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

[Pat Mustard]

First of all the Ned Kelly analogy doesn't work because we know Kelly was a real man, we have no idea whether Yeshua bar Yosef ever existed.

Yes we do, there's scholarly consensus on that.

The consensus of biblical scholars is as valuable as the consensus of creatards. It is based on taking a prior assumption as if it were proven true. There is no evidence given for the existence of Yeshua outside of the bible and a few insertions by later christian scholars into non christian documents. When your side has to fake evidence of x being real, then any consensus that x is real is already on shaky ground.

And frankly I'm not convinced either way on Yeshua, there is too little evidence there for to say, definitively, yay or nay. But I'm pretty convinced that if there were a real Yeshua, instead of being the genesis of the christian religion, he was probably a proto-zealot, being leader of a small (possibly violent) anti-Roman group who wanted to restore the theocratic kingdom of Jewish legend.

Edit: As regards the writings, I wasn't talking about the dates of their provenance (because that is an estimate), I was talking about the earliest date we have for a substantial part of a single christian document from the new testament (or other similar documents rejected by orthodoxy). The oldest example of a largely complete document is a copy of Luke dated to c.200CE. We have older fragments, but they are little better than a small part of a leaf containing word and sentence fragments. Either you misunderstood me, or you deliberately misconstrued me in an attempt to make me look bad. Given your track record my money's on the latter.

[Aractus]

Richard Carrier denies you "consensus."

He's a complete quack. Stop quoting from fringe scholars who aren't respected by their peers.

I get it from your apparent taking them at face-value, and assuming that others (namely James) would not only do so, but endeavor to report their entirety as, ahem, gospel truth, when in fact any time an author sets pen to paper, he does so with an agenda.

Yes and his agenda is as clear as Paul's...

The consensus of biblical scholars is as valuable as the consensus of creatards.

No it isn't! It has the same value as a scholarly consensus in any other field. WWII historians for example. There is no difference, whatsoever in believing in Jesus Mysticism and in believing in Holocaust Denial. And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus. If that's what you believe then you have lost all credentials for critical thinking and for evaluating evidence.

It is based on taking a prior assumption as if it were proven true. There is no evidence given for the existence of Yeshua outside of the bible and a few insertions by later christian scholars into non christian documents.

So what? There doesn't need to be any more evidence than that. This is a point made by numerous historians - not just NT scholars, but ancient Rome historians as well. Are you saying their expertise is worthless as well??

And frankly I'm not convinced either way on Yeshua, there is too little evidence there for to say, definitively, yay or nay. But I'm pretty convinced that if there were a real Yeshua, instead of being the genesis of the christian religion, he was probably a proto-zealot, being leader of a small (possibly violent) anti-Roman group who wanted to restore the theocratic kingdom of Jewish legend.

That hypothesis is laughable.

Edit: As regards the writings, I wasn't talking about the dates of their provenance (because that is an estimate), I was talking about the earliest date we have for a substantial part of a single christian document from the new testament (or other similar documents rejected by orthodoxy). The oldest example of a largely complete document is a copy of Luke dated to c.200CE. We have older fragments, but they are little better than a small part of a leaf containing word and sentence fragments. Either you misunderstood me, or you deliberately misconstrued me in an attempt to make me look bad. Given your track record my money's on the latter.

So what? Later copies are all that exist of almost anything with very little exception from the period. The earliest copy of Antiquities by Josephus is from the 10th century and it's incomplete.

[Minimalist]

He's a complete quack. Stop quoting from fringe scholars who aren't respected by their peers.

Danny, on this subject the only complete quack around here is you.

Learn some shit and stop being a superstitious twit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus.

I want to see numbers for this unsupported claim.

[Pat Mustard]

There is no difference, whatsoever in believing in Jesus Mysticism and in believing in Holocaust Denial. And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Edit: I overreacted with my sweariness. But my opinion of Aractus has not changed, his is a windbaggy blowhard with an overinflated sense of his self worth, a charmless lack of perspective on himself, Australia and his christianity. That's why he's remaining on my ignore list.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is no difference, whatsoever in believing in Jesus Mysticism and in believing in Holocaust Denial. And in fact there are more scholars (within their field) who doubt the Holocaust than there are that doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Edit: I overreacted with my sweariness. But my opinion of Aractus has not changed, his is a windbaggy blowhard with an overinflated sense of his self worth, a charmless lack of perspective on himself, Australia and his christianity. That's why he's remaining on my ignore list.

Rather than do that, ask him for his sources.

[Minimalist]

[Aractus]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I want to see numbers for this unsupported claim.

Easy. There are just two scholars who advocate for Jesus mythicism: Robert Price and Richard Carrier. I can name at least three historians that are holocaust deniers: David Irving, Arno Mayer, and Robert Faurisson. In fact the denial movement is much bigger and has the support of well over a dozen qualified historians, the mythicism movement doesn't have anywhere near the academic support. Mythicism and Denialism are just as crazy as each other.

I'm sorry, your sources for those claims didn't post. Try again, this time linking data that I may review for myself.

[Minimalist]