Resurrection Skeptics have a Double Standard (Gary Habermas response)

Gary Habermas talks about the double standard skeptics have about the resurrection of Jesus in the face of astonishing historical facts.
On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences by Gary Habermas
amzn.to/48Cl6eC
The Double Standard of Resurrection Skeptics - Gary Habermas
• The Double Standard of...
Gary Habermas vs. Antony Flew, The John Ankerberg Show
• Video
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada

[@DoctorBiobrain]

His argument refutes himself, not us. He admits historical figures are tied to the supernatural, yet he doesn’t accept the supernatural parts. Game over.

[@pauligrossinoz]

Exactly! Gary Habbermas was clearly showing his own double standard here, and the idiotic interviewer went along with it. My standard is one single, consistent standard: I reject supernatural claims. Gary _rejects_ the supernatural claims in Seutonius, but _accepts_ the supernatural claims in the gospels. _That's a double standard!_ 🙄

[@shanewilson7994]

Yup, and that's what bugs me the most about these guys. For the most part, nobody really cares much about the mundane aspects of the life of Jesus, its the supernatural stuff that is in question.

[@Boundless_Border]

​@@shanewilson7994 Yep. And people misunderstand that questioning the more "mundane claims" is primarily done when you're using that to prop up supernatural claims. So asking, how likely was it that Jesus was buried in a tomb vs. how likely was it to bea later an apologetic to provide more credence to the later supernatural claim of rising from the dead, would be reasonable.

[@ThW5]

@@shanewilson7994 but the problem is that the gospels offer very little really MUNDANE stuff about the life of Jesus... He is at a wedding to change water into wine, he rides into Jerusalem to fulfill a "prophecy", he is sentenced to death in a way which is a parody of the Yom Kippurritual, he says things, but as the gospels freely change how he said it, we have to distrust them too as actual recordings. I mean even the idea of his mother''s husband being a builder (probably a slightly better translation than carpenter) reflects him being the Firstborn Son of the Creator...

[@EdwardHowton]

@@ThW5 Remember that the donkey prophecy explicitly says Jesus told his goons to go into town and _steal_ some donkeys for him to ride into town on, so even if someone accepts that utterly mundane prophecy and ignores the fact that fifteen people a day probably rode into town on the back of an animal, we're still looking at someone who knew ahead of time that he had a job to do and couldn't even plan ahead for it. Even the _mundane_ stuff is laughably fake. Guy puts a couple drops of dye into a glass of water and he's the magicboy? You can buy that magic trick for fifty cents nowadays. Actually, that's a lie. I looked it up for the hell of it; magic trick sellers have capitalized on the trick, and for £32.95 you can buy an "improved" one with seven bonus Gospel passages! Charlatanry is a profitable business, I guess. You might like to know about "Joseph", I recall some youtuber, I think it was ProfMTH, who discussed at length about the whole 'carpenter' thing and how it was based on a misunderstanding of 'tekton', which means 'craftsman', but was a bad translation of something else. Nowhere does Jesus ever do any actual carpentry, so it was always a bizarre addition, but I think it was just some dumb traditional belief that was added for flavor by early cultists. Don't really recall the reasons why, I can't find those videos anymore. Considering there's a cult brainwashing channel called TektonTV, I'm confident the entire 'carpenter' thing is a known forgery that cultists still cling to out of bad habit today.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

Habernas says supernatural stories of Jesus should be accepted as true, but supernatural claims of others should be treated as false. He mentions birth and healing miracles of pagan figures as not true, but lyingly claims historians treat them as established facts, which they do not. They're all non-factual or not. Habermas wants to accept the things he likes, and reject the things he doesn't like, even though they are based on the same testimony

[@phantomofkrankor3665]

He’s undermining his own point and doesn’t realize it 🙄

[@AllDogsAreGoodDogs]

Habermas should seek help.

[@kevinkoch-jj1uj]

​@phantomofkrankor3665 They always do.

[@joe5959]

That is because the ressurrection claim is of superior quality. No other claim from other religions matches it.

[@kevinkoch-jj1uj]

@joe5959 You're arrogantly hilarious.

[@silverlining2677]

Gary is an example of what happens to a person who will not change their views no matter what. He demonstrates this over and over. It amazes me that anyone could possibly view him as anything other than a bad joke.

[@utubepunk]

Gary Habermas is to good historians as what Jay Warner Wallace is to good detectives.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@utubepunk ... or WLC to good philosophers. Or JP to good ... uh ... anyone? What is the meaning of "meaning"? Or "what"? Or "is"? The only thing I can remember even vaguely similar is a certain person arguing about what counts as "sex" in a vain attempt to get themselves out of trouble ... oh wait. Sorry for the side-rant.

[@tgrogan6049]

Coined a new term JhD "Jesus doktor!

