Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This thread is reminding me of Shakespeare's famous lamentation that "There is nothing new under the sun"--which, of course, he didn't come up with on his own, but instead borrowed from the book of Ecclesiastes.
    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      With honour/shame societies, it could go either way - they're kind of unpredictable, and it often comes down to an individual's evaluation of what is more likely to result in either.

      The part that can't be dealt with quite so glibly, is the rise - some would say meteoric rise - of popularity on the part of Christianity. The cultures of Rome and Greece already had a plethora of Gods to choose from and give allegiance to - and there was more than one to suit any taste. Nor could the comparatively austere practices of the new religion be considered a major attraction - again, they already had gods that promoted austerity. If there is anything that won't sway large numbers of an honour/shame it is novelty value.

      Paul declared that the peoples who heard the Christian message (accurately preached) were themselves eye witnesses to the miracles that confirmed the truth of the message. He was saying "you yourselves have seen", and not "others have seen", so you have no excuse for not believing. The obvious response if his claim had not been considered valid by the members of the church addressed, would have been "eh...when?" Members of other churches would have been saying "why them, and not us also?".

      So, these people, even if they had been the gullible and stupid know-nothings that some like to believe, still had what they considered reasonable evidence for changing allegiance from their erstwhile gods to the Christian God.
      Some Christians continue to assert that there was nothing attractive about Christianity in the early centuries, therefore the only reason that people would have joined this new religion is because they really had seen a resurrected Jesus. But are there any other aspects of Christian teaching that people in the first century might find attractive? Let's recall the conditions of the first century: Brutal oppression by the Romans. Routine execution, often by crucifixion of trouble-makers. High taxes. Slavery. Massive poverty.

      So here are a few aspects of Christianity that first century people might have found very attractive:

      1. Equality.

      Jew, Greek, Free, Slave, Male, Female, Rich, Poor = all equal in the Church

      2. Socialism.

      The early church in Jerusalem was asking all members of the Church to share everything in common. This would be a big attraction to the very poor who struggled to feed their families. If just a few people in the Church had land and money, and were willing to share this wealth in common, the overall status of the very poor in society would be much better off if they were members of this new religion.

      3. Future Reward

      In this new religion, converts were promised an eternity of riches; a jewel-studded crown; a mansion in heaven, with streets lined with gold and where there is no sorrow or pain...ever again.

      Poor, desperate people are easy prey for even the wildest of claims that offer them hope, peace, comfort and wealth...no matter how "shameful" this belief system might be to their neighbors and society at large. Human history is littered with examples of poor people falling prey to false, preposterous claims.

      4. Limited Persecution

      Some Christians want to claim that Christians were being thrown to the lions immediately after Jesus' death. Most historians doubt this claim. There was no full scale persecution of Christians until later centuries, with the exception of occasional flares of persecution, such as in the city of Rome due to Nero's scapegoating of them. I challenge Christians to prove that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians during the first century, the time period when any eyewitness would still be alive. By the time we get to the second century, all eyewitnesses are dead, and therefore any conversion to Christianity in this century or those that follow would not have been due to "eyewitness" testimony.
      Last edited by Gary; 08-08-2015, 11:38 PM.

      Comment


      • Did I mention persecution? No! You dreamt up that little piece all on your lonesome.
        What did I say? Something along the lines of what is written here
        No-one in the first century pointed to persecutions of Christians as anything upon which to base belief, but there were people pointing to miracles that converts were witnessing for themselves as demonstrating the truth of the Christian message.
        Supernatural phenomena were expected, and Christians were able to meet that expectation better than any of the competing religions - that is what made the difference.
        Last edited by tabibito; 08-09-2015, 01:35 AM.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Possibly, but you can't be absolutely sure, can you?

          I would take a look at your denomination's annual membership numbers, baptisms numbers, and weekly attendance numbers over the last ten years. Chances are you will see a downward trend. I believe that the internet and skeptic literature is the explanation for a significant percentage of this decline.

          So I guess I'm not the only "idiot" who realized that his religious beliefs were a house of cards.

