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

[Aractus]

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.

Well that's true of every profession. Doctors make their money by keeping you sick. Police officers make their money by increasing crime. Economists make their money by scaremongering. You can accuse every profession of bias.

Historians don't earn a lot of money either. Even distinguished ones. You don't seem to be being objective here either. I can name historians of ancient Rome who also say Jesus was historical - they don't have a horse in the race, and their focus is on Greece/Rome not on Christianity.

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?

He obviously had parents.

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.

That isn't true. Paul writes a lot about Jesus, and scholars debate exactly how much he directly cites from him.

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!

Right, so you don't have an argument then since you can't tell me what was and wasn't normal literary custom in those times regarding titles. Anyway like I said I don't care which James wrote James.

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

Right so why doesn't Paul use that title then?

My only problem with Hurtado is that he seeks to define the problem according to his own bias.  This is a common failing of theologians.  He's hardly alone.

What do you have against Michael Scott, what possible bias are you going to claim he has seeing as he's a historian of ancient Greece-Rome and that's his focus, (i.e. he's not an NT scholar, but perfectly qualified to answer questions on historicity nonetheless)?

Furthermore this documentary series he has writing credits for (as well as narrates) is excellent: at the same quality as Bible Unearthed, many of the facts presented are not what Christians would want to hear - it is very neutral:

https://youtu.be/W1XuyWoRUc0