me your honest opinion that
- there is nothing in the NT that will justify today's Christians insulting their critics,
- you are not aware of any Context Group scholarship published by Malina or Rohrbaugh that would justify such behavior, and
- unfortunately there are some Christians today who, by insulting just everybody they meet instead of limiting such reaction to the ultraconservative hypocrites, do a fair amount of damage to the cause of Christianity in the process
May I assume that you don't know of ANY Christian scholarship, whatsoever, that agrees with Holding's belief that modern-day Christians have biblical license to insult and demean their critics?
The Context Group have
THRICE disowned Holding for his misrepresentation of their work, so how's that for a solid start in justifying his already absurd view?
How is it, then, that you expressed sympathy to Holding (i.e., "so sorry you're having to go through all this") for his having to deal with my libel-lawsuit? Did you miss the part about him egregiously violating basic NT ethics?
Do you feel sorry for Christians whose defiant disobedience toward basic NT ethics is what landed them in civil court to answer charges of libel/slander?
Dr. Craig, did you know that Holding not only falsely accused me to others that I had beaten my wife, he admitted
under oath in Court that his accusation was false...and that he still hasn't apologized? What are the odds that it is the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit, and not his purely naturalistic hateful spitefulness, that dissaudes him from expressing such remorse?
Given Holding's history of gleeful resort to juvenile vituperation, do you suppose I'd have any reason to think Holding was the least bit sincere, should he miraculously someday try to apologize?
Did you know that Holding told others he was in possession of 7 police reports that he said showed that I had
definitely not been a good boy? Did you know that
none of those 7 police reports express or imply that I was ever accused of, suspected of, arrested for or convicted of, any crime?
Dr. Craig, for what reasons do you insist that, despite all of Holding's 20-year history of viciously reviling anybody who disagrees with him, these revilings are somehow substantially different from those of the Christian "reviler" whom apostle Paul tells you to disassociate yourself from in 1st Corinthians 5:9-11, whom Paul also says shall not inherent the kingdom of God in 6:9-10?
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
If Powers is reasonable to interpret the prohibition on "reviling" as a prohibition on "vituperative insults and vitriolic invective", isn't it reasonable for me to assert that Holding cannot have been "mistaken about NT ethics" for 20 years, but that he has been
willfully defiant of NT ethics for 20 years?
But if you think Holding's reviling history involves the same type of reviling that is condemned by Paul, supra, then why do you disobey Paul's requirement that you disassociate yourself with him? (I assume you haven't because Holding continues to assert that none of you ever pay any attention to what I say).
Do you say Holding has changed his ways? Ok....so do you agree that the way he viciously hurled juvenile slurs and libels at people for 20 years (that basis upon which he can currently claim a certain level of popularity for his ministry) had constituted sin, yes or no? How could a person who is properly qualified to hold the Christian office of "teacher" possibly get such a basic requirement of NT morality
so wrong for so long, while hailing himself as a top Christian academic bible researcher?
Worse, Holding greedily ran after all those opportunities to revile, which can only mean he must have thought his conduct was approved of God. What is the likelihood that you could be authentically born again and yet misunderstand a sinful act to be something that God approves of? Are you sure Holding's error is sufficiently covered by the "mere mistake" damage control measure? Doesn't a 20 year history of violating basic Christian principles more strongly suggest a wolf in sheep's clothing, than it suggests a smart academic who was honestly mistaken?
Did you know that Holding recently called me a lunatic in one of his online articles, and now that I've made known to him a third lawsuit is in the works, he has removed that article? Today, July 18,2017, if you go to
www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php, all you get at this time is
"Parse error: syntax error, unexpected
'<' in
/home/tekton5/public_html/lp/madmad.php on line
6"
You might wish to ask God's most fearsome truth-warrior what exactly it was in the wording of that article, that made him fear that a libel lawsuit would so justifiably arise from it that it was best to pull it down as quickly as possible.
Then ask him, if he has always believed that his Internet Predator Alert on me, which was the basis for the last two lawsuits, really was legally protected non-defamatory speech, and really was within acceptable norms of NT ethics, why he pulled that down in the middle of the first lawsuit, and has not (I could be wrong) posted it publicly since?
The question is even more problematic for him because he cannot claim he had an attack of morality, his 20 year history of verbally emasculating his critics forbids that. And He cannot claim he genuinely feared I was correct and some of his statements therein might have been libelous, as such admission would tarnish his image as Pope Holding Innocent III. He caters solely to a rather juvenile spiritually immature crowd, and he is scared that once he admits having messed up royally, they will stop sending him their cash.
Well then, why has he failed to re-post a legally and biblically justified document that would so strongly fulfill his pathological need to ruin another person's life? Why indeed? Doesn't the bible say that James Patrick Holding never changes?
