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

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, what archaeology do you have for Jesus, to support these writings you're plumping so hard?

That's right -- none. You're trying to suborn my point even as you cannot meet its standards.

And where is the body of Hitler? That's right, no one knows. See how easy it is to create these stupid false arguments that you seem to love putting forward?

... he said, ignoring the vast, ahem, body of physical evidence for Hitler's existence.

Would you like to see a photograph?

Bonus points for dragging Hitler into the conversation, but they're not helping you much -- still very unconvincing.

I was saying they both have value and both provide evidence, according to you though ancient writing is not of the same value or standard as an ancient stone hammer. Go figure.

It isn't. A stone hammer is a fact. An old writing might be a fact, or it might be fancy. I won't denigrate the value of old texts, but they aren't the best evidence, as any good thinker can see right away. Writings are subject to (mis)interpretation, as well as the same physical deterioration as simple facts like stone hammers.

what? As I just pointed out you can't point me to Hitler's remains can you? Christianity as we know it wouldn't exist if the body was known to be rotting somewhere.

I can point to archival footage and a world war that cost around 50 million human lives.

What you got for this Jesus fella? Pictures? A world war? Or simple mythology?

Your entire line of "reasoning" here, appealing to the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus, is the epitome of circular reasoning. You'll therefore forgive my skepticism, no?

The fact that the body -- the best evidence -- is nowhere to be found does Christianity no favors; indeed, it builds in doubt automatically the moment any believer starts asking questions. Surely you have a better argument than this.

[Aractus]

... he said, ignoring the vast, ahem, body of physical evidence for Hitler's existence.

Would you like to see a photograph?

I didn't ask for a photograph, I asked for a body. I can show you ancient depictions of Jesus too, that's not the same as a body.

It isn't. A stone hammer is a fact. An old writing might be a fact, or it might be fancy. I won't denigrate the value of old texts, but they aren't the best evidence, as any good thinker can see right away. Writings are subject to (mis)interpretation, as well as the same physical deterioration as simple facts like stone hammers.

You seem to be completely ignoring my point, so I won't bother reiterating it.

I can point to archival footage and a world war that cost around 50 million human lives.

Again, that's not what I asked for. See how easy it is to wrongly set a standard of evidence arbitrarily?

What you got for this Jesus fella? Pictures? A world war? Or simple mythology?

I should point out to you that a mythology is not "simple", it's a metaphysical construction, although I don't expect you to understand that.

The fact that the body -- the best evidence -- is nowhere to be found does Christianity no favors; indeed, it builds in doubt automatically the moment any believer starts asking questions. Surely you have a better argument than this.

Again, I am calling you out on your deliberate false dichotomy. How could the resurrection myth surface if the Christians were custodians of the body of their slain leader? There is necessarily no body for the development of Resurrection theology.

[ukatheist]

The writings of Shakespeare are, according to Scholars, hard evidence for the historicity of William Shakespeare. They don't tell us anything directly about his character however, but they do provide clues. They are not evidence for the historical existence of Romeo and Juliet. Without writing we have no evidence whatsoever that Shakespeare ever existed.

Apart from legal documents, a will, a grave, some personal documents, lineage....

What is potentially in doubt is whether he wrote the plays or not since the only direct evidence for that is a few signatures. And unverifiable sources that say he did. Plenty of evidence that he did actually exist.

[Aractus]

In the context of this thread, your comparison is weak, because we know where the guy's buried.

I was hoping someone would bring that up - is that the same gravestone that has Jesus's name inscribed on it? Wouldn't that make him, supposedly, just as mythical as Jesus?

I know I've posted this before:



Can you explain that to me from YOUR point of view? Note that although the manuscript is ~40% IIRC incomplete we know exactly what it originally contained and all is summed up by that one page: please explain?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't ask for a photograph, I asked for a body. I can show you ancient depictions of Jesus too, that's not the same as a body.

And a drawing has the same evidentiary value as a photo?

I don't care what you asked for. I was talking about archaeological evidence. Your pretense that it must be Hitler's body, and only his body, is called moving the goalposts.

You seem to be completely ignoring my point, so I won't bother reiterating it.

That's because it's vapid and doesn't merit serious consideration. Writing doesn't have the same evidentiary value as physical evidence because people can and do make mistakes or deliberately distort the truth -- or even invent stuff out of whole cloth, which was the point of my "Beren and Luthien" comment.

It's no surprise you don't want to address this, because at that point your house of cards will collapse.

Again, that's not what I asked for. See how easy it is to wrongly set a standard of evidence arbitrarily?

Except that my standard is not arbitrary. The fact is, you're bent out of shape here because the existence of Jesus has little if any evidence outside of writings that tell us to worship him -- which is not evidence anyway, it's the claim.

Rejecting shitty evidence is not being "arbitrary". It's being sensible ... which is probably why you cannot bring yourself to doing it.

I should point out to you that a mythology is not "simple", it's a metaphysical construction, although I don't expect you to understand that.

Oooh, he's going to try condescension with me again.

Again, I am calling you out on your deliberate false dichotomy. How could the resurrection myth surface if the Christians were custodians of the body of their slain leader? There is necessarily no body for the development of Resurrection theology.

You're entirely too slow-witted to see my point, apparently. I'll let you reread my previous posts in the hopes that you can address my criticism.

