Bread and Butter apologetics

By -
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 account that 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.
8/16/2019 07:20:00 PM
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.
8/16/2019 07:32:00 PM
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.
8/16/2019 07:44:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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,?
8/17/2019 01:10:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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
8/17/2019 01:23:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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,
8/17/2019 01:57:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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,
8/17/2019 02:08:00 AM
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/
8/18/2019 02:59:00 PM
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?
8/18/2019 04:23:00 PM
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.
8/18/2019 08:19:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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"



8/19/2019 07:39:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) 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.

I really don't give a shit what apologists call it or wht you call it, you are still hidding from argument,
8/19/2019 07:43:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/19/2019 07:48:00 AM
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.
8/19/2019 08:46:00 AM
Bradley Bowen said…
ONE LAST CHANCE:

Do you believe that the Swoon Theory is false?
8/19/2019 08:53:00 AM
Bradley Bowen said…
Remain silent and you will be thought to be a FOOL. Or you can speak and remove all doubt.
8/19/2019 08:56:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
are you that stupid? it should be obvious as hell L think its false my article clearly said so
8/19/2019 11:44:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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
8/19/2019 11:55:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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
8/19/2019 12:01:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
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."
8/19/2019 12:04:00 PM
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/
8/20/2019 08:50:00 AM
BK said…
Bradley Bowen posts the most ridiculous comments I have seen in some time. He spends most of his time harping about whether the swoon theory is a theory or an argument. Well, just for the record, I agree that it is a theory, but the theory needs to be supported by an argument or it is nothing more than saying, "I theorize that 10,000 aliens are living in Decatur, Illinois." "Nice theory, do you have any proof?" The proof presented is what creates the argument. So, I guess he can stamp his feet and insist that it is more properly called a theory, but if someone plans to support the theory at all, that person will need to make an argument. So, we are right back where we started.

BTW, so he doesn't accuse me of avoiding his VERY SIMPLE QUESTION (not at all sure why it is all in caps, but okay): the swoon theory is false because the arguments in favor of it do not support it.
8/22/2019 07:23:00 PM
Bradley Bowen said…
Since you have recently published a post about my criticism of Kreeft (https://christiancadre.blog..., and since that post contains a very brief mention of your argument against the Swoon Theory (or Survival Theory), I will respond to that one paragraph. Here is the relevant paragraph from your post:

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. ...

The argument, following the miserable example of Kreeft, is stated in a single unclear sentence:

the sticking would have proven he was dead because water coming out separate from blood proves heart is not working.

In standard form, the argument goes like this:

1. Water coming out separate from blood proves [the] heart is not working.
THEREFORE:
2. Jesus' heart stopped working while he was still on the cross.

Another premise is needed in order to get to the desired conclusion:

3. If Jesus' heart stopped working while he was on the cross, then it is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.
THEREFORE:
4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.

Premise (1) must be immediately REJECTED by anyone who is knowledgeable about this issue.

First, even eyewitness testimony by a trustworthy person who was present at the crucifixion of Jesus CANNOT ESTABLISH that "water" came out of any part of Jesus' body. This is because many different liquids LOOK LIKE water, and nobody did a chemical analysis of the liquid, or even tasted or smelled the liquid in order to verify that it was just water. So, no ancient historical document can establish that "water" came out of some part of Jesus' body.

Second, most of the Christian apologists and medical investigators who have suggested theories about the medical cause of Jesus' death DO NOT BELIEVE that the transparent substance that (allegedly) came from Jesus' wound was WATER. Instead, they believe it was pleural or pericardial fluids, or urine, or...? NOBODY thinks that it was "water" that came out of Jesus' wound.

Let me try to improve the first premise of Hinman's sad little argument.

1A. Fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus' side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately.
1B. IF fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus' side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately, THEN Jesus' heart stopped working while Jesus was on the cross.
THEREFORE:
2. Jesus' heart stopped working while he was on the cross.
3. If Jesus' heart stopped working while he was on the cross, then it is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.
THEREFORE:
4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.
8/31/2019 01:12:00 PM
Bradley Bowen said…
My objections to the above argument against the Survival Theory:

Concerning premise (1A), I have provided ten reasons for doubting the accuracy, reliability, and historicity of the passage from the 4th Gospel that is used to support this premise. This historical claim is VERY DUBIOUS. This problem is sufficient by itself to sink this argument as being probably UNSOUND.(For the ten reasons, see my post: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/08/25/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-10-the-blood-and-water-objection/ )

Concerning premise (1B), Joe is NOT a medical doctor. His educational background is in theology, so he is NOT qualified to make medical claims like this. NOBODY should believe (1B) just because Joe says so. He OBVIOUSLY needs to provide evidence to support this claim. But Joe apparently doesn't see this obvious point, because he simply asserts (1B), without providing any evidence for it.
8/31/2019 01:16:00 PM
Bradley Bowen said…
My latest response to Hinman's post "Bread and Butter Apologetics" is available at The Secular Outpost:

HINMAN'S PATHETIC DEFENSE OF HIS SAD LITTLE ARGUMENT

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/09/02/hinmans-pathetic-defense-of-his-sad-little-argument/
9/02/2019 12:35:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
we are up to name calling now? that really says a lot about your confidence level.
9/02/2019 09:27:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
ye such apathetic argument that medical experts say bleeding water-;ole substance out your side comes from being dead as a proof that Jesus died. The professionalize philosopher says "they are butt heads."
9/02/2019 09:30:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
Bradley Bowen said...
Since you have recently published a post about my criticism of Kreeft (https://christiancadre.blog..., and since that post contains a very brief mention of your argument against the Swoon Theory (or Survival Theory), I will respond to that one paragraph. Here is the relevant paragraph from your post:

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. ...

that does not prove they were confused. They could have done that with all victims as source I read claims.

