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 – Part 19: A Careful Analysis of Objection #6

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH OBJECTION #5 The main problem with Objection #5 is that a key premise of the core argument for this objection is FALSE. Specifically, the key premise (E) is FALSE. Here, once again, is the core argument for Objection #5: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Why Objection #5 Cannot Be Repaired

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 16: 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 15: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D)

In Part 12 of this series, I concluded that Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory FAILS, because the core argument for Objection #4 consists of two DUBIOUS premises and one FALSE premise. Before I move on to Objection #5, I would like to consider a possible way to repair Objection #4 which attempts … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4

WHERE WE ARE In Part 8 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 9 of this series, I argued that the key premise (1b) in Objection #4 is supported by an argument consisting of two FALSE premises: premise (B) and premise (3b). Thus, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 12: Evaluation of Premise (C)