Bread and Butter apologetics

Image result for The woman at the tomb
Baciccico's Women at the Tomb



Let's go back to bread and butter apologetic. The resurrection debate. One of the most hackney and ridiculous arguments is the "swoon theory" the kind of thing that was big among 19th century liberals who were trying to naturalize the Gospel. Nineteenth century atheists ate that stuff up, and late 20th century internet atheists dug it up and tired to make it live again. The swoon theory says that Jesus didn't die on the cross he was just unconscious and latter taken away by followers, This argumemt is answered  efficiently (if not unnecessarily) Peter Kreeft.[1]  The argument is defended from Kreeft's refutation by the wise old vetran of the message board apologetic wars,  that champion of reason Bradley "literally right" Bowen, in his magnum opus in 32 parts, Here we will examine  Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 7: The “Break their Legs” Objection  (july 2019 Bradley Bowen) https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/07/22/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-7-the-break-their-legs-objection/   [2] Bowen singles out three issues, the first:

Kreeft argues that Roman soldiers did not break Jesus' legs so that is a  good indication he was dead. They broke the legs of the other two to hasten death. Bowen argues that"

Roman soldiers were not medical doctors, and medical knowledge was very primitive 2,000 years ago. So, even if a Roman soldier was firmly convinced that Jesus was dead, that does NOT prove that Jesus was in fact dead.  Modern medical doctors with modern medical training and modern medical equipment still sometimes make a mistaken diagnosis of death, so a Roman soldier who had no modern medical knowledge, no modern medical training, and no modern medical equipment, could surely make a mistaken diagnosis of death.[3]
This is really non sequitur  but it's argued in such a way as to make one think the facticity of his opinion really counts for something,  but it does not since one need not be a doctor to tell when someone is dead. Roman soldiers saw death a lot. True to the literalistic from of thinking Bowen  assumes that the swoon theory must be totally disprove just to cast doubt on it. It need not be disproved if we have a good reason not to assume it and  and swoon theorists can give us no good reason to assume it then we need not assume it. If Te Roman soldiers thought Jesus was probably dead that is a good reason to assume he was so.

The swoon theory is really outmoded here's why. Let's assume they are right, Jesus did not die he only swooned. He was brutalized and beaten and badly  bleeding before the Crucifixion process even began. The process of Crucifixion  on top of everything else would have been so traumatic he did not just swoon like some Nineteenth century refugee from a gothic novel,   he would have been in shock and about bled to death, nearly drowned on his own respiratory from the crucifixion process, then shut up for the week end behind a stone it would take six men to move. Where's he going to go? What medical care could they give him that would save him assuring they could reach him in time?

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 that was to see if he was dead. Therefore they didn't really think he was dead. So apparently if they were confused he was alive? Of course they ignore the fact that the sticking would have proven he was dead  because water coming out separate from blood proves heart is not working.  Even so it's that literalism that says it can't be that they thought he was probably dead and just wanted to confirm it. Doubt of any kind always means no God.

Third issue Kreeft asserts his view as historical fact
The Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus broke the legs of the other men who were crucified along with Jesus, 
  • while those men were still hanging on their crosses.
  • The Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus did not break Jesus’ legs while he was still hanging on his cross.
These are really just one issue (how reasonable is the assumption of death?)  he's segmenting that one issue to make it seem like more.

Bowen castigates Kreeft for asserting these are facts:

"These are clearly NOT historical facts.  They are questionable inferences based on the unreasonable assumption that the 4th Gospe" None of the assumptions Kreeft makes are unreasonable. Bowen labels them so because they disagree with him that makes them un reasonable. His assertion are just as doubtful and just as "unreasonable" in that same way(not my ideology). 

Bowen's "facts"    " good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of this passage from the 4th Gospel:"

  1. The 4th Gospel was probably NOT written by an eyewitness of the events it relates.
  2. The 4th Gospel is significantly less historically reliable than the other Gospels.
  3. This passage in the 4th Gospel conflicts with related accounts in the other Gospels.[4]
All of these ideas (more in fn) are just ideological assumptions no more backed by fact than  Kreft's ideas.

