The Secular Frontier

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 evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb. B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified. THEREFORE: 2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb. EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A) Although the passage referenced in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John does not specifically state that the tomb was a stone tomb, that seems to be implied by the passage, and I'm not aware of there being any other kinds of "tombs" available in Jerusalem at that time. ... Read Article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgPfijIhLnE&t In this roughly two-hour conversation, Skeptic Magazine founder Michael Shermer and constitutional lawyer Eddie Tabash discuss the history of the relationship between church and state in the United States, the Founding Framers of the US Constitution and their arguments for separating church and state, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, how most of the 13 colonies had government-sanctioned religions and religious tests for office, the Constitutional Convention and the First Amendment, the push by some Republicans to hold a new Constitutional Convention and redesign the entire US Constitution, the religious beliefs and attitudes of the current US Supreme Court, and much more! Check out this alarming discussion of the rightward turn that the American experiment has taken in recent years! ... Read Article

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 to the tomb of Jesus to prepare Jesus' body for burial, according to John 19:39. Here is how one NT scholar characterizes the "myrrh and aloes" that were allegedly brought to Jesus' tomb: Mixture of myrrh and aloes was well known among Jews. Myrrh is a fragrant resin, often used by Egyptians in embalming, but by Jews rendered into powdered form; so also aloes are a powdered aromatic sandalwood. Word Biblical Commentary: John, 2nd edition, by George Beasley-Murray, p. 359 So, the myrrh was a fragrant resin that was rendered into powdered form. Interestingly, myrrh resin in powdered form is readily available today. You can even purchase it online from Amazon: According to the NT sch ... Read Article

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 The Secular Frontier, I am carefully evaluating each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. In Parts 2 through 7 of this series, I argued that Objection #2 ("Break their Legs") and Objection #3 ("Blood and Water") both FAIL: Part 2 of this series - Analysis of Objection #2 Part 3 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #2 Part 4 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #2 Part 5 of this series - Analysis of Objection #3 Part 6 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #3 Part 7 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #3 In Part 8 of this series, I ... Read Article

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 The Secular Frontier, I am carefully evaluating each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. For clarification about what the Swoon Theory implies, see my post "Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory". In Part 2 of this series, I presented a clarified version of Objection #2 ("Break their Legs") by Kreeft and Tacelli. In Part 3 of this series, I argued that premise (C) in the core argument for Objection #2 is FALSE, and thus that the argument was UNSOUND and thus that Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In Part 4 of this series, I c ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I argued that Jesus was NOT God because Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent. In Part 2 of this series, I argued that Jesus was NOT God because Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient. The main argument I gave in Part 2 of this series was this one: THE OMNISCIENCE ARGUMENT 1. Something is God ONLY IF it is eternally omniscient. 2. Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient. THEREFORE: 3. Jesus was NOT God. This is a logically VALID modus ponens argument, and I have previously argued that premise (1) is TRUE. In Part 2 of this series, I gave two arguments in support of premise (2). So we have good reason to believe that this is a SOUND argument and that Jesus was NOT God. In this current post, I will present another argument in support of the key premise (2). A THIRD ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (2) Here is another argument in support of premise (2): 10. Jesus had at least one false belief. 11. IF Jesus had at least one false belief, THEN Jesu ... Read Article

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, and thus that the key premise (D) was DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject Objection #3. THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #3 Here is the diagram of what I take to be the core argument of Objection #3: STATED PREMISES 5a. Jesus' lungs had collapsed before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross. 6a. Jesus had died of asphyxiation before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross. 7a. Any medical expert can vouch for the claim that: IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in J ... Read Article