          Even if the numbers were dropping (in the West at least), that in itself doesn't make Christianity false....you know that right?

          It shows you skepticism and it shows me laziness and poor church leadership.
          Last edited by Cornell; 08-09-2015, 10:47 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Did I mention persecution? No! You dreamt up that little piece all on your lonesome.
            What did I say? Something along the lines of what is written here
            No-one in the first century pointed to persecutions of Christians as anything upon which to base belief, but there were people pointing to miracles that converts were witnessing for themselves as demonstrating the truth of the Christian message.
            Supernatural phenomena were expected, and Christians were able to meet that expectation better than any of the competing religions - that is what made the difference.
            What miracles were converts in Syria, Asia Minor, Athens, Alexandria, and Rome witnessing?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cornell View Post
              Even if the numbers were dropping (in the West at least), that in itself doesn't make Christianity false....you know that right?

              It shows you skepticism and it shows me laziness and poor church leadership.
              No, the decline of Christianity in the West does not necessarily prove that Christianity is false, but it does prove that something is wrong. I challenge you to prove, however, that the decline is solely or even primarily due to laziness among the laity and poor Church leadership. Studies have shown that the internet is playing a significant role in this decline.

              Here is an excerpt and link to one article that asserts that the internet is responsible for 25% of the drop in religious affiliation in the United States:

              "That leaves him in little doubt that his conclusion is reasonable. “Internet use decreases the chance of religious affiliation,” he says. But there is something else going on here too. Downey has found three factors—the drop in religious upbringing, the increase in college-level education and the increase in Internet use—that together explain about 50 percent of the drop in religious affiliation. But what of the other 50 percent? In the data, the only factor that correlates with this is date of birth—people born later are less likely to have a religious affiliation. But as Downey points out, year of birth cannot be a causal factor. “So about half of the observed change remains unexplained,” he says. So that leaves us with a mystery. The drop in religious upbringing and the increase in Internet use seem to be causing people to lose their faith. But something else about modern life that is not captured in this data is having an even bigger impact."

              http://www.technologyreview.com/view...icas-religion/

              And here is an excerpt for another article on this subject:

              Religions have spent eons honing defenses that keep outside information away from insiders. The innermost ring wall is a set of certainties and associated emotions like anxiety and disgust and righteous indignation that block curiosity. The outer wall is a set of behaviors aimed at insulating believers from contradictory evidence and from heretics who are potential transmitters of dangerous ideas. These behaviors range from memorizing sacred texts to wearing distinctive undergarments to killing infidels. Such defenses worked beautifully during humanity’s infancy. But they weren’t really designed for the current information age.

              Tech-savvy mega-churches may have Twitter missionaries, and Calvinist cuties may make viral videos about how Jesus worship isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship, but that doesn’t change the facts: the free flow of information is really, really bad for the product they are selling.

              Here are six kinds of web content that are like, well, like electrolysis on religion’s hairy toes:

              http://www.alternet.org/belief/does-...nized-religion
              Last edited by Gary; 08-09-2015, 12:53 PM.

              Comment


              • Getting back on topic: Can anyone prove that my alternative explanation as stated above, or any detail therein, for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus is "impossible"?

                You can say that all or part of it is "implausible", but I don't believe you can say "impossible". And just because something is implausible, in your opinion or in the opinion of every Christian apologist, does not mean that the implausible did not happen 2,000 years ago. And if it is possibly the explanation for this first century belief, there is then no need to resort to a much less probable "miracle" explanation.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                  Except that He doesn't want us to just be theists. He wants us to choose salvation of our own free will. Ironically, being too obvious could result in fewer being saved because we'd take God for granted.
                  yet those in Hebrews 11 obviously didn't take him for granted and were still considered faithful, no?

                  Comment


                  • sorry, I was gone awhile and then coming back realized I had missed this and wanted to reply to it, if that's alright.

