Hugh Nibley a person with an actual PhD from Berkeley wrote thousands of pages (17 large volumes) defending the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Is anyone going to wade through these volumes to see if Mormonism is correct?
Im still in a group chat from my old church's youth group and this 19 year old kid who's terminally into apologetics is trying to convince people to read it with him lol
They will be the "minimal facts minimal faff" version and the "Minimal facts minimal faff the making of; How writing succinctly nearly killed me but I survived anyway and all I got was this lousy 2 part account of it, ... Part 1 my (pen) ultimate testimony" by Dr habermas .....
Won't or can't? There's likely a fine line where you're not too intelligent to find it insufferably boring yet still have the capacity to read. I feel like these people would be spending considerable amounts of time choosing what to wear tomorrow so might not have time.
Until recently, I'd just assumed that Habermas was an apologist who's schtick is inflating his credentials as a historian and textual critic. Nothing new there and he admits, at least in front of the right audience, that he is an apologist, not a historian. However in recent interviews a couple of things stuck out… Firstly, Habermas has been insistent that he has spent 50% of a 70-hour working week on this project for 14 years. A person with that amount of time spent on a project, should be an expert, he should be comfortable drawing on wealth of information and insights and making original connections. We've seen Habermas in interviews, he's not an expert. He has little to say, repeats himself and struggles if asked even friendly questions unless they are total set-ups. What's more he gets basic facts wrong and is oddly impressed by numbers irrespective whether they relate to any meaningful information. Secondly, and here I'm reading a lot into body language but… in an interview with Habermas’s research assistant, when he was asked about Habermas and the amount of time that had gone into this project, he seemed uncomfortable, frustrated and closed. He looked like a man who wanted to say “for God’s sake Gary, sort it out” All of which is to say, I've gone from thinking he is 80% incompetent and 20% dishonest to thinking it might be more like 50/50.
The greatest apologist of them all (Sir Andrew Loke) has recently published a book where he responded to comments I left on a TH-cam video where he was on Sean McDowell's channel. This is a response specifically to what Loke says on page 30 of his new book Studies on the Origin of Divine and Resurrection Christology but the same criticism applies to any Greek word Loke chooses regarding "seeing" Jesus, whether it be ophthe, apokalupto, optasia, egeiro, ouranos (whether literal sky or abode of God). Appealing to the gospels or Acts is irrelevant since Loke is claiming the evidence provided by Paul (our earliest source) is unambiguous in regards to physically seeing Jesus. I'm going to show why I think his argument fails. While Loke cites numerous examples and argues that the Greek word used in 1 Cor 9:1 (heoraka) can imply physical seeing, we should acknowledge that the timing and location/origin of Jesus' appearances, as described in the Pauline corpus, introduces an element of ambiguity that distinguishes it from the cited examples. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, we are presented with a list of witnesses to the Risen Jesus. While this passage affirms that Jesus "appeared" to various individuals, it does not specify whether these appearances occurred before or after his ascension to heaven nor is it made clear if they believed Jesus "appeared" from heaven versus physically descending and appearing in the sky. The timing and origin of these appearances is not explicitly clarified. It may very well be the case they were all understood as occurring after the exaltation/enthronement in heaven. Similarly, in Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Philippians 2:8-9 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10, these verses indeed affirm the exalted position of Jesus in heaven after the death/resurrection but without mentioning any earthly sojourn cf. 1 Peter 3:18-22. One thing lacking from these verses is a detailed chronology of when the heavenly exaltation took place in relation to earthly appearances, if any. In contrast, the examples cited earlier, such as the statement by Macron about Putin, are clear and unambiguous because they pertain to plain, everyday language usage. In these cases, the individuals in question are making straightforward claims about physically seeing each other, without any ambiguity regarding timing or context, such as a person possibly appearing from a transcendent realm! The point here is that while 'heoraka' may suggest physical seeing, the interpretation of its use in the context of Paul's letters is nuanced due to the lack of specificity about when these sightings occurred and where they originated from in relation to Jesus' ascension to heaven. Therefore, asserting definitively that Jesus' appearances were purely physical encounters, as Loke does, may overlook the intricacies of Pauline theology and context.
it's just another book. there's a whole city of people dedicated to god, they make little difference to the veracity of the religion. it's just another book, that habermas has spoiled anyway - he's waffled on about the contents for 15 years - there's not anything new in it is there? and paulogia has pretty much critiqued all of it while gary has been boasting about writing it, i let paul read the books for me.
