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

[Firefighter01]

If Jesus's tomb was the stage for the amazing events that happened after the supposed resurrection, how come nobody knows exactly where it is? 

If you Google "The Tomb of Jesus", you get this from Wiki; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Jesus

The tomb of Jesus may refer to any place where it is believed that Jesus was entombed.
Places that have been proposed as the location of such a tomb include:
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem
Garden Tomb, discovered in the 19th century outside the old city of Jerusalem
Talpiot Tomb, rock-cut tomb in the East Talpiot neighborhood, five kilometers south of the Old City in East Jerusalem
Roza Bal, the reputed tomb of Jesus in Kashmir
Kirisuto no haka in Shingō, Japan

Yep, that site in Japan is venerated today! Also from Wiki:

Tomb of Jesus Christ

[/url]
Crosses mark the graves. The cross on the right is the alleged grave of Jesus Christ.

Sign explaining the legend of the grave of Jesus Christ, in Japanese.

Shingō village is the location of what is purported to be the last [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave]resting place of Jesus, located in the "Tomb of Jesus" (Kirisuto no haka), and the residence of Jesus' last descendants, the family of Sajiro Sawaguchi.[1] According to the Sawaguchi family's claims, Jesus Christ did not die on the cross at Golgotha. Instead his brother, Isukiri,[2] took his place on the cross, while Jesus fled across Siberia to Mutsu Province, in northern Japan. Once in Japan, he became arice farmer, married, and raised a family with three daughters near what is now Shingō. While in Japan, it is asserted that he traveled, learned, and eventually died at the age of 106. His body was exposed on a hilltop for four years. According to the customs of the time, Jesus' bones were collected, bundled, and buried in the mound purported to be the grave of Jesus Christ.[3][4]

Another mound near the alleged grave of Jesus is said to contain an ear of the brother of Jesus and a lock of hair from Mary, the mother of Jesus, the only relics of his family Jesus could carry when he fled Judaea.[5] The claims started in 1933 after the discovery of supposed "ancient Hebrew documents detailing Jesus' life and death in Japan" [6] that was supposedly the testament of Jesus. These documents were allegedly seized by the Japanese authorities and taken to Tokyo shortly before World War II and have not been seen since.[7]

The English text on the sign explaining the legend of the Tomb of Christ reads:

When Jesus Christ was 21 years old, he came to Japan and pursued knowledge of divinity for 12 years. He went back to Judea at age 33 and engaged in his mission. However, at that time, people in Judea would not accept Christ's preaching. Instead, they arrested him and tried to crucify him on a cross. His younger brother, Isukiri casually took Christ's place and ended his life on the cross.
Christ, who escaped the crucifixion, went through the ups and downs of travel, and again came to Japan. He settled right here in what is now called Herai Village, and died at the age of 106.
On this holy ground, there is dedicated a burial mound on the right to deify Christ, and a grave on the left to deify Isukiri.
The above description was given in a testament by Jesus Christ.

The most common rebuttal from Christians is, "Why would anyone think that an empty cave with no bones was important?" My point is that if Jesus of the Bible performed all those miracles that attracted thousands of loving followers, how come none of the followers or their families and friends ever note where it was? Surely after all that commotion it would be common knowledge where it should be?

[Aractus]

My point is that if Jesus of the Bible performed all those miracles that attracted thousands of loving followers, how come none of the followers or their families and friends ever note where it was? Surely after all that commotion it would be common knowledge where it should be?

The family and friends of Jesus didn't write the Bible. The New Testament was written by four-five important authors ("Mark", "Matthew", Luke, "John", and Paul), none of which knew Jesus when he had been alive. But even if they had, only Luke writes an after-word for his gospel (Acts of the Apostles), and Paul pays very little attention to the event in his epistles. James doesn't mention it at all.

Secondly, we can start from the proposition that we know Jesus was first laid in a tomb in Jerusalem owned by Joseph of Arimathea. We can postulate that Joseph was probably a disciple/follower of Jesus (since the Bible tells us that much), however we can be pretty certain that Joseph was indeed a Jew by the description of his tomb alone. So we know that Jesus was laid in a tomb in Jerusalem immediately following his death from crucifixion, and we also know that his family was from Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Nazareth is much further north along the Jordan. Therefore when the family took possession of the body from Joseph of Arimathea they would have most likely moved the body from Jerusalem to his home town in Nazareth, where the could have been a family tomb filled with ossuaries, or in fact where his remains could have been laid into a family ossuary within a family tomb (yes that's really what used to happen back in those days, look it up). How would you go about finding the final resting place of a person laid within an ossuary containing several other family members? It'd be impossible, you might have a chance if he was laid within his own ossuary, but we don't know that he was, and we don't even know if the was even put in an ossuary or simply buried or placed within a communal tomb. But again, even if he was laid to rest in his own ossuary, we can't know where it is because the family that laid him there did not discuss the location with the disciples.

Thirdly, we can postulate that the followers of Jesus after his death could not possibly have known where the family laid him to rest, by virtue of the fact that they had come to believe that he had been raised. Paul himself believed that Jesus had been raised to the celestial realm, and he says as much in his epistles. Some of the gospel accounts go even further by stating that he was bodily resurrected, which can't have happened if his body was still on earth somewhere rotting away in a tomb or a grave, and therefore the followers of Jesus who had come to believe this couldn't have known where his body was, otherwise they would have know that his body was still here on earth rotting in a grave or a tomb and not raised to the celestial realm. It's important to note that this belief came sometime after Jesus's death, but not a long time after. The reason for this belief is not entirely obvious, but we can postulate that it is probably to do with the fact that Jesus had made grand prophecies to his disciples and they were trying to reconcile them. Whatever the reason, if the remaining followers of Jesus in the late 30's or mid 40's had arrived at this shared belief it means they did not know where the body of Jesus was, and therefore can't communicate it to us in their writings.

Finally, that belief itself was a progression. And to illustrate this, we know that Paul knew the family of Jesus - and probably at least one member of the family of Jesus wrote an epistle that appears in the New Testament (James). James however is completely silent on the death of Jesus, it simply appears that he is continuing Jesus's teachings. Paul was in a better position here, because he knew James and the other family members of Jesus personally. Therefore he would have known where the body was, but do note that he doesn't say Jesus was resurrected - and he didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected in bodily form. The resurrection belief is a later recension of the belief that Paul had which was merely that the spirit-form of Jesus had been raised to the celestial realm after his death. This is consistent with other first-century beliefs of the time, including those within Judaism. And since he believed that Jesus had been raised (albeit without his body), we expect him to care more about the still-living Jesus in the celestial realm than the one that's dead and buried, and therefore remaining silent on the location of the body is entirely consistent with his belief system, and it is also consistent with him wanting to be respectful to the family who probably didn't want disciples of Jesus visiting their family tomb.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Probably for the same reason we can't find Robert Jordan's grave.

[Firefighter01]

My point is that if Jesus of the Bible performed all those miracles that attracted thousands of loving followers, how come none of the followers or their families and friends ever note where it was? Surely after all that commotion it would be common knowledge where it should be?

The family and friends of Jesus didn't write the Bible. The New Testament was written by four-five important authors ("Mark", "Matthew", Luke, "John", and Paul), none of which knew Jesus when he had been alive. But even if they had, only Luke writes an after-word for his gospel (Acts of the Apostles), and Paul pays very little attention to the event in his epistles. James doesn't mention it at all.

Secondly, we can start from the proposition that we know Jesus was first laid in a tomb in Jerusalem owned by Joseph of Arimathea. We can postulate that Joseph was probably a disciple/follower of Jesus (since the Bible tells us that much), however we can be pretty certain that Joseph was indeed a Jew by the description of his tomb alone. So we know that Jesus was laid in a tomb in Jerusalem immediately following his death from crucifixion, and we also know that his family was from Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Nazareth is much further north along the Jordan. Therefore when the family took possession of the body from Joseph of Arimathea they would have most likely moved the body from Jerusalem to his home town in Nazareth, where the could have been a family tomb filled with ossuaries, or in fact where his remains could have been laid into a family ossuary within a family tomb (yes that's really what used to happen back in those days, look it up). How would you go about finding the final resting place of a person laid within an ossuary containing several other family members? It'd be impossible, you might have a chance if he was laid within his own ossuary, but we don't know that he was, and we don't even know if the was even put in an ossuary or simply buried or placed within a communal tomb. But again, even if he was laid to rest in his own ossuary, we can't know where it is because the family that laid him there did not discuss the location with the disciples.

