pug846

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?

Kosh

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"

Muad'Dib

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 ]

Family Man

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.