September 25, 2019

WHERE WE ARE AT Recent comments on Part 11 of my series defending the Swoon Theory concern some basic issues of epistemology, and for some reason I could not prevent myself from jumping in and responding to some of the comments concerning epistemological issues. So, I  shared some of those comments and some of my responses to them in a separate post.  The comments were from Phil Tanny, and I hoped that he would discuss those comments, provide some clarification… Read more

September 14, 2019

To be honest, I tend to shy away from discussions of epistemology (the theory of knowledge, the sub-discipline of philosophy that attempts to understand and clarify the concept of knowledge and the conditions or criteria for what counts as knowledge).  First of all, I don’t enjoy discussing “Calvinist epistemology” which has been a big topic in philosophy of religion in recent decades.  Second, epistemology is HARD, at least it seems hard to me. Thinking about epistemology often gives me a… Read more

September 12, 2019

WHERE WE ARE AT In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to refute The Swoon Theory.  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 nine objections against The Swoon Theory, to see whether they… Read more

September 7, 2019

This is a draft article I’ve been working on. Any feedback would be appreciated. Abstract: Paul Draper defends what may be called an “evidential argument from evolution” against theism, viz., an argument which purports to show that evolution constitutes strong evidence against theism. In response to this argument, William Lane Craig argues that Draper’s argument depends upon three “dubious” probability estimates. I examine one by one Craig’s objections to these estimates and show how they miss the mark. Introduction The idea… Read more

September 4, 2019

I’m looking at some older apologetics books to see what kind of objections have been raised against the Swoon Theory in the past. I found a helpful bibliography of older books on the resurrection in the back of Our Lord’s Resurrection by W.J. Sparrow-Simpson (1905):                                   Some of the best older books defending the resurrection are available for FREE from Google Books.  Go to… Read more

September 2, 2019

HINMAN’S SAD LITTLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SURVIVAL THEORY In response to my criticism of Peter Kreeft’s weak and pathetic objections against the Survival Theory, Joe Hinman wrote the following in one of his blog posts: The second issue Bowen argues the book of John Implies the Romans were confused about Jesus’ death, quotes passages John 19: 31-33 to prove the Romans may have thought he was alive. The reasoning is one soldier pierced Jesus’ side the only reason to do… Read more

August 25, 2019

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part #6 through Part #9, I have argued that Peter Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” objection, Objection #2 against The Survival Theory (TST),  is a complete FAILURE. Objection #2 has two main components, and can be summarized like this: 1. A Roman soldier decided to NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was hanging on the cross because the soldier was firmly convinced that Jesus was already dead. 2. IF a Roman soldier decided to NOT break Jesus’ legs… Read more

August 21, 2019

WHERE WE ARE AT Kreeft’s Objection #2 (the “Break their Legs” objection) against The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST) has at least three problems: PROBLEM 1:  Roman Soldiers were NOT Medical Doctors PROBLEM 2:  The Same Passage Implies the Soldiers were NOT Sure Jesus was Dead PROBLEM 3:  The Key Historical Claims Made by Kreeft are DUBIOUS In Part 7 of this series, I provided a list of ten different points related to Problem 3 with this objection. In Part 6… Read more

August 19, 2019

WHAT IS THE SWOON THEORY? Here are some things that The Swoon Theory is NOT: it is NOT a flavor of ice cream it is NOT a board game it is NOT an exotic pet it is NOT a poisonous insecticide it is NOT a sexual position it is NOT a type of aircraft it is NOT a kind of virus or microorganism it is NOT an astronomical body it is NOT a color or shape Obviously, there a millions… Read more

August 14, 2019

WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 7 of this series, I presented Peter Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” Objection (i.e., Objection #2) against the swoon theory, and, more properly, against The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST).   I pointed out three significant problems with Objection #2: PROBLEM 1:  Roman Soldiers were NOT Medical Doctors PROBLEM 2:  The Same Passage Implies the Soldiers were NOT Sure Jesus was Dead PROBLEM 3:  The Key Historical Claims Made by Kreeft are DUBIOUS I also provided a… Read more

Follow Us!

Browse Our Archives