(1) Scholars have argued for John's testily being backed  by eye witness input more than any other.  In the poast coupleof decades devistating arguentshave been nade supportingthehistoricityof Johnadhteh eyewitnsscontent,  The best of these is Jesus and The Eye Witnesses by  Richard Bauckham. [5]

(2) That is an outmoded 19th century idea, its been disproved many times by dead sea scrolls and other work 

(3) Highly prejudicial because he doesns't demonstrate that it biases the Crucifixion accounts, modern scholars have much more respect for John than they did in the 19th cetury when the swoon theory was taken seriously.

Notes

[1] Peter Kreeft   (born 1937) Ph.D.  at Fordham University, addendum at Yale and taught Boston college.

[2] Bradley Bowen Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 7: The “Break their Legs” Objection  (july 2019 )

[3] Ibid

[4] these are the additional arguments he lists (he's only giving labels) I will give equally short answers, 

  1. This passage contains some internal conflicts that cast doubt on its historical reliability.[he doesn't list any]
  2. The historical claims in this passage can reasonably be viewed as “prophecy historicized”.[ideological assumption]
  3. None of the other Gospels corroborate the historical claims that Kreeft makes here.[none of them had a witness present in those events but see fn 5]
  4. None of the other Gospels corroborate the closely related historical claims concerning Jesus being stabbed in his side. [GPet does]
  5. None of the other Gospels corroborate the closely related historical claim that “the Jews” requested that the bodies of the crucified men be removed from their crosses before the sabbath day began.[dishonest we know that to be historical fact born out by Josephus]
  6. None of the other Gospels corroborate the presence of the “beloved disciple” at the cross (who is supposedly the ultimate source of this accounthat Kreeft is using as evidence).[see 5]
  7. None of the other Gospels corroborate other stories in the 4th Gospel about the “beloved disciple”.[that's irrelevant those other stories aren't offered as proof of this]

[5] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and The Eye Witnesses: The Gospel as Eye Witness Testimony, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,2006, no page listed.
https://books.google.com/books?id=zcVVp_YD4w4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false  [accessed August 10. 2010]


 



Comments

Bradley Bowen said…
"The swoon theory says that Jesus didn't die on the cross he was just unconscious and latter taken away by followers, This argumemt is answered efficiently (if not unnecessarily) Peter Kreeft."

You mischaracterize the topic here. The swoon theory is a THEORY, not an argument.

Arguments can be given FOR the swoon theory, and arguments can be given AGAINST the swoon theory, but the subject here is a THEORY, not an argument.
Bradley Bowen said…
"...Bowen assumes that the swoon theory must be totally disprove just to cast doubt on it. It need not be disproved if we have a good reason not to assume it..."

You mischaracterize my viewpoint as well as the MAIN QUESTION AT ISSUE in my post. The main question at issue is:

=>Has Kreeft DISPROVED the swoon theory (as he claims to have done)?

More accurately, the main question at issue is this:

=>Has Kreeft DISPROVED the Survival Theory (which he MUST do in order for his case for the resurrection to work)?

More specifically, the post you are discussing focuses in on one objection by Kreeft, his Objection #2 (the "Break their Legs" objection):

=>Is Objection #2 sufficient to disprove the Survival Theory?

If you had a clear understanding of the main QUESTION AT ISSUE, you would see that your criticism here is beside the point.
Bradley Bowen said…
"The swoon theory is really outmoded here's why. Let's assume they are right, Jesus did not die he only swooned. He was brutalized and beaten and badly bleeding before the Crucifixion process even began. The process of Crucifixion on top of everything else would have been so traumatic he did not just swoon like some Nineteenth century refugee from a gothic novel, he would have been in shock and about bled to death, nearly drowned on his own respiratory from the crucifixion process, then shut up for the week end behind a stone it would take six men to move. Where's he going to go? What medical care could they give him that would save him assuring they could reach him in time?"


You are free to make a case against the Swoon Theory or the Survival Theory if you wish, but this whole paragraph is very MISLEADING as a response to my posts. You are making YOUR OWN CASE against the Swoon Theory here, as if I was arguing FOR the Swoon Theory. This shows a basic misunderstanding on your part of what I'm doing in my series of posts. I am NOT making a case for the Swoon Theory, nor for the Survival Theory. I am simply arguing that Kreeft's attempt to REFUTE the Swoon Theory/Survival Theory is a complete FAILURE.

