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

[@Marconius6]

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...

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

And I'm pressing X to doubt he has any data or methodology whatsoever.

[@haydenwalton2766]

yep

[@t_ylr]

Honestly after over a decade of research we should have an excel sheet with scholars he's referencing and their positions on his minimal facts. Ppl would pay just for that. I'd be more willing to let him get away with playing loose with the percentages if he was less wishy washy on defining the minimal facts. Like you gotta pick one lol.

[@bartkl]

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

[@montagdp]

A strong majority of people think he did.

[@6thandHarrison]

@@montagdp😂

[@6thandHarrison]

Mike Licona looked like his spirit was a bit stirred

[@TheLithp]

@@montagdp 500 people saw me writing them while Gary kept trying to eat the pages.

[@oddjam]

@@montagdp 💀

[@tonydarcy1606]

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 !

[@uninspired3583]

If someone declared themselves the number 1 expert in Spiderman, most people would give them a pat on the back and helmet so they don't hurt themselves. Gary has earned the same respect.

[@cwfutureboy]

Why so disparaging to comic book readers?

[@dyamonde9555]

@@uninspired3583 if i met this self-proclaimed #1 spider-man scholar, and he could prove that he really has encyclopedic knowledge of Spiderman, i would bow my head in respect to this man and his dedication

[@sumo1203]

He’s such a weasel, never direct, always deflecting and twisting answers. Sometimes flat out lying

[@uninspired3583]

@@sumo1203 so in short, an apologist

[@montagdp]

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

[@shaneemmons9508]

Exactly! It seems like a mixture of frustration that he’s been vouching for this for years waiting for these books to set it all straight to now getting a different story when pressed with a simple question, with the frustration of being at the end of the week on a couples vacation where he’s had to deal with him all day everyday. That has to be frustrating😂

[@stenblann9784]

Perhaps the end of a beautiful relationship. May be their last joint family vacation for a while. Gary seemed to be getting exasperated with the grilling. "Why am I getting crucified? Sheesh, thought we were "mates" in Christ."

[@nieznanysprawiciel]

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

[@cuzned1375]

Which is surprising, right? ‘Cause we’ve been able to see how weak Gary’s evidence is (and how poorly defended) for YEARS. And Mike _knows_ him, calls him “best friend”, so it’s not like he’s hearing this piffle for the first time. But _this_ time, he’s like, “Whoa, Gary’s not very good at this.” SMH

[@willaimhopkins2172]

I was coming down here to say the same thing. I wonder what that means for his position on this? I've always had a lot more respect for those believers who just say straight out that their belief in the resurrection is theological.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

no one said mythology was going to be easy.

[@oddjam]

@@cuzned1375 it really is surprising, but nonetheless i am grateful and impressed

[@juanausensi499]

@@cuzned1375 You can see him thinkig "Gary, that's what you were doing those years?"

[@generichuman_]

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

[@jf5177]

I actually find this interesting because evangelicals make the claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, but the gospels themselves don’t make the claim that their eyewitness accounts, but evangelical Christians make the claim that their eyewitness accountS

[@joe5959]

​@@jf5177pretty common in the ancient world for works to not have their authors names in the work. In many cases you have to go off later attribution.

[@PGB55]

Oh but you see he's in no dead guy He's God so he can do anything. How do we know he's God? For the Bible tells me so. How do we know the Bibles inerrant because God tells you so.

[@w4rsh1p]

If our faith is a lie we are fools. I'm always like yeah...if

[@kennymartin5976]

That's the thing that really made me disappointed in Mike. That 0% grade was so clearly disingenuous and dishonest that I lost a lot of respect for him.

[@infinite_array]

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

[@rightsarentpolitical]

I will say to his credit he looks EXCEEDINGLY uncomfortable the more Gary goes on and on. Maybe there's hope yet.....

[@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! 😮

[@infinite_array]

Almost like Habermas wrote 4000 pages of blustering nonsense, knowing that most people who purchased it wouldn't actually bother to read it (just like their Bible).

[@philw6056]

I'm sure Licona questioned some life choices during this video. At least the decision to make this Q&A.

[@CharlesPayet]

Now I’m really mad that I can’t watch the whole thing until after work!

[@solasta]

He appears to have made statements in reliance on Habermas as his "intellectual artillery" only for Habermas to completely fail to back it up.... He looked really quite angry with his bestie at time...

[@suicune2001]

After supposedly 14 years of research the best Gary has is, "Well, if you squint REALLY hard and don't need any evidence at all then OF COURSE I'm right!"

[@cuzned1375]

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

[@Locust13]

"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.

[@shassett79]

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."

[@wesstubbs3472]

A "strong majority" of Roman citizens believed that Apollo existed, ergo, Apollo exists?

[@jon-paulmattack1152]

He is definitely not "A cold case detective!" Just another "Excuseogist" who has written a large amount of waffle, on a whole lot of conjecture.

[@drumrnva]

"Many people are saying it" helped a man get elected to the US presidency. Just sayin'. 😅

[@shassett79]

@@drumrnva Believe me, I'm _painfully aware of this._

[@CaliRaveBoi]

like a group appearance lol, well lots of people saw Jesus... just go ask them... like over 500!