[@Satans_lil_helper]

When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest

[@bmlgmk]

@@utubepunk😂😂excellent comparisons!

[@davidfrisken1617]

It is great that Gary is such a good demonstration of how people make stuff up and change stories over time.

[@MultiCappie]

It's so tiresome that when apologists claim "this time the evidence is new and improved!" Such a waste of time.

[@robertjimenez5984]

Wow, you just showed how unreliable is a eye witness testimony. Great job!

[@legendaryfrog4880]

The nice thing about a 1000 page book is that it can double as a coffee table.

[@kevinkoch-jj1uj]

Or backup TP

[@lyokianhitchhiker]

I’m picturing that episode of Seinfeld

[@histreeonics7770]

I found one such the perfect height to extend the deck of my portable sewing machine.

[@yerocb]

Simultaneously brutal and gentle. I would love to see him respond about which debate this was. I wonder if he would claim it was a different one, or if it was edited, because he can't claim we didn't just see what we saw.

[@yerocb]

Also, when you said ebook, the first thing I thought of was an audiobook. Can you imagine...

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@yerocbDo we have to?

[@yerocb]

@@KaiHenningsen No. You're clearly correct. It should not be imagined.

[@theravenlord3004]

Evidences, huh? An attempt at burying the low bar in one bookses.

[@rodbrewster4629]

Over a thousand pages of evidence? They must be using a huge font.

[@Forest_Fifer]

24 point comic sans, double spaced.

[@mdm123196]

I can't believe we have been debating this crap for thousands of years. People do not come back to life. This should not be a controversial statement.

[@frmrchristian8488]

This is a fantastic video, Paul! It's so fulfilling to see how theists can use hyperbolic language or can be outright dishonest, yet if we just continue to be honest on our side of the fence, the truth will ultimately prevail. I've always thought your best attribute (from what I've gathered via your online presence) to be honesty. It seems that this quality is rare among content creators. Thank you for continuing to be one of the very best at what you do, man! We most definitely see you.

[@utubepunk]

Apologetics remains a house of cards built on cope & hype.

[@stevewebber707]

Interesting that Gary belabors that people can remember things from 50 years ago, when he isn't presenting any eyewitnesses. Also, I would like to hear more details about his claims of people remembering events from 50 years back. What did they remember, and how well does their recollection match with what actually happened. I know that I regularly encounter childhood recollections, that have shifted significantly. Shouldn't he wait on accusations of double standards, until after his book is released?

[@MrCrimsonbolt]

A 'then everybody clapped' moment in the wild! The crowd did seem to be rolling in the aisles over Gary's 'they said supernatural stuff about Alexander the Great too' material

[@mrwallace1059]

Question, why do apologist always compare Ceasar to Jesus?? How many people worship or preach or live their lives according to Ceasar compared to Jesus? If you live your life according to Jesus wouldn't you want the most evidence possible that Jesus existed?

[@MrDalisclock]

Best of luck with Gary's book, Paul. I keep imagining him quoting other Apologists for hundreds of pages in addition to the gospels and i can imagine how fast that will get old.

[@BobPearson-zr1mi]

How many people are sure of their 50 year old memories says nothing about veracity. I have joint memories with my brother that differ quite a bit.

[@charlesbrowniii8398]

Excellent video. Fantastically ironic example of how personal testimony about remembered events is shaped by what one wants to believe as opposed to what really happened.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it appears that paulogia is a better "cold case detective" than mr warner wallace.

[@jacobvictorfisher]

As Habermas recounted his debate with Flew, I kept waiting for Paul to throw down the gauntlet: is Gary a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord?

[@Shake0615]

This is brilliant.

[@geraldmeehan8942]

thank you Paul

[@HoraceTorysScaryStories]

Very concise, excellent points.

[@qiae]

Dear Gary The fact that people are convinced that they remember events clearly, is not evidence that they do. The study of memory and brains shows next to no reliability in our ability to call up accurate memories of basically any events, with this getting substantially worse as time passes between the event and recollection, and so it is important for us to be humble and try to recognize good and bad evidence for events, even ones that we were quite sure played out a different way.

[@joeyangtree1862]

Yes! The only thing I would disagree on is that the memory degradation happens relatively quickly, and then levels off substantially. Studies show that people *believe* that they remember details about events much more clearly than they actually do. A relevant quote from the Hirst, et. al., study on "flashbulb" memories of 9/11 is: _There was rapid forgetting of both flashbulb and event memories within the first year, but the forgetting curves leveled off after that, not significantly changing even after a 10-year delay. Despite the initial rapid forgetting, confidence remained high throughout the 10-year period._ Asking people if they *believe* that they accurately remember things from 30 years ago is completely meaningless. *Testing* what people actually remember against what actually happened shows that people are unreliable narrators of even their own direct, first-hand experience.

