philosophy of religion

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In this current post, I will begin to critically evaluate that argument. THE Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

https://fb.watch/mde4HpZTeN/ The problem with Evangelical Christianity is NOT just that it has become politicized and become a political tool of the Republican Party (in the USA). The problem is that it is a false superstition that is based on unthinking acceptance of the authority of the Bible. The Bible is merely a product of flawed Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. Through a series of blog posts here at Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. However, Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to refute Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and the Feeling-Superior Argument

WHERE WE ARE For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 3 through Part 15 of this series, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 16 of this series. For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 16, Part 17, and Part 18, see the “WHERE Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and the Feeling-Superior Argument

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Analysis of Objection #2

In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. They claim that there are only four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view: Based on that assumption they attempt to refute each of these skeptical theories Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Analysis of Objection #2