[@dasbus9834]

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

[@ackbooh9032]

I noticed too 😅 Paulogia alludes to this and doesn't elaborate here to stay on topic (whether Habermas is consistent or not about group appearances, minimal facts, and the criterion of a pluralistic high majority of scholars). That 'likely' sure does a good bit of heavy lifting

[@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.

[@suicune2001]

Which is pretty impressive given he's written like, what, 4,500 pages on the subject? And yet he still came off like he read a wiki book summary.

[@Caelinus]

@@suicune2001 Exactly. He does not sound like the person who wrote the book, he sounds like a person who read a spark notes entry on it. I was not expecting strong arguments from him, but I was expecting him to at least know his own arguments.

[@Petticca]

@suicuune2001 I agree. Either he's spectacularly gatekeepery with _all_ the knowledge and understanding from his decades of research, and he has no intention of giving anything up for free, so to speak... Or, that's it... I got nothing, because honestly the alternative, as far as I can tell, is that somehow that man has been able to forge a career and identity out of saying "the majority of scholars" "it's early" "oral tradition" "minimal facts" Over and over and over and over and over that's literally it.

[@suicune2001]

@@Caelinus I wonder if that 90% figure was written early on and he either forgot about it or is sweeping it under the rug because he KNOWS he'll never get anywhere close to that number. Maybe he's like the guy who popularized flat-earth. He genuinely believed at first but as the evidence for flat-earth kept falling short, he eventually realized he was wrong. However, he made flat-earth his whole identity and felt trapped in his own group. Maybe Gary by this point knows he's wrong but feels he's in too deep to stop now.

[@suicune2001]

@@Petticca I wonder how much he actually makes from this stuff. I can't imagine it's a lot but maybe saying the same incorrect stuff over and over for decades is his only skillset.

[@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.

[@harveywabbit9541]

We have "scholars"who claim that the Sun (Solomon) actually built a temple.

[@donnievance1942]

The main presumption, whose exposure blows all this resurrection apologetics out of the water, is that any part of the New Testament has credibility as a statement of fact. They can't use the disciples' "willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection" when they have no evidence but their cult scriptures that any disciples actually did die for their beliefs or even that any disciples existed at all. I can write any fantastic sh*t in a book and include in the book statements that half a dozen people were willing to stake their lives on the truth of what I wrote in the book. That's such silly horsesh*t that nobody over 4 years old should fall for it. There's no a priori reason to think that a single word between the covers of the New Testament is true. It's a magical cult scripture, almost all of which was written decades after the putative events that it describes. The entire thing literally boils down to nothing more substantial than "trust me, bro." What kind of evidence would lend at least a little credence to a narrative of magical resurrection? Well, how about the discovery of a carbon-dated manuscript from the 1st century consisting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to the emperor, detailing his execution of a troublesome apocalyptic preacher, followed by his hearing multiple reports that this preacher had risen from the dead, and then describing Pilate's futile efforts to track this supposedly resurrected preacher down by dispatching a cohort of legionnaires all over Jerusalem? The manuscript would have to have been discovered in some context that made it improbable to have been an early church forgery. Then they would have a tiny scrap of valid evidence for the resurrection. Even that wouldn't be very substantial evidence in my eyes, because it would remain more likely that Pilate had been acting on a baseless rumor than that an actual resurrection had occurred, but it would be a lot better than anything they currently have. Habermas' whole "scholarly" shtick consists of parsing the New Testament to show that the New Testament is true. He's a foolish, even ridiculous, old man. The fact that he wrote 4,000 pages of this nonsense brings the whole thing to the level of comedy. We should call him Gary Pangloss from here on out.

[@petermetcalfe6722]

That's why they are not to be taken seriously.

[@pRODIGAL_sKEPTIC]

I want Paul to ask a question next livestream: "if you've never said 90% is a vast majority..... this you? 📖

[@reneoswaldogonzalezpizarro7116]

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

[@Vineyard4599]

Viva Mexico.

[@reneoswaldogonzalezpizarro7116]

@@Vineyard4599 Viva

[@majmage]

Man, Licona is such an MVP here. Haven't heard much from him over the years, but he gets a lot of respect for being meticulously truth-focused. It's not even just one sticking point, he just continuously cares whether the question gets answered truthfully. Good on him!

[@alp5088]

Mike and Gary must have been thrilled to see Paulogia asking questions instead of their usual pandering audience.

[@n0etic_f0x]

Man, this makes me wish I still was a Christian. I liked the atheists talking to me, after all, I had proof and access to an omnipotent god. Why would I want to speak to Christians? They belive! Give me the atheists.

[@yippieskippy2971]

Mike seemed to be, Gary less so. I almost feel sorry for Mike because it seems he's been wondering the same thing as Paul & thought his buddy, Gary was gonna knock it out of the park. (I don't know hockey analogies)

[@LegendofMatt]

I highly doubt it.

[@alp5088]

@yippieskippy2971 maybe Mike thought Gary was going to "triple deke" Paulogia....my knowledge of hockey comes from the Mighty Ducks movies.

