antishock8 wrote:In a different thread there was a couple of claims that Jesus existed and that it's a FACT.
I don't think so. Here are my reasons:
1) Any mention of Jesus was hearsay.
2) The Gospel weren't written by the apostles.
3) Paul never met Jesus.
4) Gnosticism, which was widely practiced, differs greatly from Christianity and in its description of Christ.
5) Testimonium Flavianum is "patently fraudulent".
6) The ossuary of James the "brother of Jesus" was found to be a "patent fraud" as are other "proofs" like the shroud of Turin.
7) No contemporary accounts of Jesus.
antishock8,
You make some valid points. The real issue hinges on your word “existed.” The many groups, both Christian and non-Christian present today have vastly different notions of that. Interpretations, spins, formally expressed theologies differ on just what that term “existed” means. They rely on their own perceptions. That there were no
reporters documenting the alleged
life day by day, year by year of one about whom extraordinary claims were later made is evidence in support of your contention.
Even a hundred or a few hundreds of years back, there is difference of opinion about the actual life and content of that life for famous public figures in the USA such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, and many others. This is important to assess the validity of any claims regarding such a figure as is claimed by different groups for
Jesus. What is meant by “existed”? Even among those who appear to agree that
Jesus existed, there is major lack of agreement regarding what that
existence was and what it meant. Christians do not agree. If they did, there would be one
Christianity. Non-Christians have yet different perspectives.
There can be little doubt that
religious perspectives “existed.” Once spoken symbols advanced to written symbols, language began to emerge. It was a way to preserve and pass on ideas of those who died. To those ideas, other ideas were added. Regarding ideas, that fact is not limited to religion.
To those who say “Jesus existed,” we ask just who and what was that person? The answers can rely only on what was passed in language and on interpretations of what was passed on in language. In the New Testament, we have many scripts which begin or end with “Jesus said.” Following the King James Version, other translations place those
words of Jesus in quotation marks. One
source suggests quotation marks came into use “sometime at the end of the seventeenth century or the beginning of the eighteenth century.”
BibleGateway offers multiple English translations of the Bible in which quotation marks are used following the famous 1611 King James Version. No one took verbatim notes of all the words found in the Bible attributed to the
claimed Jesus. All the quotations appeared decades after they were alleged to have been uttered. Likewise, the circumstances (the setting) under which the words were alleged to have been spoken were written in wording that has been subject to interpretation. The many schisms over many centuries for Christianity demonstrate well the lack of agreement on what the words mean that are in the various translations and interpretations of the Bible. What does “existed” mean with regard
Jesus?
The probability that any one notion or interpretation of New Testament
words is singularly accurate is most unlikely. You, antishock8, could point to any one of these notions that
Jesus existed, and you could reasonably discredit claims made. You could ask about
other interpretations regarding that “existed” and ask why the
other interpretations are not of equal validity. Or, as you have here, you could argue that
Jesus never existed as such existence is constructed through interpretation of words written long after the alleged facts which they purport to describe.
While your examples are supportive of your position, even greater support lies in the fact today that people don’t agree on “existed” in the context of multiple dogmas. Once someone claims “existed” for
Jesus, you have many follow-up questions regarding various particular claims made by someone. Since even the fractured groups of those who subscribe to some form of
Christianity don’t agree, just what
Jesus existed? What details from cradle to death for “existed” can be established with certainty and agreement? This is to say nothing of those who are non-Christian and read the New Testament as even greater skepticism than do Christian groups.
It is vague to argue that an historical figure like Jesus existed. What does that mean? Absent detailed particulars, it does not carry gravitas. It’s an assertion. There might have been a combination of people whose composite is poured into biblical stories. Even if that were the case, it does not support
an historical singular person.
JAK