Bible

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

Seven Reasons Why Jesus did NOT Die for Our Sins

Because God does not exist, and because Jesus was just a flawed, ignorant and superstitious human being, Jesus’ forgiveness of anyone is of no significance. But Giles is right in pointing out that the common Christian belief that “Jesus died for our sins” is completely contradicted by the Bible.

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In this current post, I will begin to critically evaluate that argument. THE Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

https://fb.watch/mde4HpZTeN/ The problem with Evangelical Christianity is NOT just that it has become politicized and become a political tool of the Republican Party (in the USA). The problem is that it is a false superstition that is based on unthinking acceptance of the authority of the Bible. The Bible is merely a product of flawed Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. Through a series of blog posts here at Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)