WHERE WE ARE Careful argument evaluation is the heart and soul of critical thinking. But in order to do a careful evaluation of an argument, one must first have a clear understanding of the argument that is to be evaluated. Careful argument analysis is usually required in order to obtain a clear understanding of an … Careful Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory: Objection #3 (Blood and Water)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)