THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5

As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises:

E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

D. It is NOT the case that sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

WHERE WE ARE

• In Part 14 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #5 (The Sickly Jesus Objection) against the Swoon Theory.
• In Part 15 of this series, I argued that a key premise (D) in the core argument of Objection #5 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.
• In Part 16 of this series, I argued that the two main premises in the argument supporting premise (E) were FALSE, and thus that premise (E) was DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. I also argued that the key premise (E) was itself FALSE.

Although I have argued that the two premises in the argument for (E) are FALSE, this conclusion should be understood as tentative or provisional, because I have not yet examined the sub-arguments that Kreeft and Tacelli gave in support of those two premises. Their arguments for those premises might be strong and solid arguments, which would then cast doubt on my conclusion that those premises are FALSE. However, if the sub-arguments supporting those two premises are weak or defective, then we can confidently conclude that those premises are FALSE, based on the reasons I gave in Part 16 of this series.

In this current post, I will examine the arguments given in support of the two premises in the argument for the key premise (E), namely, premise (G) and premise (I).

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (E)

This is the argument given in support of the key premise (E):

G. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those ten disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

I. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to Thomas to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

THEREFORE:

E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

Premise (G) and premise (I) are themselves each supported by an argument.

THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)

Here is the structure of the argument for premise (G):

3a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 20:19-29), on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, and this convinced those ten disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead and given Jesus an immortal body.

B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including alleged experiences of the risen Jesus had by the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus after Jesus’ crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

1a. On the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, and this convinced those ten disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead and given Jesus an immortal body.

F. IF the Swoon Theory is true and on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, THEN on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those ten disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

THEREFORE:

G. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those ten disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)

Premise (1a) is DUBIOUS because the sub-argument supporting that premise is UNSOUND. The argument for premise (1a) is UNOUND because premise (B) is FALSE. The Gospel of John does NOT provide a reliable and accurate account of the life, ministry, crucifixion, and alleged appearances of Jesus. Since the argument for (1a) is UNSOUND, premise (1a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This is sufficient reason to reject the argument for premise (G), meaning that premise (G) is also DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Furthermore, the other premise in the argument for (G) is FALSE. Premise (F) is FALSE for a reason that is similar to why premise (G) is FALSE: the antecedent of (F) can be TRUE while the consequent is FALSE. Because premise (F) is FALSE, the argument for (G) is UNSOUND, so we now have another good reason to reject the argument for (G), meaning that premise (G) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

The reason why Kreeft and Tacelli think that premise (F) is TRUE, is that they believe the following historical assumption:

If Jesus had survived his crucifixion, he would have been very weak and sickly on Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified, as a result of a number of very serious injuries and wounds inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified (by being severely scourged prior to being crucified, by having a crown of thorns with many long and sharp thorns that pointed inward towards his head shoved forcefully onto his head, by having both of his hands/arms nailed to the cross, by having both of his feet nailed to the cross, and by having a spear thrust deeply into his side while he was on the cross, creating a large wound in his side).

But the Swoon Theory does NOT assume nor imply that this historical assumption is correct. Thus, the Swoon Theory could be TRUE even if Jesus was NOT severely scourged before being crucified, even if no crown of thorns was put on Jesus’ head, even if Jesus had been tied to the cross rather than nailed to it, even if there was no spear wound inflicted upon Jesus while he was on the cross. If these wounds were not inflicted upon Jesus (or if only some of them were and the wounds were not severe), then if Jesus had survived his crucifixion and met up with some of his disciples on the weekend after he was crucified, Jesus might NOT have appeared “to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.”

The first part (the antecedent) of premise (F) is this:

The Swoon Theory is true and on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus.

The second part (the consequent) of (F) is this:

On the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those ten disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

Since the antecedent of premise (F) can be TRUE while the consequent of (F) is FALSE, that means that premise (F) is itself FALSE. Because (F) is FALSE, the argument for (G) is UNSOUND.

Because the argument for (G) is defective, this confirms that premise (G) is FALSE, based on my previous argument showing (G) to be FALSE. It is no longer a tentative or provisional conclusion that (G) is FALSE because there is a strong argument showing that (G) is FALSE (see Part 16 of this series) and because the argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of (G) is an UNSOUND argument that is based on a DUBIOUS premise, premise (1a), as well as on a FALSE premise, premise (F).

THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (I)

Here is the structure of the argument for premise (I):

4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 20:19-29), on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, and this convinced Thomas that God had raised Jesus from the dead and given Jesus an immortal body.

B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including alleged experiences of the risen Jesus had by the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus after Jesus’ crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

2a. On the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, and this convinced Thomas that God had raised Jesus from the dead and given Jesus an immortal body.

H. IF the Swoon Theory is true and on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, THEN on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to Thomas to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

THEREFORE:

I. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to Thomas to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (I)

Premise (2a) is DUBIOUS because the sub-argument supporting that premise is UNSOUND. The argument for premise (2a) is UNOUND because premise (B) is FALSE. The Gospel of John does NOT provide a reliable and accurate account of the life, ministry, crucifixion, and alleged appearances of Jesus. Since the argument for (2a) is UNSOUND, premise (2a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This is sufficient reason to reject the argument for premise (I), meaning that premise (I) is also DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Furthermore, the other premise in the argument for (I) is FALSE. Premise (H) is FALSE for a reason that is similar to why premise (I) is FALSE: the antecedent of (H) can be TRUE while the consequent is FALSE. Because premise (H) is FALSE, the argument for (I) is UNSOUND, so we now have another good reason to reject the argument for (I), meaning that premise (I) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

The reason why Kreeft and Tacelli might think that premise (H) was TRUE, is that they believe the following historical assumption:

If Jesus had survived his crucifixion, he would have been very weak and sickly on the Sunday of the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, as a result of a number of very serious injuries and wounds inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified (by being severely scourged prior to being crucified, by having a crown of thorns with many long and sharp thorns that pointed inward towards his head shoved forcefully onto his head, by having both of his hands/arms nailed to the cross, by having both of his feet nailed to the cross, and by having a spear thrust deeply into his side while he was on the cross, creating a large wound in his side).

But the Swoon Theory does NOT assume nor imply that this historical assumption is correct. Thus, the Swoon Theory could be TRUE even if Jesus was NOT severely scourged before being crucified, even if no crown of thorns was put on Jesus’ head, even if Jesus had been tied to the cross rather than nailed to it, even if there was no spear wound inflicted upon Jesus while he was on the cross. If these wounds were not inflicted upon Jesus (or if only some of them were and the wounds were not severe), then if Jesus had survived his crucifixion and met up with his disciple Thomas on the second weekend after he was crucified, Jesus might NOT have appeared “to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.”

The first part (the antecedent) of premise (H) is this:

The Swoon Theory is true and and on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus.

The second part (the consequent) of (H) is this:

On the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to Thomas to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

Since the antecedent of premise (H) can be TRUE while the consequent of (H) is FALSE, that means that premise (H) is itself FALSE. Because (H) is FALSE, the argument for (I) is UNSOUND.

Because the argument for (I) is defective, this confirms that premise (I) is FALSE, based on my previous argument showing (I) to be FALSE. It is no longer a tentative or provisional conclusion that (I) is FALSE because there is not only a strong argument showing that (I) is FALSE (see Part 16 of this series) but we have now seen that the argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of (I) is an UNSOUND argument that is based on a DUBIOUS premise, premise (2a), as well as on a FALSE premise, premise (H).

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OBJECTION #5

In Part 15 of this series, I argued that a key premise (D) in the core argument of Objection #5 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. That gives us a good reason to reject the core argument of Objection #5 and to conclude that this objection against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this post, I have shown that the sub-arguments given by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of premise (G) and premise (I) are UNSOUND and defective. Because I have previously provided a strong argument showing that (G) is FALSE and a strong argument showing that (I) is FALSE, we may now confidently conclude that those premises are indeed FALSE.

That means that both premises in the argument supporting the key premise (E) are FALSE and that the argument supporting the key premise (E) is clearly an UNSOUND argument that should be rejected.

Because I have previously provided a strong argument showing that the key premise (E) is FALSE (in Part 16 of this series), we may now confidently conclude that the key premise (E) is indeed FALSE. This gives us a second good reason to reject the core argument of Objection #5 (The Sickly Jesus Objection): the core argument of Objection #5 is UNSOUND because premise (E) is a key premise in that core argument and premise (E) is clearly FALSE. Therefore, Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.