my recent posts to YouTube about Lydia McGrew

 Since I cannot be certain those threads won't be deleted, here's what I posted to the comment-sections of several YouTube videos about Lydia McGrew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTAja4qvn3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvlPWMiiQvY

-------------------------

When Lydia was asked why spiritually dead people should be expected to understand biblical matters when spiritually alive people cannot even agree on how to interpret most of it, she replied in a way that pretty much conclusively demonstrates that her commitment to Jesus is 100% naturalistic. She said

--------"Being spiritually alive has zilch to do with it." -------------

Apparently she has never read Romans 8:5-8, 1st Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, nor the scores of other NT verses that clearly teach that being spiritually dead either makes it exceptionally difficult, or outright impossible, for the unbeliever to understand spiritual/biblical matters. What an irony that the answer she gave would be contested by a large majority of conservative bible believing Trinitarian Christian scholars!

see http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/10/on_some_examples_in_plutarch.html

-

See my further answers to her:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/11/lydia-mcgrews-suspicious-excuses-for.html

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/02/dr-lydia-mcgrews-errors-in-defending.html

-

I also show that Lydia's ceaseless "he said/she said" gossipy yappy form of "apologetics" constitutes the very "word-wrangling" that Paul explicitly prohibited in 2nd Timothy 2:14, see

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/06/open-letter-to-lydia-mcgrew-your-online.html

-

What I should have added were the many biblical condemnations of being wordy and talkative:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/talking_too_much

Gee, Lydia couldn't possibly be guilty of the sin of too many words, could she?

-

I also directly and politely challenged Lydia to debate the resurrection of Jesus, as I have plenty of arguments that are unique and do not repeat the fanfare of HumeShe declined, saying

------------"Nobody who speaks in defense of the gospel, not even an apologist, is setting himself up to spend indefinite amounts of time answering anybody with a keyboard who comes along, thumps his chest, and says, "I hereby challenge you." Go away."-----------

-

So I wonder: if a skeptic does little more at his blog beyond critiquing Lydia's apologetics, but then declines her debate challenge by saying "Nobody who speaks in opposition to the gospel, not even a counter-apologist, is setting himself up to spend indefinite amounts of time answering anybody with a keyboard who comes along, thumps his chest, and says, "I hereby challenge you." Go away."

-

(I responded to her entire bullshit excuse for refusal to debate me, here: https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/11/lydia-mcgrews-suspicious-excuses-for.html)

-

Would Lydia suspect or not suspect a professional counter-apologist of being afraid of losing the debate, should he decline a debate challenge using the same pretexts that Lydia did? Or does she think it is written in the stars that only gossipy Christian apologists are allowed to use obviously dishonest excuses to duck challenges?

-

Lest anybody think it is only stupid skeptics who think Lydia is unnecessarily hostile in her comments, then maybe you think conservative Trinitarian inerrantist evangelical Ph.d experts on Jesus' resurrection are "stupid skeptics". Lydia's unnecessarily negative tone is also why Licona didn't wish to debate her:

https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/04/mike-licona-answers-regarding-lydia-mcgrew/

Maybe its just my "stupidity", but if anybody had an internet-world of constantly "refuting" their opponents, but then was also known to consistently duck challenges from capable opponents, it would be reasonable to infer that in at least some of those debate rejections, she is lying: her real reason for refusal to debate is the same reason a criminal Defendant would rather not take the witness stand: his bullshit story wouldn't last long under cross-examination.

Let's just say that because Lydia is so loud-mouthed about the errors of Habermas' "minimal facts" approach and Licona's refusal to use the canonical gospel resurrection narratives, this is going to justify skeptics to say that because even spiritually alive people cannot figure out what type of apologetics god wants the church to use, it is going to be reasonable for the skeptic to classify the subject matter as too convoluted to risk becoming involved with and then likely adding to their sins another sin of thinking Lydia is wrong and somebody else is right.