Fictional Characters by Country #1

Dracula was a real nickname. He wasn't actually a count if you want to be a stickler. I would say that Count Dracula is "fictionalized," but not fictional.

Agree, but I think the Quizmaster included the title "Count" to distinguish between the two.

But the nickname was all that was taken by Stoker. The legends he based his count on were mostly Romanian, but not connected to Vlad Tepes, who also called himself Dracula and from whom Stoker took the name. 'Dracula' was not originally the character's name, it was Count Wampyr. Thank goodness he happened across Dracula before that went to print!

There is no historical evidence of the Jesus as depicted in the bible. The best piece of "evidence" was written 300 years after he died and has since been widely accepted as a forgery. As far as changing the world, I'd say Carl Marx has had an extremely profound impact on the world, in far less time. That doesn't make him, or anyone else, a god.

All theological debate aside, few legitimate historians of ancient history are going to argue against the existence of an historical Jesus. Like Jesus, Socrates never wrote anything, and the only contemporaneous evidence of his existence comes from only three sources- Plato and Xenophon (both disciples of Socrates) and Aristophanes (an opponent). However, no one doubts that Socrates existed.

Actually the three synoptic Gospels and most of the New Testament epistles are from the mid- to late first century.

There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. I still find it likely that he did exist. But that does not change the fact that there is no evidence he did. We have no writings of his that he left behind. No artifacts from his lifetime (for a long time Christians claimed to possess the "true cross," you might have seen it in the film Kingdom of Heaven, but it was eventually lost. Not a single person who ever met Jesus wrote about him firsthand. The only accounts we have are all hearsay and the very earliest of those are written by people who were born after he died. Our understanding of Jesus comes mostly from a single document- The Bible, which was a collection of many different documents that accumulated over time, the earliest of which were written decades after Jesus' death, and some of which were written centuries later. That one account that we have is often self-contradictory and contains historical information that is factually wrong.

There is good reason to believe that Jesus was a real person, but none of it is what a historian or scientist or even a police officer would call evidence. It's all conjecture. And there is also very good reason to doubt that he was a real person. Personally I believe he was a real person but that his life was heavily fictionalized. Of course, without any evidence, I can't support my opinion with anything other than estimates and educated guesses.

Few (I wouldn't say nobody) doubt that Socrates existed, not because there is so much evidence for his existence, but because he led a normal life, is not the central figure of a personality cult, never claimed and supernatural powers, and nobody's religious conviction depends upon belief in Socrates. Those who wrote about him were not committed to the idea that he was a living god, and the accounts of his life do not contain stories of zombies roaming around Jerusalem in large numbers that have not been independently corroborated.

A much better comparison to Jesus would be Hercules, rather than Socrates.

Ancient Greeks usually believed Hercules/Heracles to be a real person. There are many stories of his exploits, written (like Jesus) by people who never met him after he was supposed to have died. Some people (the Spartans, for one) even claimed descent from him, so we had his living descendants as "proof" that he existed.

Yet nobody would say "no one doubts Hercules existed." Actually, pretty much everyone agrees he is entirely fictional. Because there is good reason to doubt he was a real person. He was the son of a god. He did superhuman things. Stories about him don't make sense and are obviously made up as parables.

It's not just lack of evidence = doubt. It's lack of evidence + good reason to doubt.

Socrates has the lack of evidence, but there is no good reason to doubt he existed.

I forgot that no one wins debates, especially religious or political ones, on the internet. How about we discuss something else? I don't know about you all, but I really like a good, stone-ground mustard. You know, the kind with the seeds still in it.

Robben: none of those accounts you listed are anything close to firsthand accounts. These historians are describing stories that they were told. They are describing and providing evidence for the existence of Christians in the first century.... not the existence of Jesus. This would be like if I wrote down "Muhammad flew to Mecca on a man-faced horse named Barack." Just because I wrote it down doesn't make it true... and the account that I am writing down is not based on first-hand evidence or accounts. It is based on the fact that I have been told this story by Muslims who believe in it. If I write it down, this is evidence that I have interacted with Muslims. It's not evidence for Barack the flying horse. There is a very distinct difference. The Romans were notoriously anal record keepers, and yet not ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence exists for Jesus that is first-hand or from the man's lifetime. This is remarkable, even if it's not ironclad proof that he was a myth. Nobody said it was.

If nobody wins, how do you determine who loses? Everybody or nobody?

Who said nobody won?

You have to wonder about the mental state of a person who writes 4 lengthy entries of an anti-Christian nature on a quiz page that has nothing to do with the topic!

The original comment had everything to do with the topic of the quiz. Do you ever wonder about the mental states of those who feel compelled to argue with factual statements about probably fictional characters? Or those that read grounded, factual, non-partisan statements and see them as a sign of bigotry or mental illness? Because I wonder about that.

It took me literally 5 minutes to find pretty compelling evidence from non-biblical sources that a man named Jesus started Christianity. Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote in 116 CE that Christ was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate and founded the "Chrestians". Jewish historian Josephus mentions the brother of "Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah" in a text from 62CE. It identifies Jesus's brother as James, like the New Testament does, but differs on the account of James's death. Historians accept this as authentically written by Josephus. Maybe do some basic research before pretending to be an authority on a matter? Claiming that there is no non-biblical evidence is embarrassingly silly. Just a quick Google search, seriously.

I'm extremely familiar with Tacitus and Josephus. Everything I said is accurate. I will, however, defer to your obvious expertise on embarrassing silliness.

LOL People who laugh at Wikipedia as if it's all fakery

His parents were german jews who fled to Poland.

her husband on that show. Perhaps the most famous and popular sitcom of all time, possibly excepting The Simpsons or a handful of others, played by Desi Arnaz who was also Cuban-born and married in real life to Lucille Ball.

Desi was the name of the actor. Ricky was the name of the character. Ricky Jr. was their kid. Both Desi Arnaz and Ricky Ricardo were born in Cuba.

I realize now i mixed up mogwli and mogwai hahaha