Why can't Christians Verify Exactly Where Jesus Was Buried?

[Aractus]

I can name historians of ancient Rome who also say Jesus was historical

Again, that is hardly the point, Danny.  You seem content to make marks on the wall and say "SEE.  ALL THESE PEOPLE SAY JESUS WAS REAL" as if that matters.  What is their evidence for making such a pronouncement?

If it is the same gospel-based shit as the theologians use then it is no more worthwhile.

I don't know what else I can say to get you to see the distinction.

Their primary evidence is Paul's epistles, not the gospels. You should watch the documentary I posted, which is very level - I'm not saying we should just agree with everything it has to say, many of its proposed version of history are interpretive. But it does make an excellent point, which is that Paul travelled when spreading the gospel. We know this both from his own letters, and we know it from Acts as well. And we also know about the dispute that led to the Jerusalem Council - again we know about it both from Paul's own perspective, and from Acts. I am not suggesting we take it as word-for-word accurate, but it is clear that Paul is one of the first to move Christianity away from being a Jewish sect, whilst other leaders in the early church do not. The gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle of James are both clear evidence of this. And again, what Carrier does is completely ignore this dimension, he seems to claim that Jesus is a literacy creation of Paul, but if that's the case it can't explain the Jerusalem Council and the split in theology, it can't explain Paul's own conversion away from Judaism, it can't explain Paul's journeys to spread Christianity, or indeed his willingness to be persecuted for his beliefs - it can't explain any of that. And again, we know that Paul was persecuted from a broad base of reasons: it is mentioned specifically in Acts, it is also mentioned by Paul himself in Philippians, and it's mentioned in the Pastorals as well, and Ephesians & Colossians.

Again, here is my question for you. Other historians who are not bible scholars also believe that Jesus was a historical person - and this interview with Scott shows that he isn't a bible scholar:

JW: What drew you to a television special on the Historical Jesus?


MS: This is not so much a series on the Historical Jesus – I am not a biblical scholar. I am a Classicist. In these programmes, I am interested in how Christianity develops in the 1st – 4th centuries AD within the Roman world. Romans were normally pretty good at absorbing other religions and cultures that they met. The interesting question is how and why this did not happen with Christianity. Indeed, how did the opposite happen: Christianity taking over the Roman empire?

What you are claiming is that all these different historians, all with different specialities and focal points, are all a part of a giant conspiracy to lie to the world about ancient history. Well maybe you're not claiming that, but you may as well be by the fact that you will dismiss any historian that is not named "Richard Carrier". Would Paul really be willing to be persecuted for his own invented story? If you want to bring some common-sense into it the answer is NO! Unless he was having a psychotic episode he wouldn't have wanted to be persecuted for something he didn't believe in.