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): In previous posts, I have shown that premise (C) is FALSE, and that premises (D1), (E), and (F) are DUBIOUS. So, it is abundantly … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 29: The Sub-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 (hereafter: HCA). In this current post, I will begin to carefully evaluate … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 24: The Core Argument of Objection #7

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), 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, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 23: A Careful Analysis of Objection #7

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 Here, once again, is the core argument of Objection #6: D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Premise (F) of Objection #6

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 The core of the argument for Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) against the Swoon Theory has three premises: D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. It is … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 20: The Core Argument of Objection #6