[@qiae]

@@joeyangtree1862 stuff about 9/11 is actually one of the places I was reading about with this and part of why I brought it up ^,^ iirc the degradation seems to be sped up with things that a person is "pulling up the memory" of often, while stuff that isn't thought of as often seemed to be less strongly impacted (though it's been a while so I might be misremembering aspects of that part)

[@CharlesPayet]

The sheer amount of BS necessary for Habermas to bloat his magnum opus to that size will be staggering.

[@timothymulholland7905]

The anonymity of the gospels is highly suspicious, as is the copying of one by another. This is all much more consistent with competing myths than an integral accurate history. This was a major deception for anyone brought up in the inerrant/inspired tradition.

[@eagle6702]

As for Caesar (and many others) we have so much evidence in the form of primary sources. We have his writings, the coins with his likeness, orders written by him as dictator and head of the triumvirate, Senate documents, etc. None of this can be found for Jesus and the resurrection.

[@theemptycross1234]

Anybody knows from what department Habermas got his PhD?

[@hadz8671]

It's available on-line. Title page says Michigan State University, Interdisciplinary Studies, College of Arts and Letters, 1976.

[@Rurike]

Very fitting that an appologist tries to prove how good a groups memories are by just asking them their own confidence in it. Not to mention bring this up right after trying to argue its early enough for the gospel writers memories to be near perfect.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Just like Lee Strobel claims that 2 generations aren’t enough for a legend to develop… while the legend of his own conversion story that has almost nothing in common with his actual conversion developed in less than 20 years.

[@joeyangtree1862]

I love Frank Turek's Dieter impersonation! Now is the time on Sprockets where we ask Gary Habermas a question!

[@Paulogia]

🤣

[@ApocalypseHere]

Excellent video, Paul!

[@Oswlek]

I'm not even 4:00 in, and is Gary really saying that it's a double standard to demonstrate his thesis in a manner sufficient to convince people who don't already believe? And he considers himself a legitimate scholar? 😄😂

[@eagle6702]

The fact is that there is no historicity that backs the claims of the resurrection , hence faith on their part.

[@MrCanis4]

Okay, I need to know. The lake we see in the beginning, is this Lake Louise in Banf National Park. Canada?

[@greyback4718]

20:26 Not sure, If I would have 15 people that said the guy got killed, by spell Avada Kedavra by that guy over here. Well not sure but I guess maybe? Good question to ask Gary🤣🤷‍♂

[@jacobh9241]

Gary can't remember his own story that he personally experienced 20 years on, but he thinks the gospel writers got their 2nd-hand stories perfect some 40-60 years after the fact? What a silly "academic".

[@qcsorter4626]

Thanks

[@Paulogia]

thank YOU

[@olyokie]

Yeah that zombie part always been a bit weird……

[@LogicAndReason2025]

Whenever someone threatens me with their hell, I ask: "What if there really is a god and she loves skeptics, and hates groveling sycophants?"

[@DrKippDavis]

@07:27 Inherit the Wind! Awesome.

[@mrdrone4253]

God is Gary's paycheck so he's going to say whatever he has to do to get his paycheck

[@Soapy-chan]

He's basically angry that we're not as gullible as him.

[@wrathofainz]

You should do a reading series of his book like Steve Shives did for Evidence That Demands a Verdict (among others) If he can do it, you can do it better.

[@Mar-dk3mp]

this is not but an obsessive empty cult.

[@wrathofainz]

@Mar-dk3mp take your opinions somewhere more relevant like the main comment section, wannabe poet.

[@ramigilneas9274]

At that time Habermas still claimed that the historical sources for Jesus are better than for Tiberius Caesar… an actual Roman emperor. Kamil made a nice video debunking this ridiculous nonsense.

[@mattcraig163]

At what point can we just dismiss someone like Gary? Who seems impervious to facts that contradict his previous held beliefs. He doesn’t research in good faith, he’s already determined his position and is just trying to find info that fits. Sad really.

[@coalhouse1981]

What’s so bad about these examples , is that Alexander The Great probaly didn’t do everything attributed to him . Ceaser probaly didn’t do everything attributed to him . No one takes any historical document with this all or nothing approach Christians say we should take with the gospels

[@jaynajuly2140]

You used a clip from my all time favorite movie, Inherit the Wind!

[@robguyatt9602]

Note how as soon as he is challenged he goes straight to adhom attack. That's all we need to know folks.

[@internetizmyhome]

Jump scare at 11:40

[@ELPsteel]

Paul actually just pulled this guys pants down in front of everyone on KZbin. Bet Habermas didn’t expect Paul to find these receipts!

[@josephturner7569]

When you know what resurrection is, it all becomes clear.

[@idahogie]

If Habermas were right, I don't think he'd need a multi-volume treatise where the first volume is 1,000+ pages to demonstrate it.

