No Robots

The Gospels are Jewish literature, akin to Talmudic midrash. Their novelty lies in the fact that they are the product of the ammé haaretz, the common folk, who hitherto had no literature of their own; and in the fact that they are wholly devoted to the depiction of the central personnage.

stonewall1012

Could the same be true of the converse? It is possible that there might be a hidden agenda to put the gospels in a different category in order to leave the impression that there is NO history with out having to actauly demonstrate it on a historical basis?

You seem to be assuming patcleavers assumption that a negation is assumed true while an assertion must be proven? Is this the case? Are negative assertions inherently true while positive assertions require demonstration of validity?

Toto

On the contrary, it appears that most of the people who think that the gospels are unique, in a genre of their own, are Christians.

People who believe that the gospels have no identifiable history generally come out and say so, since they think it is an obvious conclusion. It is those who think that they can extract some history who have to build a complicated case that separates the obviously mythical parts from the putatively historical.

No - I found that whole discussion of negative and positive assertions and burdens of proof to be pointless.

stonewall1012

Really?!! I find that fascinating... You don't think that its imporant that people use logic properly?

You think it is "pointless" whether or not an assertion is logically proven verses a fallacious argument that proves your point?

I find that interesting coming from a person moderating a string on a forum dedicated to "Secular reasoning"

Toto

The burden of proof is a legal doctrine that has little application outside the courtroom. What does it have to do with logic?

stonewall1012

I didn't say burden of proof did I? I said positive and negative assertion. I asked you if you believed that a negative assertion requires no proof and is the "default" assertion that one "assumes" is true whether it is proven or not.

Once again there are others who have proposed that this "burden of proof" is upon those asserting certain things while others asserting other things are free from the "burden of proof"

mountainman

the non-canonical gospels and the non-canonical acts are nevertheless historical documents - texts authored at a specific time and place in the true history of this planet, by a specific author. Ancient historians are capable of expressing this in the following terms:

So whereas the inner texts and stories of the non-canonical acts and gospels may be a textual critics and ancient historians' nightmare, the external relationship of all these texts includes a history of their authorship, reason for authorship, political circumstances, sponsorship if any, details of the author and background, where they were written, at what time over what period, when they were read or published in public, etc, etc, etc and then the general cosniderations related to the transmission of the document(s) then apply --- all of which are of ancient historical significance!.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The Gospels can also be perceived to be Roman literature, akin to simple stories for soldiers and the army, written for Romans but in bad Greek, extolling the Greek Logos and the necessity of "rendering unto Caesar" in the first instance.


That is what Constantine (and those who inherited the Nicaean agreement) would have us believe when these stories were first widely published by a malevolent and despotic warlord in the fourth century. However nobody has as yet critically questioned the foundation of that belief. And whether there is any authenticity to it.

We have accepted the (Constantinian/Eusebian/New Testament) story and the entire pre-Nicaean christian origins story as being historical truth - hook line and sinker. But is it?



Best wishes,


Pete

stonewall1012

right. And that turn the other cheek thing that must have been for the pacifists serving behind the line helping them out right?

Toto

This is basically a burden of proof argument, whenever you are talking about a default position that is assumed to be true in the absense of contrary evidence. I do not think it is very useful here.