The Jesus Tomb

[dagda]

Uhm. No. No sane historian would say "King Arthur did exist!".

However I think many historians agree that a person LIKE King Arthur may have existed. That means there was a person who had some of the attributes King Arthur allegedly had.

The same goes for Jesus. There was probably a person around the time of the Biblical Jesus who probably came from roughly the same background and had a cult following considering him the Son of God. He probably even performed some magic tricks. But it isn't very useful to call him "THE Jesus" just to connect the Biblical story with a historical person, simply because the two probably had little in common.

Heck, look at the many different biographies about people like Elvis or Marilyn Monroe these days. And those two have only died a few decades ago -- think what people will believe if they are still remembered in two THOUSAND years and most of their reference material will be written a hundred years from now.

How pedantic! Yes, no-one called Jesus Christ was trotting around Israel in the 1st century (the names Greek, damn it) but a Christ-like figure probably did, much like your rephrasal of my slip. I usally don't make mistakes like that, sorry.

---

'Here is an after thought: There is no Jesus tomb because there never was a man named Jesus Christ the son of God upon this earth outside the realm of myth.I dont need dna,or a physical cave with evidence because I am certain of my conclusions.The religionist are desperately trying to validate thier myths by trying to make everything they find in archealogical excavations conform to their scriptures.They do the same with prophecies as well.'

You are certian? Then you are a fool of a historian. I am not certian Christ existed, I think that the evidence points that way. People who are certian of events in history usally have some agenda. I don't know what yours is, perhaps you care to enlighten us?

Yes, most, if not all, textual sources are secondary in nature. Most textual sources of early Celtic life are secondary, or worse, in nature. So what? They are less valuble than primary evidence, but not more usless than if I wrote a book on the 2nd Punic War.
I may be wrong, but the principles of history (and science) are to take what evidence we have and use it to form a hypothesis, at least untill new evidence to the contary arises. The evidence I can find leves me inclind to think there was a Christ-like figure around the 1st century ad. Perhaps not performing miricles, but existing.
Unless you have new evidence to suggest the contary or to prove our old evidence false, then that is the hypothesis I am left with, like it or loth it. Now why do you disagree with my hypothesis, if we ignore the mythology attached?