[@_BlackSummer]

Paul Paul Paul you sly dog. 😂😂😂 this was such a good vid! Lmaoo

[@sonnyfleming904]

I have listened to this several times and can't find anything unfair about paul's analysis of gary.

[@BlackwingHecate]

The lion IS Jesus, though.

[@Dadd00]

The believing in magic window is closing, and they are worried!

[@jemborg]

That was really clever Paul. A chef's kiss of irony. Perfecto. 👍

[@Desertphile]

Good bloody gods. Humanity has excellent evidence that the Christian Testament says Iesus "rose from the dead;" humanity has no evidence Iesus "rose from the dead." Habermas wishes us to believe the former trumps the latter. F'ing amazing.

[@Graeme_Lastname]

A bloke died then, many hours later, he got better. Well, I'm convinced. It must true, a fella wearing a funny hat told me. 🤣👍🇦🇺

[@raymondsanders3584]

Habermas can’t even remember the interview correctly. But yet he keeps supporting the fact that the gospels are historically accurate.

[@jacksquat4140]

The people pushing this lunacy are the ones who stand to profit from it, hence they have a vested interest in its promotion.

[@Angel-nl1hp]

That these theist types put "Jesus existed historically" on the same level as "Jesus had magical superpowers" shows just how much the god glasses are glued onto their faces. They can't even parse that the supernatural is not an ordinary claim.

[@Burtimus02]

This was a very pleasant, very reasonable evisceration of Habermas’ chicanery. Paul, man, I love your work. Looking forward to your critiques of the book… and thank you for taking one for the team!

[@JimmyTuxTv]

Wish I could like this 10times

[@Locust13]

These apologists not only believe that Jesus resurrected, but that he is alive and well and relevant and standing over your shoulder. And yet, to demonstrate the resurrection they go running back to history instead of demonstrating Jesus is currently around, a much easier claim to prove IF it were true.

[@johnnehrich9601]

Amen and spot on.

[@Amoth_oth_ras_shash]

as i said to the local jehovas trying to misslead people commuting at the train station every 4th year or so.. i got a cell , tell your invisible friend to call me at least ,rather then just demanding through a hollow smile society should make your cult kings because 'mha book say so'

[@Amoth_oth_ras_shash]

@@tzai89 and its disturbing.. because its so ..juvenile.. :/ in the bad brat rather trash everyones toys if he not gets to declare his is the most special way

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i love how you get in depth explanations of what god wants followed by "god is beyond human comprehension" while being personal and present 2/7.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Amoth_oth_ras_shash You misspelt "specialest".

[@shassett79]

Now imagine it's the year 2500 and you want to know what happened during the 2005 discussion between Habermas and Flew. But the only source you can find is the written recollections of a guy who saw the interview in which Habermas misrepresented the debate. That's the argument for Jesus.

[@mjt532]

I know I saw this, but it's been a long time... how did Habermas misrepresent the debate.

[@shassett79]

@@mjt532 I take it you didn't watch the video you're commenting on?

[@mjt532]

@@shassett79 Do you mean Paulogia's video, or the video in which Habermas misrepresents his debate with Flew? If the former, I haven't watched the full video yet. I assume he goes over that.

[@jaclo3112]

@mjt532 seriously? Paulogia just went into detail in thr video how he misrepresented the debate.

[@mjt532]

@@jaclo3112 I just admitted I didn't watch the whole video yet. I'm allowed to post comments or questions, before finishing a video.

[@ecpracticesquad4674]

Great job calling out the inaccuracies of events that dude didn’t just witness but personally participated in. This is the exact reason why eye witness testimony is considered so weak.

[@twitherspoon8954]

Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.

[@moodyrick8503]

Yes indeed Eyewitness testimony has been thoroughly studied, and has been found to be notoriously unreliable. Besides that, _the gospels_ are most definitely not _eyewitness testimony._ (hearsay)

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@twitherspoon8954 Yes, we know. Paul and Flew may have mentioned that a time or two.

[@seanhogan6893]

Since Paulogia was able to identify the actual recorded event and could crop the recording to highlight Habermas's inaccuracies, it can be portrayed as making Habermas's testimony look weak. Take a step back though and think about it from the opposite perspective. - Habermas wasn't making up that he has participated in debates. - He gave enough detail that - even without naming the other participant - Paulogia was able to identify the specific debate (it seems he wasn't making up a debate that didn't happen or in which he wasn't a participant). - His detail on specific interactions in that debate was sufficient for Paulogia to focus in on them. - His portrayal of those specific interactions which Paulogia focused on was inaccurate. Was this just poor memory of the event, or did he perceive it incorrectly at the time? Or did he replay the events in his mind until he rewrote the script so he "won". Did someone else encourage him to get to that point? - It would be interesting to compare this with Antony Flew's recall of the same debate. Would he remember any details? Would he be accurate about the interactions he did recall? Even if he can't remember it at all we can't say it didn't happen. Is this insightful for, say, the resurrection accounts in the NT? - The memories of a biased middle-aged man can be accurate enough to verify historically. (Sample size of one man and one event) - If some of the disciples did witness a flesh-and-blood resurrection we would still expect some inaccuracies and differences in the accounts. - A non-believer's recollection would sure be useful. They are - of course - going to recall it differently. Would that mean it didn't happen? - I've run out of ideas here. Can the recollections of a debate really translate to verification of a historical supernatural event? Not much? Aside: Once again I'm impressed by Paulogia's research skills and willingness to show his working and commitment to being open-minded.