                    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    Actually, the two animals would have ridden alongside each other and look at the text. It says the disciples put their cloaks on the donkey and Jesus sat on them. The them refers to the cloaks. You can say Matthew was wrong, but there's no need to make him an idiot as if he thought you could ride two animals at once.
                    lol, maybe. But reading it for what it says, it still looks like he's saying he rode on both, while the other gospels only cite one donkey, per the "prophecy." And Matthew also credits for Jeremiah for something Zechariah says. These don't make him a idiot necessarily, just a man who lived in a much different time with much less resources.

                    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    With Isaiah, it's actually Isaiah 7 and yes, it does say young woman, but do you know what it said in the LXX?
                    The prophecy is in chapter 7, but the fulfillment is in chapter 8. "Young Woman" was the word used, and while at that time it may have carried the connotation of "virgin" for unmarried women, it never carried such a connotation with pregnant women. It seems like if Isaiah wanted to convey "virgin" he would have specifically said "virgin" especially belaboring the pointing to make sure there was no misunderstanding as virgins have never given birth before.

                    But also, it was given to King Ahaz as a sign for an event happening at that time, so a sign that wouldnt occur for another 700 years isnt much of a sign right then. And then we get to chapter 8 and low and behold, and young woman gives birth and has a son, just as foretold in the previous chapter.



                    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    If the biggest discrepancies involves sandals, that's quite a lot, but as for the birth stories, you do realize they're years apart. Right? The genealogy meanwhile has four or five different ways of looking at it.
                    I am not so sure that the birth stories are so easily dismissed or summed up. When you actually try to much them all together in one story, it becomes very difficult. And sandals arent the biggest of the discrepancies, but they are obvious ones and ones that I remember without having to look back through the entire bible.

                    I realize there are many who do not think the bible must be error free to be from God, but I also know that there are those who, and I come from such a background. To me, the errors, any errors, present problems. The bible is a book of claims by men, who only claim to have had special insights or interactions with God, and who only claim to speak for God, and thus only claim that God said this or that, or did that or this. If certain details contradict or just wrong, then why I should believe the grander claims that i cannot verify?

                    So sandals may seem small, but they're a detail. and wouldnt you prefer to be able to say, "no, there is no such error or contradiction?" But you cannot, because it is clearly there. It may not bother you, but it, and the others, bother me.



                    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    William, typically, you've been much better compared to Gary, but this kind of posting is really beneath you. Straw manning the opposition does not suit you.
                    I first took this as a dig, but think that it may just indicate more of a communication error between the both of us. Keep in mind that we are commenting in very brief threads and posts. If we able to sit face to face, we could more effectively explain ourselves and ask clarification of the other.

                    I dont know what of this has been a strawman or should be beneath me. These are things that stand out to me. If you're not bothered by them, that's fine, even though I dont understand how you see can see contradictions and think all is well.

                    And much of the Resurrection "evidence" comes from these gospels. You rely on the scholars, but most of their opinions derive from these gospels, which contain other errors.

                    Let me say that i am certain you have read more scholars than I have. But we come at this differently. I was raised and did believe that the bible was God's perfect message to man. So when I began to see issues that I could no longer explain away or ignore with a straight face, I began looking at science and history first. I consulted the scriptures and compared them with the expert finding in science and archaeology or history. So when I found internal discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible itself, then found scientific problems, and then historical and archaeological problems, i consulted the scholars some, though not exhaustive. Some scholars are for and some are against.

                    I dont think I've made any strawmen, but if I have, i'd like you to point them out to me, as i certainly do not want to be guilty of that.

                    The "shame culture" just isnt as sound of an argument. The cultural mind may describe the majority of a population, but it never stands as absolute for every single person. The early Christians were a minority, so "shame culture" just doesnt stand as any prove or evidence for me. I still think that people of anytime, even if they lived in a shame culture, still related to unfairness and empathy and vengeance. I suspect that the story of Christ was told similarly then as it is now, as in jesus was wrongly executed, and allowed himself the brutal and shameful death in order to save all of mankind, out of love.

                    The scholars speak on the writings of the time to reach a conclusion regarding the culture. SO those educated sorts who wrote of their culture were also the ones the lowly and poor initial despised. but here again, we may just disagree, but that doesnt mean either you or i are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

                    and early we had discussed Hindu idols drinking milk. Couldnt the scholars of hindu idols agree that the gods really drank milk?