[@danielkirienko1701]

Pandering works the other way. They would be pandering to the audience.

[@frankiebabieee]

To have spent decades on this argument, and never counted up the scholarly opinions to make a quick percentage for each of the facts (even just to satisfy a personal curiosity), demonstrates to me a severe lack of seriousness.

[@Dr_Wrong]

I’ve spent more than 500 years studying the more than 500 witnesses.. I’m definitely NOT padding (lying about) the extent of my “efforts”!!!

[@kennymartin5976]

I think about this alot when I think of people like Gary. I think this is exactly what was meant by "religion poisons everything." I wonder how much good scolary work people like Garry and Mike and other evangelical Christians could do if not for their commitment to dogma. Because they're very educated, and clearly have alot of unspent potential. Clearly they have very good work ethic. So its such a waste that they dedicated their entire lives to working on utter slop defending obvious legends. Sad really.

[@Krikenemp18]

Or maybe he did count them up and didn't like the numbers.

[@EclecticPerson]

Well, it's not even just that Habermas didn't count them up.... It's much worse than that. As Paulogia said in this video, Habermas has been indicating for years that he has been counting up (and by necessity, classifying) scholarly opinion relating to his "minimal facts" thesis. In fact, scholarly consensus was supposed to be how Gary qualified each of his "minimal facts" (i.e., such fact was a consensus opinion of the great majority of scholars with relevant Ph.D.'s, including critical scholars). So, also to be clear, the Habermas survey was supposed to cover ALL types of scholars (including skeptics of Christianity). (As an aside: In an earlier Paulogia video, with Bart Ehrman as the guest, Bart complained about being misquoted repeatedly by Habermas, and Bart complained further that Habermas never, ever approached Bart to ask Bart for his opinion on anything---to confirm Gary's interpretation of Bart's views.) Anyway, now, in this new video with Mike and Gary, in advance of the release of Gary's "Volume 3", Habermas basically admits he hasn't been doing any real survey (head count). So, Gary's apparently been lying (misleading?) all this time--for years--much to the disappointment of Paulogia, as exhibited in this video, as Paul's been waiting for a few years to see who was on each side of Habermas's "minimal facts" (especially which critical/skeptical scholars supported the so-called "minimal facts").

[@montagdp]

The entire minimal facts approach relies on a strong consensus. That's supposed to be the foundation of the book. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm having a hard time thinking of an explanation for his answer other than that he's literally just making up his so-called scholarly consensus as he goes along and then lying about it.

[@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.

[@yippieskippy2971]

Nicely done 🖖

[@BaronVonQuiply]

It's much like how Fiscally Conservative means _"Daddy just gave me another credit card and I'm going shopping since I won't be getting the bill anyway"_

[@dirtypickle77]

​@BaronVonQuiply more Republicans describe themselves as the working class then democrats. 60% Republicans- 16% democrats. So who is most likely asking daddy for a credit card and who is working?

[@cunjoz]

that kind of nomenclature is at least 100 years old. don't read too much into it

[@dirtypickle77]

@BaronVonQuiply the data show the conservatives are mostly the working class. 60% - 16%

[@JGregory32]

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.

[@riluna3695]

Can't help but notice that all the tried-and-true methods of having a religious or spiritual experience - fasting, staying awake, consuming specific substances, and being on the verge of death, to name a few - are _coincidentally_ all things that hinder the proper functioning of the brain in pretty dramatic ways. Grief over a loss fits into that category as well, just less-obviously so. And when you combine all that with the myriad claims of such experiences for _several_ different mutually exclusive religions, you've got a pretty compelling case for naturalism starting to build.

[@dingdongism]

Dale Allison, the Christian theologian and scholar, says much the same thing. He says he doesn't believe in the Mormon founding events but that they present a real problem for the Christian looking to believe similar types of claims from 2000 years ago. It's almost therapeutic to hear Christians say this stuff, not because I need to be right, but because clearing the air with honesty about the nature of your truth claims lifts such a weight that plagues everyone in the conversation. We don't need to keep acting like this, and people like Dale Allison are like heroes for showing us that.

[@nightshade7240]

Anecdotal evidence but I've been in church services where everybody attested to having the same visions and could describe them to the letter. Doesn't meant they aren't group hallucinations carefully steered by overly emotional manipulation. Heck I've been in a group of clinically insane people under extreme duress who also had a weird group experience that had nothing to do with religion. It was an interesting experience to say the least.

[@juanausensi499]

In the end, we are comparing the likelihood of a supernatural event against a natural one. Believers already think miracles are more likely to happen than non-believers, and that's why one side can't convince the other.