I'm not holding my breath. You don't strike me as terribly bright, nice big words notwithstanding.

[Aractus]

That's because it's vapid and doesn't merit serious consideration. Writing doesn't have the same evidentiary value as physical evidence because people can and do make mistakes or deliberately distort the truth -- or even invent stuff out of whole cloth, which was the point of my "Beren and Luthien" comment.

It's no surprise you don't want to address this, because at that point your house of cards will collapse.

I don't need to address it because it's a straw man argument.

Except that my standard is not arbitrary. The fact is, you're bent out of shape here because the existence of Jesus has little if any evidence outside of writings that tell us to worship him -- which is not evidence anyway, it's the claim.

Rejecting shitty evidence is not being "arbitrary". It's being sensible ... which is probably why you cannot bring yourself to doing it.

Again, you're deliberately constructing a false dichotomy. I get tired of it. The book of Joshua makes all kinds of farcical claims, however it was right in its geography of ancient Canaanite cities, many of which were discovered in the 19th-20th centuries by archaeological digs, and many of those digs were based directly on finding the locations mentioned in the Old Testament.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't need to address it because it's a straw man argument.

It's not a straw-man because I'm not imputing it to you. I'm making my own point, and feeling ever more embarrassed watching you wriggle away from addressing it, to the point of asserting a fallacy that hasn't been made.

Except that my standard is not arbitrary. The fact is, you're bent out of shape here because the existence of Jesus has little if any evidence outside of writings that tell us to worship him -- which is not evidence anyway, it's the claim.

Again, you're deliberately constructing a false dichotomy. I get tired of it. The book of Joshua makes all kinds of farcical claims, however it was right in its geography of ancient Canaanite cities, many of which were discovered in the 19th-20th centuries by archaeological digs, and many of those digs were based directly on finding the locations mentioned in the Old Testament.

A broken clock is right twice a day, yet only a fool would use it to make his appointments on time.

By the way, that isn't a false dichotomy anyways. A claim cannot be its own support for what I hope are reasons obvious even to you. (If you need help with this one, too, I'll be glad to oblige).

I think you're committing the argumentum ad fallacium fallacy -- thinking that if you throw enough baseless charges of fallacy into the discussion, you will have carried your own point.

And the fact that you add the word "deliberately" in (as you have several times now, though I've previously refrained from comment), as if you know my intent here, is laughably characteristic of you.

[Silver]

I can verify that Jesus Christ was buried with the mind that created him.

[Aractus]

It's not a straw-man because I'm not imputing it to you. I'm making my own point, and feeling ever more embarrassed watching you wriggle away from addressing it, to the point of asserting a fallacy that hasn't been made.

Well let me spell it out for you then. I never said that ancient artefact of 'type A' is of greater or lesser value as evidence than that of 'type B'.

By the way, that isn't a false dichotomy anyways. A claim cannot be its own support for what I hope are reasons obvious even to you. (If you need help with this one, too, I'll be glad to oblige). 

Should I spell this out for you as well? You have arbitrarily ascribed the condition that the New Testament is "a claim to the historicity of Jesus" and therefore as it is the claim cannot be used as evidence. That's a false argument, for many reasons, not the least of which being that the historicity of Jesus is by far and away not the central claim of the New Testament, the central claim of the New Testament is that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and has brought a New Covenant to replace/displace/add to the Mosaic Covenant. Secondly, New Testament scholars such as Bart Erhman say that the New Testament provides "hard evidence" (Bart's words) for the historicity of Jesus, and if you want to hear it for yourself from his mouth he says so in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus"
...
"We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anyone of his time period"
...
"I know thousands of scholars of the ancient world and I don't know one that doubts that Paul wrote Galatians"
...
"I'm not a Christian I'm just saying that as a historian there's no doubt: Paul wrote Galatians"
Ehrman (above)

"Rich, I’ve engaged your repeatedly stated views before. No one. No one in scholarly circles dealing with ancient Judaism and early Christianity, of any religious or non-religious persuasion holds the view that Jesus never existed. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own truth.

"Let’s move on."
Hurtado

So once again, the onus of proof is on you to provide evidence.

I think you're committing the argumentum ad fallacium fallacy -- thinking that if you throw enough baseless charges of fallacy into the discussion, you will have carried your own point.

And the fact that you add the word "deliberately" in (as you have several times now, though I've previously refrained from comment), as if you know my intent here, is laughably characteristic of you.

You are deliberately putting forward false arguments. Back it up with evidence if you can. I have not made a single baseless accusation against you, not one. If anything you are the one creating baseless accusations by claiming that certain pieces of ancient text can't be used as evidence because you say so.

Let me back this up a step. Min and I have a dispute going now for at least two years, whereby he even denies the existence of Paul, as well as Jesus. He likes to quote from Ehrman, and when I point out the video above to him that shows Ehrman saying in no uncertain terms that Paul was a historical person of the ancient world that knew the family of Jesus and the disciples of Jesus, he has nothing to say expect do what you do and try to attack my intelligence.

Now, I am giving you full opportunity to show me that scholars share those doubts. If they don't - if historians do not doubt the historicity of Jesus, then please tell me why you seem to have a prejudice against their profession.

[Aractus]

Since you keep attacking my intelligence, I should point out to you that Hank Green is a Christian - are you calling him unintelligent as well?