Bradley Bowen

I was a devout Evangelical Christian from 1970 to 1982. The study of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, led me to see that my Christian faith was founded on weak and faulty arguments. I followed where reason led me, and left Christianity in favor of skepticism, critical thinking, and a secular humanist worldview. Background in Philosophy - B.A. in philosophy from Sonoma State University. M.A. in philosophy from University of Windsor. Candidate for PhD in philosophy from University of California at Santa Barbara.

More Objections to the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Objections by William Craig

In the last decade of the 20th Century, two Christian philosophers named Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli published their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994; hereafter: HCA). In Chapter 8, they make a case for the resurrection of Jesus. That case involves an attempt to refute four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One More Objections to the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Objections by William Craig

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 43: McDowell’s Argument for Premise (B)

WHERE WE ARE Objection #8 against the Swoon Theory as presented by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS, even if we repair their embarrassing blunder of asserting a key premise that is obviously false by replacing their premise (1) with the much more plausible premise (1b). The argument for Objection #8 still FAILS, because it requires premise Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 43: McDowell’s Argument for Premise (B)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 42: Premise (B) of Objection #8

WHERE WE ARE Although Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) was DEAD ON ARRIVAL because of the embarrassing blunder that a key premise of their argument was obviously FALSE, we have revised and improved that premise so that it Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 42: Premise (B) of Objection #8

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 41: Repairing a Key Premise of Objection #8

WHERE WE ARE We are in the process of analyzing and evaluating Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory, from their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). This is the final objection against the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli that I will be critically examining. Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 41: Repairing a Key Premise of Objection #8

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 40: A Key Premise of Objection #8

OBJECTION #8 (WHERE DID JESUS GO?) Here is Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) against the Swoon Theory as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (HCA): If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 40: A Key Premise of Objection #8

Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 3: William Craig’s Definition

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I showed that the very simple and very broad definition of the “Swoon Theory” implied by Kreeft and Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994) was WRONG, and that the very complex and very detailed definition of the “Swoon Theory” by the McDowells from their Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 3: William Craig’s Definition

21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Conclusions

WHERE WE ARE In this series, I have been reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Conclusions

Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 2: More Definitions

WHERE WE ARE In the first post of this series, I showed that the definition of “swoon theory” implied by the Christian apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994) was WRONG because it was too simple and too broad. I also showed that the definition of “swoon theory” implied Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 2: More Definitions

Habermas & Licona on the Swoon Theory

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (published in 2004), Gary Habermas and Michael Licona present three objections against the Swoon Theory, on pages 99 through 103. My Christian friend David Diaz, however, disagrees with the above claim: Habermas and Licona are NOT writing about the “Swoon Theory,” Habermas & Licona on the Swoon Theory