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

[Firefighter01]

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. That's an expansion on the historical narrative - almost without any question. Paul did go to Corinth and we know that from his letters which are the primary evidence for his movements and ministry. The author of Acts knows the movements of Paul very well, and this is evident by just how closely they align with Galatians and Paul's other letters. So we know that the macro information regarding Paul in Acts of the Apostles is at least mostly correct. The micro information (the details) is another matter entirely.

What you're saying is that part of Acts can be shown to be incorrect - yes I agree there. Parts of all four gospels can be shown to be incorrect historically as well. But that doesn't mean everything is incorrect. You know very well that the works of all ancient historians of the time contain numerous errors, and the Christian texts are no exception. Errors are a good thing though, at least for sceptics, because they show that the author was making an attempt to represent history.

I agree mostly here except for the part about Paul going to Corinth.  You KNOW that because of the letters? Someone wrote those letters, that's all we can know for certain.  Who is to say that is part of the waffling story? I think that it is a big stretch to think that a penniless preacher has an epiphany of Jesus that blinds him for 3 days, then set out convincing all these people in various cities that their long held convictions are false.  NONE of the churches that he supposedly founded mentions him at all as the founder. A very well known and noted philosopher was Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 BCE – c. 50 CE). He was a leading writer of the Jewish community in Egypt and came from a very well traveled, educated and wealthy family.  He doesn't mention a historical Jesus or Paul to the best of my knowledge and should have if they were causing all the ruckus. recorded in the Bible. 

The other thing they contain besides errors and historical detail, is expansions of the stories. So what is recounted above is almost certainly an historical event, but the details have been expanded upon. This FYI is exactly what good scholars look at, to determine where history ends and mythology or expansion on history begins.

Yes I agree

Your argument that everything found within the gospels is wholly non-historical is so well outside of general scholarly thought, that it's barely even worth consideration. And the one scholar who puts forward a scholarly argument - Richard Carrier - you don't even agree with. Carrier still accepts that Paul is a historical person, his hypothesis relies on the historicity of Paul. As I already said, if you're going to defend Carrier's position at least put forward his position and not your own one that's not supported by a single scholar anywhere.

You are telling a porky here, I never said that "everything found within the gospels is wholly non-historical".  I do agree with most of what Carrier puts forward, but I disagree about Paul being a historical person.  You are stretching things again with your last assertion, you should really give it a rest!