(January 12, 2015 at 10:28 am)FallentoReason Wrote:(January 12, 2015 at 10:19 am)Drich Wrote: their is a big gapping hole in this line of reasoning. The assumption being because we only have a written record of 2nd century involvement with the gospels that they must have orginated in the second century.
This would be a valid conclusion IF our records of the first and second century church were any where near complete. They are not. It would be like someone 100 years from now going through all my posts, and proclaim that I never owned a 1967 Mustang or a 64 ranchero because in all my posting I never mention the mustang or ranchero.
Again this would be a logical conclusion if my threads here were a complete chronical of my life. However my work here does not center around my life, (even though I have shared personal experiences) and the work here does not include my two cars, which doesn't mean I never owned them. Like wise to point to a hole in a incomplete historical record is in this case an Arguement from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
Which produces fallacious reasoning/Faulty conclusions.
I partly agree with what you're saying. Except where your example fails is that it's not representing the actual reality of things. To make it true to our dilemma at hand, your example should have you posting in a car forum and only then if you never once mentioned your 1967 Mustang or 64 Ranchero can the person 100 years from now rightfully conclude that you never owned them, with the assumption being that it's incredibly unlikely that you wouldn't mention such information. Remember that we're not dealing with mindless data. We're dealing with people who have certain *intentions* and from these intentions we can justifiably expect certain things of them.
It's sort of the same deal here. We have Church Fathers and apologists exhausting all the resources they have on hand in order to defend the faith, yet the most glaringly obvious documents they should have referenced are nowhere to be found in their writings. Take Papias for example - 5 volumes of what Christ had to say, and not one word he uttered appears again in our Gospels.
Fishy eh? And I'm not talking about the age of Pisces in which Jesus was born
But again with out a complete record to draw from the certainty in which this book makes its assumptions is based of fallacious reasoning. In short 'the car forum' in which the assumptions are made are no where near complete.
