MrFungus420

First of all, where are you getting the 95%-99.9% figure?

Secondly, it is most likely Biblical scholars agreeing that the Bible is correct. So it is people studying the Bible saying that the Bible says so.

So? It is again relying on the Bible saying that it is true.

Again, so? Unless you are trying to say that this validates the beliefs of anyone who has ever been martyred.

There is a very simple "naturalistic" explanation, the story is just that, a story.

No, the reasonable explanation is that that it is nothing more than a myth. And not even an original myth.

And, nowhere has anyone shown that any god must exist, let alone the Christian one.

Roland

I thought the video was reasonably interesting, but I think Habermas makes way too many assumptions and ignores "facts" that present problems for his case.

The crux of his argument is that, in his writings, Paul tells us that he met with the other "apostles" early on and, therefore, he is somehow reliable as an authority on Jesus because Peter, James and the rest didn't tell him that what he was preaching was wrong.

Here are my problems with that:

1). Habermas takes too much for granted in assuming that the Peter in the epistles is the same Peter that we find in Mark's gospel. No where does Paul even suggest that Peter and the rest knew Jesus personally when he was a man here on earth. Yes, we do have the James, brother of the Lord statement, but others like Doherty have mounted at least reasonable arguments showing that this phrase may not mean the same as "brother of Jesus."

2) Also, since so much of Habermas' argument rests on Paul having met Peter and the rest, shouldn't he at least point out that Paul's listing of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances doesn't match the ones we find in Luke and John? For instance, Paul says Jesus appeared FIRST to Peter, THEN to the twelve. When, in either Luke or John, do we see Jesus showing himself to Peter first? Moreover, who are the twelve? Judas is long gone by this point and, even in John, (though not in Luke), Thomas is absent (which would make it ten).

3) In addition, since Habermas makes such a big deal about Paul's timeline of not visiting the apostles for three years (and then only seeing Peter and James), then going back for a second time 14 years later, how does he square that with the account in Acts, where Paul is shown meeting all the apostles almost immediately upon his conversion? Habermas is strangely silent on that contradiction.

4) Habermas states, with utter confidence, that we know Peter and Paul were martyred. What are his sources for that? And even when he mentions the execution of James in Josephus, Habermas never clarifies the fact for his gullible audience that Josephus never even implies, let alone states, that James was killed due to his belief in Jesus.

The video was a nice try but, like all apologetics, not very convincing.

NZSkep

that was Troy?


I think Troy was crazier than this guy.

Brooklyn Gorilla

All you have to do is read his profile and check out the homepage link to see that it's Troy. The link goes to a thread he started on his forum that has the exact same title as this one. Not to mention the similarity in the name used here "workerforthechurch" and the name he uses on his own forum "Churchwork".

Derec

Infidel Guy's web radio thing (hosted by Robert Spencer) had a debate between Habermas and Price. I downloaded it because someone local mentioned Habermas to me on account of him speaking at William Lane Craig's class today. Unfortunately, they spent the whole hour arguing minutiae of Galatians 1-2 vs. 1 Corinthians 15.

So it is interesting you mention Price in this context.

lpetrich

Troy Brooks has appeared under 14 names so far:

asttst, Cordrie, ForeverSaved, Freewill, lvdyou, MOTG, Partrib, Parture, savedforgod, spiritualpower, Stalione, TomT, TruthTells, workerforthechuch

I've visited his forums, and he is by far the most active one there, posting 7 times as much as the other 8 active members combined have posted. Note that I say "active"; a similar number of members have been banned by him for disagreements that are sometimes very small. One person was banned for criticizing what he considered Troy Brooks's misconceptions about Catholicism.

Yet he whines that he gets banned from various messageboards because he tells the boards' admins things that they don't want to accept; see Denomic Spirits on Forums and Censorship by Non-Trinitarians. Someone called Scriptur chimed in about "What Do You Do About Obstinate Non-Christians in Society?" in Christian and Non-Christian Interaction in Society, complaining about how closed-minded we allegedly are.