Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 33: The Core Argument of Objection #9
THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #9 Here is the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories): 1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true. B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 33: The Core Argument of Objection #9
Posts from 2023 by Bradley Bowen
He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us – Part 1: Jesus was a Refugee? He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us – Part 2: Jesus Supported Women’s Equality? He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us – Part 3: A Bait-and-Switch Jesus Key Topics and Bibliographies TOPICS for Future Posts Thinking Critically about the Christian Worldview Three … Posts from 2023 by Bradley Bowen
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 32: A Careful Analysis of Objection #9
WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli claim to have proved the resurrection of Jesus in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). Their case for the resurrection of Jesus is based on refuting four skeptical theories. One of the skeptical theories that they claim to have refuted is the Swoon … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 32: A Careful Analysis of Objection #9
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 31: Evaluation of the Modified Arguments for Premise (G)
WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. For the past ten days, I have been carefully evaluating the argument … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 31: Evaluation of the Modified Arguments for Premise (G)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 30: An Attempt to Repair the Arguments for (G)
THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G) Here, again, is the core argument for premise (G): 10a. The story that the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb fell asleep while on duty on the weekend after Jesus was crucified and that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 30: An Attempt to Repair the Arguments for (G)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 29: The Sub-Arguments for Premise (G)
WHERE WE ARE Premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory. Here is the argument supporting premise (3a): In previous posts, I have shown that premise (C) is FALSE, and that premises (D1), (E), and (F) are DUBIOUS. So, it is abundantly … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 29: The Sub-Arguments for Premise (G)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 28: The Sub-Argument for Premise (F)
WHERE WE ARE Premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory. Here is the argument supporting premise (3a): D1. Jesus did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified (unless Jesus experienced a … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 28: The Sub-Argument for Premise (F)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 27: The Sub-Argument for Premise (E)
WHERE WE ARE In Part 25 of this series, I showed that premise (C) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is FALSE. Thus, the argument for (3a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 27: The Sub-Argument for Premise (E)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 26: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D1)
WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 26: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D1)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7
WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7