December 11, 2019

WHERE WE ARE Joe Hinman asserts that in recent decades there has been “a trend involving many scholars” in which “John has a new credibility”.  Because Hinman makes these assertions in response to my claim that the 4th Gospel is HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE, and because Hinman then quotes Kermit Zarley’s assertion about three NT scholars arriving at the conclusion that “the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable”, it is clear in this context, that Hinman is making this claim: There is a… Read more

December 4, 2019

Joe Hinman asserts that in recent decades there has been “a trend involving many scholars” in which “John has a new credibility”.  Because Hinman makes these assertions in response to my claim that the 4th Gospel is HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE, and because Hinman quotes Kermit Zarley’s assertion about three NT scholars arriving at the conclusion that “the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable”, it is clear in this context, that Hinman is claiming that there is a recent trend in NT scholarship… Read more

December 1, 2019

WHERE WE ARE Here is one of the main issues between Joe Hinman and me: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE? My answer to this question is “NO”, and Hinman’s answer is “YES”.  This indicates that Hinman’s view of NT scholarship is based on WISHFUL THINKING rather than on facts and… Read more

November 23, 2019

WHERE WE ARE The main question at issue between me and Joe Hinman is this: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE? My answer to this question is “NO”, and Hinman’s answer is “YES”.  This indicates that Hinman’s view of NT scholarship is based on WISHFUL THINKING rather than on facts and… Read more

November 13, 2019

HINMAN’S PATHETIC DEFENSE OF PREMISE (1B) OF HIS SAD LITTLE ARGUMENT In response to one of my posts defending the Swoon Theory against objections by Peter Kreeft, Joe Hinman presented the following Sad Little Argument (this version of the argument is after I clarified and improved the argument, so it would make sense and not be obviously a bad argument): 1A. Fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus’ side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE… Read more

November 6, 2019

OBJECTION #6: THE GUARDS AT THE TOMB  In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft has raised nine objections against The Swoon Theory, as part of his case attempting to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.  In previous posts I have argued that his Objection #1, Objection #2, Objection #3, Objection #4, Objection #5, and Objection #8 all FAIL as objections against The Swoon Theory, and also FAIL as objections against the more general… Read more

November 4, 2019

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft believes that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories that provide alternative explanations to the standard Christian view that Jesus rose from the dead.  One of those skeptical theories is The Swoon Theory. However, refuting The Swoon Theory (and three other skeptical theories) will NOT work to establish the resurrection, because The Swoon Theory is only one particular version of a more general theory that Kreeft must refute: The Survival… Read more

October 20, 2019

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft believes that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories that provide alternative explanations to the standard Christian view that Jesus rose from the dead.  One of those skeptical theories is The Swoon Theory. However, refuting The Swoon Theory (and three other skeptical theories) will NOT work to establish the resurrection, because The Swoon Theory is only one particular version of a more general theory that Kreeft must refute: The Survival… Read more

October 8, 2019

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft believes that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories that provide alternative explanations to the standard Christian view that Jesus rose from the dead.  One of those skeptical theories is The Swoon Theory. However, refuting The Swoon Theory (and three other skeptical theories) will NOT work to establish the resurrection, because The Swoon Theory is only one particular version of a more general theory that Kreeft must refute: The Survival… Read more

October 3, 2019

WHERE WE ARE AT In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to refute The Swoon Theory, as part of his case for the resurrection of Jesus.  But in order for his case for the resurrection to have any chance of success, he actually needs to refute the more general view that I call The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST), the theory that Jesus survived his crucifixion (i.e. Jesus did NOT die on the cross).  I am examining Kreeft’s… Read more

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives