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

[Firefighter01]

and John 5: 30. Furthermore Jesus specifically says he isn't trying to displace the Law of Moses and reaffirms the authority of the Jewish God and his Law in the strongest possible way (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). pid='1392017' dateline='1473950424']

From one of the 3 Pastoral epistles:

Titus 2:13King James Version (KJV)

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

and from Mark 14;
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?


62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

No, Paul's focus is not on the historical Jesus, it's all about the spiritual Jesus of the scriptures.  If he was concerned at all about Jesus being historical he would have gone back to Jerusalem to meet with the disciples to validate his conversion apparition.  Instead he doesn't think that its important to meet up with the disciples to learn about Jesus' ministry and parables, he goes of to Africa and Damascus to teach his own version of the scriptures, which doesn't make any sense if he believed in a historical Jesus.

Aractus
No it isn't because the gospels haven't been written. And Paul did know the disciples of Jesus personally - something that the gospel writers most likely did not.

Paul never mentions Jesus being somewhere at a time or date.  It's all spiritual for him, that's why he didn't confirm what he had experienced with the disciples, his "revelation" and the scriptures were all he needed. Which is crazy if he really wanted to learn more about Jesus, why not validate everything in the apparition with the guys that actually walked with Jesus to find out if the Jesus that he saw looked like and acted like the guy that the disciples knew? More likely is that the disciples didn't exist either, so it was useless going back to Jerusalem.

I think that the Romans would have let the Jews administer their own laws, as long as it didn't conflict with theirs. Which means that they should have stoned Jesus to death for blasphemy in the first instance if this would have been an actual account. Regarding the bias of scholars who have been indoctrinated from childhood into a belief that Jesus existed and are being paid to study in religious colleges, I think that speaks for itself on being prejudiced, don't you?

Aractus
No I don't think so, and your argument is so absurd. There are a great many Bible Colleges which are very neutral in terms of religious belief. Secondly, no one gets "paid to study" - they have to pay themselves in order to learn and study. Thirdly - what indoctrination? There are plenty of non-religious scholars, and there are plenty of scholars who's published works has shaken the Church while being vindicated by others. Are you claiming that Finkelstein is indoctrinated too?

Do you mean stoning wasn't allowed?  How about the stoning of Stephen? Scholarships are paid for and awarded aren't they? I know that there are supposedly secular colleges around, but I'm deeply suspicious of secular Bible colleges. They would hardly promote atheism IMO. It's obvious that you are still indoctrinated by your belief in the historicity of the Bible which is clearly a mess. Our whole society is indoctrinated by the stupid Bible stories and the media propagation of Christmas and Easter. I don't know enough about Finkelstein to comment