The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 2: The Birth Story
There is no story about the birth of Jesus in the earliest gospel: the Gospel of Mark. Although the Gospel of Matthew borrows most of its stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark, it does make one obvious and major addition: a story about the birth of Jesus. If this major addition to the … The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 2: The Birth Story
The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 1: General Considerations
The Gospel of Matthew has something significant to offer scholars who study the historical Jesus in terms of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus. The main reason for this is that whenever a saying, parable, or teaching of Jesus is found in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, but NOT in … The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 1: General Considerations
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A) Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so we need to consider that argument: 4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39
In my discussion of Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory in Part 9 of this series, I made the following claim: It turns out that 30 liters of a 50/50 mixture of these substances would weigh about 28 to 38 pounds. The “substances” referred to here are the myrrh and aloes that Nicodemus allegedly brought … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)
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 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 8: Analysis of Objection #4
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 8: Analysis of Objection #4
Jesus is NOT God – Part 3: The Omniscience Argument (continued)
WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I argued that Jesus was NOT God because Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent. In Part 2 of this series, I argued that Jesus was NOT God because Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient. The main argument I gave in Part 2 of this series was this one: … Jesus is NOT God – Part 3: The Omniscience Argument (continued)
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. Your name Your email Subject Your … Seven Reasons Why Jesus did NOT Die for Our Sins
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