It could be that Kreeft's attempt to REFUTE the Swoon Theory is the miserable FAILURE that I claim it to be, and yet someone else has produced a perfectly solid argument that REFUTES the Swoon Theory. It could be the case that Kreef's attempt is a miserable FAILURE, but that the Swoon Theory is in fact FALSE, and can be DISPROVED.

I made no claim about the TRUTH of the Swoon Theory or the Survival Theory, and made if very clear that I am NOT arguing that the Swoon Theory of the Survival Theory is TRUE. So, you FAIL to understand my point of view, and are mischaracterizing my point of view, by implying that I am arguing that the Swoon Theory (or the Survival Theory) is TRUE.

I would say that you are committing a STRAW MAN fallacy, but I think the reality is that you simply don't understand what I'm doing, even though I have made it very CLEAR what my point of view is on this subject. You are simply talking about stuff that you don't understand.
Bradley Bowen said...
"The swoon theory says that Jesus didn't die on the cross he was just unconscious and latter taken away by followers, This argumemt is answered efficiently (if not unnecessarily) Peter Kreeft."

You mischaracterize the topic here. The swoon theory is a THEORY, not an argument.

Arguments can be given FOR the swoon theory, and arguments can be given AGAINST the swoon theory, but the subject here is a THEORY, not an argument.

Is the swoon theory a theory? Isn't that a misnomer? Perhaps it should be swoon argument to the passover plot theory,?
Bradley Bowen said...
"...Bowen assumes that the swoon theory must be totally disproved just to cast doubt on it. It need not be disproved if we have a good reason not to assume it..."

You mischaracterize my viewpoint as well as the MAIN QUESTION AT ISSUE in my post. The main question at issue is:

=>Has Kreeft DISPROVED the swoon theory (as he claims to have done)?

You know I am not interested in that Question. You take it seriously you think it needs to occupy our attention. You think it is enough to negate belief in God so you really should defend it when it's assailed

The question that interests me is, "is this kind of objection really worth our time?" When I was an atheist i thought it was a dumb idea. No offense.



More accurately, the main question at issue is this:

=>Has Kreeft DISPROVED the Survival Theory (which he MUST do in order for his case for the resurrection to work)?

I don't care about that I am not running a Kreeft defense fund. If I don't take the idea seriously I don't care who disproved it.

More specifically, the post you are discussing focuses in on one objection by Kreeft, his Objection #2 (the "Break their Legs" objection):

=>Is Objection #2 sufficient to disprove the Survival Theory?

I have my own reasons for disproving it I an working here on my blog so I;m giving my reasons,

If you had a clear understanding of the main QUESTION AT ISSUE, you would see that your criticism here is beside the point.

Well Brad the problem is I need a strong well reasoned Clarice to work against Unfortunately i had yours
Bradley Bowen said...

Quoting me:
"The swoon theory is really outmoded here's why. Let's assume they are right, Jesus did not die he only swooned. He was brutalized and beaten and badly bleeding before the Crucifixion process even began. The process of Crucifixion on top of everything else would have been so traumatic he did not just swoon like some Nineteenth century refugee from a gothic novel, he would have been in shock and about bled to death, nearly drowned on his own respiratory from the crucifixion process, then shut up for the week end behind a stone it would take six men to move. Where's he going to go? What medical care could they give him that would save him assuring they could reach him in time?"


BB:You are free to make a case against the Swoon Theory or the Survival Theory if you wish, but this whole paragraph is very MISLEADING as a response to my posts.

your post is like no 475 sub point a17n sub paragraph B in part seven of a twenty five part introduction to a multi-volume article. All of it is predicated upon the survival theory. Any thing I say against the survival theory is agaisnt your position.

You are making YOUR OWN CASE against the Swoon Theory here, as if I was arguing FOR the Swoon Theory. This shows a basic misunderstanding on your part of what I'm doing in my series of posts. I am NOT making a case for the Swoon Theory, nor for the Survival Theory. I am simply arguing that Kreeft's attempt to REFUTE the Swoon Theory/Survival Theory is a complete FAILURE.

I could not care less about your crusade against Kreft. Of course that;s would be a good way to bu trice your self against criticism, not concerned with the ideas just with the failure if this one guy,

It could be that Kreeft's attempt to REFUTE the Swoon Theory is the miserable FAILURE that I claim it to be, and yet someone else has produced a perfectly solid argument that REFUTES the Swoon Theory. It could be the case that Kreef's attempt is a miserable FAILURE, but that the Swoon Theory is in fact FALSE, and can be DISPROVED.