Did you know that Holding made a parody video of my having gotten injured in a bus accident last year? I was on an
Intercity Transit bus, on
Bus # 13, and was injured when the driver slammed on the brakes. In Holding's video where he portrays me as a lunatic who can barely speak, he has this all take place while I stand at a bus stop called "Inner City Transit", waiting for the "Route 13" bus. What are the odds that the similarities here are purely coincidental? He ends the video by
physically injuring me in a very violent way, making a parody of the fact that I was injured in that bus accident. And in the video, I end up in an insane asylum in a straitjacket talking incoherently, which cannot be anything other than his mockery of the personality disorder that I genuinely suffer from (which is true despite Holding's fiction that this makes me dangerous).
Dr. Blomberg, can you really say,
seriously, that Holding hasn't done anything making him worthy of severe rebuke and disassociation?
Do YOU have any plans to similarly mock and degrade your critics? I'm guessing "no".
Did you know that Holding was correct to say I have borderline personality disorder? How do you feel about sympathizing with a "Christian" brother who slanders, reviles and provokes those whom he believes are dangerously mentally ill? My illness doesn't make me
dangerous, as Holding lied to you, but Holding
believed I was so so mentally ill that I'd try to kill him if we got in the same room together, and yet he STILL slandered and slanders me like crazy, hoping to provoke a reaction, because he has such a pathological need to feel like he is dominating his territory. He told his attorney Seth Cooper that he was frightened that I would try to kill him, so much that he wouldn't go to court with me unless I was sedated and under guard. From one of the emails I forced him to disclose in the first lawsuit:
From: J. P. Holding <jphold@att.net
Sent: " Tuesday,
October 06, 2015 3:17 PM
Subject: I think this guy wants to kill me!
Seth, I really need some input on this. If he weren't 3000
miles away I'd go buy a gun right now to protect myself and my loved ones.
I'm serious. This is getting scary. He has borderline
personality disorder, and I've worked in a prison with a mental health unit
full of guys like this. He also had a restraining order put on him 20 years ago
by his thenwife, over a domestic violence issue. For years now he's had this
"thing" about getting me in front of my church, or in a live debate,
or in some way confronting me in person. I didn't think much of it before, now
it's starting to take on a darker light. "The last thing I ever do on
earth"???? There's no way I can be in the same room with this guy. He'll
try to strangle me with his bare hands!
What do I need to do? Motion for protection order? Declaration
to the court expressing my concerns?
From : Raphael
ΤΟ : jpholding
m OSSrOS8
One Bad Pig
Sparko
Date : 2015-10-O6 19:39
Title: Re: I think Bud wants to kill me!
[OUOTE=jpholding--|No, I'm serious. I thought about this last
message he sent me where he says he wants to get me in front of jury if it's
the last thing he does on earth. He's had this "thing" to debate me
in person since 2008 and now trying to get me in a courtroom no matter what,
even if there's arbitration??? No way I'm getting in the same room with him unless he's sedated or
under heavy guard. I knew inmates like this, worked in places with psych
inmates and a mental health unit. And then there's the fact that his ex-wife
had to put a domestic violence order on him.
Was it therefore sin for you, despite knowing that Holding acknowledges no significant local pastoral authority, to reject implementing the Matthew 18 process?
If you had done the right thing and attempted to work with me in fulfillment of my request to address this matter according to biblical principles, there's a chance the problem wouldn't have become so extreme that I found it necessary to start litigating this in the court of public opinion.
However, you have a chance to redeem yourself and show that you follow NT ethics
even when it hurts, you don't simply write commentaries on the bible.
1 - Holding has recently posted a YouTube video, in which he argues that Matthew 5:25 only applies to modern-day Christians who are faced with a frivolous lawsuit filed by a rich Plaintiff so that their loss in court must be virtually certain before they need to obey what Jesus said there. This interpretation squarely contradicts your interpretation as found in the New American Commentary, where you say Christians must work for the good of their legal adversaries. You neither expressed nor implied this was limited to exceptional cases as Holding did. His interpretation has no support from bone fide scholars.
Now didn't you tell me in a 2015 email, quoted at the beginning of this article, that interpretations for which no bona fide supporting scholarship can be found, are likely false?
2 - I will be suing Holding for a third time because he has recently libeled me again.. I would like to attempt settlement with Holding upon the biblical basis of the interpretation of Matthew 5:25, 40, and you now have the option of using this opportunity to rebuke a Christian brother who sorely needs it while also obeying Jesus, or you can continue ducking your obvious Christian duty (you publicly endorsed Holding, so you have an ethical obligation to publicly withdraw that endorsement if you feel Holding is willfully defiant of NT ethics...you cannot simply slink away quietly).
Are you a Christian in morals as well as academia? Or only in academia? I say the former, and only time will tell whether you practice what you preach.
