Apolonio Says

Apolonio Says:
August 27th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Mr. White isn’t a reputable scholar as Perry already said. He is a popular apologist and the public moderated debates seem to be just for show sometimes. Notice that he always wants things public, either his radio, CA’s radio, moderated debates, etc as if having dinner and debating these things are not enough. I used to be into those Catholic/Protestant and Craig debates in high school when I thought it was cool. Until, of course, I encountered a more rigorous way of interacting with ideas. Being in a prominent university with a top philosophy department will do that to you. Plus, I have learned to read actual scholars, not those who quote Athanasius in a debate as if that reveals anything, but those who actually spent a lot of their life studying the Fathers, Scripture, etc.

And the whole notion that just because you can’t answer a question in a debate, therefore you lose, is ridiculous. If you don’t think it is, just go to a conference or a seminar. There will be times when you simply don’t know the answer. That doesn’t mean anything. There are so many Protestant ideas around that White’s arguments would be the least thing I am concerned about. First, again, he isn’t a reputable scholar. I’d rather go to actual scholars. If I want to read about Paul, I’d go to Schriener [sic], Dunn, Wright, Boyarin, Roo, Sanders, etc. If I wanna see what kind of argument White would present I’d rather see what Carson has to say. Second, he doesn’t have the philosophical sophistication that is needed to do theology. As Perry already noted, he doesn’t know a lot about philosophy of language. You can also look at his response to Beckwith’s conversion and you will see his arguments about Beckwith reading Trent laughable. Those are the types of arguments you would like give an example of a bad argumentation in a logic and reasoning 101 course. Third, what has he really contributed in theology? Nothing. His dissertation is crappy. Yeah, it may be good for the pew but I don’t think he defended his thesis and his thesis doesn’t have anything new to add in the debate. That’s the type of work you should see in an undergraduate course. I mean, if he sends that to a reputable peer-reviewed journal and they accepted it, I might change my mind. But he doesn’t have any contribution at all. Yeah he debated Spong and Crossan. But those are dead horses. Wright already beat the crap out of Crossan. And Spong..well, who the heck takes him seriously nowadays? Sungenis is terrible in theology. Fr. Pacwa isn’t a Schindler, Scola, Schonborn, etc. On and on.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/an-apologetic-two-fer/#comments


Apolonio ben Shlomo Says:

August 27th, 64 AD at 7:09 pm

Jesus isn’t a reputable scholar—as Caiaphas already said. He’s a popular apologist, and the public debates with the scribes and Pharisees seem to be just for show sometimes. Notice that he always wants things public, as if having dinner and debating these things are not enough. He's just a carpenter.

I used to be into those Jesus/Sadducees and St. Peter debates at the yeshiva when I thought it was cool. Until, of course, I encountered a more rigorous way of interacting with ideas. Being at the Academy will do that to you. Plus, I have learned to read actual scholars, not those who quote the OT in a debate as if that reveals anything, but those who actually spent a lot of their life studying the Torah, Nichomachean Ethics, and Prior Analytics,

And the whole notion that just because the Pharisees and Sadducees can’t answer a question Jesus sprung on them in public debate, therefore they lose, is ridiculous. If you don’t think it is, just go to a conference or a seminar. There will be times when you simply don’t know the answer. That doesn’t mean anything.

Same thing with St. Peter. First off, he isn’t a reputable scholar. I’d rather go to actual scholars like Philo, Aristotle, and Hillel.

Second, St. Peter doesn’t have the philosophical sophistication that is needed to do theology. As Pliny already noted, he doesn’t know a lot about philosophy of language. He's just a fisherman.

You can also look at his response to the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 and you will see his arguments about OT messianic prophecy are laughable. Those are the types of arguments you would like give an example of a bad argumentation in a logic and reasoning 101 course.

Third, what has he really contributed in theology? Nothing. 2 Peter is crappy. Yeah, it may be good for the pew but I don’t think he defended his thesis and his thesis doesn’t have anything new to add in the debate. That’s the type of work you should see in an undergraduate course. I mean, if he sends 2 Peter that to a reputable peer-reviewed journal and they accepted it, I might change my mind. But he doesn’t have any contribution at all. Yeah, he debated Gamaliel. But that’s beating a dead horse. Who the heck takes him seriously nowadays?