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

[Firefighter01]

Yes really. That's Acts. Paul.himself.never.makes.any.claims.that.he.healed.anyone. You are getting really frustrating to talk to. Either you have no idea what you are saying, or you are just deliberately acting like a fucking jerk. Which is it?

So you don't like what it says in Acts? So what if Paul.himself.never.makes.any.claims.that.he.healed.anyone. ? Does that make him more historical? You are getting really frustrating to talk to. Either you have no idea what you are saying, or you are just deliberately acting like a fucking jerk. Which is it? I can play those games too.   

Uh yes we are.  It's what this thread is about and you just finished saying that Pythagoras Mythicisim is in fact very similar to Jesus Mythicisim.  Jesus is a tad different from Pythagorus because of what I just mentioned.

No, we're just talking about the historicity of Jesus - not the divinity of Jesus.

How can a divine spook be historical? I think that you misunderstand my take on Jesus.  I've got no problem believing that a wandering kook named Jesus existed at that time, there were probably a few of them.  I don't believe in the magical Jesus of the Bible.  If you take away all the stories of the miracles, there's fuck all left. Why would anyone follow around a Neville Nobody that didn't do anything special, let alone record what happened to him that wasn't miraculous?  If he didn't draw huge crowds and muttered to himself and a few followers, why would the Romans even bother stringing him up?  

I'm not making the claims about their historicity, YOU are. I'm just not convinced because of the lack of evidence and the evidence that is presented is just so piss poor. As I've said previously, historians whose livelihoods and careers are dependent upon Jesus being a historical person are tainted and therefore biased. Jesus & Paul being exposed as myths means nothing to me, but that knowledge is kryptonite to Christians.  There's no secular evidence of either and the best possible witness would have been Philo of Alexandria, but he like Paul, only knew of Jesus as a spirit. I don't think that he even mentions Paul, even though he would have been a contemporary. Capping it all off is the presence of all the mystery cults of the same area and time with their own savior gods. 

I can't say with certitude that either the Jesus of the Bible nor the Apostle Paul ever existed and neither can you, sport.

And I can't say that the earth wasn't created by Jehovah in 6 days roughly 6000 years ago, and neither can you.

Ah, but there is this thing called science, which includes proofs and evidence.  That's enough to sway to believe what is more probable. You are quite happy to believe with confidence that Jesus is historical, mainly because the majority of indoctrinated scholars are swayed by the great truths of the Babble.   

See above. You still believe hook, line and sinker what has been presented to you as the Christian truth probably since you were a little boy. If they didn't exist then the majority opinion is wrong.  You don't need a majority to make it the truth.  After all, the vast majority of the world imagines that gods and ghosts exist.

Again, I put it to you that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I think I make more sense than you and am a whole lot less gullible than you and your Christian dogma. You are still very much stuck in your beliefs, dude.