resurrection

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

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 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

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Introduction

|

I have previously analyzed and evaluated the case against the Swoon Theory presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA): My conclusion was that all nine of their objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL, and that their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory FAILED. If … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Introduction

The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – LINKS

|

I also wrote a series of posts defending the Hallucination Theory against the objections raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics) over on my own blog (because The Secular Outpost was shut down and The Secular Frontier had not yet been set up): Defending the Hallucination … The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – LINKS

Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Hallucination Theory.

|

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 … Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Hallucination Theory.