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

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

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

OBJECTION #8: THE WHERE DID JESUS GO? OBJECTION As I pointed out in Part 4  of this series, Peter Kreeft’s argument constituting Objection #8 against the Survival Theory (TST) is UNSOUND, because a key premise of that argument is clearly and obviously FALSE: 1. It is NOT the case that there is some historical data … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Evaluation of Objection #8

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 4: The ‘Where Did Jesus Go?’ Objection

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 1 of this series of posts, I argued that Peter Kreeft’s definition of “the Swoon Theory” should be rejected, because if we accept his definition, then his case for the resurrection of Jesus immediately FAILS. Kreeft’s definition of “the Swoon Theory”asserts a specific explanation for the behavior of the … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Use of Biblical Texts

In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli), Peter Kreeft attempts to disprove the Swoon Theory as part of an elimination-of-alternatives argument for the resurrection of Jesus.  Kreeft thinks that by disproving four skeptical theories, he can show that the Christian theory is true, that Jesus actually rose from the dead. … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 1: What is the Swoon Theory?

Dr. Peter Kreeft believes there are only five possible theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, and the Conspiracy Theory (hereafter: TCT) is one of those theories: In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli), Peter Kreeft attempts to disprove the Conspiracy Theory (TCT), as part of an elimination-of-alternatives argument for … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – INDEX