The Secular Frontier

This looks interesting. Spartan Theology shared he will be debating on the topic of PSA, which is one of my interests. I'll have to follow up on this. Here is his opening statement: ... Read Article

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 on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done.                (HCA, p.183) The Gospels do not specify “Roman procedures” for executions or crucifixions. The Gospels do not specify what punishment was given to Roman soldiers who let a capital prisoner escape or who bungle a crucifixion. The Gospels do not assert generalizations about the deadliness of Roman crucifixion or about how Roman crucifixion ALWAYS resulted in the death of a crucified person. None of Kreeft’s explicitly stated historical ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 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 of those objections that were based on passages from the Gospel of John. Here are the conclusions I have reached about those four objections: My conclusion that all four of these objections FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory is argued and explained in a series of 18 posts published here on The Secular Frontier: https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2023/12/kreefts-case-against-the-swoon-theory-evaluation-of-the-objections-based-on-john/ More recently, I have carefully examined and evaluated three more of their objections agains ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE I am finishing up my careful evaluation of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli from Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 32 of this series, I presented my careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 33 of this series, I argued that the key premise (B) in the core argument of Objection #9 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This gives us a good reason to reject the core argument and to conclude that Objection #9 FAILS. In Part 34 of this series, I argued that the key premise (1a) in the core argument of Objection #9 is FALSE. This gives us a second good reason to reject the core argument and to conclude that Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In this current post, I will examine the sub-argument given in support of premise (1a) in order to confirm my conclusion that premise (1a) is indeed FALSE. This will complete my evaluation of ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of presenting my evaluation of Objection #9 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory (see Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics). Here, again, is the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories): 1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true. B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE. In Part 33 of this series, I showed that the key premise (B) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This is a sufficient reason to reject the core argument of Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory. In this current post, I will argue that premise (1a), the other key premise in the core argument of Objection #9, is FALSE, and thus that the core argument is UNOUND. This will give us a second good reason to reject the core argument and t ... Read Article

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #9 Here is the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories): 1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true. B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE. INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #9 The key premise (B) is DUBIOUS because the sub-argument for (B) is based on some FALSE premises. This is sufficient reason to reject the core argument of Objection #9, and thus sufficient reason to reject this objection against the Swoon Theory. Furthermore, the key premise (1a) is FALSE. Thus, the core argument of Objection #9 is UNSOUND, and this is another sufficient reason to reject this objection. Thus, we have two good reasons to reject Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories), which makes it clear that Objection #9 against ... Read Article

He Doesn't FREAKING Get Us He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us – Part 1: Jesus was a Refugee?He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us – Part 2: Jesus Supported Women’s Equality?He Doesn’t FREAKING Get Us – Part 3: A Bait-and-Switch Jesus Key Topics and Bibliographies TOPICS for Future PostsThinking Critically about the Christian WorldviewThree Key Christian Apologetics Arguments: A Basic BibliographyCases for God: A Short Bibliography CAREFUL Argument Analysis Analysis of 14 Objections to the Hallucination Theory How to Do Careful Argument AnalysisCareful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Hallucination Theory Jesus is NOT God Jesus Is NOT God – Part 1: The Omnipotence ArgumentJesus Is NOT God – Part 2: The Omniscience Argument Jesus is NOT God – Part 3: The Omniscience Argument (continued) The Historical Unreliability of Matthew The Historical Unreliability of Matthew – Part 1: General ConsiderationsTh ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli claim to have proved the resurrection of Jesus in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). Their case for the resurrection of Jesus is based on refuting four skeptical theories. One of the skeptical theories that they claim to have refuted is the Swoon Theory. The Swoon Theory claims that Jesus did not actually die on the cross and that sometime after Jesus was removed from the cross, he visited some of his disciples, and those disciples became convinced by this experience that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Kreeft and Tacelli put forward nine objections against the Swoon Theory: So far in this series of posts, I have shown that six of those objections FAIL: Objection #2: Break their Legs Objection #3: Blood and Water Objection #4 Winding Sheets & Entombment Objection #5: Sickly Jesus Objection #6: Who Overpowered the Guards? Objection #7: Who Moved the Stone? If it turns out that all ni ... 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. For the past ten days, I have been carefully evaluating the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?). I have pointed out several significant problems with this argument that show the argument to be a BAD argument, and therefore I have shown that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory clearly FAILS. The last couple of posts about Objection #7 have focused on premise (G): 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. Premise (G) is a premise in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a), and premise (3a) is one of just two premises in the core argument of Objection #7: 3a. There is no plausible natural exp ... Read Article

OKLAHOMA CITY (KOKH) — A bill has been filed in the Oklahoma legislature that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms. Check out the article here: ... Read Article

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G) Here, again, is the core argument for premise (G): 10a. The story that the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus' tomb fell asleep while on duty on the weekend after Jesus was crucified and that some (or all) of Jesus' eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb and stole the body of Jesus is unbelievable. THEREFORE: 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. In Part 29 of this series, I showed that the inference from premise (10a) to premise (G) was INVALID, and thus that premise (G) is DUBIOUS. I indicated that because the core argument for premise (G) was INVALID, I would not bother to carefully examine the sub-arguments in support of premise (10a). However, I will do some further examination of those sub-arguments for (10a) to see if they can be modified or repaired so that they become RELEVANT ... 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): 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