- Hagee, John
- Popular prophecy teacher. Evaluation of his teachings here.
- Hallquist, Chris
- Skeptical blogger. I have deemed him unworthy of more than this entry as a reply, based on this comment:
In my recent post on J. P. Holding's disregard for what the Bible actually says, I noted that, Holding's thesis is heavily dependent on a projection of modern rationalism back into the 1st century." I attacked his position from the Biblical record, but it's also worth noting that his assumptions are problematic in light of the history of Christian apologetics. Specifically, everything I've read on Christian apologetics as we know it did not exist before the Enlightenment. Of course, humans have always tried to defend their claims by argument after a fashion, and historians of early Christianity think of "apologists" mainly as writers like Justin Martyr, who first appeared in the second century. However, the goal of these second-century apologists was the reconciliation of Greek philosophy with Christianity. Modern apologetics, with its strong emphasis on historical scholarship, is almost entirely a product of the last few centuries.
What escapes Hallquist is that apologetics is driven by what opponents argue (it is, after all, a defense, so that this point is simply meaningless. As further noted by my patristics consult, Matt Paulson -- who is attending Harvard Divinity School at this time -- Hallquist is "utterly wrong in spirit":
The 2nd century apologists didn't simply try to "harmonize/reconcile" the gospel with Greek philosophy; rather, they tried to show the relevance of the gospel vis-a-vis THAT CULTURAL FACTOR WHICH NEEDED TO BE PREACHED TO. More importantly, though, the apologists never acted as though the gospel "had to" prove itself in harmony with the Greeks; rather, they tried to emphasize points of concord, and to show WHY CHRISTIANITY WAS RIGHT at those points wherein Hellenism and the gospel obviously differed.
A few telling examples to disprove the sole factual claim of your opponent [that the 2nd c. apologists were concerned only to reconcile Christianity w/Greek philosophy]: in addition to the two apologies (an attempt to convince Greco-Roman intellectual culture), Justin Martyr also wrote his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; in addition to his Against the Academics (skeptical philosophers), Augustine also wrote his Cty of God, which--at least formally--is to be placed alongside the greatest works of Christian historical theology.
Western intellectual culture was largely subject to Christian influence during the early to late middle ages; whence the surprise that it wouldn't have to emphasize certain aspects of apologetics till later, when Christianity itself was challenged? Suppose that, by the 22nd century, people took very seriously the claim--registered in full philosophical seriousness--that they didn't exist five seconds ago (after all, 'tis logically possible that they came into existence right now with a fraudulent, inbuilt memory); ought we then to blame the whole prior history of Christian apologetics for not having answered this question before it had been raised?
Rather than attempting to posit an unbridgeable chasm twixt early and contemporary Christian apologetics, would it not be much more sensible simply to ATTEMPT TO detect the consistent spirit of the apologetic aspect of the Christian proclomation which has been there from the start, viz., to be all things to all people, and "to run to the point of the battle-line which most needs defending"?
Regading hois book, there's not much to this title. My past dealings with Hallquist showed him to be a shallow thinker and researcher who relies in the main on collections of slogans and canards that he picks as seeds from somewhere else. Here, you could sum up the contents fairly quickly as a mixture of attempts at Hume resuscitated (despite the corpse having been rotted away, and never mind the criticisms of him that are out there); the easiest-to-refute or most outlandish Christian apologetics arguments, refuted and/or exposed (e.g., Vardaman's micro-letters); standard, sloganeered summary positions of arguments that could easily be refuted (e.g., the anonymity of the Gospels); and a collection of UFO stories presented as psychological counterpoints to suggest that Gospel stories are the same sort of thing. It's nothing new, and it's all thrown together haphazardly, as though someone chewed up the Secular Web, and then, after digesting most of it, threw up on a word processor.
There's nothing for me to refute specifically; it's all either stuff I have already refuted, or stuff I wouldn't have argued in the first place. The sum of it is that Hallquist, as before, represents the best in self-assured (yet badly informed) Skepticism on the market today.
Since Hallquist has made such clear errors, and since he has tried to "rebut" my use of the Context Group by re-repeating material by Richard Carrier that I have already refuted, I deem him unworthy of further reply.
By way of demonstration as well, a deunking of his 8 steps to debunk the Resurrection.
- Hannam, James
- Review of Genesis of Science here.
- A key concept for defense of the Scriptures.
- Harmonization: The Issue of Complimentary Accounts -- one of my earliest projects, and still unaddressed by skeptics: a comparison of four lives of Lincoln, and a dare to criticize them the same way the Gospels are. In four very long parts, so grab some popcorn!
- Do the resurrection accounts hopelessly contradict each other? [Off Site]
- Harpur, Tom
- Canadian journalist who argues that Jesus' story was copied from pagan elements. Critique of his book The Pagan Christ here.
- Harris, Joshua
- Former Christian author on dating, now apparently apostate. Comments here.
- Harris, Sam
- Popular atheist writer.
- Harris, Stephen
- Liberal Bible professor with a college textbook to credit. See here.
- Don't go there!
- Commentary on the torments of hell [Off Site] -- part of a larger series.
- Why does the doctrine of hell appear so late in the Bible?
- Honor and Pain -- how the honor-shame dialectic affects our understanding of Hell.
- Review of Rethinking Hell by Nick Peters
- The alleged slippery slope of hell and metaphor
- Helms, Randel
- English professor who has taken on the Bible without knowing ancient literature.
- Henaut, Barry
- Liberal Biblical scholar who discounts the relevance of oral tradition in accurate preservation of the Gospel material.
- Alleged pagan copycat figure. See here.
- Herod Antipas
- Hesus of the Druids
- Alleged pagan copycat savior. See here for comments.
- Hick, John
- Review of Metaphor of God Incarnate
- Higgins, Godfrey
- 18th century writer often used as a source. Comments here.
- Hildeman, Eric
- Author of Creationism: The Bible Says No. Some comments on the portions we are expert in here.
- Hitchcock, Mark
- End times writer. Comments here.
- Hiscox, James
- Nuisance blogger. Comments here.
- Hitler, Adolf
- Was this guy a Christian? No, and he wasn't an atheist either. He had his own cultic view. See my e-book Hitler's Christianity.
- What is holiness?
- Holy Spirit
- Don't forget the third member of the Trinity.
- No hate mail, please. Just answer the arguments.
- Book Reviews
- Horn, Thomas
- Purveyor of paranoid end times material. See comments here.
- House of Yahweh
- Watchman Fellowship overview
- Huller, Stephan
- See our article in the here on The Real Messiah.
- Hume, David
- 18th-century rationalist who started the "miracles are impossible because I can't see any" arguments.
- What is humility?
- Hunt, Dave
- Review of The Seduction of Christianity here