The Secular Frontier

WHERE WE ARE Premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory. Here is the argument supporting premise (3a): In previous posts, I have shown that premise (C) is FALSE, and that premises (D1), (E), and (F) are DUBIOUS. So, it is abundantly clear that this argument for premise (3a) is a hopelessly BAD argument. Since premise (3a) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (3a) is DUBIOUS. Since premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7, we should reject the core argument. Therefore, Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In this current post, I will argue that premise (G), another premise in the argument for (3a) is DUBIOUS, providing yet another good reason to believe that the key premise (3a) is also DUBIOUS. THE SUB-ARGUMENTS FOR PREMISE (G) There are three different sub-arguments supporting premise (10a), and then premise (10a) is the reason ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE Premise (3a) is a key premise in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) against the Swoon Theory. Here is the argument supporting premise (3a): D1. Jesus did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified (unless Jesus experienced a supernatural resurrection). E. The Roman soldiers did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. G. It is NOT the case that some or all of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. C. There are only four possible natural explanations for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified: (a) Jesus moved the stone, (b) the Roman soldiers moved the stone, (c) the Jewish authori ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 25 of this series, I showed that premise (C) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is FALSE. Thus, the argument for (3a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) should be rejected, and Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In Part 26 of this series, I showed that premise (D1) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS. Therefore, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) should be rejected, and Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In this current post, I will argue that premise (E) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS. Therefore, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (3a) D1. Jesus did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the key premise (B) in the core argument of Objection #7 is FALSE, and that the core argument is thus UNSOUND, and that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory therefore FAILS. In Part 25 of this series, I showed that premise (C) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is FALSE. Thus, the argument for (3a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Because I have shown that the key premise (B) in the core argument of Objection #7 is FALSE, and that the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS, we already have very good reason to conclude that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. However, I will continue my evaluation of the sub-argument for ... Read Article

Most commentators think Luke had not read Paul's letters. For reasons too long to go into here, I think Luke did, but just for the fun of it let's say he did and try an example testing it. One of the most remarkable passages in Paul is that Jesus only got the superlative name/title "Lord" after the resurrection. We read in Philippians 2: "And being found in appearance as a human,8     he humbled himself    and became obedient to the point of death—    even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God exalted him even more highly    and gave him the name    that is above every other name,10 so that at the name given to Jesus    every knee should bend,    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue should confess    that Jesus Christ is Lord,    to the glory of God the Father." Now, this obviously is a bit of an affront to someone who thinks Jesus deserved to be called Lord all his life, so look what Luke 2:11 does with the nativity: "11 to you ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the key premise (B) in the core argument of Objection #7 is FALSE, and that the core argument is thus UNSOUND, and that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory therefore FAILS. In this current post, I will begin to carefully evaluate the argument supporting the other key premise in the core argument: premise (3a). THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #7 B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there is a plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. 3a. There is no plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus' tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. THEREFORE: ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In this current post, I will begin to carefully evaluate this argument. THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #7 (WHO MOVED THE STONE?) Here is the core argument of Objection #7: B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there is a plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. 3a. There is no plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus' tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE. EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (B) All of the other premises and inferences in the overall argument are focused on supporting the key premise (3a). But the key premise (B) must a ... Read Article

Check out Ed's latest interview with Dr. Robert M Price: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B35R-HfVkcM ... Read Article

Check out Keith Augustine skeptically addressing the life after death hypothesis, especially 15 minutes near the end and forward. ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus. An important part of their case for the resurrection of Jesus is an attempt to refute some skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory. If they FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory, then their case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. Kreeft and Tacelli raise nine objections against the Swoon Theory, and I have previously examined four objections that they based on passages from the Gospel of John. Here are the conclusions I have reached about those four objections: See the post below for links to my posts about the above four objections: Evaluation of the Objections Based on John In more recent posts, I have moved on to analyze and evaluate three objections by Kreeft and Tacelli that are based on passages from other Gospels: In Part 19 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #6 (Who ... Read Article

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 Here, once again, is the core argument of Objection #6: D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. G. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) Jesus overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified or (b) some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE. Premise (G) is FALSE, and premise (D) is also FALSE, so it is clear that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory clearly FAILS. Bec ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 19 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. In Part 20 of this series, I showed that premise (G) was FALSE, and thus that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, I showed that Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. There is another serious problem with Objection #6: premise (D) is also FALSE. Thus, we have a second good reason to reject the core argument of this objection and a second good reason to conclude that Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In this current post, I will show that premise (D) is FALSE. THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 Here, once again, is the core argument of Objection #6: D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ ... Read Article

It's one of the great literary mysteries that Luke researched his account and Paul is the great hero of Acts, yet Luke does not seem to have read Paul's letters. Unless there is something else going on, like satire. It is often commented by secular critics that it is madness evil people should not be punished if they repent and convert. One popular cartoon is of Jesus introducing a young girl to her murderer in heaven. The answer seems to be in the Christian notion of self-denial and suffering for the Kingdom. You self-impose on yourself a lifestyle in which you punish yourself for your sin. Price comments about former persecutor Saul: His conversion is a punishment, meting out to the persecutor his own medicine. Do we not detect a hint of ironic malice in Christ’s words to Ananias about Saul? “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” (Acts 9:16). ... Read Article

There is nothing indicated about the miraculous nature of Jesus's birth in Paul or Mark. Scholars thereby generally conclude the virgin birth was a later invention by Matthew and Luke. The two genealogies of Joseph's bloodline in Matthew and Luke might be a clue. Just as new believers are adopted into the family of God as cultic brothers and sisters, perhaps Jesus is being portrayed as being adopted into the Davidic Promise bloodline by his stepfather Joseph. Adopted children held a unique and special status in the ancient world, such as Julius Caesar adopting Augustus (Octavian). One commenter shares: The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would come from the line of David. Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus that confirm he was a descendent of David—therefore, a legitimate Messiah. He was a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel. But they differ in an important way: Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another Son ... Read Article

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 The core of the argument for Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) against the Swoon Theory has three premises: D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. G. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) Jesus overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified or (b) some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE. EVALUATION OF THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 The core argument of Objection #6 contains two FALSE premises: premise (D) and premise (G). Thus, the ... Read Article