I agree with the first half of your analysis. Gary Habermas is definitely not a kindred spirit in contemporary apologetics (though you worded this a bit less charitably than I would have.) However I think that having a comprehensive list of evidence in favor of the passion has utility even if it’s not gonna be read by most people who disagree. The people who do agree haven’t had any sort of work which tried to branch out into different languages, regions, etc to see what different national history departments have to offer to this subject, and that’s something which would be helpful for a Christian apologist. Tl;dr the premise is great, the execution is mediocre
@@swiftsea6225 May be harsh, but I think it's just his legitimate take on this, and I think that it's warranted lol, Habermas absolutely refuses to hear what anyone who disagrees with him has to say
This book was published so apologists can ask incessantly if their opponents read all of it instead of having a conversation.
Digital Gnosis would have to learn how to read before reading the book. A task that is clearly beyond his intellectual capacity.
Hugh Nibley a person with an actual PhD from Berkeley wrote thousands of pages (17 large volumes) defending the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Is anyone going to wade through these volumes to see if Mormonism is correct?
This is where autism comes in handy 😸
Im still in a group chat from my old church's youth group and this 19 year old kid who's terminally into apologetics is trying to convince people to read it with him lol
Is he worried that's the only way to stay awake through it?
Looking at the list of contents, it seems to cover all of GH's minimal facts, so I'm not sure what the other 3 volumes are going to contain
They will be the "minimal facts minimal faff" version
and the
"Minimal facts minimal faff the making of; How writing succinctly nearly killed me but I survived anyway and all I got was this lousy 2 part account of it, ... Part 1 my (pen) ultimate testimony" by Dr habermas .....
Most people who buy his book won’t read it.
They’ll show it off on social media
Won't or can't?
There's likely a fine line where you're not too intelligent to find it insufferably boring yet still have the capacity to read.
I feel like these people would be spending considerable amounts of time choosing what to wear tomorrow so might not have time.
Until recently, I'd just assumed that Habermas was an apologist who's schtick is inflating his credentials as a historian and textual critic. Nothing new there and he admits, at least in front of the right audience, that he is an apologist, not a historian. However in recent interviews a couple of things stuck out…
Firstly, Habermas has been insistent that he has spent 50% of a 70-hour working week on this project for 14 years. A person with that amount of time spent on a project, should be an expert, he should be comfortable drawing on wealth of information and insights and making original connections. We've seen Habermas in interviews, he's not an expert. He has little to say, repeats himself and struggles if asked even friendly questions unless they are total set-ups. What's more he gets basic facts wrong and is oddly impressed by numbers irrespective whether they relate to any meaningful information.
Secondly, and here I'm reading a lot into body language but… in an interview with Habermas’s research assistant, when he was asked about Habermas and the amount of time that had gone into this project, he seemed uncomfortable, frustrated and closed. He looked like a man who wanted to say “for God’s sake Gary, sort it out”
All of which is to say, I've gone from thinking he is 80% incompetent and 20% dishonest to thinking it might be more like 50/50.
The greatest apologist of them all (Sir Andrew Loke) has recently published a book where he responded to comments I left on a TH-cam video where he was on Sean McDowell's channel.
This is a response specifically to what Loke says on page 30 of his new book Studies on the Origin of Divine and Resurrection Christology but the same criticism applies to any Greek word Loke chooses regarding "seeing" Jesus, whether it be ophthe, apokalupto, optasia, egeiro, ouranos (whether literal sky or abode of God).
