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

[Pat Mustard]

First of all the Ned Kelly analogy doesn't work because we know Kelly was a real man, we have no idea whether Yeshua bar Yosef ever existed.

Yes we do, there's scholarly consensus on that.

The consensus of biblical scholars is as valuable as the consensus of creatards. It is based on taking a prior assumption as if it were proven true. There is no evidence given for the existence of Yeshua outside of the bible and a few insertions by later christian scholars into non christian documents. When your side has to fake evidence of x being real, then any consensus that x is real is already on shaky ground.

And frankly I'm not convinced either way on Yeshua, there is too little evidence there for to say, definitively, yay or nay. But I'm pretty convinced that if there were a real Yeshua, instead of being the genesis of the christian religion, he was probably a proto-zealot, being leader of a small (possibly violent) anti-Roman group who wanted to restore the theocratic kingdom of Jewish legend.

Edit: As regards the writings, I wasn't talking about the dates of their provenance (because that is an estimate), I was talking about the earliest date we have for a substantial part of a single christian document from the new testament (or other similar documents rejected by orthodoxy). The oldest example of a largely complete document is a copy of Luke dated to c.200CE. We have older fragments, but they are little better than a small part of a leaf containing word and sentence fragments. Either you misunderstood me, or you deliberately misconstrued me in an attempt to make me look bad. Given your track record my money's on the latter.

[Aractus]

Richard Carrier denies you "consensus."

He's a complete quack. Stop quoting from fringe scholars who aren't respected by their peers.

I get it from your apparent taking them at face-value, and assuming that others (namely James) would not only do so, but endeavor to report their entirety as, ahem, gospel truth, when in fact any time an author sets pen to paper, he does so with an agenda.

Yes and his agenda is as clear as Paul's...

The consensus of biblical scholars is as valuable as the consensus of creatards.

No it isn't! It has the same value as a scholarly consensus in any other field. WWII historians for example. There is no difference, whatsoever in believing in Jesus Mysticism and in believing in Holocaust Denial. And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus. If that's what you believe then you have lost all credentials for critical thinking and for evaluating evidence.

It is based on taking a prior assumption as if it were proven true. There is no evidence given for the existence of Yeshua outside of the bible and a few insertions by later christian scholars into non christian documents.

So what? There doesn't need to be any more evidence than that. This is a point made by numerous historians - not just NT scholars, but ancient Rome historians as well. Are you saying their expertise is worthless as well??

And frankly I'm not convinced either way on Yeshua, there is too little evidence there for to say, definitively, yay or nay. But I'm pretty convinced that if there were a real Yeshua, instead of being the genesis of the christian religion, he was probably a proto-zealot, being leader of a small (possibly violent) anti-Roman group who wanted to restore the theocratic kingdom of Jewish legend.

That hypothesis is laughable.

Edit: As regards the writings, I wasn't talking about the dates of their provenance (because that is an estimate), I was talking about the earliest date we have for a substantial part of a single christian document from the new testament (or other similar documents rejected by orthodoxy). The oldest example of a largely complete document is a copy of Luke dated to c.200CE. We have older fragments, but they are little better than a small part of a leaf containing word and sentence fragments. Either you misunderstood me, or you deliberately misconstrued me in an attempt to make me look bad. Given your track record my money's on the latter.

So what? Later copies are all that exist of almost anything with very little exception from the period. The earliest copy of Antiquities by Josephus is from the 10th century and it's incomplete.

[Minimalist]

He's a complete quack. Stop quoting from fringe scholars who aren't respected by their peers.

Danny, on this subject the only complete quack around here is you.

Learn some shit and stop being a superstitious twit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus.

I want to see numbers for this unsupported claim.

[Pat Mustard]

There is no difference, whatsoever in believing in Jesus Mysticism and in believing in Holocaust Denial. And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Edit: I overreacted with my sweariness. But my opinion of Aractus has not changed, his is a windbaggy blowhard with an overinflated sense of his self worth, a charmless lack of perspective on himself, Australia and his christianity. That's why he's remaining on my ignore list.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is no difference, whatsoever in believing in Jesus Mysticism and in believing in Holocaust Denial. And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Edit: I overreacted with my sweariness. But my opinion of Aractus has not changed, his is a windbaggy blowhard with an overinflated sense of his self worth, a charmless lack of perspective on himself, Australia and his christianity. That's why he's remaining on my ignore list.

Rather than do that, ask him for his sources.

