Month: November 2023

Q or Not Q

|

When we look at the gospels, we see that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. However, there is also material common to Matthew and Luke that does not come from Mark, and so scholars usually suppose there was another now lost source “Q” that Matthew and Luke both … Q or Not Q

Robyn Faith Walsh’s SBL Paper

|

Robyn Faith Walsh’s proposal of the dependance of Mark on Paul and the Pauline origin of the Last Supper: For more on Mark’s use of Paul, see: Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)

Does John 1:1 say Jesus was God?

|

Maybe not. Dan McClellan @maklelan is a PhD in theology & religion (University of Exeter), honorary fellow, University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Centre for the Public Understanding of Religion. He posted this helpful Tik Tok video on the question: Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 14: A Careful Analysis of Objection #5

|

OBJECTION #5: THE SICKLY JESUS OBJECTION Here is the fifth objection by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory: The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even “doubting Thomas,” that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 14: A Careful Analysis of Objection #5

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4

|

In Part 12 of this series, I concluded that Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory FAILS, because the core argument for Objection #4 consists of two DUBIOUS premises and one FALSE premise. Before I move on to Objection #5, I would like to consider a possible way to repair Objection #4 which attempts … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4