Appealing to the gospels or Acts is irrelevant since Loke is claiming the evidence provided by Paul (our earliest source) is unambiguous in regards to physically seeing Jesus. I'm going to show why I think his argument fails.
While Loke cites numerous examples and argues that the Greek word used in 1 Cor 9:1 (heoraka) can imply physical seeing, we should acknowledge that the timing and location/origin of Jesus' appearances, as described in the Pauline corpus, introduces an element of ambiguity that distinguishes it from the cited examples.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, we are presented with a list of witnesses to the Risen Jesus. While this passage affirms that Jesus "appeared" to various individuals, it does not specify whether these appearances occurred before or after his ascension to heaven nor is it made clear if they believed Jesus "appeared" from heaven versus physically descending and appearing in the sky. The timing and origin of these appearances is not explicitly clarified. It may very well be the case they were all understood as occurring after the exaltation/enthronement in heaven.
Similarly, in Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Philippians 2:8-9 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10, these verses indeed affirm the exalted position of Jesus in heaven after the death/resurrection but without mentioning any earthly sojourn cf. 1 Peter 3:18-22. One thing lacking from these verses is a detailed chronology of when the heavenly exaltation took place in relation to earthly appearances, if any.
In contrast, the examples cited earlier, such as the statement by Macron about Putin, are clear and unambiguous because they pertain to plain, everyday language usage. In these cases, the individuals in question are making straightforward claims about physically seeing each other, without any ambiguity regarding timing or context, such as a person possibly appearing from a transcendent realm!
The point here is that while 'heoraka' may suggest physical seeing, the interpretation of its use in the context of Paul's letters is nuanced due to the lack of specificity about when these sightings occurred and where they originated from in relation to Jesus' ascension to heaven. Therefore, asserting definitively that Jesus' appearances were purely physical encounters, as Loke does, may overlook the intricacies of Pauline theology and context.
it's just another book. there's a whole city of people dedicated to god, they make little difference to the veracity of the religion. it's just another book, that habermas has spoiled anyway - he's waffled on about the contents for 15 years - there's not anything new in it is there?
and paulogia has pretty much critiqued all of it while gary has been boasting about writing it, i let paul read the books for me.
For real. Paul’s coverage of the book (once he’s finished reading it circa 2028 lol) will probably be the definitive takedown
...you might want to change the video title to make sure people don't think you mean Jürgen Habermas...
😂😂😂
I'm gutted that this wasn't a nine hour episode
One good thing is that at least Habermas won’t be the George R.R. Martin of the apologetics world and die before he can finish his magnum opus
The most elaborate exercise in human rationalization and self-justification ever in history
The bigger the book the more likely to be quoted by peers is my theory
Nathan's so handsome
I agree with the first half of your analysis. Gary Habermas is definitely not a kindred spirit in contemporary apologetics (though you worded this a bit less charitably than I would have.)
However I think that having a comprehensive list of evidence in favor of the passion has utility even if it’s not gonna be read by most people who disagree. The people who do agree haven’t had any sort of work which tried to branch out into different languages, regions, etc to see what different national history departments have to offer to this subject, and that’s something which would be helpful for a Christian apologist.
Tl;dr the premise is great, the execution is mediocre
Very much on point.
And here he is talking about his new book th-cam.com/video/qXD9HnrNrvk/w-d-xo.html
C’mon Nathan. Wasn’t that a bit too harsh and mean to say that about Habermas and the readers who buy his book?
I detect a wee bit of sarcasm, swiftsea.
@@TheSeverian Eh, maybe. But to me it just sounded like a harsh statement.
@@swiftsea6225 May be harsh, but I think it's just his legitimate take on this, and I think that it's warranted lol, Habermas absolutely refuses to hear what anyone who disagrees with him has to say
Jesus: "Nooooooooooo!!!"
😂
What is your IQ Nathan? Is IQ a relevant metric?
9
You forgot to add 6😏before it@@DigitalGnosis
Mine's 8.5. Nathan's more cleverer than I 😞
@@Devious_Dave lol