Bible

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 4: Were There Qualified Witnesses?

THE CLARIFICATION OF KREEFT’S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2 In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft presented his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences: Presenting an argument for the falsehood of the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences is IDIOTIC.  One reason this is IDIOTIC is that this Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 4: Were There Qualified Witnesses?

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 3: The Witnesses Were Qualified

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft’s first three objections against the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter HCA) can be summarized this way: Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Christ Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 3: The Witnesses Were Qualified

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 1: Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection

MCDOWELL’S CASE AGAINST THE HALLUCINATION THEORY I recently examined Josh McDowell’s case against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF), and I showed that each one of the seven objections that McDowell raised against this skeptical theory FAILS, and thus that his case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. The Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 1: Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection

Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 13: False Claims and Assumptions in Leviticus

WHERE WE ARE One important reason for rejecting the view that Leviticus was inspired by God is that this book contains several FALSE claims and assumptions.  I have already argued that Leviticus contains FALSE historical claims and assumptions and that it also contains logical contradictions, so I have already shown that Leviticus contains FALSE claims Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 13: False Claims and Assumptions in Leviticus

Back to God and Leviticus

When Easter rolled around this year, I dove back into the questions “Did God raise Jesus from the dead?”  and “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”  These are issues that I have enjoyed thinking about for the past four decades, and will continue to think and write about for the rest of my life. DEFENDING Back to God and Leviticus

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 11: Five Hundred Witnesses

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell’s seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell’s one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 (“Very Personal”).  McDowell presents this objection Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 11: Five Hundred Witnesses

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 10: Looking at Luke 24

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell’s seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF). against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell’s one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 (“Very Personal”).  McDowell presents this objection in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 10: Looking at Luke 24

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 8: The VERY PERSONAL Objection (TRF2)

WHERE WE ARE In the previous seven parts of this series, I have shown that at least six out of the seven objections raised by Josh McDowell in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL.  So, at least 85% of McDowell’s objections against the Hallucination Theory FAIL: Given that at least 85% of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 8: The VERY PERSONAL Objection (TRF2)