The Secular Frontier

I have completed a DRAFT (10 chapters) of my upcoming book:  Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of JesusVolume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory I am making DRAFT versions of the last five chapters of my book available to you. The primary focus of this book is on the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (HCA). Their case can be summarized in just three claims: IF Kreeft and Tacelli refuted the four alternative (skeptical) theories, THEN Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true. Kreeft and Tacelli refuted (in Chapter 8 of HCA) the four alternative (skeptical) theories. THEREFORE: Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true. They raise objections to each of four skeptical theories.  In the first half of my book, I focus on their nine objections aga ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In my upcoming book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I show that various cases by different Christian apologists against the Swoon Theory fail. The Swoon Theory is the skeptical view that Jesus did not die on the cross but survived his crucifixion and then sometime later contacted some of his disciples who mistakenly inferred from this that God had raised Jesus from the dead. In TCAR1, I show that: The case against the Swoon Theory by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) fails The case against the Swoon Theory by William Craig in his book The Son Rises (hereafter: TSR) fails The case against the Swoon Theory by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: CRJ) fails The case against the Swoon Theory by Josh McDowell in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) fails But M ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE We are in the process of critically evaluating the final objection in a group of a dozen objections that constitute a 21st-century case by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell against the Swoon Theory. I have previously shown that the other eleven objections in this case fail. So, whether this case as a whole fails or succeeds now depends on whether this last objection fails or not. I call this last objection of the McDowell's 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory, the Early Writers Objection. This last objection consists of two arguments: The Non-Christian Historian Argument The Early Christian Writers Argument Both of these arguments support the same intermediate conclusion: A. Jesus died while he was on the cross. If the conclusion (A) can be shown to be true, that would also show that the Swoon Theory is false: A. Jesus died while he was on the cross. L. IF Jesus died while he was on the cross, THEN the Swoon Theory is false. THEREFORE: M. The Swoon Th ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE There are twelve objections against the Swoon Theory in the 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory by Josh McDowell and his son Sean McDowell in their book Evidence For the Resurrection (hereafter: EFR). However, in my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I have shown that ten of those objections fail. So, only the two remaining objections against the Swoon Theory in EFR need to be carefully analyzed and evaluated in order to determine whether the McDowells' 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory succeeds or fails: Jesus' Last Words Objection (EFR, p.223) Early Writers Objection (EFR, p.224) If these two objections fail, then the 21st-century case by the McDowells against the Swoon Theory fails, because all twelve objections that constitute their case will have been shown to fail. In Part 1 of this series, I carefully analyzed and clarified the argument constituting the ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I carefully analyzed and clarified the McDowells' Jesus' Last Words Objection from their book Evidence for the Resurrection (hereafter: EFR). In Part 3 of this series, I showed that the Jesus' Last Words Objection fails, based on my clarified version of the argument constituting that objection. However, there was an ambiguity in the logical structure of the argument as presented by the McDowells in EFR, so I would like to cover all the bases and consider the alternative interpretation of that argument. The logical role of one specific premise was unclear. Premise (4) could have either been intended as a reason for believing premise (2a) or as a reason for accepting the conclusion of the argument: (A). I think it is more likely that the McDowells intended (4) to be a reason for believing premise (2a), but I'm not certain of this point. CLARIFICATION OF THE OBJECTION BASED ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN So, in this current post, I will consider the alternative possibil ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE There are twelve objections against the Swoon Theory in the 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory by Josh McDowell and his son Sean McDowell in their book Evidence For the Resurrection (hereafter: EFR). However, in my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I have shown that ten of those objections fail. So, only the two remaining objections against the Swoon Theory in EFR need to be carefully analyzed and evaluated in order to determine whether the McDowells' 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory succeeds or fails: Jesus' Last Words (EFR, p.223) Early Writers (EFR, p.224) If these two objections fail, then the 21st-century case by the McDowells against the Swoon Theory fails, because all twelve objections that constitute their case will have been shown to fail. MY ANALYSIS OF THE JESUS' LAST WORDS OBJECTION In Part 1 of this series, I carefully analyzed and clarified ... Read Article

The "Q" source, a hypothetical document in historical Jesus studies, is thought to contain sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark. Since Q is reconstructed from these shared texts, it primarily focuses on Jesus' teachings, such as parables and ethical instructions, rather than narrative events. Scholars generally agree that Q does not explicitly mention Jesus' death, crucifixion, or resurrection. It lacks clear references to these events or any theological emphasis on them being necessary for salvation. Instead, Q portrays Jesus as a wisdom teacher or prophetic figure, emphasizing his sayings and ethical demands over a passion narrative or soteriological framework. For example, passages attributed to Q (e.g., Luke 11:2-4, Matthew 6:9-13 for the Lord’s Prayer) focus on teachings about prayer, the kingdom of God, and moral behavior, with no direct allusion to crucifixion or resurrection. Some scholars argue Q might imply an expectation of vindication (e.g., in sayings about the Son of ... Read Article

