Soul Invictus

Did you see the rest of my post? I don't assert anything.

Failing to agree that something exists is not denial.

Jayco

What is the Christian response to evidence? Off the top of my head, I know of Josephus and Tacitus. (Shows you how much I know. )

DBT

That's odd, the remark by Suetonius is still being taken by some to refer to Christ. Coming at aproximately the advent of Christanity, that was my [possibly wrong] assumption as well.

''This is the key objection to using this passage. "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Benko, for example, has suggested that "Chrestus" was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus." [see Benk.EC49, 410-3] . Some may find support for this in that Suetonius' sentence literally refers to "the instigator," not actually "the instigation." [VanV.JONT, 31, 33; who counters, though, that the name "Chrestus" is otherwise unattested among the Jews''

Catholic Encyclopedia
''But at this stage the Greeks and Romans understood little or nothing about the import of the word anointed; to them it did not convey any sacred conception. Hence they substituted Chrestus, or "excellent", for Christus or "anointed", and Chrestians instead of "Christians." ''

purple_kathryn

I've wondered this as well

I have been told there are "written roman records" about jesus being arrested IIRC

And also that the catholic church has written records in their vault in the vatican.

But I think this is just an assumption or a lie they have been fed.

Solo

So what are you saying ? Are you saying a statement, "no I do not agree Jesus existed ?" is not a denial that Jesus existed ? Or are you saying, that if I have not proved to your satisfaction that Jesus exists, whatever you would answer me cannot be considered a denial ?

Jiri

Tiberius

I don't think he existed because records of Jesus have never come from the time he is said to have lived, and yet the records of the time that we do have show no indication that he existed. For a man who did such miracles and spoke to such large numbers of people, you'd think there would be at least one source that at least come from the time when he is said to have lived!

karlmarx

It's always possible that, as you say, I may not understand the issue. If I understand you correctly, your concern is with the persecution that apparently flared up around Paul's time, and also about the sectarian conflict within Christianity at this time (not to mention James' supposed Jewish traditionalism, which apparently is not consistent with Christ being a pagan and Jewish hybrid).

How can we be certain that the persecution was a new development around Paul's time? How can we be sure that, in fact, it wasn't a continuing issue from long before?

How do we know that sectarian disputes had only commenced in that time also? Cults are known for sectarian infighting - why should we think that there was no sectarianism before Paul? Indeed, why must we accept that there could not have been a faction within Christianity at this time that was more traditionalist than the rest - in this case, represented by James?

Even assuming that all these things were new developments, how can we be sure that they weren't brought on as a result of Paul himself? Must we attribute them to a near-contemporary Christ?

spin

The issue is a linguistic one. By using the word "deny" puts what's being denied in a reified position.

If you changed your statement to:

"Surely, one can accept or not accept something exists as a possibility? No?"

you might get a different response.

There are actually three separate categories involved:

1. accept existence,
2. not accept but not deny existence,
3. deny existence.

If the evidence is opaque then you would expect category #2, for it doesn't allow you to accept or deny.

Not accept would mean #2 and #3.
Not deny would mean #1 and #2.

Soul Invictus can be in category #2 and not have asserted anything. And category #2 doesn't deny anything either.


spin

Soul Invictus

Bingo. :thumbs:

Said with such eloquence...and I found the word I was looking for to describe it..."reify". I sincerely THANK you. Now I get to overruse that word when having conversations about "denial".

And, yes, I am #2.

everettf

All this talk about the teachings of Jesus have been written down by Jesus? Where are the parchments that this Jesus wrote on? If they don't exist then it's all a lie.
All the rest of the records a nothing but hearsay.






The deepest sin against the mind is to believe things without evidence.