Thirdly, we can postulate that the followers of Jesus after his death could not possibly have known where the family laid him to rest, by virtue of the fact that they had come to believe that he had been raised. Paul himself believed that Jesus had been raised to the celestial realm, and he says as much in his epistles. Some of the gospel accounts go even further by stating that he was bodily resurrected, which can't have happened if his body was still on earth somewhere rotting away in a tomb or a grave, and therefore the followers of Jesus who had come to believe this couldn't have known where his body was, otherwise they would have know that his body was still here on earth rotting in a grave or a tomb and not raised to the celestial realm. It's important to note that this belief came sometime after Jesus's death, but not a long time after. The reason for this belief is not entirely obvious, but we can postulate that it is probably to do with the fact that Jesus had made grand prophecies to his disciples and they were trying to reconcile them. Whatever the reason, if the remaining followers of Jesus in the late 30's or mid 40's had arrived at this shared belief it means they did not know where the body of Jesus was, and therefore can't communicate it to us in their writings.

Finally, that belief itself was a progression. And to illustrate this, we know that Paul knew the family of Jesus - and probably at least one member of the family of Jesus wrote an epistle that appears in the New Testament (James). James however is completely silent on the death of Jesus, it simply appears that he is continuing Jesus's teachings. Paul was in a better position here, because he knew James and the other family members of Jesus personally. Therefore he would have known where the body was, but do note that he doesn't say Jesus was resurrected - and he didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected in bodily form. The resurrection belief is a later recension of the belief that Paul had which was merely that the spirit-form of Jesus had been raised to the celestial realm after his death. This is consistent with other first-century beliefs of the time, including those within Judaism. And since he believed that Jesus had been raised (albeit without his body), we expect him to care more about the still-living Jesus in the celestial realm than the one that's dead and buried, and therefore remaining silent on the location of the body is entirely consistent with his belief system, and it is also consistent with him wanting to be respectful to the family who probably didn't want disciples of Jesus visiting their family tomb.

Hi Aractus,
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I know that Jesus's supposed friends and family didn't write the Bible, I was saying that despite all the commotion and supernatural events surrounding the tomb, everyone forgot where he was first buried.  This is very strange, if he was as popular as stated in the Bible and the tomb was already known from its wealthy owner.  Imagine if such a tomb that once contained the body of the son of God was up the road from where you live, would you ever forget its location or keep the location to yourself?  No-one knows the actual authors of the gospels according to scholarly consensus. The Oxford Annotated Bible states on page 1744):

Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.

I don't know whether James was supposed to be a biological brother of Jesus or just a follower.  How do you know that Paul knew Jesus' family? Paul never talks about meeting Jesus except in apparitions and I've never heard of Paul meeting anyone except for James - which may not have been his real brother.  It sounds like you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, but without the miracles? This sounds strange to me as well if that is the case, as there wouldn't be much left if you stripped him of all the supernatural stuff.  To make it even worse, no-one remembers Jesus' birthplace, whether it was a house or a manger,  the actual house where he grew up as a lad and the whereabouts of his crucifixion.

Compare this to Lourdes, where some schoolkids make up a story about an apparition of Mary and it gets 6 million visits a year!

[Losty]

Maybe they're looking in the wrong place. According to my son, Jesus was buried in a dinosaur cave. Maybe that will help.

[Aoi Magi]

The MenInTemplar armour did the flashy thing on every one to make them forget, so that jesus could safely go back to his new planet which he got for following his ways.

[Aractus]

Hi Aractus,
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I know that Jesus's supposed friends and family didn't write the Bible, I was saying that despite all the commotion and supernatural events surrounding the tomb, everyone forgot where he was first buried.  This is very strange, if he was as popular as stated in the Bible and the tomb was already known from its wealthy owner.

It isn't at all strange. We didn't know where Ned Kelly's grave was for more than a century (we only found it five years ago), and he was very much a real person with legendary status attached to his escapades. And we would never have identified his remains without the use of DNA testing. That isn't available for Jesus since we don't know of any living relatives from his family's blood line (and even if we did after 2,000 years it'd probably be next to useless anyway).

As for Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, that was not Jesus's final resting place (nor was it ever intended to be). He was probably there for just the 2-3 days before his supposed resurrection, so why should anyone remember where it was? Can you remember other wealthy people's tombs from the first century?