[@1970Phoenix]

EXACTLY!!!

[@Jd-808]

I love your using Habermas misremembering & exaggerating things from 19 years ago in his retelling of his own story as an example of why even _first-hand_ testimony wouldn’t necessarily be reliable. Another opportunity to recommend Kipp’s documentary on Josh McDowell, which does this in a way I found especially beautiful & profound.

[@NA-vz9ko]

Give the retelling another 20 or 30 years and he’ll be saying a fiery pit opened up and swallowed “the agnostic” during the debate and the audience cheered wildly, all converting on the spot. Give that another 200 years and you’ll have apologists citing his testimony as historical evidence of Hell and god.

[@xalaxie]

link to the josh mcdowell thing? 😊

[@Vadjong]

Just saying 'evidences' with a straight face is an instant debunk in my book.

[@lividsphincter4098]

Every time! It makes me laugh so hard. It's like a dog whistle for morons

[@CteCrassus]

It makes my skin crawl; I always want to shout "'Evidence`in an uncountable singular!!!" at the screen.

[@dougfraser77]

​@@CteCrassus but what are your evidences for saying that?

[@Julian0101]

@@dougfraser77 Well, obviously there are many, just see the word ends in an 's', do you have a naturalistic explanation about why would they believe that?

[@geoffgaebe8354]

Was literally about to comment that each time they say "evidences", it makes my teeth itch.

[@niceguy191]

The Caesar comparison is so strange as it completely makes the opposite point that he thinks it does.... Nobody accepts the supernatural parts of those accounts, and you don't need to in order to establish Caesar was a real person

[@CeramicShot]

It feels reductive, but it sure seems to come down to black-and-white thinking pretty often.

[@Finckelstein]

He completely disregards the supernatural claims about Caesar as obviously made up. But he wants us to accept the supernatural stuff about Jesus. Christian hypocracy is just mind-boggling.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Not to mention we have structures that name Julius Ceaser as well as his own writings as well as writings from and sourced from named contemporaries of Ceaser.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Lobsterwithinternet I have no clue who came up with this turd, or how much it has been distorted over time, but in the form you hear it from apologists today, I'll go out and call it a lie.

[@Uryvichk]

@@KaiHenningsen It's 100% a lie. They deliberately restrict their topic to historical evidence -- that is, written documents -- when it would be beneficial to their argument to do so. They ignore archaeological evidence -- structures, statues, coins, inscriptions, etc. -- because it tends to do more to establish the veracity of other historical figures (or at least support the historical evidence) than it does Jesus (for whom no archaeological evidence exists). And to be honest they ignore a lot of documents too. Unimportant documents in the grand scheme of things -- stuff like tax records, receipts, orders, etc. -- but those things are EXTREMELY INTERESTING to actual historians precisely because they would not have been so interesting to the people who created them as to write them with a narrative agenda in mind. If we had Joseph's tax records from 4 BC showing he had recently married and had a son and settled in Nazareth or something, that'd be more interesting and useful information for proving the likely historicity of Jesus than ANYTHING in the Gospel accounts.

[@ProphetofZod]

“Extended treatment” of a figure is a sign that people were highly interested in writing a narrative about them. That’s a separate phenomenon than the person’s existence. If anything them having a desire to write in such detail about someone should have you on the lookout for signs of an agenda or even exaggeration/mythologizing - especially if their stories are littered with supernatural deeds. We have more confidence in a real person’s existence and deeds when we have a wide range of different markers from the time of their life - not when people who liked a specific idea of them a lot wrote a lot about them.

[@Finckelstein]

Absolutely. I view every story that attests supernatural abilities to a historical figure the same way I view a person's description given by a person who fell in love with them: With a huge portion of skepticism. Isn't it funny how Gary accepts the supernatural claims made about Jesus but completely rejects any and all supernatural claims made about Caesar or Alexander? It's almost like he has a Jesus Body Pillow.

[@NewNecro]

​@@Finckelstein I'd like to think I missed it, but I don't think Gary at any point presented his reasons to reject Greek and Roman gods other than for arguing against the presumed double standard of (atheist) historians. Because I'd guess he'd need to confront against his own standard of acceptance of the risen Jesus against Alexander the Great being the literal son of Zeus.

