Well yes - that's when its called evidence.
But WHEN evidence is found - it was there all along its just no one knew of it so it was correctly assumed (burden of proof, etc) that there wasn't any evidence until further notice.
Once the evidence was found - then it had actually been there along right? Or am I getting confused?
E.G: Fossils that had been there all along but weren't considered evidence because no one even knew they had existed. Once they were found - they had been there as evidence all along but noone knew of that evidence so it was considered that there wasn't any (talking about these hypothetical fossils I mean).
You're great to discuss with.
I just think that it is perhaps, on average, more statistically probable for someone such as Jesus to have been based on someone to have been just completely made up from scratch. Maybe not.
The thing is though IF Jesus was based on a real person - was that real person even called Jesus? Or was it a similar name? Or a COMPLETELY different name? In that case would that person even count as or be similar enough to Jesus to even count as 'the real Jesus'?
I mean where do you draw the line? How similar would someone that the Jesus character was based on have to be to Jesus - the be considered the so called 'real original Jesus'. In other words the person that Jesus was based on that's similar enough to be the real Jesus that the supernaturally absurd Jesus of the bible was based on?
And if he had a very similar name to Jesus (because he was based on 'The Jesus') of the bible - would that count? How similar would he have to be? I mean would he have to be EXACTLY the same just without all the supernatural nonsense? That would be much much more unlikely than someone that's merely similar enough I think.
It gets all rather confusing and specific and where do you draw the line - in that case - I think. Perhaps gets more semantic. I dunno.
Thoughts?
Oh and P.S:
Almost certainly
But WHEN evidence is found - it was there all along its just no one knew of it so it was correctly assumed (burden of proof, etc) that there wasn't any evidence until further notice.
Once the evidence was found - then it had actually been there along right? Or am I getting confused?
E.G: Fossils that had been there all along but weren't considered evidence because no one even knew they had existed. Once they were found - they had been there as evidence all along but noone knew of that evidence so it was considered that there wasn't any (talking about these hypothetical fossils I mean).
You're great to discuss with.
I just think that it is perhaps, on average, more statistically probable for someone such as Jesus to have been based on someone to have been just completely made up from scratch. Maybe not.
The thing is though IF Jesus was based on a real person - was that real person even called Jesus? Or was it a similar name? Or a COMPLETELY different name? In that case would that person even count as or be similar enough to Jesus to even count as 'the real Jesus'?
I mean where do you draw the line? How similar would someone that the Jesus character was based on have to be to Jesus - the be considered the so called 'real original Jesus'. In other words the person that Jesus was based on that's similar enough to be the real Jesus that the supernaturally absurd Jesus of the bible was based on?
And if he had a very similar name to Jesus (because he was based on 'The Jesus') of the bible - would that count? How similar would he have to be? I mean would he have to be EXACTLY the same just without all the supernatural nonsense? That would be much much more unlikely than someone that's merely similar enough I think.
It gets all rather confusing and specific and where do you draw the line - in that case - I think. Perhaps gets more semantic. I dunno.
Thoughts?
Oh and P.S:
(February 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm)DD_8630 Wrote:(February 17, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!Probably
Almost certainly