[@riluna3695]

@@juanausensi499 There's certainly truth to that. I'm not fond of the "this thing isn't possible because we've never seen it happen before" approach that some people use to discredit miracles and other supernatural things. For starters it's fallacious logic, and it leads directly into what you said as well. But there are other approaches that sound superficially similar but are significantly more damaging. Put as clearly as I'm able: If someone wants to say that things they or others have personally experienced prove - or even strongly indicate - the truth of the religion/belief those experiences are based in, then they MUST also accept that other religions and beliefs are also proven or strongly indicated by the experiences that other people have had, even the mutually exclusive ones. To do anything less is to simply forsake logic and honest discourse altogether. And unpleasantly many people are more than happy to do that. There are excuses given, of course. If pushed on it, most will say that the claimed experiences of others are due to lying, being deceived, or being honestly mistaken. But they will refuse to engage with the idea that they themselves might be either mistaken or deceived in their own experiences. Once again, it's special pleading. "There has to be a reason you're wrong, because I know I'm right, even though everything I can say in defense of me being right, you can also say about your wrong beliefs." Biased thinking from the top down. The irony is, they're so sure they know the truth that they've stopped respecting the very concept of Truth altogether. But in the end, none of this makes your comment incorrect. Saying all of this to someone won't _convince_ them, because when you've decided to blindly insist that you're right no matter what anyone says, then... well, nothing I say is going to change that, now will it? So these types of believers can't be convinced by others, because they refuse to listen, and they can never convince others, because their reasoning is rotten clean through with fallacies galore. It's painfully tragic for someone like me, who just wants to help people see the world for what it is, and alert people to the true dangers of being misinformed on a topic. It can cause a LOT more harm than you would ever expect....

[@bacaestrife3615]

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

[@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.

[@TheAntiburglar]

It's almost like one of the most well-read and learned scholars of the resurrection is deliberately obfuscating the actual data behind shifty imprecise language because he knows the data don't support his claims rather than just presenting the data. That sounds an awful lot like this really common practice across all of human history called: lying.

[@Jake-zc3fk]

Paul, your detailing of the writings and statements of these two is exemplary, thank you.

[@markrothenbuhler6232]

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.

[@alp5088]

I'd agree but I think the easy defense against this is 1. You're assuming or presupposing and 2. The "martyrdom" defense, which of course is also refutable to a point.

[@shassett79]

_But muh 500 witnesses!!_

[@yippieskippy2971]

​@@alp5088I don't think saying that ppl lie now is presumptuous.

[@danielbond9755]

The most dangerous lie is the one told when the teller believes they are telling the truth.

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

@@yippieskippy2971It is presumptuous to say all historical THEOLOGICAL tracts/claims therefore have lies.

[@VicedRhino]

Pizza with olives IS delicious, but the picture you showed was of olives with pizza. Way to poison the well 😜

[@cathyharrop3348]

Preach brother.

[@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar]

Mike looks so disappointed with what Gary had to say, pissed, even.

[@BrettCoryell]

Full credit to Mike Lacona. This is how all interviews should go. If someone agrees to take questions, they should damn well answer them. The interviewer is not there to be a hand puppet for any drivel the guest wants to spew (looking at you, Sean McDowell). Mike does a good job. Paul, these are your best types of videos. Your scholarship, patience, fairness, dedication to accuracy, and video production skills are on full display.

[@jonv22]

Sean McDowell lost all of his credibility to me after repeatedly doing that.

[@JHWH213]

​@@jonv22what credibility?

[@Julian0101]

@@joe5959 Good thing even even mcdowell agrees the 'early sources' don't support habermas' claim.

[@Julian0101]

@@joe5959 Good, becasue that usuaIIy is all apologists have against academic consensus. Just Iike habermas do.

[@Julian0101]

@@joe5959 Yep, and none of those grantings include 'group appearances' as habermas claimed. And as is not a consensus habermas is left just with his opinion.

[@bonnie43uk]

I wonder what Prof Habermas was thinking when Mike said ( looking at the screen) "We have a question here from Paulogia" ... "oh shit" 😂

[@dingdongism]

I suspect more the opposite, that Habermas has ignored and written off Paul so much that he's never taken him seriously enough to know what a threat he poses to his work. I'm thinking after this awkward cringe fest with his best friend holding his feet to the fire, he might start taking Paul seriously.

[@mrbow50001]

@@dingdongism either that or the exact opposite, he'll write Paul off even more than he already has

[@whatevername8551]

Habermas was a lot more believable before he published, but it seems there was a limit to how long he could milk "it's in my upcoming book."

[@Petticca]

And "It's early" and "even skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman agrees with me."

[@CharlesPayet]

Gary is basically wrecking his entire reputation with this one video, and it’s glorious. 😂

[@dyamonde9555]

seems to be a thing with "respected" apologists, wrecking their careers in 5 mins. Just look at Low-Bar-Bill... and i know there was another one recently who did it, but i can't for the life of me remember who it was

[@lnsflare1]

Whenever someone who practices a-paul-o-JI-a starts by referring to you as Paul-o-GHEE-a, you know that they are definitely an honest interlocutor.

[@plannein]

That annoys me so much

[@yerocb]

Eapecially these guys who absolutely know who he is and know the word "apologist." They are absolutely doing it on purpose.

[@blossom357]

Counterpoint: I can't remember who it was, so I won't even attempt to guess, but I have seen at least one video where an atheist mispronounced it. It's only dishonest if you have evidence they've heard the name pronounced correctly and then still say it wrong.

[@lnsflare1]

@@blossom357 The issue is that the atheist probably isn't practicing a-paul-o-JI-a, so they aren't really covered by my statement.

