resurrection

Craig’s Historical Claims for His Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory

WHERE WE ARE In his book The Son Rises (hereafter: TSR), William Craig raises three objections against the Swoon Theory (which he refers to as the Apparent Death Theory). The Swoon Theory is the skeptical view that Jesus survived his crucifixion, later met with some of his disciples, and that this experience of seeing a Craig’s Historical Claims for His Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory

Why Christian Apologists are Doomed to FAIL – Part 2: Dozens of Historical Facts Required

WHERE WE ARE In the first post of this series, called “Why Christian Apologists are Doomed to FAIL“, I put forward this skeptical argument about the attempts of Christian apologists to prove the resurrection of Jesus: 1. One can construct a reasonable argument for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead ONLY IF Why Christian Apologists are Doomed to FAIL – Part 2: Dozens of Historical Facts Required

Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin

LOWERED EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE PASSION NARRATIVES As I mentioned in my previous post “Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before Pilate“, Brown expresses significant doubt about the historical reliability and historical accuracy of the Passion Narratives in the Gospels. From the opening pages of his massive two-volume commentary on the Passion Narratives, The Death Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin

Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before Pilate

LOWERED EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE PASSION NARRATIVES From the opening pages of his massive two-volume commentary on the Passion Narratives, The Death of the Messiah (hereafter: DOM), the eminent New Testament scholar Raymond Brown lowers expectations of historical reliability and historical accuracy from these important parts of the Gospels. On the first page of the introduction, Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before Pilate

Craig vs. Spinoza: Craig’s Doctrinal-Context Objection

WHERE WE ARE In the third edition of Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3), William Craig presents three objections against Spinoza’s second objection against miracles, as we saw in my previous post on this subject. Craig’s first objection, lets call it the Insignificant Impact Objection, is an attempt to downplay the significance of Spinoza’s second objection against Craig vs. Spinoza: Craig’s Doctrinal-Context Objection

An Attempt to Rescue Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment) Against the Swoon Theory

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics, the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli present nine objections against the Swoon Theory (the view that Jesus only fainted on the cross, survived his crucifixion, and at some later time met up with some of his disciples leading those disciples to An Attempt to Rescue Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment) Against the Swoon Theory

Craig vs. Spinoza: Craig’s Objections to Spinoza’s Second Objection against Miracles

WHERE WE ARE In the first post of this series, I conceded that Spinoza’s primary objection against miracles fails, because Spinoza mistakenly assumed that the laws of nature were deterministic. In the 20th century, science has shown that some laws of nature involve probability and chance, and that natural phenomena can sometimes be random. However, Craig vs. Spinoza: Craig’s Objections to Spinoza’s Second Objection against Miracles