[@Uryvichk]

The funny thing is, there WERE alternate narratives, dismissive accusations of fraud, and other such varied claims regarding Jesus by the second and third centuries (which doesn't say a lot about his historicity in the first, of course)... and most of the written versions of them were destroyed by later Christians. We only know some of Celsus's accusations -- such as that Jesus was an itinerant laborer in Egypt when he learned dark sorcery because that's just how Egyptians are, you know (actual argument) -- because Origen wrote a book trying to counter them, and THAT book survives. Apparently quite a lot of people thought Christians were silly, or believed weird stuff about them (much of which, to be fair, probably wasn't true), but that was all suppressed in the record and only the glowing hagiographies were permitted. That's awfully suspicious.

[@donnievance1942]

The NT isn't "littered with supernatural deeds." The entire thing was written with the single goal of inculcating belief in supernatural ideas. There is a categorical difference between histories that were written to explain the impact a person had on well attested events in the mundane natural world, that happened to be embroidered with a few supernatural claims as hero decoration, and books that were written to give a comprehensively magical account of metaphysical reality. This categorical difference is what gives histories of Alexander or Caesar much more credibility than the Gospels. This is a point that is usually overlooked.

[@jeremypnet]

@@donnievance1942the gospels definitely are littered with supernatural deeds. They are famous for it. I’ve read them and they are definitely narratives of a man who goes round preaching until the religious authorities felt they were being challenged and had him executed. This much is believable but the narratives are liberally sprinkled - or littered - with supernatural claims. Just because the author was writing propaganda rather than history doesn’t change the content.

[@utubepunk]

Gary Habermas is to good historians as to what Jay Warner Wallace is to good detectives.

[@lyokianhitchhiker]

A guy who profits off of lying about being such?

[@michaelsbeverly]

And Lee Strobel to good journalists. Funny how this works...

[@utubepunk]

@@michaelsbeverly Oh, excellent addition! There is certainly a gimmicky pattern afoot!

[@EdwardHowton]

@@michaelsbeverlyThe difference is that Strobel was a -good- -competent- *arguably adequate* journalist at one time, while the other two are.. .. Well. _Not._

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

Spoiler Alert: No new "evidences" will be presented. It will be the same old stuff as before.

[@dwaneanderson8039]

Just more of it. If a hundred bad arguments aren't enough, maybe a thousand bad arguments will be? I'm sure many believers will be reassured by the shear volume of "evidence" in Gary's doorstop.

[@drewcoowoohoo]

No new evidences with be predentedess, my precious . . .

[@brianstevens3858]

To me the double standard is accepting one god/the supernatural, then rejecting any other one at all, once you accept the principle of supernatural, then you have no reason to exclude any supernatural claim, thus the non-accepting of the supernatural based on natural evidence only, is not the one holding the double standard.

[@georgekatkins]

Like the popular quip, "Everybody is an atheist about all of the other gods, except theirs."

[@corvinredacted]

He literally quotes, "He is commonly believed to have been born of a virgin..." about Alexander and then says it's unfair that nobody says that means Alexander didn't exist, but we say that about Jesus, so why are the rules different? Except it's exactly the same, because most people believe both men existed and neither were supernatural. Then he says that all of the writers about Alexander spoke about him in the same credulous way as believers did about Jesus, _moments after_ quoting that Plutarch's writings started with the phrase "He is commonly believed to..." which is literally how such things should be historically recorded, and is a type of professional distance we never see in the gospels.

[@EdwardHowton]

Look, one of the messianic prophecies is literally that the messiah "will be born of a woman", and cultists STILL think that's special and meaningful in some way, as though no human being has ever been born of a woman before or since. You can't expect much from cultists. You can barely even expect basic _coherence;_ realizing internal contradictions is an insurmountable challenge to that lot.

[@corvinredacted]

@EdwardHowton As a former "cultist," I disagree. I don't know anyone who thought "born of a woman" on its own was at all meaningful. And plenty of people recognize internal inconsistencies. That's why there are a billion apologetics for them and why people are leaving the Church in droves. Just because we left afterward and are no longer "cultists" doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that we were, in fact, capable of recognizing inconsistencies-- even before we came to that realization. We were capable, just hadn't gotten there yet. And that's some major survivorship bias. Might as well say that no planes get shot directly through the engine because there are none in operation with "repaired bullet hole through engine" in their logbook.

[@Ponera-Sama]

"And people don't see hallucinations in groups." Mass hysteria events: Allow us to introduce ourselves.

[@l0rf]

The biggest one of these being a Christian "miracle" within living history of today where thousands of people claim to have seen the Mother Mary after staring into the sun for an extended period.

[@Ponera-Sama]

Is Gary Habermas catholic? By his own standard he should be.