[Minimalist]

Here's another discussion on this horseshit.  I imagine this fellow is a "quack," too.... since that seems to be the extent of the jesus freaks' ability to defend their position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery...558f39f9d0

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

C'mon Danny.  Give us a couple of good quacks.

[Aractus]

I want to see numbers for this unsupported claim.

Easy. There are just two scholars who advocate for Jesus mythicism: Robert Price and Richard Carrier. I can name at least three historians that are holocaust deniers: David Irving, Arno Mayer, and Robert Faurisson. In fact the denial movement is much bigger and has the support of well over a dozen qualified historians, the mythicism movement doesn't have anywhere near the academic support. Mythicism and Denialism are just as crazy as each other.

Here's another discussion on this horseshit.  I imagine this fellow is a "quack," too.... since that seems to be the extent of the jesus freaks' ability to defend their position.

As you well know I am not defending a Jesus-freak position. Most scholars don't bother talking about such a trivial matter that to them seems obvious. But I've shown you examples of where top scholars such as Larry Hurtado have done so, and have explained the lack of any academic evidence for the positions put forward by mythicists:

A little over two weeks ago, I naively posted on reports of re-emergence of the early 20th-century claims (back then made by a few journalists and writers, none of them competent in the fields involved) that “Jesus” was an entirely mythical/legendary figure, and that no “Jesus of Nazareth” ever lived.   Along with the view of pretty near all scholars in the field, I expressed surprise and a certain weariness that a claim rather effectively considered and refuted many decades ago was making the rounds again as if it were new and had any strong merit.  Immediately, there were urgent comments from supporters of the so-called “mythicist” Jesus line, some of them in reasonable tones, many of them scurrilous, angry, haughty, disdainful, and most of these latter types I simply deleted.
...
First, in the two weeks of comments/responses to my postings, I’ve seen nothing cited by way of new evidence or analysis of known evidence that comprises a new and sufficient basis to treat the latest re-assertion of the “mythicist” Jesus claim as any more credible than the earlier versions refuted decades ago.  I’ve asked for such, but I don’t see any.  Some have claimed that the current wave of popular-oriented books offer such, but in spite of repeated invitations to point out briefly and specifically the supposed evidence and new reasons, I don’t recall any forthcoming.
...
So, for example, a few have challenged whether the early Jesus-movement was really a Jesus-movement after all, proposing that it may have been simply a (vaguely alleged) eschatological sect that later came to adopt a Jesus-figure (of imagination) as its iconic centre.  Having devoted a good many years, and resulting pages, to the matter of how Jesus featured in earliest Christianity, with pretty much every other scholar who has considered the question, I have to say that doesn’t fly.  For the fuller reasons and argument behind this view of things, you’ll have to read some books, among them my own:  esp. Lord Jesus Christ:  Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (2003), and How on Earth did Jesus Become a God? (2005).  (I hasten to add that, unlike the works cited by “mythicist” advocates,  these and the other books to which I have referred are the sort that have been widely reviewed by other scholars in various countries and from various perspectives, and have been subjected to the most detailed attention in scholarly conferences and symposia.  They haven’t necessarily survived without criticism on some points, as you’d expect, but they’ve certainly been examined in detail, and were published precisely to invite such critical analysis.)
...
Part of the problem may be an insufficient acquaintance with how historians work with the limited data available. ...

You well know he repeatedly says that there is no credible evidence for mythicism, and that his response to the allegations is quite detailed. If you want to advance your case you have to find a respected scholar - respected like Hurtado, not some quack like Richard Price or some random internet website you found made by a completely unqualified layperson - that says that there is good evidence for Mythicism. You haven't been able to produce this. Every respected scholar that has something to say about this says the same thing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I want to see numbers for this unsupported claim.

Easy. There are just two scholars who advocate for Jesus mythicism: Robert Price and Richard Carrier. I can name at least three historians that are holocaust deniers: David Irving, Arno Mayer, and Robert Faurisson. In fact the denial movement is much bigger and has the support of well over a dozen qualified historians, the mythicism movement doesn't have anywhere near the academic support. Mythicism and Denialism are just as crazy as each other.

I'm sorry, your sources for those claims didn't post. Try again, this time linking data that I may review for myself.

[Minimalist]

I think we can safely dismiss Irving.  Maybe, if I feel like it, I'll look up your other "examples."

Irving's reputation as a historian was discredited[5] when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, he was shown to have deliberately misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial.[6] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist,[7] who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".[7][8] In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Adolf Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.