WHERE WE ARE On page 187 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft presents his second of fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory. In Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7 of this series,  I clarified, analyzed, and evaluated Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 (Witnesses Were Qualified) … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 11: The Group Hallucinations Historical Claim

WHERE WE ARE In Part 8 of this series, I focused on Peter Kreeft’s VERY UNCLEAR argument constituting his Objection #1 (“Too Many Witnesses”) against the Hallucination Theory.    I argued that this was a brief and UNCLEAR version of Josh McDowell’s “Very Personal” objection against the Hallucination Theory (found in his book The Resurrection Factor, … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 9: Clarification of the Hallucination Principle

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli; hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to disprove the Hallucination 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 … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 8: Too Many Witnesses

WHERE WE ARE Here is my clarified version of Peter Kreeft’s argument constituting his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory: 1a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were simple, honest, moral people. 2a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus had firsthand knowledge of the facts. … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 7: More Problems with Objection #2

WHERE WE ARE There are at least two kinds of pleasure for a skeptic who critically examines the arguments of Christian apologists: Although I have already provided sufficient reason to conclude that the first premise of Kreeft’s argument (constituting his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory) is DUBIOUS, I’m going to continue to hammer on … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 6: The Ignorance of Peter Kreeft

WHERE WE ARE In Part 4 of this series, I argued that Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory was a MISERABLE FAILURE.  This is because the first premise of his argument constituting this objection implies 102 specific historical claims about people who lived two thousand years ago, and yet Kreeft FAILED to provide … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 5: Historical Evidence about Mary Magdalene

THE CLARIFICATION OF KREEFT’S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2 In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft presented his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences: Presenting an argument for the falsehood of the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences is IDIOTIC.  One reason this is IDIOTIC is that this … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 4: Were There Qualified Witnesses?

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft’s first three objections against the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter HCA) can be summarized this way: Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Christ … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 3: The Witnesses Were Qualified