philosophy

Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 13: False Claims and Assumptions in Leviticus

WHERE WE ARE One important reason for rejecting the view that Leviticus was inspired by God is that this book contains several FALSE claims and assumptions.  I have already argued that Leviticus contains FALSE historical claims and assumptions and that it also contains logical contradictions, so I have already shown that Leviticus contains FALSE claims Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 13: False Claims and Assumptions in Leviticus

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

WHERE WE ARE In his book Philosophy of Religion  (hereafter: POR), Norman Geisler provides an argument in support of the second premise of his Thomist Cosmological Argument (see pages 194-197).  Here is my understanding of the argument that Geisler gives in support of that premise: 52. But no potentiality can actualize itself. THEREFORE: 53a. There The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

Back to God and Leviticus

When Easter rolled around this year, I dove back into the questions “Did God raise Jesus from the dead?”  and “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”  These are issues that I have enjoyed thinking about for the past four decades, and will continue to think and write about for the rest of my life. DEFENDING Back to God and Leviticus

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 11: Five Hundred Witnesses

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell’s seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell’s one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 (“Very Personal”).  McDowell presents this objection Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 11: Five Hundred Witnesses

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 10: Looking at Luke 24

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell’s seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF). against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell’s one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 (“Very Personal”).  McDowell presents this objection in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 10: Looking at Luke 24

My First Book

I’m planning to write my first book this year: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus Actually, a good portion of the book has already been written, at least in terms of the key ideas and arguments. The book will have two main purposes: The initial outline of the book follows the main premises of My First Book

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 8: The VERY PERSONAL Objection (TRF2)

WHERE WE ARE In the previous seven parts of this series, I have shown that at least six out of the seven objections raised by Josh McDowell in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL.  So, at least 85% of McDowell’s objections against the Hallucination Theory FAIL: Given that at least 85% of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 8: The VERY PERSONAL Objection (TRF2)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 7: The DOESN’T MATCH THE FACTS Objection (TRF7)

WHERE WE ARE In the previous six posts of this series, I have shown that at least five out of seven (71%) of Josh McDowell’s objections in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL: McDowell has at most provided only two solid objections against the Hallucination Theory, NOT seven.  However, in this Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 7: The DOESN’T MATCH THE FACTS Objection (TRF7)