links

21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Conclusions

WHERE WE ARE In this series, I have been 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 Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Conclusions

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 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 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 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