I Can't help but wonder why you think disproving this one man;s efforts are so important and the idea is not important?

I made no claim about the TRUTH of the Swoon Theory or the Survival Theory, and made if very clear that I am NOT arguing that the Swoon Theory of the Survival Theory is TRUE.

good because they are silly


So, you FAIL to understand my point of view, and are mischaracterizing my point of view, by implying that I am arguing that the Swoon Theory (or the Survival Theory) is TRUE.

If course Brad. Your things are so multi-part and you treat the slightest possibility as a rock solid certainty it is very off putting, it makes one not want to follow it all.

I think you fail to understand my point of view. I am anti-cult of personality. I don't care how many apologists fail I am only into the ideas.


I would say that you are committing a STRAW MAN fallacy,

how could I possibly make a strawman by approaching your argument as though it;s about an idea? Nor did I make up my own version of your idea I took your words.


but I think the reality is that you simply don't understand what I'm doing, even though I have made it very CLEAR what my point of view is on this subject. You are simply talking about stuff that you don't understand.


I understand it I just don't respect it. You are concerned with stepping on this guy portraying him as a failed apologist, why? Personal? Did he insult you? I think the ideas are important but you are hiding behind Kreeft rather than directly face your view,
Notice he does not deal with the arguments I made.His entire approach is to this is to protect his project and that is all that matters, Even the ideas involved are not important,
Bradley Bowen said…
Joe Hinman said:

Is the swoon theory a theory? Isn't that a misnomer? Perhaps it should be swoon argument to the passover plot theory,?
==================

The Swoon Theory is called a "theory" because it is a theory. Nobody calls it the "Swoon Argument", because it is NOT an argument. You call it an argument because you are confused and clueless. Do you even know the difference between a THEORY and an ARGUMENT? If you did, you wouldn't be tempted to mischaracterize the "Swoon Theory" as an ARGUMENT.

You literally don't know what you are talking about. How can you presume to educate me or anyone else about the "Swoon Theory" when you don't even understand that you are talking about a THEORY?

Christian Apologists not only call this idea the "Swoon Theory" or "Swoon Hypothesis", they also refer to this idea as a "theory" or "hypothesis" and they do NOT refer to it as an "argument":

The swoon theory is the theory that Jesus never really died on the cross but that He was crucified and came very close to death. It further states that He was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb. After three days the coolness of the tomb revived Him and He managed to roll away the stone, come out of the tomb and appear to the disciples making them think He'd risen from the dead.
"Jesus only appeared to have died on the cross--Swoon Theory" https://carm.org/swoon-theory
by Matt Slick - CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)
================
Last week, we introduced five possible theories attempting to explain the resurrection accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. Today we'll examine what's often called the "swoon theory," which suggests that Jesus never really died on the cross—he simply fainted, or swooned, and was presumed dead.
"Rejecting the Swoon Theory: 9 Reasons Why Jesus Did Not Just Faint on the Cross"
by Dr. Peter Kreeft https://strangenotions.com/rejecting-the-swoon-theory-9-reasons-why-jesus-did-not-just-faint-on-the-cross/
================
The Swoon Theory is the belief that Jesus didn’t really die at His crucifixion, but was merely unconscious when He was laid in the tomb and there He resuscitated. Accordingly, His appearances after three days in the tomb were merely perceived to be resurrection appearances. There are several reasons why this theory is invalid and can be easily proven as false...
"What is the Swoon Theory?" Got Questions https://www.gotquestions.org/swoon-theory.html
================
The Swoon Theory, first proposed in 1828 by H. E. G. Paulus, a German theologian and critic of the Bible, claims that Jesus did not die. Rather, suggested Paulus, Jesus merely fainted on the cross, from pain, shock, and loss of blood. Jesus was then mistakenly buried alive. ...
The most significant problem with this theory is that ...
"Resurrection Theories Debunked: Christ Rose!"
Posted March 31, 2017 by Sheri Bell
Josh McDowell Ministry https://www.josh.org/resurrection-theories-debunked/
=================
#3: Swoon Theory
A third possible explanation is that Jesus “swooned” on the cross and only appeared to be dead. He was resuscitated by the cool air of the tomb, and His disciples were convinced He rose from the dead.
...This ludicrous theory would also have us believe that...
"The Resurrection—Pillar of Christianity, Part 2: Explaining the Tomb & Appearances"
APRIL 2, 2013 / KEN BOA https://kenboa.org/apologetics/the-resurrection-pillar-of-christianity-part-2/
Bradley Bowen said…
Here is a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION for you:

IS THE SWOON THEORY FALSE?

