UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 25 to Meditation 38
Re: Jesus did indeed exist.

by JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

Evan:

I'm glad that you happen to find the article you quoted supportive of your belief that Jesus existed. But it really has nothing original to say. It is argument, not fact, full of unsupported assertions and allegations.

From the very opening, the argument presented is flawed. The issue of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays is somehow considered comparable to the issue of a historical Christ. This is an extremely poor analogy. It does not stand up to logical examination.

The plays attributed to Shakespeare exist. Someone must have written them. There certainly was an author, whoever it may have been.

Similarly, the books of the New Testament exist. Those books were written by several people. We know the authors existed because the books exist, even if we cannot be sure the people to whom the books are attributed were the actual authors.

So the question of who really wrote the plays of Shakespeare is analogous to who really wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. It has nothing in common with the subject matter of either set of writings.

Christ is the main character in the Gospel according to Matthew, just as King Lear is the main character of the play "King Lear." The question of the historical existence of Christ can be seen as analogous to the historical existence of Lear. Or alternatively consider Richard III, a real historical figure, and we can ask whether Shakespeare's Richard III truly represents the real Richard III, just as we can ask whether Matthew's Christ truly represents the (perhaps) historical Christ.

Use of such a flawed analogy as comparing the authorship of Shakespeare's plays to the historical existence of Christ is, as the unidentified author of your article next states, "a sure sign of desperation." He has nothing to say, and takes a lot of words to say it.