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

[Firefighter01]

That's a start anyway, now let's add James and the gospels. Let's be really really liberal with James
Let's be even more liberal.  According to Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James .."Many scholars consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries:[13]"

and from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html 
- Information on the Epistle of James
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):

1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."

2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.

Paul has detailed knowledge about Jesus: he was born a Jew (Galatians 4:4 of David's line (Romans 1:3), who has been raised to the celestial realm (Romans 1:4, etc), and has a brother he knows named James (Galatians 1:19). He also quotes an early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

I wouldn't say that is correct. He knows nothing about his virgin birth or anything else about the nativity, nothing about the miracles, ministry, cleansing of the Temple, triumphant ride into Jerusalem or trial

Right so let's break down Carrier's argument now. His argument is that Paul didn't think of Jesus as a real person - despite the fact he quotes him directly, has him interacting with real people, knows his flesh-and-blood brother James, and talks about his crucifixion in every letter!

What do you mean, ..."despite the fact he quotes him directly, has him interacting with real people"
Would the flesh and blood brother of the Lord leave out his bloodline to Jesus? Would a biological brother say, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ"? I don't think so.

These are just some reasons why Carrier's argument is not carried, and why scholars are not persuaded by it (even other mythicsts).

Which other mythicists are you talking about here?

---

I note that you either can't or won't answer the simple questions I put to you. Is Israel Finkelstein's scholarship also worthless to you? Instead you are deliberately appealing to a false dichotomy. I answered all your questions, so now answer mine.

Which are the questions that you are talking about and I'll do my best? Among the problems about Israel Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed: http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/bib...rthed.html:

According to the Biblical chronology, Abraham and the patriarchs of Genesis were active roughly 2000 BCE. The stories make repeated mention of camel caravans. However, archaeology has shown that camels were not domesticated until much later; camel caravans were no earlier than 1000 BCE.

There is no evidence for the Exodus as the Bible describes it. The Bible does not give an exact date for the Exodus, nor refer to the pharaoh of the time by name. There is a stele of Pharaoh Merneptah mentions a people named Israel living in Canaan by 1200 BCE, so the Exodus should have occurred some time before that. However, there is no Egyptian documentation of any large group of slaves of any ethnicity leaving Egypt during a likely time frame. The population of Egypt was not over 5 million at the time, and it is out of the question that nearly 1 million people could leave without some kind of record or evidence.

There is no evidence for a swift, decisive military conquest of Canaan by Israelites by 1200 BC. And it does seem implausible that a ragtag group of slaves, however numerous, could have managed a well coordinated attack on an entire region after 40 years of wandering in the desert.

According to the bible, King David and his son Solomon reigned over a large territory, from Mesopotamia to Egypt, and had the wealth to build impressive temples and palaces. This monarchy would have had to have ruled in the range of 1000 to 900 BCE or so. Yet archaeologists have not found any monumental architecture at all dating to this time in Judah. Apparently Jerusalem was a rather small village at the time.