Since you take yourself to be someone capable of educating others about the Swoon Theory, then you ought to be able to answer this VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.

If you refuse to answer this VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, then that will reveal to me and to others that you are NOT intellectually capable of educating others about the Swoon Theory.

So, what is your answer?
Bradley Bowen said…
I pointed out above that Matt Slick of CARM uses the label "The Swoon Theory" and he also refers to this idea as "the theory that...".

I pointed out above that Dr. Peter Kreeft uses the label "The Swoon Theory" and refers to it as one of "five possible theories".
(Note that Kreeft never uses the term "The Swoon Argument", at least not in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics.)

I pointed out above that Sheri Bell from the Josh McDowell Ministry uses the label "The Swoon Theory" and she refers to this idea as "this theory".

I pointed out above that Ken Boa uses the label "Swoon Theory" and that he refers to it as being a "theory".

Other Christian Philosophers and Apologists use the same or similar language:

William Craig prefers the label "Apparent Death Theory" and he refers to this idea as "this theory" and as "a theory" in The Son Rises (p.36 and 40). Craig does NOT refer to this idea as an "argument", at least not in that book.

Josh McDowell prefers the label "Resuscitation Theory" but notes that it is called the "swoon theory", and he refers to this idea as "this theory" and "this hypothesis" in The Resurrection Factor (p.98). He does NOT refer to this idea as the "Resuscitation Argument" nor as the "Swoon Argument".

Lee Strobel uses the label "the swoon hypothesis" and "the swoon theory" in The Case for Christ (p.192, 193, and 202). Strobel does NOT use the label "the swoon argument", nor does he refer to this idea as an "argument".

Frank Turek and Dr. Norman Geisler use the labels "Swoon or Apparent Death Theory" and "the swoon theory" in their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (p.304, 305, and 306). They refer to this idea as "this theory" (p.304) and as being one of a number of "Skeptical Theories" (p.301) or as an "alternative theory" (p.305). They do NOT use the label "the swoon argument" nor the label "the Apparent Death argument", and they do NOT refer to this idea as being an "argument".

I don't know of ANY major Christian Apologist who refers to this idea as being an "argument" or who uses the label "The Swoon Argument" or "The Apparent Death Argument". Joe Hinman appears to be ALONE in calling "The Swoon Theory" the "Swoon Argument" and in referring to this idea as being an "argument".

He is ALONE on this because published Christian philosophers and apologists KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between an ARGUMENT and a THEORY, but Joe Hinman is so confused and muddled in his thinking that he cannot distinguish between an ARGUMENT and a THEORY. He is thus completely unqualified to be educating others about the Swoon Theory.

He literally does not know what he is talking about.
Bradley Bowen said...
Joe Hinman said:

Is the swoon theory a theory? Isn't that a misnomer? Perhaps it should be swoon argument to the passover plot theory,?
==================

The Swoon Theory is called a "theory" because it is a theory. Nobody calls it the "Swoon Argument", because it is NOT an argument. You call it an argument because you are confused and clueless. Do you even know the difference between a THEORY and an ARGUMENT? If you did, you wouldn't be tempted to mischaracterize the "Swoon Theory" as an ARGUMENT.

getting nervous Brad? You are carping about what to call an idea but that's not really an argument. The rest if ad hom but I over look that.


You literally don't know what you are talking about. How can you presume to educate me or anyone else about the "Swoon Theory" when you don't even understand that you are talking about a THEORY?

I don't presume to educate because you are a pompous ass. You are far too arogant and superficial to listen to other people,



Christian Apologists not only call this idea the "Swoon Theory" or "Swoon Hypothesis", they also refer to this idea as a "theory" or "hypothesis" and they do NOT refer to it as an "argument":

Notice how he makes so much out of nothing, an off hand remark issued more as humar than serious argumemt. He chomps on it like a dog fighting for a scrap.

