In Dr. Gary Habermas's recent volume on the resurrection, he claims that the members of the Jesus Seminar show a degree of "respect" for the story of Jesus' first appearance to his male disciples in John 20:19-23 which is "rather amazing." He also implies that they show *some* degree of respect, though a lesser degree, to the story of Doubting Thomas later in that chapter.It is demonstrable, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Jesus Seminar has *no* respect for either of those stories. None whatsoever. They are absolutely explicit, in the very work Habermas is citing, that they consider both stories to be completely fictional and lacking in any historical value. Habermas has apparently been confused by their use of technical form-critical terminology, in which they label the first of those stories as "concise" and the Doubting Thomas story as "intermediate." Habermas apparently thinks that these indicate some degree of historicity to the stories, since the Jesus Seminar also has a category of "legend," which is not the label they use for either of these stories. But in the Jesus' Seminar's usage, the categories of "concise" and "intermediate" should not be taken to indicate any degree of historical respect at all, and "legend" is just being used as a literary term, not an indication that things in that category alone are completely made up.In this video I also refer repeatedly to my series on Habermas's misunderstandings of the moderate liberal scholar C.H. Dodd. That series is here:https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2024/05/gary-habermass-misunderstandings-of-c-h.htmlAnd here is where you can go to check out the book of the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar:https://archive.org/details/actsofjesuswhatd00robe/page/n3/mode/1up?view=theater