FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-26-2001, 01:40 PM   #1
pug846
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
Post Paul

Hello - I was hoping some regulars would give me their thoughts on the following issue:

(1)From the documents we have, we can reasonably conclude that Paul believed that Jesus was resurected. (2)Further, Paul tells us that he met eye witnesses to the resurection. (c)Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

Any thoughts on the validity of the two assertions and the following conclusion?
pug846 is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 01:51 PM   #2
Kosh
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Post

How about this topic pug?

(1)From the documents we have, we can reasonably conclude that a Scotish Highlander believed that the Loch Ness Monster was real. (2)Further, the Highlander tells us that he met eye witnesses to the Loch Ness Monster(c)Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Loch Ness Monster did in fact exist.

Any thoughts on the validity of the two assertions and the following conclusion?

Or try running this script on the above text:

sed -e "s/Loch Ness Monster/Bigfoot"
Kosh is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 02:10 PM   #3
Muad'Dib
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by pug846:
<STRONG>(1)From the documents we have, we can reasonably conclude that Paul believed that Jesus was resurected. (2)Further, Paul tells us that he met eye witnesses to the resurection. (c)Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.</STRONG>
Unstated assumptions:

(0a)We can accurately infer the contents of first-century documents from our existing copies of them, since (0b) our copies are soundly preserved and historically accurate, and thus (1)From the documents we have, we can reasonably conclude that Paul believed that Jesus was resurected. (2)Further, Paul tells us that he met eye witnesses to the resurection. (2a) Resurrection is both well-defined and possible. (2b) Paul is correct in this instance, and not mistaken or fudging details. (2c) The eyewitnesses he talked to were neither mistaken nor fudging details. (3)Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

To be clear, I make no claim that all these unstated assertions are false. I am suspicious of 0a and 0b in some places, but not this one; I don't quibble about 2a, since it makes sense in a theistic framework; and I doubt both 2b and 2c.

[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 08:22 PM   #4
Family Man
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Superior, CO USA
Posts: 1,553
Post

Something that gets lost in these arguments is that the 1st Century Christians were not writing a dispassionate history. They were writing polemics. They were trying to promote their religion. Thus, when Paul says "I met some eyewitnesses" we have to decide whether he's telling the truth or not with that in mind. Skepticism demands that we have to take that assertion with a large grain of salt given Paul's goals. In other words, just because an argument takes a valid form doesn't mean the result is true. Other factors have to be taken into consideration.
Family Man is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.