philosophy of religion

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 31: Evaluation of the Modified Arguments for Premise (G)

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. For the past ten days, I have been carefully evaluating the argument Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 31: Evaluation of the Modified Arguments for Premise (G)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 30: An Attempt to Repair the Arguments for (G)

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G) Here, again, is the core argument for premise (G): 10a. The story that the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb fell asleep while on duty on the weekend after Jesus was crucified and that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 30: An Attempt to Repair the Arguments for (G)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 29: The Sub-Arguments for Premise (G)

WHERE WE ARE Premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory. Here is the argument supporting premise (3a): In previous posts, I have shown that premise (C) is FALSE, and that premises (D1), (E), and (F) are DUBIOUS. So, it is abundantly Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 29: The Sub-Arguments for Premise (G)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 28: The Sub-Argument for Premise (F)

WHERE WE ARE Premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory. Here is the argument supporting premise (3a): D1. Jesus did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified (unless Jesus experienced a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 28: The Sub-Argument for Premise (F)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 27: The Sub-Argument for Premise (E)

WHERE WE ARE In Part 25 of this series, I showed that premise (C) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is FALSE. Thus, the argument for (3a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 27: The Sub-Argument for Premise (E)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 26: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D1)

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 26: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D1)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 24: The Core Argument of Objection #7

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In this current post, I will begin to carefully evaluate Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 24: The Core Argument of Objection #7

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 23: A Careful Analysis of Objection #7

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus. An important part of their case for the resurrection of Jesus is an attempt to refute some skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory. If they FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 23: A Careful Analysis of Objection #7