THE QUESTION AT ISSUE In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (published in 2004), Gary Habermas and Michael Licona present three objections against the Swoon Theory, on pages 99 through 103. My Christian friend David Diaz, however, disagrees with the above claim: Habermas and Licona are NOT writing about the “Swoon Theory,” … Habermas & Licona on the Swoon Theory

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in … 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Gary Habermas & Michael Licona

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their … 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Sean & Josh McDowell

My Christian friend David Diaz made this comment on one of my recent posts: Kreeft, now 86 years old, had a long and distinguished career but has been long removed from the cutting edge of apologetics. I would suggest that you acknowledge this when critiquing his brief treatment of the resurrection in his Handbook. I … 21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Willaim Lane Craig

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. Their case consists mainly of attempts to refute some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One of those skeptical theories is the Swoon Theory. … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 39: A Careful Analysis of Objection #8

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of evaluating Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) against the Swoon Theory. In Part 36 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #1. In Part 37 of this series, I did an initial evaluation of the key premise (1a), and … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 38: Evaluation of the Argument for Premise (1a)

THE FINAL INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1 1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers. THEREFORE: B. Jesus did NOT survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is false. EVALUATION OF THE FINAL INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1 The logic of the final inferences in the argument constituting Objection #1 (The Deadliness … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 37: Initial Evaluation of Premise (1a)

OBJECTION #1: THE DEADLINESS OF ROMAN CRUCIFIXION Objection #1 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) does not rest on Gospel passages: Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 36: A Careful Analysis of Objection #1