Rami “The one question that has not been satisfactorily answered is the issue of James, the brother of the Lord.”
There’s plenty of work around giving good reason to be highly suspicious of that too:
“Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem personage called James, and a Christian reader thought he must have meant James the “brother of the Lord” who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem church about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: “James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ”, and a later copyist took this as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely this way. Of course, this will be a more plausible hypothesis if there are positive reasons for doubting authenticity. One such is that in Josephus’s entire work the term “the Christ”, meaning the Messiah, occurs only in two passages where mention is made of Jesus, with no attempt to explain what it means to the pagan readers to whom Josephus was appealing…”
- G.A. Wells “The Jesus Legend” (53)
GAD “I don’t know, I’ve read some of her books and they are about 50/50 at best. “
You haven’t read “Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection” or “Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ” nor “Suns of God.”
GAD “Jesus as god incarnate is certainly myth, but Jesus the man going about preaching his version of the vision is completely plausible.”
Jesus the man, is plausible - there’s just no valid evidence to substantiate the claim. There were many Jesus’s but none seem to be THE biblical Jesus. I see no reason to give benefit of the doubt in this case - taking the apriori assumption of a HJ seems like another giant leap of faith to me. How about providing valid evidence first instead?
GAD “I saw on TV where they found his family tomb…discovery channel”
Are you kidding me? That has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s laughable. Even Christians are embarrassed to continue making that claim now.