re: Does anyone actually believe this

quote:

---

The crux of your argument is what you perceive to be a lack of evidence. You haven't presented any evidence.

---

You clearly haven't followed the conversation, then. Or have significant problems with comprehension.

quote:

---

You can't prove that Jesus didn't exist any better than any Christian here could prove to you that he did exist.

---

Or as I said before: I'm an agnostic in regards to Jesus' existence. In the classical sense of "It can't be known.", it can be assumed, but to say emphatically "the guy known as Jesus who performed all of the miracles and traveled from X, Y and Z was a real person" I think is a mighty stretch.

quote:

---

I don't see why the burden of proof would lie on those whom argue that he did exist when it lies on the opposite side of the argument for other historical figures, and no, I don't buy your argument that people had reason to invent Jesus any more than I'd buy a hypothetical argument that people had reason to invent Alexander the Great.

---

Really, you can't see a reason to invent Jesus? A messiah, your savior, everyone's savior, who tells certain people that they need to live a certain lifestyle to be accepted into heaven?

You really can't believe someone would fabricate that?

And I've given tons of evidence for Alexander the Great being a historical figure.

quote:

---

With the lack of evidence either way, people will believe what they want to believe.

---

If you have a lack of evidence, your first position or premise should be: It's true.

It should be like a jury -- innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is some proof, then it can't be told to be certain. (And I recognize that historians don't look at things in certainty, but there are other historical figures with tons more evidence before and after Jesus, I just think it's bizarre that people are certain.)

quote:

---

Those who believe that he did exist and was the Messiah aren't doing so out of tangible evidence; they're doing it out of faith. And there's nothing wrong with that.

---

Ahhh, there's a bit of a problem with that. Faith is not evidence, faith is belief. I demand evidence, you can faith it up all you want, but that's a very poor argument standing point -- I also don't think you're representative of everyone in here saying that it's faith alone.

I'm certain there are people in this thread that think there is evidence -- we're just discussing as to the what's and why's. But I have no doubt that they're not going on it as a matter of absolute faith. (Negating the Basal Assumptions.)