The swoon theory is the theory that Jesus never really died on the cross but that He was crucified and came very close to death. It further states that He was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb. After three days the coolness of the tomb revived Him and He managed to roll away the stone, come out of the tomb and appear to the disciples making them think He'd risen from the dead.

very childish idea. I have re posted my answer to it on today's post Monday 19th

"answer to Brad Bowen Jesus did die on the cross"



I pointed out above that Matt Slick of CARM uses the label "The Swoon Theory" and he also refers to this idea as "the theory that...".

I pointed out above that Dr. Peter Kreeft uses the label "The Swoon Theory" and refers to it as one of "five possible theories".
(Note that Kreeft never uses the term "The Swoon Argument", at least not in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics.)

I pointed out above that Sheri Bell from the Josh McDowell Ministry uses the label "The Swoon Theory" and she refers to this idea as "this theory".

I pointed out above that Ken Boa uses the label "Swoon Theory" and that he refers to it as being a "theory".

Other Christian Philosophers and Apologists use the same or similar language:

William Craig prefers the label "Apparent Death Theory" and he refers to this idea as "this theory" and as "a theory" in The Son Rises (p.36 and 40). Craig does NOT refer to this idea as an "argument", at least not in that book.

Josh McDowell prefers the label "Resuscitation Theory" but notes that it is called the "swoon theory", and he refers to this idea as "this theory" and "this hypothesis" in The Resurrection Factor (p.98). He does NOT refer to this idea as the "Resuscitation Argument" nor as the "Swoon Argument".

Lee Strobel uses the label "the swoon hypothesis" and "the swoon theory" in The Case for Christ (p.192, 193, and 202). Strobel does NOT use the label "the swoon argument", nor does he refer to this idea as an "argument".

Frank Turek and Dr. Norman Geisler use the labels "Swoon or Apparent Death Theory" and "the swoon theory" in their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (p.304, 305, and 306). They refer to this idea as "this theory" (p.304) and as being one of a number of "Skeptical Theories" (p.301) or as an "alternative theory" (p.305). They do NOT use the label "the swoon argument" nor the label "the Apparent Death argument", and they do NOT refer to this idea as being an "argument".

I don't know of ANY major Christian Apologist who refers to this idea as being an "argument" or who uses the label "The Swoon Argument" or "The Apparent Death Argument". Joe Hinman appears to be ALONE in calling "The Swoon Theory" the "Swoon Argument" and in referring to this idea as being an "argument".

He is ALONE on this because published Christian philosophers and apologists KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between an ARGUMENT and a THEORY, but Joe Hinman is so confused and muddled in his thinking that he cannot distinguish between an ARGUMENT and a THEORY. He is thus completely unqualified to be educating others about the Swoon Theory.

He literally does not know what he is talking about.

I really don't give a shit what apologists call it or wht you call it, you are still hidding from argument,
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bradley Bowen said…
I asked a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION:

IS THE SWOON THEORY FALSE?

Joe Hinman has not answered my simple question. This shows that he is NOT intellectually capable of educating anyone about the Swoon Theory.
Bradley Bowen said…
ONE LAST CHANCE:

Do you believe that the Swoon Theory is false?
Bradley Bowen said…
Remain silent and you will be thought to be a FOOL. Or you can speak and remove all doubt.
are you that stupid? it should be obvious as hell L think its false my article clearly said so
Bradley Bowen said...
I asked a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION:

IS THE SWOON THEORY FALSE?

Joe Hinman has not answered my simple question. This shows that he is NOT intellectually capable of educating anyone about the Swoon Theory.

Obviously
Joe Hinman has not answered my simple question. This shows that he is NOT intellectually capable of educating anyone about the Swoon Theory.

Do Ducks come in rows? well he didn't answer my question so i guess that;s it for him
from my post this morning the one he is afraid to argue; "My point here is to argue that Jesus' death on the cross is well warranted for belief. That is the only point with which I will concern myself. Moreover, I will not defend Craig but come at it from my own perspective."
Bradley Bowen said…
I have put my response to your post here in a post at The Secular Outpost:

"The Swoon Theory is a THEORY (duh!) not an ARGUMENT"

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/08/19/the-swoon-theory-is-a-theory-duh-not-an-argument/

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology