Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 8: Analysis of Objection #4
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
Jesus is NOT God – Part 3: The Omniscience Argument (continued)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3
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
New Insights Into The New Testament Conference (September 2023)
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
Jesus and I, Robot
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
Seven Reasons Why Jesus did NOT Die for Our Sins
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3
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
How Critical Thinking Illiteracy — Not Trump — Gave Us Jan. 6th: A Decades-in-the-Making Systemic Failure
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
Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity
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
Jesus Is NOT God – Part 2: The Omniscience Argument
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 5: Analysis of Objection #3
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
Stoner’s Messianic Prophecies – Part1: Micah 5:2
In 1958, Peter Stoner published a book called Science Speaks (I will be referring to the Online Edition of this book). Chapter 3 of his book was titled "The Christ of Prophecy". Stoner argues that Jesus fulfilled eight specific Old Testament predictions about the Messiah, the coming King of the Jews. On page 50, Stoner draws this conclusion: Because Jesus (allegedly) fulfilled these eight predictions about the Messiah, Stoner infers that it is nearly certain that those predictions were inspired by God, and that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Jews and the Savior of mankind. OT PASSAGE #1: MICAH 5:2 Let's take a look at the first Old Testament passage that Peter Stoner claims to be a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus (Science Speaks, p.47): Does this passage predict that the messiah is to be born in the town of Bethlehem? While this is the most common interpretation of this passage, it is not clear that this interpretation is correct. It is NOT clear that "Bethlehem Eph ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)
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 this post, I will continue my careful evaluati ... Read Article
Jesus Is NOT God – Part 1: The Omnipotence Argument
THE OMNIPOTENCE ARGUMENT There are many good reasons to believe that Jesus is NOT God. One such good reason is that Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent (all-powerful): 1. Something is God ONLY IF it is eternally omnipotent. 2. Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent. 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 powerful motivation for Christian philosophers and theologians to insist that God is eternally omnipotent (eternally all-powerful). If God was less than eternally omnipotent, then God would not be able to guarantee eternal life to Christian believers. Something could happen in the future that threatens the existence of some or al ... Read Article