[@blossom357]

@@lnsflare1 Eh, sure, but atheists respond to apologists constantly.

[@publiusii4246]

14:46 is this the first time the good doctor has admitted that his strong claims based in a statistically significant consensus of experts were pulled straight out his butt or at least just a read the room vibe check from his echo chamber?

[@tripolarmdisorder7696]

Admitted without realizing, not the first time, not by a long shot. Waffled about even after his friend tried to get him to commit to an answer repeatedly, also not his first time, though you would not know it. It is like a 7th grader in speech class having to give his first speech.

[@joe19912]

I used to think the internet and the democracy of information would destroy religion. What I didn't factor in was that many people just don't care about facts and reality.

[@montagdp]

It won't happen overnight (or even in our lifetimes) for sure, but as a species we've been moving away from superstition and towards evidence and reason for a while.

[@bodricpriest8816]

The tide is going out on unfalsifiable claims, it just takes a long loonnnnnggggg ass time to chip away at each generation a little more with skepticism and critical thinking.

[@drewcoowoohoo]

You could almost see it as religion, like the Internet, being able to rout around problems as they happen.

[@seraphonica]

"the hockey and resurrection podcast"? please don't mind me pitching against you, Paul, but how about "the Puck Stops Here"?

[@RobGai72]

Yesssss good one

[@Urzalyr]

I guess waiting to resurrect is like a penalty box.

[@bodricthered]

I'd watch it.

[@theunknownatheist3815]

Womp womp

[@artemisia4718]

Did Gary really write these books? He doesn’t seem to know what’s in them.

[@Krikenemp18]

Waiting for him to say they were inspired by God and if they're unintelligible, it's because God's ways are higher than ours, blah blah blah.

[@alwayslearningtech]

Mike was realising that William Lane Craig isn't the only one lowering the bar.

[@NathanBTQ]

William "Low Bar" Craig 😅

[@ichapod]

"Mmm... Jesus. That's fair." 😂😂😂 that line was perfectly delivered 👏🏾

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

"C'mon, Mike, whose side are you on?"

[@yerocb]

Your confidence and ability to go head to head with these scholars always impresses me. You're forcing them to answer questions they don't want to answer and are too knowledgeable and specific to dismissed as a non-academic. Well done.

[@fantasticmisterpig]

I am incredibly impressed by Mike. Actually pushing Gary to answer questions, doing his best to get a straightforward answer out of him.

[@Kenoticrunner]

This was fascinating and even painful to watch on a human level. Mike Licona looked like he was failing to retain respect for one of the biggest aging kind of father figures of his life in real time. It looked like a coming-of-age event for him, when one "loses" someone older that they've looked up to.

[@kerianhalcon3557]

HAHAHAHAHH "Squirrel" got me. Thanks Paul! HAHAHAHHAHA then you follow that up with one of my favourite lines from Patches O'Hoolihan. You slay me Paul.

[@SouthernMenace]

I really appreciate Mike's stance in this livestream. He didn't let Gary off the hook and pressed some of his BS dodges. Kudos to him.

[@jonv22]

His "Biblical Studies" dodges? 😂

[@Greyz174]

​@@jonv22bachelor of science

[@SouthernMenace]

@@jonv22 close enough =P

[@billguthrie2218]

You're the best, Paul..... exposing intellectual dishonesty and sloppiness. That's all these apologist types have. Imagine spending your entire life trying to defend an obvious fairytale and failing. Sad really.

[@FreethinkingFoolery]

It’s ironic how the Bible warns not to add or take away from its words, yet over the centuries, plenty of believers have done just that-like editing the terms and conditions of a contract they didn’t write

[@ApostateltsopA]

There is biblical presidence for this, the tribe of Benjamites was nearly wiped out at God's command, but legal loopholes were used to save them, really sketchy ones.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

It only says that if you think it's one solid work, otherwise it only says you get cursed if you edit that bad mushroom trip of Revelations (Patmos really does have a lot of mushrooms)

[@dyamonde9555]

i mean, the book started out with the catholic church collecting all christian theologies and such, sorting out and burning those they didn't like, and then compiling the rest into what we call "the Bible".

[@bengreen171]

Pucks and Prophecy? Hockey Stickmata? Jesus on Ice?

[@crisdekker8223]

Resurrection Rink?

[@bensmith6004]

Does crucified blood bounce on ice?

[@carneades4409]

Cross-Checking

[@bengreen171]

@@carneades4409 excellent work, everbody.

[@Roquefortraider1]

Sudden death vs overtime

[@norWindChannel]

Ah - how refreshing it is to behold someone as clear-thinking and honest as @Paulogia. I respect you so much, Paul! Keep up this good work.

[@paulsheridan5078]

So interesting to watch Mike wince as Gary avoids even Mike's questions. Great work as always, Paul! Can't wait for the next one.

[@Florkl]

35:39 This is the moment when Mike concedes your point. Well done. I can’t blame Mike for not wanting to deal with the shitstorm that he’d create by outright calling Gary a liar, but the abrupt transition is about as close as he can get to saying, “Shut up, Gary. It’s clear you don’t have a good answer.”

