resurrection

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 14: A Careful Analysis of Objection #5

OBJECTION #5: THE SICKLY JESUS OBJECTION Here is the fifth objection by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory: The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even “doubting Thomas,” that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 14: A Careful Analysis of Objection #5

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4

In Part 12 of this series, I concluded that Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory FAILS, because the core argument for Objection #4 consists of two DUBIOUS premises and one FALSE premise. Before I move on to Objection #5, I would like to consider a possible way to repair Objection #4 which attempts Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 12: Evaluation of Premise (C)

WHERE WE ARE In Part 8 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 9 of this series, I argued that the key premise (1b) in Objection #4 is supported by an argument consisting of two FALSE premises: premise (B) and premise (3b). Thus, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 12: Evaluation of Premise (C)

The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 4: The Rest of the Birth Story

WHERE WE ARE Most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew were borrowed from the earlier Gospel of Mark. In Part 1 of this series, I provided some general reasons why we should doubt the historical reliability of any changes or additions to the stories about Jesus made by the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the stories about Jesus that The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 4: The Rest of the Birth Story

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A) Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so we need to consider that argument: 4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39

In my discussion of Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory in Part 9 of this series, I made the following claim: It turns out that 30 liters of a 50/50 mixture of these substances would weigh about 28 to 38 pounds. The “substances” referred to here are the myrrh and aloes that Nicodemus allegedly brought Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)

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 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)