Bible

Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Joe Hinman

|

WHERE WE ARE Here is one of the main issues between Joe Hinman and me: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE? My answer to this question … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Joe Hinman

Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Kermit Zarley

|

WHERE WE ARE The main question at issue between me and Joe Hinman is this: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE? My answer to this question … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Kermit Zarley

Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking about NT Scholarship

|

HINMAN’S PATHETIC DEFENSE OF PREMISE (1B) OF HIS SAD LITTLE ARGUMENT In response to one of my posts defending the Swoon Theory against objections by Peter Kreeft, Joe Hinman presented the following Sad Little Argument (this version of the argument is after I clarified and improved the argument, so it would make sense and not … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking about NT Scholarship

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 16: The Roman Guards are Probably Fictional

|

OBJECTION #6: THE GUARDS AT THE TOMB  In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft has raised nine objections against The Swoon Theory, as part of his case attempting to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.  In previous posts I have argued that his Objection #1, Objection #2, Objection … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 16: The Roman Guards are Probably Fictional

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 15: Overpowering the Roman Guards

|

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft believes that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories that provide alternative explanations to the standard Christian view that Jesus rose from the dead.  One of those skeptical theories is The Swoon Theory. However, refuting The Swoon Theory (and three other skeptical theories) will … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 15: Overpowering the Roman Guards

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 14: The Guards at the Tomb

|

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft believes that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories that provide alternative explanations to the standard Christian view that Jesus rose from the dead.  One of those skeptical theories is The Swoon Theory. However, refuting The Swoon Theory (and three other skeptical theories) will … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 14: The Guards at the Tomb

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 13: The Sickly Jesus Objection

|

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft believes that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories that provide alternative explanations to the standard Christian view that Jesus rose from the dead.  One of those skeptical theories is The Swoon Theory. However, refuting The Swoon Theory (and three other skeptical theories) will … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 13: The Sickly Jesus Objection

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The “Blood and Water” Objection

|

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part #6 through Part #9, I have argued that Peter Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” objection, Objection #2 against The Survival Theory (TST),  is a complete FAILURE. Objection #2 has two main components, and can be summarized like this: 1. A Roman soldier decided to NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was hanging … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The “Blood and Water” Objection