I don't know whether James was supposed to be a biological brother of Jesus or just a follower.

Well if you can't at name Jesus's brothers (James, Joseph, Simeon, Judas) and not even his best known one (James the Just) then there's not much hope for you...

How do you know that Paul knew Jesus' family?

Because he says so, specifically in Galatians 1:19.

To make it even worse, no-one remembers Jesus' birthplace, whether it was a house or a manger,  the actual house where he grew up as a lad and the whereabouts of his crucifixion.

Why don't you start by figuring out my birthplace? Do you remember? The followers of Jesus can't possibly be expected to "remember" things that they were not a part of. We don't really know anything reliable about the birthplace of Jesus for that very fact that the only things we have are two (conflicting) accounts in Matthew and Luke.  He might have been born in Nazareth, he might have been born in Bethlehem, hell he could have been born in India for all we know and migrated to Nazareth as a child.

Now let's put this in context for you. You know (because I just told you) that Jesus had at least 4 brothers. Maths alone would tell you he probably had as many sisters as well, and may even have had more siblings still. So let's say he was one of 9 children - do you really expect his mother, Mary, to remember where each one of her children were born? That's the kind of thing that could easily be misremembered with so many children anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a simpler explanation...that doesn't require all that fan fiction, Aractus.  

There was no body to find, there was no "jesus".

[Aractus]

There's a simpler explanation...that doesn't require all that fan fiction, Aractus.  

There was no body to find, there was no "jesus".

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth, and he performed healings, and gave religious teachings, and called disciples, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I think that much we can be certain of, and I might add that the gospels were for a long time the only evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate as the governor of Judaea at that time in the first century AD. If your argument was that there was no Jesus then you have to explain where the book of James came from, as well as where the Sermon on the Mount came from? James is written as much as 10 years earlier than the gospel of Mark, and Mark doesn't even contain the Sermon on the Mount anyway! It's only found in the gospel of Matthew, which scholars think was written c. 70-80AD. The Epistle of James was written most likely before the Jerusalem Council in 50AD, or possibly not very long after - ie. c. 45-55 AD. Thus it is not based on any known pre-existing gospel, so if there was no historical Jesus where did James learn the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount from? And how did he come to know about it 20-40 years before it written down in the Gospel of Matthew?

The reason I point this out is because Paul has a much greater emphasis on his own teachings that he receives "by revelation" whatever that means. But we can see very clearly that the Epistle of James is based directly on the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, yet written much earlier. Even with the earliest possible date that Matthew and Luke could have been written (c.60-62AD), James was still written earlier. He can only have known about the teachings if the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew was based directly on a sermon delivered by Jesus. I'm not saying that it's complete, in fact I'd argue that the Sermon on the Plain was most likely the same sermon delivered at a different time to a different audience, which would strongly suggest that this sermon was delivered on multiple occasions which is what made it more memorable to be later recorded in the gospels.

There was no body to find because no one was "looking for it". By 60AD (according to the Pauline Epistles), the belief among his followers was that he had ascended to heaven after his death - but there was no belief in a bodily resurrection to speak of. Mark or proto-Mark was written around this time as well, and it doesn't contain the resurrection either. The Resurrection doesn't appear in the gospels until Matthew and Luke and they're thought to be written c. 70-85AD. They also contain the nativities which is evidence of an expanding mythology surrounding the person-hood of Jesus. As I just mentioned that isn't unusual or unexpected, Ned Kelly also had an expanding mythology from just two decades after his death, and by the time Matthew/Luke are written there has been 4-5 decades that have passed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth, and he performed healings, and gave religious teachings, and called disciples, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

I don't think there was.  "Performed healings" you say..what does that entail, lol?  

I think that much we can be certain of, and I might add that the gospels were for a long time the only evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate as the governor of Judaea at that time in the first century AD.

I think we can be certain that some people believed in the above jesus..just as you believe in him....but I'm not sure why you find the bit about Pilate informative with regards to -jesus-.  Dracula is set in London.  Should we take the existence of the latter as an implication that the former is somehow more likely to be true?

If your argument was that there was no Jesus then you have to explain where the book of James came from, as well as where the Sermon on the Mount came from?

Both from the pen of an author.......just as a -wild ass- guess.....? I know, a radical proposition.