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

[Minimalist]

I can name historians of ancient Rome who also say Jesus was historical

Again, that is hardly the point, Danny.  You seem content to make marks on the wall and say "SEE.  ALL THESE PEOPLE SAY JESUS WAS REAL" as if that matters.  What is their evidence for making such a pronouncement?

If it is the same gospel-based shit as the theologians use then it is no more worthwhile.

I don't know what else I can say to get you to see the distinction.

[Aractus]

I can name historians of ancient Rome who also say Jesus was historical

Again, that is hardly the point, Danny.  You seem content to make marks on the wall and say "SEE.  ALL THESE PEOPLE SAY JESUS WAS REAL" as if that matters.  What is their evidence for making such a pronouncement?

If it is the same gospel-based shit as the theologians use then it is no more worthwhile.

I don't know what else I can say to get you to see the distinction.

Their primary evidence is Paul's epistles, not the gospels. You should watch the documentary I posted, which is very level - I'm not saying we should just agree with everything it has to say, many of its proposed version of history are interpretive. But it does make an excellent point, which is that Paul travelled when spreading the gospel. We know this both from his own letters, and we know it from Acts as well. And we also know about the dispute that led to the Jerusalem Council - again we know about it both from Paul's own perspective, and from Acts. I am not suggesting we take it as word-for-word accurate, but it is clear that Paul is one of the first to move Christianity away from being a Jewish sect, whilst other leaders in the early church do not. The gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle of James are both clear evidence of this. And again, what Carrier does is completely ignore this dimension, he seems to claim that Jesus is a literacy creation of Paul, but if that's the case it can't explain the Jerusalem Council and the split in theology, it can't explain Paul's own conversion away from Judaism, it can't explain Paul's journeys to spread Christianity, or indeed his willingness to be persecuted for his beliefs - it can't explain any of that. And again, we know that Paul was persecuted from a broad base of reasons: it is mentioned specifically in Acts, it is also mentioned by Paul himself in Philippians, and it's mentioned in the Pastorals as well, and Ephesians & Colossians.

Again, here is my question for you. Other historians who are not bible scholars also believe that Jesus was a historical person - and this interview with Scott shows that he isn't a bible scholar:

JW: What drew you to a television special on the Historical Jesus?


MS: This is not so much a series on the Historical Jesus – I am not a biblical scholar. I am a Classicist. In these programmes, I am interested in how Christianity develops in the 1st – 4th centuries AD within the Roman world. Romans were normally pretty good at absorbing other religions and cultures that they met. The interesting question is how and why this did not happen with Christianity. Indeed, how did the opposite happen: Christianity taking over the Roman empire?

What you are claiming is that all these different historians, all with different specialities and focal points, are all a part of a giant conspiracy to lie to the world about ancient history. Well maybe you're not claiming that, but you may as well be by the fact that you will dismiss any historian that is not named "Richard Carrier". Would Paul really be willing to be persecuted for his own invented story? If you want to bring some common-sense into it the answer is NO! Unless he was having a psychotic episode he wouldn't have wanted to be persecuted for something he didn't believe in.

[Minimalist]

Their primary evidence is Paul's epistles, not the gospels.

Over 100 years after "paul" supposedly made jesusism safe for gentiles one of those gentiles, Justin Martyr, wrote a long Apologia to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160.  In it he never refers to any of the gospels by name - the names had not been assigned then - and he never refers to anyone named "paul."  He does know about Marcion who he calls a heretic.
The thing is we know from slightly later xtian writers ( Irenaeus and Tertullian) that Marcion was the first to produce a canon of scripture and in that canon this supreme heretic listed 10 epistles of this paul character.  You should read up on Marcionism.  It would do you some good.

We don't know what those original epistles said.  All we know is what emerged after the proto-orthodox finished their re-write of them.  All we can be certain of is that Justin Martyr was singularly unimpressed at best.

Carrier also demolishes the epistles as historical sources.

And here we sit.

[Aractus]

There are other second century church "fathers" who do mention Paul by name. There's no evidence that the Pauline epistles were substantially edited - if they were surely the polished versions would have reflected a more streamlined theology, whereas they instead present a very different theological viewpoint to that of the gospels.