[@greyeyed123]

@@l0rf It always amazes me that some people find this compelling. If you freakin' stare into the SUN, your eyes stop working and your brain just fills it in with whatever you expect to see. (Has no one been a child, staring into the dark, and seeing all kinds of monsters there?) Most people can remember at least one instance of mass hysteria in their own lives. I can remember having a class meeting in 1st or 2nd grade because a single girl in class told everyone that her sister went into a "haunted" house up on the hill next to the school and never returned. Every single one of us believed this happened. The teacher had to explain to us firmly and formally that it didn't happen (I can't remember the details, but either her sister was fine, or she didn't even have a sister--she was just a kid who liked to make up stories and tell everyone as if it were real).

[@l0rf]

@greyeyed123 oh yeah, I believe the Catholic Church also disputes this miracle to prevent people from, yknow, blinding themselves by burning their corneas out.

[@lyokianhitchhiker]

I mean… they do say that if 3 people can verify the exact same details of events, that there’s a chance they’re true

[@soyevquirsefron990]

Paul, you skipped the part where everybody clapped for Gary.

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

Actually cant believe Gary is releasing his "magnum opus" no doubt a decision he will live to regret

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i bet the dog eats it the morning before delivery.

[@SilverMKI]

If you have low enough standards, anything can be a magnum opus.

[@ARoll925]

He won't, he is so narcissistic that he thinks he is making good points, he is clearly immune to regret and embarrassment, which he should be, pathetic

[@nagranoth_]

He isn't releasing it. He's releasing part one. And any criticism he'll dismiss as hating his religion, or claim you're ignoring context in yet to be released parts.... for decades. I don't believe he'll ever release it completely, or only when he dies, so you're not allowed to critique it in fear of being accused of attacking him after his death...

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@nagranoth_ Well, there's one case of someone managing to do it over that kind of time ... but then Knuth had already started publishing his magnum opus when he interrupted it to invent new publishing software better able to cope with math.

[@Triflingtales4444]

The thing with Alexander the Great is that we know he has legends about him , but we write those of as just that legends. Gary doesn’t seem to understand that historians give every figure the same treatment

[@CookiesRiot]

Except that, unlike with the Greek pantheon, numerous modern historians personally believe the Bible is true and take it as historically accurate, so they explicitly do not treat biblical figures in that way.

[@Triflingtales4444]

@@CookiesRiot no they don’t

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Triflingtales4444 Mind you, _numerous,_ not _all._

[@Triflingtales4444]

@@KaiHenningsen those are called apologists, they start with a bias. The majority don’t take it as literal and you are falling into Gary’s way of thinking

[@Uryvichk]

Also, many DIFFERENT cultures have DIFFERENT legends about Alexander, which adds veracity to the notion that he really did exist and really did stage a conquest across the known world and into India (plus we have archaeological evidence showing that yeah, some Greek folks were indeed in India, and we know Christians didn't doctor it because the Indians are the ones who preserved it). The legends of Alexander in Rome are different from the legends of Alexander in Egypt and those are different from later Arab and Persian legends of Alexander. And there seem to have been different legends about Jesus too, but they were suppressed or syncretized.

[@TheQuantumWave]

"It's commonly believed he was a god" is not the same claim as "Jesus is God". The man is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.

[@ronrolfsen3977]

22:55 So he does believe all the supernatural claim made in those times? Or just the ones that affirms his religion? He talk about double standards, but it feel like he is the one applying them.

[@thetruest7497]

Remember, this is the authority people appeal to when they're appealing to authority to claim Jesus historicity.

[@fepeerreview3150]

23:02 Gary, historians discount the supernatural claims about Alexander. That doesn't mean they throw out the biographies entirely. But certainly, they DON'T accept the supernatural claims. If we are to "play the game by the same rules" then it is entirely consistent to throw out the supernatural claims respecting Jesus as well. Gary, if you want to believe that Jesus resurrected, then play by the same rules and believe that Alexander was the son of a virgin and a God.

[@normanwolfe7639]

I was gonna write the same thing. He’s claiming Athiests are rejecting the Jesus accounts due to supernatural claims but accepting other ancient accounts even though they have supernatural claims too. As u said. Historians do not accept those parts. And by his logic why doesn’t he accept other supernatural claims?

[@greyeyed123]

Every time I hear that hearsay isn't good evidence, I hear Bill Murray's voice say, "Well that's what I heard!!"

[@mjjoe76]

So what you’re saying is Jesus has no…?

[@xalaxie]

hahaha, love this

[@MrCyclist]

Wow! What a fabulous expose of Gary's diatribe. Over a 1000 pages of what? It took Paul's review to show how silly the contents of the book are. Gary has been consistent in obfuscation of the highest degree. Christians will lap this up with their confirmation bias. How sad! Thanks again Paul.