As is the case with new scholarship like Nina Livesey's recent book on Paul's letters as pseudonymous, it sometimes involves for the reader a back and forth with implications trying to appropriate the new materials. I originally tried to challenge a late date of Luke-Acts with Dennis MacDonald with Vergil's Aeneid, but I don't think that holds any more. So, the dating I have now is "Q" as the earliest source, and then post Bar Kokhba pseudonymous Paul, and then the traditional order, post Bar Kokhba of Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, and then John. If Goodacre and Carrier are right that there is no Q, then everything seems post revolt. I've added to the posts where I modified earlier thoughts: Easter Post: Dating the Gospels Easter Post 2/2: Scribal Galilee by Sarah Rollens Review-  The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship by Nina E. Livesey The Late Date of the Gospels (2/2) The Late Date of the Gospels (Conclusion) The Late Dates of the Gospels ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In my upcoming book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I show that various cases by different Christian apologists against the Swoon Theory fail. The Swoon Theory is a skeptical theory that claims Jesus did not die on the cross, and that sometime after Jesus was removed from the cross, he met with some of his disciples and they mistakenly inferred from this that God had raised Jesus from the dead. In TCAR1, I show that the case made by Josh McDowell against the Swoon Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) fails. However, it is possible that in the decades since TRF was published, McDowell might have improved and strengthened his case against the Swoon Theory. I am now in the process of investigating whether that happened by carefully analyzing and evaluating a more recent case against the Swoon Theory in book co-authored by Josh McDowell and his son Sean McDowell called Evidence fo ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In my upcoming book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I show that various cases by different Christian apologists against the Swoon Theory fail. The Swoon Theory is the skeptical view that Jesus did not die on the cross but survived his crucifixion and then sometime later contacted some of his disciples who mistakenly inferred from this that God had raised Jesus from the dead. In TCAR1, I show that the case against the Swoon Theory by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) fails. In TCAR1, I show that the case against the Swoon Theory by William Craig in his book The Son Rises (hereafter: TSR) fails. In TCAR1, I show that the case against the Swoon Theory by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: CRJ) fails. Finally, I also show in TCAR1 that the case against the Swoon Theory by Josh McDowe ... Read Article

PREVIOUSLY: Easter Post: Dating the Gospels Now, the conclusion: I've been looking at the New Testament literature dating issues considering a lot of it to be written post Bar Kokhba revolt, with the exception that Luke-Acts seems to stem from the turn of the second century. Certainly, dating Luke-Acts in this way only really makes sense if you accept Dennis MacDonald's critique of Marcion's gospel as primitive. But I noted last time that Acts engaging with Vergil could have happened any time, so MacDonald doesn't have much clout there. That aside, there seems to be a Q source that we find in Luke and Matthew (Luke's being more primitive), while not necessarily overly informative about the historical Jesus at least testifies to the original climate in which materials about Jesus were circling. Sarah Rollens notes this argument only really pertains to the Q document, as the Gospels and Acts reflect a more sophisticated production. She writes: Regardless of where one falls on the question ... Read Article

Here is my 2025 Easter Post! 33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land[g] until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[h] 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36 And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 Now when the centurion who stood facing him saw that in this way he[ breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son! (Mark 15:33-39) At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split.  ... Read Article

PHILOSOPHY (INDEX) How Johann Christian Friedrich Hölderlin Helped Us Rethink Ancient Thought RELIGION “The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (2024)” Anthology by James Crossley (Editor), Chris Keith (Editor) – FINAL Updated Blogging Index Remember to refresh the page before reading a blog post as there may be new content! ... Read Article

PREVIOUSLY: (Part 1) Martin Heidegger’s “Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event)” As we continue with Heidegger's Contributions book, we note it is not a linear development of an argument. Heidegger never intended it for publication. What I'm trying to show is his philosophy is not superstitious even though it uses theological language strategically. The later Heidegger clearly says, "Faith has no place in thought (Anaximander's Saying, 280, 1946)."  Heidegger didn't leave treatises, he left puzzles. For example, he will use a term without explaining it until a hundred pages later or even in a different book. The lesson is to feel the "nothing" of the book so we can attend to our not knowing, pay attention to where we are failing to make sense/meaning, and so practice distinguishing the essential from the trivial - which is a core trait of thoughtful thinking and so reading/writing/speaking. Heidegger asks regarding what the Greeks understood as non-being: It could be argued ... Read Article

SCORE 5/5 My thanks to Cambridge for providing me with a review copy of this book. PREAMBLE: LETTER TO PROFESSOR VINZENT Hi Prof Vinzent, My name is John MacDonald and I am president of the Secular Web. I recently posted a review of Prof Nina Livesey's new book on the thesis of a fictional Paul and pseudonymous Pauline letters HERE: The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship by Nina E. Livesey .  Cambridge University Press kindly sent me a review copy.  After I posted my review I encountered your interview with Jacob Berman on History Valley podcast where you mention Livesey and discuss related issues.  After hearing you I made some additions to the review (resulting in a less fluid piece).  I would like to share with you an important reason I think Paul was a fictional character as Livey contends. You are obviously a towering figure in innovative New Testament studies and would love to know if you ... Read Article