Posts from 2023 by Bradley Bowen
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 32: A Careful Analysis of Objection #9
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 31: Evaluation of the Modified Arguments for Premise (G)
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 legislator files bill to mandate display of Ten Commandments in public school classrooms
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 30: An Attempt to Repair the Arguments for (G)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 29: The Sub-Arguments for Premise (G)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 28: The Sub-Argument for Premise (F)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 27: The Sub-Argument for Premise (E)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 26: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D1)
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
Some Christmas Trivia: The Divine Name/Title
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 24: The Core Argument of Objection #7
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
11th Interview With Robert M. Price (Bible & The Quran)
Check out Ed's latest interview with Dr. Robert M Price: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B35R-HfVkcM ... Read Article
New Podcast: Discussion of Survival After Death
Check out Keith Augustine skeptically addressing the life after death hypothesis, especially 15 minutes near the end and forward. ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 23: A Careful Analysis of Objection #7
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