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

[Firefighter01]

Which are the questions that you are talking about and I'll do my best?

Well, despite the fact you just attempted to attack a very distinguished Israeli archaeologist and scholar with a description of one of his works rather than a critique of it, my question was this:

Where do you draw the line. You essentially tried to claim that Scholar's are hacks - does this apply to all academic fields? Does this apply to all scholars? Does it apply to Old Testament scholars and archaeologists or is this a specific prejudice you have against New Testament scholars, and if it is why is it?

I don't trust scholars with obvious biases. Especially when their pay-cheques and/or career paths are on the line if they step over the lines.

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): ...

Aractus
As I indicated, most scholars today place the authorship 50-65 AD. Many of the arguments made in your quoted material are based purely on assumptions. If the Bible is correct that Jesus's father was a builder...

Firefighter01
You're kidding aren't you?  Do you really think that Jesus had a literal family relationship?  Maybe like an ancient Jewish version of Little House on the Prairie?

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

Aractus
The virgin birth, in fact the whole nativity, is a myth. That's easy. He might well have known that such a rumour was going around in his lifetime, but he doesn't bother writing about it. He clearly knows about what you call "miracles" (healings), he clearly knows about the message Jesus preached (even though he mixes it with his own theology). He knows about the crucifixion, and he knows about the Last Supper, thus by extension we would expect he knows about the details of the trial and the events leading up to it. That's not to say the gospels are entirely accurate at all, just that Paul knew about all those things.

Firefighter01
Ok I'm glad you think the nativity is a myth. Unless you can prove otherwise, he writes practically nothing about the Jesus of the Gospels until you get to the crucifixion and even that has none of the details contained in the Gospels. I think you would find it very hard to demonstrate that he knew of those things if he didn't write about them.

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.

Aractus

Although Paul does not make a habit of quoting Jesus, he does quote him directly on occasion and he makes numerous citations to stuff that Jesus preached. Furthermore he talks about Jesus interacting with people in a way that a celestial being does not. In other words, Carrier's argument ignores everything Paul has to say about Jesus, because it is clear to anyone that Paul is talking about a person and not a celestial body.

State your reasons why you don't think James the Just would write that introduction. Again, this is a moot point anyway, I don't care which James wrote James, it doesn't change the fact that it was written before the gospels of Matthew and Luke and has detailed knowledge of two sermons in particular that only appear in those writings, which proves that Matthew and Luke couldn't have "made up" the sermons on the Mount & Plain.

Firefighter01
Maybe he quotes what he dreams about Jesus in the apparitions, but what does he quote Jesus saying in the Gospel accounts?  A brother wouldn't declare himself a servant of his sibling. That's as silly as thinking that Jesus' other "brother" would say this in Jude1 "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James"  It's saying that Jude is a servant to his brother Jesus, but his real claim to fame is he is the bother of James, lol!

As I have said previously, "brothers" and "sisters" were titles of followers, not necessarily blood relations. 

Among the problems about Israel Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed: http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/bib...rthed.html:

What you have just (I assume mistakenly) quoted is a description is a description of 'Bible Unearthed', not a critique of it.

Yeah, I got that wrong, you are correct.  Sorry dude!