[Firefighter01]

[quote pid='1390419' dateline='1473782576']

You're kidding aren't you?  Do you really think that Jesus had a literal family relationship?  Maybe like an ancient Jewish version of Little House on the Prairie?

Aractus
He obviously had parents.

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.

Ok I'm glad you think the nativity is a myth. Unless you can prove otherwise, he writes practically nothing about the Jesus of the Gospels until you get to the crucifixion and even that has none of the details contained in the Gospels. I think you would find it very hard to demonstrate that he knew of those things if he didn't write about them.

Aractus
That isn't true. Paul writes a lot about Jesus, and scholars debate exactly how much he directly cites from him.

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. 

Maybe he quotes what he dreams about Jesus in the apparitions, but what does he quote Jesus saying in the Gospel accounts?  A brother wouldn't declare himself a servant of his sibling. That's as silly as thinking that Jesus' other "brother" would say this in Jude1 "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James"  It's saying that Jude is a servant to his brother Jesus, but his real claim to fame is he is the bother of James, lol!

Aractus
Right, so you don't have an argument then since you can't tell me what was and wasn't normal literary custom in those times regarding titles. Anyway like I said I don't care which James wrote James.

"Brethren" and brother was used for members of a ancient religious order, the same as sisterhood  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...h/brethren

As I have said previously, "brothers" and "sisters" were titles of followers, not necessarily blood relations.

Aractus
Right so why doesn't Paul use that title then?

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;

My only problem with Hurtado is that he seeks to define the problem according to his own bias.  This is a common failing of theologians.  He's hardly alone.

What do you have against Michael Scott, what possible bias are you going to claim he has seeing as he's a historian of ancient Greece-Rome and that's his focus, (i.e. he's not an NT scholar, but perfectly qualified to answer questions on historicity nonetheless)?

Furthermore this documentary series he has writing credits for (as well as narrates) is excellent: at the same quality as Bible Unearthed, many of the facts presented are not what Christians would want to hear - it is very neutral:

https://youtu.be/W1XuyWoRUc0

Firefighter01
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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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;

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

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.

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?

[Minimalist]

There are other second century church "fathers" who do mention Paul by name.

Yeah... and like the Testimonium Flavianum they seem to have been written later for the purpose of filling in the record.

YOu have shut your mind to any other possibility but they are out there if you'd just put your bible down long enough to read them.

You aren't going to trot out Polycarp or the rest of the bullshit, are you?

https://www.academia.edu/368096/On_the_D...o=download

6. Conclusion

There may be nothing in this essay that categorically proves that the mar-tyrdom of Polycarp could not have been written in the second century.The second-century dating, however, is anchored by the assumptionthat the text is an eyewitness report. This assumption is itself rooted inscholarly assumptions about the historicity of martyr acts and intertextuality in early Christian literature. When, as we have seen, authenticity isput aside the dating of the text becomes uncertain.

We should treat MPol as a third-century composition that may have been redacted in the fourth century. As unsatisfying as this conclusion remains, it is critically important for historians of martyrdom in particular and historians of Christianity in gen-eral to recognize the difficulties in dating this text.



Candida R. Moss

University of Notre Dame
Department of Theology

Is Moss not a scholar either by your use of the term?

[Aractus]

There are other second century church "fathers" who do mention Paul by name.

Yeah... and like the Testimonium Flavianum they seem to have been written later for the purpose of filling in the record.

YOu have shut your mind to any other possibility but they are out there if you'd just put your bible down long enough to read them.

You aren't going to trot out Polycarp or the rest of the bullshit, are you?

No, what I should have said is that we don't even need 2nd century accounts because the primary evidence of the historicity of Paul is found in the epistles themselves, as well as within Acts of the Apostles written in the first century. Paul is believed to have been martyred c. 66AD (something we learn only from the 2nd century on), but that is a completely separate issue.

Now I said earlier that sometime in the future it might happen that historians come to the conclusion that Jesus was not a historical person. But right now they have drawn to the conclusion that he was, and that is accepted by scholars of all creeds, or no creed, and by non-bible-scholar historians as well. The onus of proof here is on you, not on me.

[robvalue]

Wait, why don't Christians just ask God these questions? Won't he tell them?

[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?