philosophy of religion

Some Reflections on Epistemology

To be honest, I tend to shy away from discussions of epistemology (the theory of knowledge, the sub-discipline of philosophy that attempts to understand and clarify the concept of knowledge and the conditions or criteria for what counts as knowledge).  First of all, I don’t enjoy discussing “Calvinist epistemology” which has been a big topic Some Reflections on Epistemology

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The “Winding Sheets” Objection

WHERE WE ARE AT In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to refute The Swoon Theory.  But in order for his case for the resurrection to have any chance of success, he actually needs to refute the more general view that I call The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST), the theory that Jesus Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The “Winding Sheets” Objection

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The “Blood and Water” Objection

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part #6 through Part #9, I have argued that Peter Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” objection, Objection #2 against The Survival Theory (TST),  is a complete FAILURE. Objection #2 has two main components, and can be summarized like this: 1. A Roman soldier decided to NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was hanging Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The “Blood and Water” Objection

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 9: More Problems with Objection #2

WHERE WE ARE AT Kreeft’s Objection #2 (the “Break their Legs” objection) against The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST) has at least three problems: PROBLEM 1:  Roman Soldiers were NOT Medical Doctors PROBLEM 2:  The Same Passage Implies the Soldiers were NOT Sure Jesus was Dead PROBLEM 3:  The Key Historical Claims Made by Kreeft are Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 9: More Problems with Objection #2

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 8: Problems with the “Break their Legs” Objection

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 7 of this series, I presented Peter Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” Objection (i.e., Objection #2) against the swoon theory, and, more properly, against The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST).   I pointed out three significant problems with Objection #2: PROBLEM 1:  Roman Soldiers were NOT Medical Doctors PROBLEM 2:  The Same Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 8: Problems with the “Break their Legs” Objection

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 7: The “Break their Legs” Objection

Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 against the Survival Theory (TST) is based on a dubious passage from the 4th Gospel: The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 7: The “Break their Legs” Objection

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Objections Based on the 4th Gospel

WHERE WE ARE AT In this series of posts I will defend the Survival Theory (TST) against the nine objections that Peter Kreeft puts forward in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA).   Kreeft’s nine objections to TST can also be found in an online article at the Strange Notions website. Kreeft mistakenly takes Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Objections Based on the 4th Gospel