Debunking Gary Habermas (Part 1 of 2)

I debunk Gary Habermas's argument for the historicity of the claims of the New Testament/Gospels, and again express the underwhelming nature of the "Scholars agree on..." type of argument that is a favorite among Christian apologists...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Gary
• Habermas
• New
• Testament
• historicity

[theantihero420]

@nightvidcole Here's why the swoon theory doesn't work.

1) The Romans were professionals. They would have made sure he was dead before releasing the body.

2) setting 1) aside, even if he had merely passed out, he would have lost so much blood and been in such horrible shape that it would be impossible for Jesus to move a 3 ton stone, not to mention slipping past the guard.

3) A beaten bloody, half dead man wouldn't convince anyone he had risen.

4) How would Jesus have planned 2 only pass out?

[jimmo42]

@TheGreatestProject "I am wrong without any provision of a census source for your argument."

Son, in any discourse about subjects in which none of the participants is an expert, appealing to authority is a common method. Otherwise, you have an infinite regression of "why should I trust what HE says?"

Your claim I am not responding is patently false. I am just not giving you the answer you demand. I am *responding* with "trust this expert or not". If you don't fine. Good-bye.

[jimmo42]

@TheGreatestProject Just how am I trying to "appeal to emotion"? What logical fallacies? What red herring? These are *directly* related to the claims involved. You are free not to accept them. However, you claim these are "red herrings" demonstrates that you are unfamiliar with evem the most basic aspects of formal logic.

[jimmo42]

@TheGreatestProject "This is by definition the appeal to authority."

True. You are obviously under the *false* impression that an argument from authority is "by definition" fallacious. It is not! It is *still* a valid argument when the person is an authority in the given field. Since few of us are experts in *every* field, we ALL frequently appeal to authority.

Please do take the time to look it up...facepalm...

[jimmo42]

@TheGreatestProject "you are trying to make the case that because academics agree, "

That is how the world works. Why isn't intelligent design talk in schools in Dover or Kansas? "because academics agree". People who make the claim "intelligence design is not creationism" are wrong. If the "adacemics" in a criminal trial say the defendant didn't do it, the prosecutor is wrong.

Welcome to the real world.

[jimmo42]

@TheGreatestProject If you want me to do your leg work, I won't. Just as I am not going to do the leg work for a fundie who says there is no fossil record in support of evolution. I will give you a video, however: watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY.

Here, Bart Ehrman, a non-believer and one of the world's leading new testament *historians* and leading experts in NT textual criticism, states that the overwhelming majority of historians believe in the "historical jesus". You can choose to accept it or not.

[jimmo42]

@TheGreatestProject "such a claim can only be legitimate based on an academic census, "

1) This is not a scholarly forum. 2) If a leading expert in a field makes a claim that I have not yet verified myself, I usually accept it until there is evidence not to. Since experts on both sides (christians and not) agree that in an historical Jesus, and one who says he doesn't (Price) admits it is the minority position, that is pretty strong *evidence* for the assertion Jesus really existed.