Ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[robvalue]

I don't think it should make any difference to you at all

I mean, I suppose if you don't accept there ever was a single person who the story is based on, then there can't also be a magical version of that person either. But conceding a historical person makes no difference towards the supernatural claims, other than to stop the squabbling over this moot point. I guess this is why christians fight so hard to make this case, because it is a requirement... but then they often stop, as if establishing a historical Jesus is enough to just believe the rest of the drivel.

The story seems to me to be almost entirely mythical in nature, so to say it is "based on" a real person means almost nothing. It may as well not be. "Inspired by" would be more accurate! We can confirm a handful of facts, at best. The rest of the gospels are just hearsay rumour-mill talk.

That is my take on it all anyway! I'm even willing to concede Jesus said and did everything as described in the bible for the sake of argument, except the supernatural stuff. It all makes no difference. That last hurdle is impossible. Personally, to conclude that the whole story didn't at some point borrow elements from another real person seems very difficult, but I don't need to worry about that when facing supernatural arguments. I can hand over everything else, just as I did in the reliability of the NT thread.