philosophy

Three Ways to Approach Christianity

DIFFERENT WAYS TO APPROACH CHRISTIANITY There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to divide a pie. There are three approaches to the analysis and evaluation of Christianity that I have noticed, and they each have different advantages and disadvantages: I’m sure there are other approaches besides these Three Ways to Approach Christianity

The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies FIVE Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a myth, not meaning The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories

The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems

FIVE THEORIES ABOUT JESUS’ ALLEGED RESURRECTION In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies Five Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems

Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX

OVERVIEW In Chapter 8 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA),  Peter Kreeft (and his co-author Ronald Tacelli), makes a case for the resurrection of Jesus.  He does so by attempting to “refute” or “disprove” four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead: Hallucination: Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories

WHERE WE ARE Kreeft provides six sub-arguments in Objection #7. Three sub-arguments are given to support the key premises (B), (C), and (D), and in Part 20 I showed that those three sub-arguments FAIL to establish either (B) or (C) or (D), giving us three good and sufficient reasons to conclude that Objection #7 FAILS. Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 21: More Evaluation of Objection #7

WHERE WE ARE In Part 20 of this series of posts I showed that Kreeft’s three sub-arguments supporting key premises (B), (C), and (D) of his core argument constituting Objection #7 (against the Swoon Theory) all FAIL, and that the failure of just one of those three sub-arguments is sufficient reason to conclude that Objection #7 Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 21: More Evaluation of Objection #7

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 20: Evaluation of Objection #7

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft has raised nine objections against The Swoon Theory, as part of his case attempting to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. In previous posts I have argued that his Objection #1, Objection #2, Objection #3, Objection #4, Objection #5, Objection #6, and Objection #8 all FAIL as objections against The Swoon Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 20: Evaluation of Objection #7

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Premise (1) of Objection #6

WHERE WE ARE Here, once more, is Peter Kreeft’s Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory, from Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA): How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse?  Or by unarmed disciples?  And if the disciples did it, they knowingly lied when they wrote Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Premise (1) of Objection #6

Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Seven Key NT Scholars

WHERE WE ARE Joe Hinman asserts that in recent decades there has been “a trend involving many scholars” in which “John has a new credibility”.  Because Hinman makes these assertions in response to my claim that the 4th Gospel is HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE, and because Hinman then quotes Kermit Zarley’s assertion about three NT scholars arriving Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Seven Key NT Scholars