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

[Firefighter01]

[quote pid='1390882' dateline='1473842681']
Yes, if you believe in the Bible story, he had God as his father and the Virgin Mary as his mother.  But I asked you whether you think that Jesus of the Bible had a literal family relationship.

Aractus
Okay, I think you're missing the point here. Jesus had to have had two natural parents who are named in the Bible as Joseph and Mary. All I said is that he had to have had parents, not that we know absolutely they were Joseph and Mary - but it would seem the most likely as no other candidates are named as his parents. I did not suggest that Jesus's literal father was Jehovah.

Yes, if you think that he was a normal human, he would have normal parents.  Not the Jesus of the Bible.  His father was supernatural and was himself. His mother was a virgin. If you discount the supernatural and I would hope you would, according to the Bible accounts, the family relationships were poor to non-existent.

He may have written a lot, but not what is written in the gospels about his birth, location (I don't even think he writes about Nazareth or Bethlehem), ministry, miracles apart from the resurrection, cleansing of the temple, ride into  Jerusalem, arrest, or trial.  All the stuff about him being alive on Earth in other words.

Aractus
Right, so much of that is stuff we wouldn't really expect Paul to write about, as it's not his focus.

No, Paul's focus is not on the historical Jesus, it's all about the spiritual Jesus of the scriptures.  If he was concerned at all about Jesus being historical he would have gone back to Jerusalem to meet with the disciples to validate his conversion apparition.  Instead he doesn't think that its important to meet up with the disciples to learn about Jesus' ministry and parables, he goes of to Africa and Damascus to teach his own version of the scriptures, which doesn't make any sense if he believed in a historical Jesus.

He does. 1 Corinthians 15King James Version (KJV) is an example.

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

Aractus That's not the same. He never opens a letter saying "Paul, brother of Jesus".

NO, but that may not have been his title, unlike that of James and Jude. Who knows?

He isn't though.  I note that he was educated at Christ's College. I find it hard to believe that you dismiss the nativity stories, yet you and Scott are convinced of the trial and crucifixion stories.  I wouldn't find it hard to believe that Scott probably thinks the nativity stories are fair dinkum too.

Aractus Firstly I never said I was "convinced" of the trial, and if you'd bothered to check you would have realised that Scott like almost any other historian of ancient Rome agrees that Jesus would have been convicted under Pilate without any Jewish influence, and they would not be influenced by the Jewish authorities to carry out a crucifixion.

Here you are clearly demonstrating your prejudice against the profession, so once again I ask you to explain it please. How is it any different from being prejudiced against modern medicine or other academic fields of study?

I think that the Romans would have let the Jews administer their own laws, as long as it didn't conflict with theirs. Which means that they should have stoned Jesus to death for blasphemy in the first instance if this would have been an actual account. Regarding the bias of scholars who have been indoctrinated from childhood into a belief that Jesus existed and are being paid to study in religious colleges, I think that speaks for itself on being prejudiced, don't you?