Bradley Bowen wrote a post on Secular Outpost blog responding to my criticisms of his defense of the "swoon theory." He gives it the mature adult title: "Hinman's Pathetic Defense of his Sad Little Argument.. Oddly enough he did not read and makes no reference to my post"Blood and Water from Jesus Side,"[9/1/19]  which should have known about because I put the link in the comment section of SOP. So attacks upon my argument are out moded and ignore my major work. His whole first section assumes the wrong idea.
In response to my criticism of Peter Kreeft’s weak and patheticobjections against the Survival Theory, Joe Hinman wrote the following in one of his blog posts: [note the link is to "Bread and Butter Apologetics Aug 12, 2019--note the dates this one and blood and water] now quoting me:
Bowen: The argument that Hinman puts forward here against the Survival Theory follows the miserable example of intellectual sloth by Peter Kreeft, being stated in a single unclear and sloppy sentence:The sticking would have proven he was dead because water coming out operate from blood proves the heart is not working:At this point it is important to observe that this is the argument in outmoded form. He thinks I'm saying the liquid has to be water and that proves the heart quite working. I never said the liquid has to be water for my argument to proceed. In the latter article which he does not address,I said it was probably not water per se. It is a medical fact that a clear liquid bled out the wound means hes dead that is empirical does not have to be more than one line it NOT a matter of deduction. It is evidenced,
1. Bowen's major argument against me at this point is that the clear liquid may not have been water
2. Bowen bases his argument on the wrong article by me
3. Had read the right article (which is "blood and water") he would see that I assume the clear liquid was not water
4. clear liquid pouring from a wound separate from blood is indicative o many condition them all of
them are indicative of death. (I baked this with 3 sources he has none)
5.therefore Bowen's attack on my argument so far is irrelevant and doesn't apply because I don't assume the premise he thinks I do.
Now he suggests my argumemt:
1. Water coming out separate from blood proves [the] heart is not working
True in so far as it goes but that is not to say that other clear liquids of the body don't prove the same thing.
Bowen: First, even eyewitness testimony by a trustworthy person 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.Here he is still assuming I am committed to water (again with the water) as the liquid that came out with blood I am not, I accept it could have been another bodily fluid they are all indicative of death,l
Bowen: 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 (or translucent) 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!
Now here he's creating a straw man argument. He wants to make the reader think that I'm committed to it being water, he totally ignores the fact that being another liquid does not change the reality that it indicates the man was dead. The other liquids are also indicative of death! (Treloar  Maslen  )
Bowen: Let me try to improve and clarify 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 he was on the cross