                    Even when we can explain the miracle with natural laws and physical explanations, couldnt the hindu idol disciples just claim, "our gods are gods of nature and physics, so it's reasonable to conclude they use those laws to conduct their miracles?

                    They could also say, "that despite all odds, these hindu gods are still here, with a strong following..."

                    It just seems like all the defenses for Christianity can be used to defend anything or any religion.

                    So, is the Resurrection believable? It is to you but isnt to me, so the answer, it seems is, "yes and no."

                    Comment


                    • I see this all. Going to respond tomorrow. Allie's birthday today.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by William View Post
                        sorry, I was gone awhile and then coming back realized I had missed this and wanted to reply to it, if that's alright.



                        lol, maybe. But reading it for what it says, it still looks like he's saying he rode on both, while the other gospels only cite one donkey, per the "prophecy." And Matthew also credits for Jeremiah for something Zechariah says. These don't make him a idiot necessarily, just a man who lived in a much different time with much less resources.



                        The prophecy is in chapter 7, but the fulfillment is in chapter 8. "Young Woman" was the word used, and while at that time it may have carried the connotation of "virgin" for unmarried women, it never carried such a connotation with pregnant women. It seems like if Isaiah wanted to convey "virgin" he would have specifically said "virgin" especially belaboring the pointing to make sure there was no misunderstanding as virgins have never given birth before.

                        But also, it was given to King Ahaz as a sign for an event happening at that time, so a sign that wouldnt occur for another 700 years isnt much of a sign right then. And then we get to chapter 8 and low and behold, and young woman gives birth and has a son, just as foretold in the previous chapter.





                        I am not so sure that the birth stories are so easily dismissed or summed up. When you actually try to much them all together in one story, it becomes very difficult. And sandals arent the biggest of the discrepancies, but they are obvious ones and ones that I remember without having to look back through the entire bible.

                        I realize there are many who do not think the bible must be error free to be from God, but I also know that there are those who, and I come from such a background. To me, the errors, any errors, present problems. The bible is a book of claims by men, who only claim to have had special insights or interactions with God, and who only claim to speak for God, and thus only claim that God said this or that, or did that or this. If certain details contradict or just wrong, then why I should believe the grander claims that i cannot verify?

                        So sandals may seem small, but they're a detail. and wouldnt you prefer to be able to say, "no, there is no such error or contradiction?" But you cannot, because it is clearly there. It may not bother you, but it, and the others, bother me.





                        I first took this as a dig, but think that it may just indicate more of a communication error between the both of us. Keep in mind that we are commenting in very brief threads and posts. If we able to sit face to face, we could more effectively explain ourselves and ask clarification of the other.

                        I dont know what of this has been a strawman or should be beneath me. These are things that stand out to me. If you're not bothered by them, that's fine, even though I dont understand how you see can see contradictions and think all is well.

                        And much of the Resurrection "evidence" comes from these gospels. You rely on the scholars, but most of their opinions derive from these gospels, which contain other errors.

                        Let me say that i am certain you have read more scholars than I have. But we come at this differently. I was raised and did believe that the bible was God's perfect message to man. So when I began to see issues that I could no longer explain away or ignore with a straight face, I began looking at science and history first. I consulted the scriptures and compared them with the expert finding in science and archaeology or history. So when I found internal discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible itself, then found scientific problems, and then historical and archaeological problems, i consulted the scholars some, though not exhaustive. Some scholars are for and some are against.

                        I dont think I've made any strawmen, but if I have, i'd like you to point them out to me, as i certainly do not want to be guilty of that.

                        The "shame culture" just isnt as sound of an argument. The cultural mind may describe the majority of a population, but it never stands as absolute for every single person. The early Christians were a minority, so "shame culture" just doesnt stand as any prove or evidence for me. I still think that people of anytime, even if they lived in a shame culture, still related to unfairness and empathy and vengeance. I suspect that the story of Christ was told similarly then as it is now, as in jesus was wrongly executed, and allowed himself the brutal and shameful death in order to save all of mankind, out of love.

