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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am not arguing for broad historicity of the NT.

I didn't say you were. There's another strawman.

I think there are many points there that can be contested, including (notwithstanding): the nativity, the resurrection, gospel of John, Revelations. Again you are clearly and deliberately miss-categorising my argument.

No, I am not. And again, you're ascribing intent, refusing to acknowledge that you're not putting your argument across in a convincing manner and instead opting to allege that I am deliberately missing your points. I am not. I simply don't find them convincing. Your argument is weak, given how you cherry-pick your scholars.

You do not know what I'm thinking, and you need to stop fooling yourself in thinking that you do. It only makes you look more the ass than you already do. Eliminate the flaws in your argumentation, and you can give me food for thought. Continue propounding them, and I'll only point them out again.

All I said is that scholars unanimously agree that Jesus existed.

Not so. You then proceeded to bat down any scholar who didn't agree with your view, without regard to their C.V.

Please don't dissimulate here.

Ask them how many disciples he called, or what was his core message that he preached and they will vehemently disagree and give you all kinds of different answers. But, like I said if you distrust NT scholars soo much then you can look to Ancient Roman historians and they also say that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person.

I don't distrust scholars. I distrust you, specifically your loaded presentation and selective application of qualifications for scholarship.

So my question remains - if you want to answer it - why do you have  prejudice against NT scholars, does it extend to Ancient Roman scholars, does it extend to archaeology, modern medicine, where do you draw the line?

I don't have that prejudice. Again, this is you projecting a mindset upon me I don't hold, simply because I don't buy your "argument", such as it is, lock, stock, and barrel. I prefer scholarly sources; however, when they disagree, as they do here, I don't prefer hearing you pick your favorite scholars, who just happen to agree with your views, and disregard the others, which is exactly what you are doing here. It calls into question your honesty in this discussion, that you should apply such arbitrary standards.

If not modern medicine (for example) then where do you stand on António Egas Moniz's contribution to medicine and was it worthy of a Nobel Prize? Moniz is of course a prime example of why, oh say a Scientologist, might hold a stigma against his profession.

I will ignore this red herring. You must be backed into a corner if you're stretching for such a small point as this. Perhaps you're uncomfortable with the ebb and flow of this discussion?

I will also ask once more why you place such trust in writings which clearly have at the least a motivation for bias such as the Gospels.

I don't expect a square answer from you. I expect more imputations of intent, red herrings, distortions of my point, and dissimulation. I could be wrong, but I don't think it'll pan out that way. Your schtick is not only all too clear, it's far too ingrained for you to shake it off now.

I'll leave it to you to rise above these expectations. You'll either do it or you won't.