links

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

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 21: Premise (D) of Objection #6

WHERE WE ARE In Part 19 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. In Part 20 of this series, I showed that premise (G) was FALSE, and thus that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 21: Premise (D) of Objection #6

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Evaluation of the Objections Based on John

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 – Evaluation of the Objections Based on John

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 17: Continued Evaluation of Premise (E)

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5 As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 17: Continued Evaluation of Premise (E)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. Through a series of blog posts here at Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)

Seven Reasons Why Jesus did NOT Die for Our Sins

Because God does not exist, and because Jesus was just a flawed, ignorant and superstitious human being, Jesus’ forgiveness of anyone is of no significance. But Giles is right in pointing out that the common Christian belief that “Jesus died for our sins” is completely contradicted by the Bible.

Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

https://fb.watch/mde4HpZTeN/ The problem with Evangelical Christianity is NOT just that it has become politicized and become a political tool of the Republican Party (in the USA). The problem is that it is a false superstition that is based on unthinking acceptance of the authority of the Bible. The Bible is merely a product of flawed Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity