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

[Aractus]

How can a divine spook be historical? I think that you misunderstand my take on Jesus.  I've got no problem believing that a wandering kook named Jesus existed at that time, there were probably a few of them.  I don't believe in the magical Jesus of the Bible.  If you take away all the stories of the miracles, there's fuck all left. Why would anyone follow around a Neville Nobody that didn't do anything special, let alone record what happened to him that wasn't miraculous?  If he didn't draw huge crowds and muttered to himself and a few followers, why would the Romans even bother stringing him up?

I have already specifically addressed this point. Most of the activities that Jesus engages in are in delivering teachings/sermons/parables, and giving faith-healings and exorcisms. He instigated the last supper as well - something Paul knows about and quotes in 1 Corinthians 11. He delivered the sermon on the mount, the parable of the good Samaritan, the parable of the prodigal son, he shows genuine compassion to those in need, he told people don't judge others lest you be judged and to love thy enemy as thyself. He argued with the Pharisees, the Scribes,  other Temple Authorities, and even wealthy Jews as well. He preached a message of repentance, of obedience to the law, and of the coming kingdom of God. There's nothing miraculous or supernatural about that, I've already pointed that out to you - so your premise is completely wrong. There is plenty left without any miracles.

[The Grand Nudger]

You must have a different definition for miraculous and supernatural.... if exorcisms and faith healings -and the coming of the kingdom of a god- aren't included in it.  

He also called a woman a bitch, literally and casually, for belonging to the wrong tribe when she cried out for his help, for a non miraculous miracle, to heal her daughter. He went hulk in the temple..apparently no one could stop him, god strong and all. His teachings and sermons, unoriginal and uninspired. Nobody gives a shit about the teacher. The supposed jesus of legend. It's the christ of myth that these stories are about.

[Aractus]

You must have a different definition for miraculous and supernatural.... if exorcisms and faith healings -and the coming of the kingdom of a god- aren't included in it.

Why? I'm not arguing that miraculous healing and curing actually took place. They may have taken place anecdotally, and they still do today with faith healings and exorcisms...

[The Grand Nudger]

Anecdotes make for poor history. Pretty crucial to the mythmaking industry though.

[Aractus]

They make for poor medicine. Why do you think so many people see chiropractors when they could just go to a masseuse and get the same therapeutic benefit?

As for history, that's a different matter. Just because chiropracty is a bunch of pseudo-science bullshit doesn't mean that it doesn't take place.

[The Grand Nudger]

They make for poor medicine. Why do you think so many people see chiropractors when they could just go to a masseuse and get the same therapeutic benefit?

In this country?  A bit of collusion from the car insurance industry combined with general human strangeness.

As for history, that's a different matter. Just because chiropracty is a bunch of pseudo-science bullshit doesn't mean that it doesn't take place.

While I appreciate your likening of jesus to a common charlatan, you must realize that we're not even discussing the same thing, right?  For those events to have "happened anecdotally" or more accurately, that people believed they happened...doesn't make something history of an event.  It makes it the history of a belief. I've got tons of anecdotes......I'm from the deep south. You'd have to be an idiot to think that any event in them even approaches historicity, and you'd need a few more screws loose yet to think that invoking anecdote, of all things.....rescues the historicity of the christ narrative.

[Aractus]

Okay well let me be clear. Most scholars - including atheists like Ehrman - agree that Jesus delivered teachings and went around performing faith healings and exorcisms. Just like a chiropractor goes around performing chiropracty today. Was this activity curative? In some regards it should have been, because we know about the placebo effect. And let's be really clear about this - the placebo effect can improve a patient's condition or even cure them of an illness. So by merely practising pseudo-medicine, some of his patients would have seen actual improvement. But others would have perceived benefit, even if no actual benefit had taken place.

Now let me be even clearer about what I'm saying here. Even in the modern world there are clear examples of people who believe in pseudo-medicine, let alone the ancient world where the critical evaluation skills of the public were much lower. For Christ's sake, one of the lecturers in Public Health said that she sees a chiropractor! This is a respected academic who has contributed to peer review publications, and even they are willing to believe there's some therapeutic benefit to chiropracty for their own personal health. Everyone thinks they are an expert on their own health, and often attribute their well-being to causal relationships which are non-existent.

Now in terms of history, there have been faith healers since the dawn of time, and they still exist today. So I don't know where you get the idea that such events don't take place in the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay well let me be clear. Most scholars - including atheists like Ehrman - agree that Jesus delivered teachings and went around performing faith healings and exorcisms.

What's "most scholars" evidence of that?  

Just like a chiropractor goes around performing chiropracty today. Was this activity curative? In some regards it should have been, because we know about the placebo effect. And let's be really clear about this - the placebo effect can improve a patient's condition or even cure them of an illness. So by merely practising pseudo-medicine, some of his patients would have seen actual improvement. But others would have perceived benefit, even if no actual benefit had taken place.

Fan fiction.  

Now let me be even clearer about what I'm saying here. Even in the modern world there are clear examples of people who believe in pseudo-medicine, let alone the ancient world where the critical evaluation skills of the public were much lower. For Christ's sake, one of the lecturers in Public Health said that she sees a chiropractor! This is a respected academic who has contributed to peer review publications, and even they are willing to believe there's some therapeutic benefit to chiropracty for their own personal health. Everyone thinks they are an expert on their own health, and often attribute their well-being to causal relationships which are non-existent.

Relevance to a historical christ?

Now in terms of history, there have been faith healers since the dawn of time, and they still exist today. So I don't know where you get the idea that such events don't take place in the world.

Honestly, who thinks that?

[Minimalist]

I've got to break this up, Danny.

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. That's an expansion on the historical narrative - almost without any question. Paul did go to Corinth and we know that from his letters which are the primary evidence for his movements and ministry. The author of Acts knows the movements of Paul very well, and this is evident by just how closely they align with Galatians and Paul's other letters. So we know that the macro information regarding Paul in Acts of the Apostles is at least mostly correct. The micro information (the details) is another matter entirely.

No, not quite you don't.  What you refuse to realize is that we do not have anything resembling the original letters of anyone named "paul."  Proto-orthodox writers in the late 2d/early 3d century tell us that Marcion of Sinope issued a canon with 10 epistles of this paul-guy and the gospel of the lord...which turns out to be a good part of gLuke.  Marcion was denounced as a heretic, which must have been amusing since the Roman church in the mid 2d century was not a big deal compared to all the xtian sects in the East but whatever.  As previously noted, Justin writing c 160 AD never heard of "paul" so since Marcion dates to around 144 we can assume that it took over 40 years before the proto-orthodox completed the re-write of "paul" and tacked on the first two chapters of Luke to the gospel of the lord.  Obviously, Marcion's idea was too good to pass up but it sure as fuck was going to say what they wanted it to say.
However, the consensus you seek is illusory.

The name "undisputed" epistles represents the traditional scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter.[1][2] However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.[12] Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar J. Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity. See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church.

Fr. Wiki.

BTW, Second Corinthians contains this little gem:

In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.

2 Cor 11:32

Aretas III did capture Damascus, c 84 BC.  Aretas IV is last seen in history fleeing from the Roman army c 37 AD and he sure as shit did not capture Damascus.  Yet, 2 Cor is one of these alleged authentic letters.  Xtians, I have noted, run like scared rabbits from this one.

[Minimalist]

What you're saying is that part of Acts can be shown to be incorrect - yes I agree there. Parts of all four gospels can be shown to be incorrect historically as well. But that doesn't mean everything is incorrect. You know very well that the works of all ancient historians of the time contain numerous errors, and the Christian texts are no exception. Errors are a good thing though, at least for sceptics, because they show that the author was making an attempt to represent history.

Acts, like Paul and Thecla, and many of the early martyrdom stores, bears more resemblance to Greek romances of the time.  But where do you draw the line?  Oh, it mentions Antioch.
So what?  Gone With The Wind mentions Atlanta.  The fact that Atlanta is a real city does not make Gone With The Wind less of a novel.  When you fall into the some of it must be true routine you run the risk of picking what you'd like to be true and asserting that it is.

I would dispute that the word "error" even applies.  When Livy writes of the deliberations of the Carthaginian Senate after the Roman commission departed it is pure literary invention.  When he discusses the speech which Fabius Maximus gave to the senate it is an invention:  There were no stenographers in Ancient Rome taking down Fabius' words as he spoke.  Livy is using the fiction of a speech to convey what he saw as the main issue of the day.  Similarly, when jesus is prattling on in Gethsemane who is writing down his words?  The books tell us that the apostles were asleep.  It is a speech.  A common literary device of ancient writers but certainly not one to be taken seriously.

Then there is the propaganda aspects of ancient writing.  Caesar says that 250,000 Gauls came to relieve Alesia.  That is a preposterous number.  Herodotus claimed that over a million Persians invaded Greece?  That is an even more preposterous number!  But it was meant to show the greatness of the victory that such odds were overcome.  Error?  No.  Bullshit is the word you want.