books of interest

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 11: The “Winding Sheets” Objection

WHERE WE ARE AT In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to refute The Swoon Theory.  But in order for his case for the resurrection to have any chance of success, he actually needs to refute the more general view that I call The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST), the theory that Jesus Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The “Winding Sheets” 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

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 8: Problems with the “Break their Legs” Objection

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 7 of this series, I presented Peter Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” Objection (i.e., Objection #2) against the swoon theory, and, more properly, against The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST).   I pointed out three significant problems with Objection #2: PROBLEM 1:  Roman Soldiers were NOT Medical Doctors PROBLEM 2:  The Same Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 8: Problems with the “Break their Legs” Objection

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 7: The “Break their Legs” Objection

Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 against the Survival Theory (TST) is based on a dubious passage from the 4th Gospel: The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 7: The “Break their Legs” Objection