The argument, following the miserable example of Kreeft, is stated in a single unclear sentence:

the sticking would have proven he was dead because water coming out separate from blood proves heart is not working.

In standard form, the argument goes like this:

1. Water coming out separate from blood proves [the] heart is not working.
THEREFORE:
2. Jesus' heart stopped working while he was still on the cross.

Another premise is needed in order to get to the desired conclusion:

3. If Jesus' heart stopped working while he was on the cross, then it is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.
THEREFORE:
4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.

Premise (1) must be immediately REJECTED by anyone who is knowledgeable about this issue.

First, even eyewitness testimony by a trustworthy person who was present at the crucifixion of Jesus CANNOT ESTABLISH that "water" came out of any part of Jesus' body. This is because many different liquids LOOK LIKE water, and nobody did a chemical analysis of the liquid, or even tasted or smelled the liquid in order to verify that it was just water. So, no ancient historical document can establish that "water" came out of some part of Jesus' body.

I already beat this argumemt. the issue does not rest with water and the heart beating, there are several different conditions which could entail liquid that looks like water but is not water per se. I said that,I said all of those conditions are indicative of death; if he is emitting a clear liquid form his side he is dread!

Second, most of the Christian apologists and medical investigators who have suggested theories about the medical cause of Jesus' death DO NOT BELIEVE that the transparent substance that (allegedly) came from Jesus' wound was WATER. Instead, they believe it was pleural or pericardial fluids, or urine, or...? NOBODY thinks that it was "water" that came out of Jesus' wound.

I just answered that,In fact it helps my case more if its not water

9/03/2019 12:05:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
Let me try to improve the first premise of Hinman's sad little argument.

Is assigning it anthropomorphic feelings proving it's wrong? For your information it;s not sad it's perky,


1A. Fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus' side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately.

1B. IF fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus' side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately, THEN Jesus' heart stopped working while Jesus was on the cross.

THEREFORE:
2. Jesus' heart stopped working while he was on the cross.
3. If Jesus' heart stopped working while he was on the cross, then it is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.
THEREFORE:
4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.


Let's dom;t forget the liquid need not be water it;s not just a matter of heart stoppage but could be several different sereneness all of them indicate death however,



8/31/2019 01:12:00 PM Delete
Blogger Bradley Bowen said...
My objections to the above argument against the Survival Theory:

Concerning premise (1A), I have provided ten reasons for doubting the accuracy, reliability, and historicity of the passage from the 4th Gospel that is used to support this premise.

you have not presented them here so they are not part of the debate you must state what they are.


This historical claim is VERY DUBIOUS. This problem is sufficient by itself to sink this argument as being probably UNSOUND.(For the ten reasons, see my post: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/08/25/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-10-the-blood-and-water-objection/ )


Just saying it is not proof,you must demonstrate,I have already documented that John has more credibility now that it used to

Concerning premise (1B), Joe is NOT a medical doctor. His educational background is in theology, so he is NOT qualified to make medical claims like this. NOBODY should believe (1B) just because Joe says so. He OBVIOUSLY needs to provide evidence to support this claim. But Joe apparently doesn't see this obvious point, because he simply asserts (1B), without providing any evidence for it.

You are not a medical doctor either but I backed my argument by several sources including study by the Royal Society,

8/31/2019 01:16:00 PM
9/03/2019 12:05:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
these arguments ere really bull shit most of them are answered by my recent post on blood and water which he is afraid to answer.

https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2019/09/blood-and-water-from-jesus-side.html
9/03/2019 12:12:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As
Read more

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

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol
Read more

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

By -
Image
A few days ago I stumbled upon an article published on a website named Haaretz which appears to be a news site for Israeli news. The article entitled " Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live: A Murderous Translation ," discussed the correct understanding of Exodus 22:18. According to the Haaretz article (authored by Elizabeth Sloane), the word "witch" may have been an erroneous translation. And, to read into Ms. Sloane's argument just a bit, the erroneous translation contributed to the deaths of many innocent witches. Specifically, she notes: This quote, found in the King James Version of the Bible, has been widely held responsible for the witch burnings that plagued Europe, and later America, in the Early Modern Period (1450 C.E. – 1750 C.E.). But the murderous practice may have all been the result of a Biblical mistranslation. Now, as I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew, I need to approach translation issues such as this by accessing sources readily
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc
Read more