[@maninalift]

Gary makes so much of his scholarly authority and dismisses KZbinrs but as soon as he starts to make an argument he's revealed to be a lightweight and no amount of bearded blustering will change that. EDIT: no data to show, no "pre set percentage" (aka fudging). He brags that this could be used as the basis of a Masters or PhD thesis, it would be excellent, but only as a case study on how not to do research.

[@theepigram7252]

Thank you for your work, Paulogia. Never question the use of your time. You are using your life to the fullest.

[@kevinfancher3512]

Wow, look at that scowl. You really pissed off Gary this time, Paul. Good-on-ya.

[@mikeambs]

At least Mike tried to get Gary to answer... but yikes... that was rough. Gary should be embarrassed... but I doubt he is 🤷‍♂️

[@grumpylibrarian]

Remind me to never piss you off. This is brutal and awesome.

[@Seapatico]

Lol, part of me feels bad for these old dudes like Gary and WLC confidently presenting such thin, flawed apologetics as if they are invincible but really they just seem out of touch and sad. I'm sure Gary believes in what he's doing--I don't take him to be a charlatan or anything, but he also must be aware that he is not engaging in good faith with the strongest arguments.

[@Dr_Wrong]

Fame is worth the lying.

[@pesilaratnayake162]

I don't know. I think WLC and Habermas dedicate so much of their effort into "soul saving" that they get sloppy or brazen about the quality of their work. WLC on apologetics that sound sensible to people who don't question the basic premises or study the natural world (Kalam and Moral come to mind) as well as discouraging people who seek more solid epistemological frameworks for their beliefs (anti-deconstruction) and criticising Christians who he thinks have a poor understanding of their beliefs (braindead faith). Habermas with his bluster and assertions of scholarly concensus with little more than a flick through some books at what some prominent scholars he's heard of believe. I think they feel like reassurance in the truth of Christianity is the important part of their job (in their views), and if they're reassured by what they've found then that should be sufficient for their goal of reassuring others. The nuance of critical scholarship is an inconvenience when you're trying to construct a clear and unwavering faith.

[@stormburn1]

I'm convinced at this point that it's an open secret of conservatism, of all sorts, that they have to lie in service of a higher truth. We know this was something played with even in Plato's The Republic with the noble lie, and we know conservatives will say blatantly, verifiably false things and defend them even when pressed. Either they're too unaware to know they're lying or they know they have to lie and view it as a show of strength and power.

[@joe5959]

What are the "strongest arguments" that hes not dealing with? That not every scholar (90%) agrees with group appearances?

[@Seapatico]

@@joe5959 Well, to give one example, Paulogia's "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis. He presents it in multiple places on his channel. It is the simplest naturalistic case that I've seen and it accounts, specifically, for all of Gary's minimal facts. As for group appearances, I don't even understand what possible evidence people have for group appearances. Like, it's literally Paul saying that he heard that Jesus appeared to a bunch of people, most of whom Paul doesn't name. This is literally the weakest kind of evidence there could even be. "I heard that the late actor Gilbert Gottfried appeared to 800 people in Indiana last week." On a scale of 1-1,000, how convincing do you find that to be as evidence for the resurrection of Gilbert Gottfried?

[@CommentingPeople]

I'm so glad you found your arch nemesis. This is turning out to be a reverse Glass storyline. Exciting times!

[@dansharp2860]

Ken Ham has left the chat

[@PrometheanRising]

Is it just me, or does Habermas give of a vibe of what would happen if comic bookstore guy became a Resurrection scholar?

[@MrPoster42]

This is like an episode of "The Office" where what is happening is sooooo embarrassing that even watching it makes me feel uncomfortable. It reminds me of when Naomi Wolf had her entire book debunked during a live interview promoting it. I'm pleasantly flabbergasted that Mike kept pressing when it was clear Gary was desperate to dodge. Imagine having your 14-year "magnum opus" project revealed to be hollow during a live interview. Wild.

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

I’ve always respected Licona. He believes some strange stuff, but he seems much more honest than most apologists

[@joeyangtree1862]

You should definitely watch Licona's smackdown of J. Warner Wallace on the Synoptic Problem of the Gospels, if you haven't already seen it. "Independent Gospels?? Christian vs Christian (J Warner Wallace vs Mike Licona response)" -- Paulogia Video

[@karenbrown938]

There was a great book written in the 1950’s called “When Prophcies Fail “. Disappointed true believers often double down on their unreasonable claims when confronted by failure. It’s completely reasonable to think that this is what happened with the disciples.

[@michele219]

Is that a sunk cost fallacy?

[@henrycobb]

Podcast title suggestion: "Jesus on Ice, the Resurrection Debates"

[@MooneJay20]

“Jesus on Ice: The Resurrection Face-off”

[@scienceexplains302]

“Jesus nailed to a hockey stick” No There’s got to be a pun between Oiler and Messiah. Jesus the Oiled! On the Red Wings of Jesus

[@scienceexplains302]

@@MooneJay20Seriously “Resurrection Face-Off” alone would be excellent. Riddle: How did Jesus know there was a leper to cure among the hockey players?

[@MooneJay20]

@@scienceexplains302 Another one I came up with was “Cross Checked.”

