Was Jesus a real person?

Dec 2018
1,277
694
the Heart of America
#71
Not necessarily. I suspect that many, if not most, mythical figures were created out of conglomerations of stories told about more than one individual person, but attributed to a single mythical person for the purpose of storytelling. That doesn't necessarily mean that such myths didn't have their beginnings as stories of real people and real events. That said, I certainly don't believe that any real person has ever had supernatural powers of the likes attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.
Perhaps, but that's more common of origin stories. In specific individuals, it's usually one person, a real one, although I'll concede they may be credited with the deeds of others. It's similar to what you said, but clearly different.
 
Feb 2010
26,766
27,655
Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
#73
Perhaps, but that's more common of origin stories. In specific individuals, it's usually one person, a real one, although I'll concede they may be credited with the deeds of others. It's similar to what you said, but clearly different.
Like King Arthur, or Robin Hood, These idealised defenders of the little guy are entirely fictional, representing an ideal, sadly not present..
 
Likes: Friday13
Dec 2018
1,277
694
the Heart of America
#74
Like King Arthur, or Robin Hood, These idealised defenders of the little guy are entirely fictional, representing an ideal, sadly not present..
Entirely fictional? You have evidence they never existed? Of course you don't. Most legends do have a seed in reality. As mentioned previously, over time the reality grows into legend with exaggerations of the exploits.
 
Dec 2018
1,277
694
the Heart of America
#76
There is no evidence left behind of non-existence. When one chooses to believe something in the absence of evidence, it is incumbent upon the believer to provide proof -- not vice versa.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood had an origin. That's not the same as saying the legends are true. You are free to go through life believing everything is fiction and nothing is real except yourself.

Solipsists exist, but I disagree with them too. :)

 
Dec 2018
1,277
694
the Heart of America
#79
Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything, and neither is mere belief -- no matter how strongly one may hold a particular belief.
Correct, but like most atheists, you believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is a logical error on your part, but you are free to believe in such an error.

As for me, the legends exist. That is fact. How those legends started is mere speculation. You choose to say they are complete fabrications without a shred of evidence supporting your belief. I, knowing a bit about history and human nature, remain sceptical but understand most legends have a basis in fact. Jesus? The odds favor he existed. Jesus as the Divine Son of God? Debatable since there is a complete lack of evidence in that regard. King Arthur and Robin Hood similarly are mostly legend, but probably also existed. You, however, have declared they never existed as a matter of fact. That's false. Now who is being more logical and reasonable here; you or me?
 

Similar Discussions