logic

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

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.

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In this current post, I will begin to critically evaluate that argument. THE Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

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 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)

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. However, Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to refute Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and the Feeling-Superior Argument

WHERE WE ARE For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 3 through Part 15 of this series, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 16 of this series. For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 16, Part 17, and Part 18, see the “WHERE Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and the Feeling-Superior Argument