[@scienceexplains302]

@@MooneJay20 Another very good one.

[@zeendaniels5809]

Gary's minimal facts boil down to "some guys said". Basically, "trust me, bro"... 😂

[@-TheUnkownUser]

You are based tho.

[@joe5959]

Paulogias minimal facts boil down to "im not convinced". Basically, "there isnt a 90% or above consensus so it didnt happen" ... 😂

[@-TheUnkownUser]

@@joe5959 When did Paulogia said that? He only highlighted that Habermas limited himself to say “many people with certain credentials say” (Why?, we don’t know).

[@joe5959]

@@-TheUnkownUser Hes implied that vast majority is 90% by replaying liconas clip, and he doesnt count it as a fact unless skeptical scholars do/or nearly everyone. Obviously its not word for word, but it is a good representation of pauls insane view.

[@-TheUnkownUser]

@@joe5959 He is not doing that. I don’t know how you distorted his reply. Even if he was. Then why counting the analysis of skeptical scholars is non-important, biased or problematic… Why? Isn’t problematic that scholars that have a conflict of interest in the sense of presenting arguments to defend their previously accepted ideas? Habermas was a Christian long before he started his defense of the resurrection.

[@davidofoakland2363]

Are Gary and Mike still friends? Great video Paulogia! I've said it once and i'll say it again...when Paulogia posts, I come running.

[@zeendaniels5809]

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't write it all... If someone actually edited some parts or just added chunks to it and Gary never reviewed it again before publication...

[@rik80280]

Yeah, I feel like they are going to have to avoid talking about this in the future. 😬

[@chrisose]

Based on Habermas's own definition, he has nothing that could be considered a minimal fact. Here is a perfectly valid explanation for the empty tomb. * A person named Jeshua ran afoul of the Romans and was crucified, as the Romans often did. *Upon Jeshua's death Joseph of Arimathea piped up and said "He can be buried in my tomb." *As is typical with those crucified by the Romans, the body was taken down and tossed into a mass grave before Joseph made the arrangements to take the body. *In keeping with Jewish tradition, women showed up to the tomb where they thought Jeshua was to be buried to find it empty. This is much more likely that the narrative that is the foundation of Christianity.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

True. That possibility and a hundred others are more likely than a person coming back to life.

[@Marniwheeler]

Solid reasoning. But then we wouldn't have Christmas, therefore Christianity is true. Can I be a priest and be alone with kids now?

[@dragonhealer7588]

Yes, but that would take all the fun and magic out of the story!

[@OpenMind4U2C]

Fantastic Ongoing Critiques Paulogia Respect to Mike Licona

[@clarkkent2379]

Gary. Was. PISSED that Mike kept pressing him. If looks could kill...

[@HeBrews-Coffee]

Licona looks so disturbed and troubled with Gary haha

[@Vic92084]

After that glowing introduction, to watch Habermas be misleading in such an obvious, transparent way must have really hurt.

[@HeBrews-Coffee]

@@Vic92084 100%

[@radiantsewerrat1987]

Mike is slowly but surely working his way to the dark side 🤣

[@dyamonde9555]

yeah, his face was talking VERY loudly during all of this. kinda like "Fucks sake, Gary, you said you had this, and made me tell everyone you had this. You absolutely do not have this."

[@HeBrews-Coffee]

@@dyamonde9555 Haha exactly, the visible disappointment on his face the whole time.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

Gary Habermas is a graduate of the Sir Humphrey(Yes Minister) school of appearing to speak about a subject at length ... without actually saying anything.

[@billcook4768]

What annoys me (and it really annoys me) is not the bad logic, but the bad theology. Christianity is a religion of faith. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” It does not say you are saved via deductive reasoning. If God wanted there to be proof of the resurrection, we’d have proof. But for whatever reason - assuming Christianity is true - God wants people to believe based on faith, not evidence and reason.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

They don't get the story of doubting Thomas at all. He's BAD for demanding evidence. The point is obvious.

[@dragonhealer7588]

Agreed, and this is one more straw on the Camel that leads to a God not appropriate to humans.

[@Nocturnalux]

Almost like it didn’t happen…!

[@dingdongism]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1. I wish it were the main lens through which theologians would understand their religious convictions. Instead, they unknowingly heap on a bunch of baggage from Enlightenment thinking which doesn't do them any good when they're taken to task for trying to use a basketball to tie a knot. The two ways of thinking are incompatible; and that's ok, so long as you recognize it.

[@rabbitpirate]

So you asked one question and they told three separate lies about it before even attempting to address it. Nice.

[@DeludedOne]

Wow, Habermas is either forgetting what he wrote in his own book or he's CONVENIENTLY forgetting it, or maybe he's just losing his marbles sooner than expected who knows?

[@theemptycross1234]

when one is a pathological liar, it is difficult to remember all the lies 😆

[@dyamonde9555]

he can'T tell people whats actually in the book, they might not buy it if they knew how weaksauce it is.

[@johngleeman8347]

Mr. Lacona gave your question as much of a chance as he could, so small kudos for that. Dr. Habermas seemed to be loathe to answer it, sadly.

[@unduloid]

Are we witnessing the end of a friendship?