                        The scholars speak on the writings of the time to reach a conclusion regarding the culture. SO those educated sorts who wrote of their culture were also the ones the lowly and poor initial despised. but here again, we may just disagree, but that doesnt mean either you or i are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

                        and early we had discussed Hindu idols drinking milk. Couldnt the scholars of hindu idols agree that the gods really drank milk?

                        Even when we can explain the miracle with natural laws and physical explanations, couldnt the hindu idol disciples just claim, "our gods are gods of nature and physics, so it's reasonable to conclude they use those laws to conduct their miracles?

                        They could also say, "that despite all odds, these hindu gods are still here, with a strong following..."

                        It just seems like all the defenses for Christianity can be used to defend anything or any religion.

                        So, is the Resurrection believable? It is to you but isnt to me, so the answer, it seems is, "yes and no."
                        How many NT scholars use the "Honor-Shame Society" theory as a major piece of evidence for the veracity of the Resurrection? There may be someone but I haven't heard of them. NT Wright claims that no first century Jew or pagan would have believed in a resurrection of one individual because such an idea was unheard of. But when reading his 800+ page book, "The Resurrection of the Son of God", I don't remember him using the "Honor-Shame" argument. So there may be some scholars who use this "evidence" in a minor role in their argument, but is there anyone besides Nick who uses this "evidence" as the lynchpin of his argument?

                        If Nick is the only apologist using this argument as his principle means of validating the Resurrection claim, I believe that each one of us should ask ourselves this: "How strong can this argument be when no NT scholar has used it as his primary argument in the last 2,000 years?? Nick is obviously a very intelligent man, but he is not a scholar, and hasn't yet finished his master's program in philosophy. He has a college degree, a BA or BS, and that is it. I therefore assert that we should not spend much time debating the predicted behavior of persons living in a first century Honor-Shame Society simply due to Nick's deeply held convictions.

                        It is a fringe argument.
                        Last edited by Gary; 08-10-2015, 11:35 AM.

                        Comment


                        • I'm not sure it's technically accurate to say honor-shame is THE linchpin of Nick's argument. But as for the rest of your questions, the honor-shame discourse seems to have originated (most explicitly, at least) from a circle of scholars known as The Context Group. Prominent/recurring names in this group include David deSilva, Bruce Malina, John Pilch, Richard Rohrbaugh, Jerome Neyrey. I also have encountered other works that implicitly involve or at least hint at the existence of the honor-shame dynamic. As far as people who've explicitly used it as a major supporter for the resurrection argument? Most people on this site who use it are drawing it from JP Holding's article "The Impossible Faith", although I have also heard that a New Testament scholar named Craig Evans has expressed a similar argument.

                          Make of that what you will.
                          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                            I'm not sure it's technically accurate to say honor-shame is THE linchpin of Nick's argument. But as for the rest of your questions, the honor-shame discourse seems to have originated (most explicitly, at least) from a circle of scholars known as The Context Group. Prominent/recurring names in this group include David deSilva, Bruce Malina, John Pilch, Richard Rohrbaugh, Jerome Neyrey. I also have encountered other works that implicitly involve or at least hint at the existence of the honor-shame dynamic. As far as people who've explicitly used it as a major supporter for the resurrection argument? Most people on this site who use it are drawing it from JP Holding's article "The Impossible Faith", although I have also heard that a New Testament scholar named Craig Evans has expressed a similar argument.

                            Make of that what you will.
                            I just read JP Holding's article that you reference. He goes through the same arguments that Nick has presented, so I guess Nick is not the only one pushing this issue. I would be curious if any early Church Father/apologist in the first 400 years of Christianity promoted this position. Anyone know?

                            One claim, however seemed contrived. Holding says that Herod Agrippa II was alive at the time of the writing of the Book of Acts and if Luke had made things up about Herod Agrippa I, then number II would have arrested him and everyone would have known what Luke had said was fraudulent. I see a lot of Christian assumptions in this statement. Here is what we do know:

                            1. We have no proof who wrote the Book of Acts, only educated guesses and a lot of assumptions.
                            2. Most scholars believe that the two volume work of the Gospel of Luke/Book of Acts was written in the 80's or 90's.
                            3. Most scholars believe that Herod Agrippa II died in the early 90's.

                            So if the anonymous author of Acts wrote this book in 98 AD and Herod Agrippa died in 93 AD, Herod Agrippa would NOT have read this book and therefore could not have refuted its claims.

                            And, even if the Book of Acts was written in the 80's, how soon was it in circulation in Palestine for Herod Agrippa II to read?? Maybe it was written in Rome and copies did not arrive to Palestine until the second century! We just don't know.

                            This is why I call the entire orthodox/conservative Christian belief system a house of cards: There are SO many assumptions about so many claims that if only a couple of these assumptions are incorrect, the entire belief system collapses.

                            Christians want to assert that the rise of such a shameful belief in an Honor-Shame Society is proof that all the miracle claims of the NT, including the reanimation of a dead prophet, are true. However, I would say that the probability of convincing an uneducated, first century Jew or pagan (very few Jews, actually) that a prophet from God had been shamefully executed, but, was miraculously resurrected by the Hebrew God Yahweh, as proof that He, Yahweh, is the Creator, the only True God, is much more probable than convincing wild Bedouins in the Arabian desert to give up debauchery, rape, murder, drunkenness, and eating pork, as Mohammad was able to do. Yes, the Muslims eventually did use the sword to force conversions, but initially Islam had only ONE believer, Mohammad, and he was not a king or prince who could force people to accept his views. Mohammad had to use the art of persuasion (otherwise known as "preaching") to convince wild pagans to accept his beliefs and strict rules of self control.

                            And besides, as I have said before, 21st century Christian graduates from seminaries in Virginia, Texas, and North Carolina may believe the Honor-Shame argument is impressive evidence for this supernatural tale, but the overwhelming majority of Jews, then and for the last 2,000 years, members of the very Honor-Shame society in question, have been underwhelmed by this "evidence". Jews say it is all superstitious, concocted nonsense.
                            Last edited by Gary; 08-10-2015, 03:46 PM.

                            Comment


                            • High context society, dude. Why would the early Church fathers need to use that argument when they also had an honor-shame society? It's only individualistic cultures that need a reminder of what an honor-shame cultural setting entails for the gospel!
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                                High context society, dude. Why would the early Church fathers need to use that argument when they also had an honor-shame society? It's only individualistic cultures that need a reminder of what an honor-shame cultural setting entails for the gospel!
                                Imagine if a group of UFO experts in the United States makes this announcement to the news media:

                                These experts recently came across four anonymous books that detail the statements of a few hundred people in rural Japan who claimed to have seen little green space aliens, over a one month period of time in 1972; odd creatures with long, thin antennas sprouting out of their tiny heads, who claimed to be from the planet Mars.

                                These experts assert that no Japanese person would ever believe in green, antennae-sporting, space aliens unless they had actually seen them, so the fact that some Japanese DID believe this story, is proof that the story is true.

                                What is wrong with this reasoning?

                                Answer: We know that the overwhelming majority of Japanese people in the 1970's and today do not believe in little green Martians with antennae, therefore, the fact that a small group of mostly rural Japanese do believe this claim, while the overwhelming majority of Japanese remain unconvinced of the veracity of this story even though SOME Japanese do believe it, demonstrates that "no Japanese person would believe this claim unless it is true" is an inaccurate generalization.

                                Likewise, the claim that "no Jew would believe in a resurrection if they had not actually seen it" fails because the majority of first century Jews did NOT believe this story, even though they were aware that a small group of Jews did.

                                Just because a small group of people in a particular society chooses to believe a very odd, shameful, never-heard-of-before belief is not proof that the belief is true. It is only proof that human beings are prone to believe almost anything given the right circumstances.
                                Last edited by Gary; 08-10-2015, 05:59 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X