21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Sean & Josh McDowell
WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their … 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Sean & Josh McDowell
21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Willaim Lane Craig
My Christian friend David Diaz made this comment on one of my recent posts: Kreeft, now 86 years old, had a long and distinguished career but has been long removed from the cutting edge of apologetics. I would suggest that you acknowledge this when critiquing his brief treatment of the resurrection in his Handbook. I … 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Willaim Lane Craig
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 39: A Careful Analysis of Objection #8
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. Their case consists mainly of attempts to refute some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One of those skeptical theories is the Swoon Theory. … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 39: A Careful Analysis of Objection #8
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 38: Evaluation of the Argument for Premise (1a)
WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of evaluating Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) against the Swoon Theory. In Part 36 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #1. In Part 37 of this series, I did an initial evaluation of the key premise (1a), and … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 38: Evaluation of the Argument for Premise (1a)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 37: Initial Evaluation of Premise (1a)
THE FINAL INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1 1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers. THEREFORE: B. Jesus did NOT survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is false. EVALUATION OF THE FINAL INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1 The logic of the final inferences in the argument constituting Objection #1 (The Deadliness … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 37: Initial Evaluation of Premise (1a)
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 36: A Careful Analysis of Objection #1
OBJECTION #1: THE DEADLINESS OF ROMAN CRUCIFIXION Objection #1 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) does not rest on Gospel passages: Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 36: A Careful Analysis of Objection #1
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – The Objections Based on Other Gospels
WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus. An important part of their case for the resurrection of Jesus is an attempt to refute some skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory. If they FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory, then their … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – The Objections Based on Other Gospels
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 35: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1a) of Objection #9
WHERE WE ARE I am finishing up my careful evaluation of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli from Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 32 of this series, I presented my careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #9 against the Swoon … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 35: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1a) of Objection #9
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 34: Premise (1a) of Objection #9
WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of presenting my evaluation of Objection #9 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory (see Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics). Here, again, is the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories): 1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 34: Premise (1a) of Objection #9
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