[@ratamacue0320]

I replied to another commenter here with a similar thought: "following this interview, I am wondering if Mike may reduce his promotion of Gary and Gary's work going forward."

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

I thought this could be Mike's way of letting Gary know he's getting sick of the annual get together.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Gary wants his reality to be true so he blocks any facts that threaten it.

[@CaliRaveBoi]

he in denial... 14+years my bet is the "sunk fallacy cost"

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

@@CaliRaveBoi He's actually 48 years into this.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Super kudos to Mike for holding Habermas accountable here

[@kevind8240]

I enjoy watching these to witness apologists squirm. I think you could qualify this as a group appearance of a squirming apologist.

[@dolfuny]

I don't even know why they are squirming 😅

[@NathanBTQ]

LOL

[@CharlesPayet]

19:38 holy crap! Hearing Mike Licona say on live video, that he wishes Gary had done the *bare minimum* of defining “the vast majority,” is soooo sweet! I’m sure he wishes he could take that back now. 😈

[@CharlesPayet]

20:02 the ONLY head count Gary has done, is for the empty tomb? HOLEEE SMOKES! Then what the heck is Book 3 actually going to cover??

[@theemptycross1234]

As Bart Ehrman said "the consensus of scholars is just an opinion, not a fact"

[@thorhilda]

Defenders of nonsense often engage in the dishonesty of "moving the goalposts." Gary Habermas has introduced a new iteration of this fallacy-moving the kick-off-, where he alters the accepted premises and established facts as he deems necessary, hopefully without the awareness of the reader. This approach necessitates lengthy texts that can obscure the original points of agreement, making it difficult for readers to track the initial arguments.

[@dingdongism]

Genius recasting of the fallacy!

[@archapmangcmg]

Gary's "I'm not Debbie" was.. kinda sad, actually.

[@durg8909]

I’m getting second hand embarrassment

[@simonkoster]

He twists and turns like a twisty-turny thing.

[@richardmartin3910]

Gary was the inaugural hockey coach for Liberty University's men hockey team back in 1984.

[@lisaboban]

I can't tell if this is a fact, or this is a joke. Much like Gary's writing.

[@Rain-Dirt]

And he expects people to pay 75 bucks for a book that has significant errors in it. EVEN the eBook! Yeah, no, thank you.

[@some-other-time]

I love it when you calmly, gently, bring the friggin' receipts.

[@heatherrocchi6232]

Something about the way Gary talks about "liberals" and "conservatives" feels like the spiritual/political waters in his head are muddy

[@whatevername8551]

I'm not sure spiritual/political is a meaningful distinction for current US evangelicals. Unfortunately.

[@montagdp]

Classifying Dale Allison as a nonbeliever because he's a "liberal scholar" was extremely telling.

[@ZenWithKen]

For someone who's invested so much effort into a position, has written books about it, I find it odd that he would be so vague answering a simple question about one fact. The thing is, even if information was gathered that disproved the resurrection, it would do nothing to disprove the god associated with it. It seems the story is more important than the god; that the religion is the really important thing. It's like saying if the car isn't red, then there is no car. It makes no sense to me.

[@jmaniak1]

26:50 Gary’s tap dancing show begins.

[@bodricthered]

Nah, 730.

[@colsoncraig]

I can't believe he didn't do the survey that he's been talking about having done for years. This is crazy. So this guy's just a complete fraud?

[@mtdouthit1291]

He did do it, it’s coming out in the next volume in a few months. He’s obviously just senile now. Simple explanation.

[@mikelwrites]

you know, as a writer, it's good practice to avoid trying to contradict what you have written down in print, for anyone to read.

[@Cometkazie]

Best Paulogia to date.

[@NathanBTQ]

33:44 Mike Licona be like: "Come on, Gary..." 😅

[@scottsmith8687]

So much respect for Mike for how he handled Gary!

[@sobertillnoon]

So he's been working on his book for 14 years but how long has he been mispronouncing your name

[@paulsparks4564]

I wonder if Mikey and Gaz are still good holiday buds after this? Habermas' brain definitely seemed to be on holiday.

[@justneoh8253]

Mike Licona is relatively a rare figure in current American christianity apologetics, who still holds on some intellectual integrity. I have a gut feeling that he might become an agnostic or a liberal christian in years to come.

[@Electricalpenguin]

This reminds me of all the Christians who are sure Alex O’Connor is going to accept Jesus as his lord and saviour any day now :P I agree with you though, Mike Licona does have some intellectual integrity. He lost at least one job over it already. I personally doubt he’ll stray too far from his current beliefs, but you never know. Your gut feeling might turn out to be right.

[@ThisDonut]

Man the 0% take was crazy, but i still loved Mike here. Still my fav apologist. Remember that one time he and Dale admitted there wasnt enough evidence for the ressurection to convince a non-believer? What a stand up dude.

[@TheRabidPanda]

Poor guy..spends his whole life on these books, just for Paul to show up a few years ago and take it apart so easily.

[@Kyeudo]

This is what happens when you base your whole life on something for which you have no evidence.

[@PolarisNC001]

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't- I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step, cut a little swathe and lead the people on.