[@Boogachomper]

10:23 I find this point really interesting. From my experience, Christians take great efforts to distance Jesus from other ancient god-men, yet here it sounds like this guy is saying the evidence for both is “compelling”.

[@EdwardHowton]

Cultists only have the two gears. Special pleading and mindless acceptance. If you point out their argument supports every other religion as well, they'll either make up some reason why it's only valid for _their_ cult (or literally just say it's different and not even make up a reason because cultists are lazy), or they'll agree and use the infinite number of contradictory cults as support for theirs. *_Somefreakinghow._* I've even had one cultist, in a discussion, watch me systematically dismantle his argument, to which his verbatim response was "I agree, that proves me wrong. That's how you know I'm right!". Lethal levels of special pleading, right there.

[@victorhiggins2118]

Gary greatly prefers arguing against his own strawmen.

[@Finckelstein]

I mean coming up with an actual answer to stuff like the problem of evil is hard or outright impossible. Give the grifter a break!

[@OscarSommerbo]

I find it interesting that Habermaas thinks he has the right to instruct me, or any interlocutor of his, on what I am allowed to think and how I am allowed to confront his arguments. That and the constant lying and revisionist history telling just reeks of his assumed interpretative prerogative. Habermaas seems to have his version of reality and nothing could ever shift that, he is just a relic of a bygone era were claiming to be Christian automatically made you right.

[@SnakeWasRight]

If we played by Gary's rules, we'd have to believe Alexander was born if a virgin and the son of a god. No, we play by the real rules, and we dont accept miracle claims on testimony, especially decades after the fact and 3rd person.

[@krumplethemal8831]

Evidence 1: "it happened because we believe it happened." Evidence 2: "it happened because we want it to have happened." Evidence 3: "it happened because if it didn't, it would really suck." Evidence 4: "it happened because there would be no point in making it up." ect.

[@MarkAhlquist]

The point of the giant books is to say, "did you read the whole book? All the books? Cuz if you did you'd be comvinced." As if you'll be skeptical through the entire exhaustive read, then, when you read the very last word, you'll find god.

[@Paulogia]

Maybe I'll read the last chapter first.

[@MarkAhlquist]

Lol

[@xalaxie]

I really needed a good chuckle, today was a difficult day, but this comment and the response made it a little lighter ❤

[@narellepayne1455]

😂​@@Paulogia

[@Nymaz]

If Paul or anyone else ever talks to Habermas, please let him know that you heard from a random dude on the internet that Odin came down to him in a golden chariot from the sky and personally told him that Jesus did in fact not resurrect. By Habermas's standard of evidence he must accept that as proof that Jesus did not resurrect. I hope Habermas finds success in his new career after he is forced by that evidence to abandon apologetics.

[@sbushido5547]

The man -intentionally- misremembering aspects of *_*his own life*_* when he's made a career out of this particular subject? _[chef's kiss]_

[@fepeerreview3150]

3:30 No, _all_ possibly historical events are held to the same standard of evidence. It's just that part of that standard is whether or not an event is miraculous versus natural. As far as it appears to me, ANY miraculous claim, such as Heracles erecting the pillars of Gibraltar warrants a similar degree of skepticism as the resurrection of Jesus.

[@riolufistofmight]

It's amazing that Gary can't even be accurate to events he was not only an eyewitness to, but directly participated in, and was captured on film, but wants us to believe "eyewitness" testimony from almost two thousand years ago, with no properly attested authors.

[@George89999]

So Gary Habermas seems to be saying that because resurrection skeptics hold such claims to the same standard as other supernatural claims that it's the skeptics who have the double standard? All while Habermas apparently treats different supernatural claims differently depending on if they are a part of his religion? Talk about projection if that is what he meant. 🤦

[@unduloid]

"How dare people make fun of me when I keep on stacking unsubstantiated claims."

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Ahhh....Gary Habermas. Doctor Gary Habermas The man is as charming as he is sincere

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

"Evidences." There's no such word, yet all these resurrection-provers use it. Apparently they think it makes them sound objective and scientific. That's yet another thing they're wrong about.

[@NA-vz9ko]

I can only conclude it’s because none of them have ever analyzed any evidence, but simply parrot the words of their preferred peers.

[@EdwardHowton]

@@NA-vz9koIt's Wisdom(tm) Passed Down(tm) From On High(tm), of *course* he's just parroting cult catchphrases. Apologetics is performance art. The audience expects the catchphrase and is trained to applaud when they hear the catchphrase. They aren't there for thoughtful discourse, they're there to see funny man say the thing. _Funny man say the thing, me clap, because me suppose clap when man say thing! This called 'church' and me do because parent beat if no do!_ It really is as simple as that: it's a piece of crappy theater.

[@GreatgoatonFire]

Paul, if you wanna see a Griffin just come to any Swedish Air Force base. What do you mean a fighter-bomber-recon plane isn't the same as a lion-eagle hybrid? =P