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: What Joe Knows for Sure Just Ain’t So
What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so – Mark Twain * I believe that what gets Joe Hinman into trouble is not so much what he doesn’t know as what he knows for sure that just ain’t so. According to Hinman: He [Brad … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: What Joe Knows for Sure Just Ain’t So
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
Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Scholars Do NOT Believe 4th Gospel is Reliable
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 quotes Kermit Zarley’s assertion about three NT scholars arriving at the conclusion that … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Scholars Do NOT Believe 4th Gospel is Reliable
Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Joe Hinman
WHERE WE ARE Here is one of the main issues between Joe Hinman and me: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE? My answer to this question … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Joe Hinman
Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Kermit Zarley
WHERE WE ARE The main question at issue between me and Joe Hinman is this: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE? My answer to this question … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking by Kermit Zarley
Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking about NT Scholarship
HINMAN’S PATHETIC DEFENSE OF PREMISE (1B) OF HIS SAD LITTLE ARGUMENT In response to one of my posts defending the Swoon Theory against objections by Peter Kreeft, Joe Hinman presented the following Sad Little Argument (this version of the argument is after I clarified and improved the argument, so it would make sense and not … Hinman’s Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking about NT Scholarship
Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 16: The Roman Guards are Probably Fictional
OBJECTION #6: THE GUARDS AT THE TOMB 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 … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 16: The Roman Guards are Probably Fictional