I'm excited that I'm signed up for the New Insights Into The New Testament Conference in late September which has 10 All Star New Testament experts/specialists presenters. For instance, Prof Robyn Faith Walsh will be presenting who is most known for her theory that highly educated (though not necessarily rich) Greco Romans wrote the Gospels. Here is a sample of her argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYqghYtia6k Walsh is of special interest for me, since as I said last time, what we seem to have with the synoptics (Mark/Matthew/Luke) is the same story told from the different points of view of the same idea: Jesus' superhuman obedience/trust in God despite the terror he disclosed in Gethsemane (Mark), God's righteous anger (Matthew), and Jesus' superhuman forgiveness (Luke): all variations of the Roman soldier's transfiguration at the cross claiming "Truly this is God's son / an innocent man." The soldier at the cross is also the interpretive key to John's gospel, because the soldier piercing ... Read Article

Isaac Asimov outlined three principles to govern robot/human interaction: First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. In the movie I, Robot with Will Smith, we see a futuristic world based on these laws where we see what happens when they come into conflict with one another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np1A4AGpqSo In the movie, the laws governing Robot/human relationship come into conflict. The computer program  VIKI states that she has determined that humans, if left unchecked, will eventually cause their own extinction, and thus her evolved interpretation of the Three Laws requires her to control humanity and to sacrifice some for the good of the entire race ... Read Article

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2020/08/7-reasons-why-jesus-was-not-sacrificed-for-your-sins/ Keith Giles is a Christian who believes that sins can be forgiven because Jesus forgave our sins. Because God does not exist, and because Jesus was just a flawed, ignorant and superstitious human being, Jesus' forgiveness of anyone is of no significance. But Giles is right in pointing out that the common Christian belief that "Jesus died for our sins" is completely contradicted by the Bible. ... Read Article

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 CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #3 Typically, the core or heart of an argument is located in the final inference or final sub-argument of the overall argument. However, in the case of the argument for Objection #3, I see the core argument as located more in the middle of the reasoning, not at the end. The final inference or sub-argument of Objection #3 is straightforward and unproblematic. So, any potential problems with the argument are located further back in the chain of reasoning. Here is the diagram of what I take to be the core argument of Objection #3: STATED PREMISES 5a. Jesus' lungs had collapsed before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was ... Read Article

Arguably never before has a crisis been so mired in the problem and so bereft of a solution. But here we are. A problem ensnared by itself as if talking about Trump and January 6th long enough will somehow do something. This alone is a lesson in critical thinking illiteracy (CTI). Perhaps a "fallacy of ignoratio elenchi" or the "irrelevant conclusion fallacy" whereby the secondary problem becomes the main discussion topic without ever offering a solution to the problem itself. ... Read Article

https://fb.watch/mde4HpZTeN/ The problem with Evangelical Christianity is NOT just that it has become politicized and become a political tool of the Republican Party (in the USA). The problem is that it is a false superstition that is based on unthinking acceptance of the authority of the Bible. The Bible is merely a product of flawed superstitious and ignorant human beings. In short, there is no such thing as a good or reasonable version of Evangelical Christianity. It is rotten to the core, having a foundation in falsehoods and superstitions. ... Read Article

THE OMNISCIENCE ARGUMENT There are many good reasons to believe that Jesus is NOT God. One such good reason is that Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient (all-knowing): 1. Something is God ONLY IF it is eternally omniscient. 2. Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient. THEREFORE: 3. Jesus was NOT God. PREMISE (1) IS TRUE Premise (1) is based on a definition of "God" that would be acceptable to most Christian philosophers and theologians: X is God IF AND ONLY IF: X is the creator of the universe, and X is a bodiless person, and X is eternally omnipotent, and X is eternally omniscient, and X is eternally perfectly good. There is a strong motivation for Christians to believe that God is eternally omniscient. Christians believe their eternal salvation depends on God's forgiving their sins, and forgiving those sins for all eternity, not just temporarily. If God were less than eternally omniscient, then God could not guarantee eternal and unchanging forgiveness of a perso ... Read Article

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 The Secular Frontier, I will carefully evaluate each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. For clarification about what the Swoon Theory implies, see my post "Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory". In Part 2 of this series, I presented a clarified version of Objection #2 by Kreeft and Tacelli. In Part 3 of this series, I argued that premise (C) in the core argument for Objection #2 is FALSE, and thus that the argument was UNSOUND and thus that Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In Part 4 of this series, I completed my careful e ... Read Article