philosophy

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 40: A Key Premise of Objection #8

OBJECTION #8 (WHERE DID JESUS GO?) Here is Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) against the Swoon Theory as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (HCA): If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 40: A Key Premise of Objection #8

21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Conclusions

WHERE WE ARE In this series, I have been reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Conclusions

Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 2: More Definitions

WHERE WE ARE In the first post of this series, I showed that the definition of “swoon theory” implied by the Christian apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994) was WRONG because it was too simple and too broad. I also showed that the definition of “swoon theory” implied Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 2: More Definitions

Habermas & Licona on the Swoon Theory

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (published in 2004), Gary Habermas and Michael Licona present three objections against the Swoon Theory, on pages 99 through 103. My Christian friend David Diaz, however, disagrees with the above claim: Habermas and Licona are NOT writing about the “Swoon Theory,” Habermas & Licona on the Swoon Theory

21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Gary Habermas & Michael Licona

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Gary Habermas & Michael Licona

21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Sean & Josh McDowell

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Sean & Josh McDowell

21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Willaim Lane Craig

My Christian friend David Diaz made this comment on one of my recent posts: Kreeft, now 86 years old, had a long and distinguished career but has been long removed from the cutting edge of apologetics. I would suggest that you acknowledge this when critiquing his brief treatment of the resurrection in his Handbook. I 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Willaim Lane Craig

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 39: A Careful Analysis of Objection #8

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. Their case consists mainly of attempts to refute some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One of those skeptical theories is the Swoon Theory. Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 39: A Careful Analysis of Objection #8

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 38: Evaluation of the Argument for Premise (1a)

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of evaluating Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) against the Swoon Theory. In Part 36 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #1. In Part 37 of this series, I did an initial evaluation of the key premise (1a), and Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 38: Evaluation of the Argument for Premise (1a)