The Jesus Tomb

[Edwardo Piet]

How do they know it's jesus or even that he existed? Do they have his DNA? lmfao. No substantial evidence if any evidence at all..

We can only really trust that Jesus did exist because of what the bible says and he probably did....but since almost everything he did was made up and almost the entire bible was made up...maybe there was no jesus!

[chatpilot]

Evidence I am convinced that there was no Jesus all you have to do is read my last posts.I hold to that belief since as you say there is no evidence and the bible in my opinion is as reliable as a drunk witness to a murder Lol

[dagda]

'How do they know it's jesus or even that he existed? Do they have his DNA? lmfao. No substantial evidence if any evidence at all..

We can only really trust that Jesus did exist because of what the bible says and he probably did....but since almost everything he did was made up and almost the entire bible was made up...maybe there was no jesus! '

As far as I know, there is no DNA evidence (and little writen) that Kenneth MacAlpine ever existed. King Arthur is thought to have been a real king by modern historians. My point is, there is no DNA evidence? So what? There rarely is in history and Jesus came from a land that has wittneced more war and uphevel that many other areas. The chances of much physical evidence from a man who did little physical things (like win a battle) is pretty slim.
We can only work with the evidence we have and most (bible, Roman, Jewish and Christian accounts) points toward his existence. His existence may be contravercial, and I fear that is why some people have a problem accepting his existence, as a normal, over hyped preacher or otherwise.

[Spashie]

I think Jesus was a good guy who did some good stuff, but when he died people would want to spice up his story like they always to. As in, when an actor dies, they often say "The best actor in our generation" and thing XD

[dagda]

That is what I am arguing. That that may have happened.

[starbucks]

This is why if you want to really know the Bible, you'd have to enroll in a course at an accredited Christian college.

Anyways, guess I'm different from all of you in the sense that I don't see the Bible as just a work of fiction. If it was a work of fiction, the way it was written would be much different. It would be more narrative or at least certainly more detailed and cohesive so that the reader was sure to understand it completely and not be confused about times, events, characters, etc. I come from a culture that practices oral transmission for a long time (and even still does). Trust me, non-fiction information is passed down differently than fictional folk tales. Folk tales are very colorful, poetic, and articulated in ways that the audience won't miss a beat. There's no sense in telling a story that nobody understands because then you'd miss the whole point of entertaining the audience.

[dagda]

Again, another good point.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well yes we don't have DNA evidence of a lot of more recent people; but considering most of the bible is made up; Jesus could easily be.

Also the Bible is a lot, lot older than the more modern examples without DNA; so it's probably a less reliable source. Maybe the DNA was a bad EXAMPLE because there are lots of people we don't have DNA for....but still what I mean is...even for Jesus there's no PROOF.

[Alan]

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.

[starbucks]

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.

I'm glad you brought them up because I also want to add:

At the same time, there will be people who don't know anything about them and thus will find it hard to believe that they had so much influence or fame over a whole country. To them, Elvis will just be an overweight entertainer who had bad taste in clothes. And Marilyn Monroe is some tart who had a fling with a president.