21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Sean & Josh McDowell
WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 1994, hereafter: HCA) and how many of them are different objections than the objections presented in HCA. In Part 1 of this series, I showed that almost all of the objections to the Swoon Theory by William Craig in Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, published in 2008) correspond to objections to the Swoon Theory raised by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA. There was one objection made by Craig that was not also presented in HCA. In Part 2 of this series, I showed that most of the objections to the Swoon Theory by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (published in 2004) correspond to objections raised in HCA. Th ... Read Article
21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Norman Geisler & Frank Turek
WHERE WE ARE I have carefully analyzed and evaluated the nine objections that Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli present against the Swoon Theory in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), which was published in 1994. I have concluded that all nine objections FAIL because they are BAD ARGUMENTS. My Christian friend David Diaz suggested that I examine more recent critiques of the Swoon Theory, so I am looking at four books by Christian apologists that were published in the 21st century, and comparing the objections against the Swoon Theory in those books with the nine objections raised by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA. I will determine how much of the more recent critiques use the same objections as Kreeft and Tacelli, and I will identify any other objections that were not made in HCA. In Part 1 of this series, I looked at the objections against the Swoon Theory in William Lane Craig's book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition), which was published in 2008. Almost all of Craig's objections cor ... Read Article
21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Willaim Lane Craig
My Christian friend David Diaz made this comment on one of my recent posts: Kreeft, now 86 years old, had a long and distinguished career but has been long removed from the cutting edge of apologetics. I would suggest that you acknowledge this when critiquing his brief treatment of the resurrection in his Handbook. I would love to see your critiques of more recent apologetic treatments of the resurrection that are more comprehensive and detailed. I have just taken a look at more recent (i.e. 21st century) discussions of the Swoon Theory (or Apparent Death Theory) by Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, William Craig, and Gary Habermas: Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh and Sean McDowell, published in 2009. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, published in 2004. Reasonable Faith by William Craig, 3rd edition, published in 2008. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, published in ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 39: A Careful Analysis of Objection #8
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. Their case consists mainly of attempts to refute some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One of those skeptical theories is the Swoon Theory. Kreeft and Tacelli raise nine objections against the Swoon Theory in order to try to show that this skeptical theory is FALSE: However, in the previous 38 posts in this series, I have shown that eight of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL. If all nine of their objections FAIL, then their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory FAILS and that means that their case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. At this point, the only hope for success of the case by Kreeft and Tacelli for the resurrection of Jesus is that Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) turns out to be a strong and solid objection against the Swoon Theory. Since all of the other o ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 38: Evaluation of the Argument for Premise (1a)
WHERE WE ARE I am in the process of evaluating Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) against the Swoon Theory. In Part 36 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #1. In Part 37 of this series, I did an initial evaluation of the key premise (1a), and gave good reasons for the view that (1a) is DUBIOUS, as well as a good reason for the view that (1a) is FALSE. Before we confidently conclude that the key premise (1a) is FALSE, we should examine the argument given in support of premise (1a), and that is what I will be doing in this current post. THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1a) C. All Roman soldiers were highly motivated to make sure that they never let a capital prisoner escape, and that no person they crucified ever survived the crucifixion. 2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion. THEREFORE: 6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled ... Read Article
Biblical Forgeries With Bart Ehrman
We will not be going over the old ground of what forgery is (an author falsely claiming to be a famous person) or how it was justified in the ancient world, even among writers who urge high ethical standards (!). We are instead interested in the startling scholarly claim that of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight of them were probably written by the person to whom they are attributed. In some cases the attributions are made by later readers (the author of Mark does not claim to be Mark); but in many cases the authors themselves make the false claim (2 Peter claims to be written by Peter). We might understand how one or two books like this managed to get into the Christian New Testament. But nineteen? (Bart Ehrman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYH1sUu_1Z8 ... Read Article
Trump the Messiah
More and more scrutiny is coming regarding the narrative that Trump is God's chosen one. Iowa Evangelical pastors condemn 'sickening' video portraying Trump as messianic figure. See HERE. Christian Site: Trump Is “God’s Chosen Instrument.” See HERE ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 37: Initial Evaluation of Premise (1a)
THE FINAL INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1 1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers. THEREFORE: B. Jesus did NOT survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers. THEREFORE: A. The Swoon Theory is false. EVALUATION OF THE FINAL INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1 The logic of the final inferences in the argument constituting Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) is fine. So, the only question at issue is whether premise (1a) is true. If Kreeft and Tacelli simply asserted or assumed that premise (1a) was true, then they would be guilty of the FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION because those who accept or defend the Swoon Theory believe that a person CAN survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers. Furthermore, the claim made by premise (1a) is NOT obviously true. Therefore, Kreeft and Tacelli must provide a strong and compelling argument for premise (1a) in order for this objection to be successful. If they have provided a weak or defective argument in support of ... Read Article
Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA)
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 36: A Careful Analysis of Objection #1
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – The Objections Based on Other Gospels
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 35: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1a) of Objection #9
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 34: Premise (1a) of Objection #9
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
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 33: The Core Argument of Objection #9
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
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