Resurrection Scholar DODGES my Question and DESTROYS His Case (Gary Habermas response)

I asked Dr Gary Habermas a simple question: "How can Opus volume two use group appearances as its primary defence against hallucinations and illumination when group appearances are not a minimal fact nor affirmed by skeptical scholars?"

Paulogia vs Dr Andrew Loke Group Appearances Debate

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Channel Wish-List

Paulogia Merch

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

[TheJacrespo]

Ludicrous. Gary Habermas, the guy who boasts about having written the most extensive research ever done on the resurrection of Jesus, is unable to address a simple question from Mike Licona, who, visibly frustrated, keeps asking him the same question repeatedly without ever receiving a satisfactory answer from Habermas. Pathetic! 😮

[bartkl]

Man, this was brutal. Is Gary even sure it's him who wrote these books?

[shassett]

Using phrases like "strong majority"while carefully avoiding committing to anything like a percentage seems transparently dishonest. Gary is a step away from "many people are saying it."

[generichuman_]

Imagine giving a theory of minimal witnesses 0% probability, but not a theory of a dead guy coming back to life...

[Marconius]

There's probably a reason Gary decided to publish his 'findings' in a book, rather than a peer-reviewed meta-analysis study, where he'd have to actually show his data and methodology...

[tonydarcy]

If Gary is the world No. 1 expert on the resurrection, then congratulations to him for further persuading me that it is a fictional event !

[infinite_array]

Mike's lucky he didn't get hurt during Gary's desperate flailing.

[reneoswaldogonzalezpizarro]

I already feel sorry for you for when you have to read and check Volume 3...
Thank you for your service. Regards from Mexico.

[nieznanysprawiciel]

Mike Lacona seems really disappointed with the answers. Like he expected something better

[resurrectionnerd]

I asked several questions during that stream which highlight their assumptions and presuppositions. They either avoided the questions entirely or weren't able to provide a satisfactory answer.

We must keep in mind these "scholars" were already committed Christians prior to looking at the evidence for the Resurrection. So it was not the evidence that convinced them in the first place. That's all just a smokescreen in the end.

[montagdp]

Mike's frustration is palpable in this clip. Even he recognizes that Gary isn't giving an honest answer. Wow!

[dasbus]

I like how minimal fact #5 includes the qualifier "most likely".

[cuzned]

Poor Mike, almost immediately questioning his decision to do the livestream. 😆

[oddjam]

Mike Licona providing some legitimate scrutiny is frankly amazing and incredibly respectable.. but he also chooses to put himself in some pretty awkward situations in order to make this happen (because Gary is kind of a dick to him in response) and i find that admirable too. Honestly I'm impressed.

[BDnevernind]

It always cracks me up that apologists use "liberal" to describe scholars who are conservative about granting facts to the Bible, which is obviously conservative. They just mean politically liberal, which is a weird though probably accurate assumption. "Conservative" scholars are of course the most liberal with granting factuality to the Bible.

[markrothenbuhler]

Here's my minimal human hypothesis: People lie to themselves and others today. People lie to themselves and others in the past. Reading a historical theological tract (like creeds, epistles or gospels) that was written for a motivated in-group, will include lies. Pretty simple.

[JGregory]

When ever somebody brings up group appearances I always think back to the events of the early Mormon church. Joseph Smith led a group of elders through several days of fasting and prayers until, delirious with hunger and religious fervor, they saw the sacred golden plates from which the book of Mormon was written. Every one of those people would later walk back that vision, claiming they saw it "Not with their physical eyes". I feel like these group appearances are the same.

[Caelinus]

This is giving "I did not do my homework, but I am still going to give my presentation today" vibes.

Even if I did not know anything else, his inability to defend his own positions in any way meaningfully in this segment would be enough to make me highly suspicious of anything he wrote.

[bacaestrife]

I appreciate Mike keeping Gary honest during all this, and not just playing for his 'team'.

[Locust]

"n-n now Paul is going uhhh to debunk this ... he's... he's uh... wrong! just trust me" *sweats nervously and pulls at collar*
I cannot believe he actually said that.