LOLOL... EVF.. Don't say that to loud, the Creationist will start flooding in to give you their "Scientific Evidence" and slurs of...."I ain't no damn Monkeee".....

I welcome it. Bring it ONNN!

EvF

I for one don't believe in a historical Jesus. In fact, I'm over at the christianboard.com arguing that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

(May 25, 2009 at 5:24 pm)lrh9 Wrote: I for one don't believe in a historical Jesus. In fact, I'm over at the christianboard.com arguing that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

Is there evidence for a historical "James, the brother of Jesus?"

When you really break it down, there is no evidence for a Moses either. I believe there were 4 or 5 other people that a Moses could have portrayed.

I don't know. Today was my first day hearing of "James, the brother".

Does the grave of James count as evidence, or are we just passing that one by? What about his writings? Or maybe he was part of the grand conspiracy that faked Christ?

Again I say, if Christ is fake then who faked him (and maybe the disciples?), why did they bother and how did they manage to pull it off?

(May 26, 2009 at 5:56 am)dagda Wrote: Does the grave of James count as evidence, or are we just passing that one by? What about his writings? Or maybe he was part of the grand conspiracy that faked Christ?

Evidence of that please.

(May 26, 2009 at 5:56 am)dagda Wrote: Again I say, if Christ is fake then who faked him (and maybe the disciples?), why did they bother and how did they manage to pull it off?

Did you think Hercules existed for real? It's possible to create a relgious charachter based on myths and legends. However in some myths can grain of truth be found. A Jesus which the biblical Jesus was based on is possible. I don't rule that out at all. I just want evidence of such thing and I haven't found any so far.

There were a lot of evidence of Mohammed exitence but not Jesus. Yes, they lived en separate time period. But if Jesus were so popluar and big, why didn't any one write about him during the time he lived? Either he haven't existed and is jsut a fictional charachter. Or there have been some named Jesus that was sort of the one that was later to become the one talked about in the bible.

However it's probably alot of myths that Jesus must been credited for. I think he maybe been some kind of rebel and for some people did he became somewhat of an marture. Then they talked abot him and talked about stories of him. As with all stories do they get exaggerated with time and other legends and myths did Jesus get credit for. That is a possible conclusion, but that's just a hypothosis.

In my view there was no historical Christ my reasons for this are many.If you are referring to the ossuary that had the inscription "here lies James the brother of Christ" it was proven later on to be a forgery as most christian relics turn out to be in the long run.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/ossuary3.html

(May 26, 2009 at 12:05 pm)chatpilot Wrote: In my view there was no historical Christ my reasons for this are many.If you are referring to the ossuary that had the inscription "here lies James the brother of Christ" it was proven later on to be a forgery as most christian relics turn out to be in the long run.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/ossuary3.html

The evidence for the forgery is not overwhelming. The main problem with the ossuary is the provendence. I have talked to a Bible scholar close to the case. He knows the people involved and believes the James ossuary was the work of recent (1980's) grave robbers. Under the law it belongs to the state. The "owner" is attempting to say the artifact has been around longer, so he can keep it. His lies contradict each other, giving the ossuary an appearance of forgery. The patina on the ossuary is very similar to that found in the Jesus tomb. Insiders believe the James ossuary to be the missing ossuary from the Jesus tomb.

However, if this is the tomb of the same historical Jesus in the Bible, he would have been married with a son, and clearly never resurrected, i.e. not much of a god. While this evidence makes Jesus historical, it at the same time denies his divinity.

Personally I like this option as it solves many questions, and asks a lot of fun ones, however my preference for the truth doesn't make it so.