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

[Minimalist]

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

Danny, we have no idea what the original documents even said.  We first hear of them from Marcion's canon but Marcion was a heretic as far as the eventual winners of this struggle were concerned.  Do you seriously think that documents he put forward were accepted by the proto-orthodox without a rewrite to make them doctrinally safe for their point of view?

How can you assert the historicity of a document that you have never seen?

[Aractus]

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.

You are mistaken on this. Divinity of Jesus is a theological matter somewhat embedded in the gospel of John, but not at all present in the epistles of Paul, and the Synoptic gospels are at most neutral on that issue. Jesus himself specifically says he is not divine: [Mark 10:18/Matthew 19:17/Luke 18:19] and John 5: 30. Furthermore Jesus specifically says he isn't trying to displace the Law of Moses and reaffirms the authority of the Jewish God and his Law in the strongest possible way (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17).

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.

No it isn't because the gospels haven't been written. And Paul did know the disciples of Jesus personally - something that the gospel writers most likely did not.

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?

No I don't think so, and your argument is so absurd. There are a great many Bible Colleges which are very neutral in terms of religious belief. Secondly, no one gets "paid to study" - they have to pay themselves in order to learn and study. Thirdly - what indoctrination? There are plenty of non-religious scholars, and there are plenty of scholars who's published works has shaken the Church while being vindicated by others. Are you claiming that Finkelstein is indoctrinated too?

[Aractus]

Danny, we have no idea what the original documents even said.  We first hear of them from Marcion's canon but Marcion was a heretic as far as the eventual winners of this struggle were concerned.  Do you seriously think that documents he put forward were accepted by the proto-orthodox without a rewrite to make them doctrinally safe for their point of view?

How can you assert the historicity of a document that you have never seen?

We do know what they originally said Min. Again, your claim of them being substantially different to the originals is not supported by scholars. And the onus of proof is on you.

[Firefighter01]

and John 5: 30. Furthermore Jesus specifically says he isn't trying to displace the Law of Moses and reaffirms the authority of the Jewish God and his Law in the strongest possible way (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). pid='1392017' dateline='1473950424']

From one of the 3 Pastoral epistles:

Titus 2:13King James Version (KJV)

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

and from Mark 14;
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?


62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

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.

Aractus
No it isn't because the gospels haven't been written. And Paul did know the disciples of Jesus personally - something that the gospel writers most likely did not.

Paul never mentions Jesus being somewhere at a time or date.  It's all spiritual for him, that's why he didn't confirm what he had experienced with the disciples, his "revelation" and the scriptures were all he needed. Which is crazy if he really wanted to learn more about Jesus, why not validate everything in the apparition with the guys that actually walked with Jesus to find out if the Jesus that he saw looked like and acted like the guy that the disciples knew? More likely is that the disciples didn't exist either, so it was useless going back to Jerusalem.

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?

Aractus
No I don't think so, and your argument is so absurd. There are a great many Bible Colleges which are very neutral in terms of religious belief. Secondly, no one gets "paid to study" - they have to pay themselves in order to learn and study. Thirdly - what indoctrination? There are plenty of non-religious scholars, and there are plenty of scholars who's published works has shaken the Church while being vindicated by others. Are you claiming that Finkelstein is indoctrinated too?

Do you mean stoning wasn't allowed?  How about the stoning of Stephen? Scholarships are paid for and awarded aren't they? I know that there are supposedly secular colleges around, but I'm deeply suspicious of secular Bible colleges. They would hardly promote atheism IMO. It's obvious that you are still indoctrinated by your belief in the historicity of the Bible which is clearly a mess. Our whole society is indoctrinated by the stupid Bible stories and the media propagation of Christmas and Easter. I don't know enough about Finkelstein to comment

[Silver]

Christians cannot even verify that god exists.

And one expects more from them than that?

[Minimalist]

We do know what they originally said Min. Again, your claim of them being substantially different to the originals is not supported by scholars. And the onus of proof is on you.

Bullshit.  What part of WE DO NOT HAVE THE FUCKING ORIGINALS is giving you the most trouble?

You, nor they, have any idea what may have been in the originals.  As Ehrman notes, one of those so-called "authentic pauline epistles" is 2 Cor. which is an amalgamation of between 2 and 5 different letters.  I submit in such a case there is no such thing as an "original."

You really have to stop listening to the holy joes out there and find out how badly you have been conned.

[Aractus]

We do know what they originally said Min. Again, your claim of them being substantially different to the originals is not supported by scholars. And the onus of proof is on you.

Bullshit.  What part of WE DO NOT HAVE THE FUCKING ORIGINALS is giving you the most trouble?

You, nor they, have any idea what may have been in the originals.  As Ehrman notes, one of those so-called "authentic pauline epistles" is 2 Cor. which is an amalgamation of between 2 and 5 different letters.  I submit in such a case there is no such thing as an "original."

You really have to stop listening to the holy joes out there and find out how badly you have been conned.

Your claim is that 2 Cor. is an amalgamation of 2-5 different letters. 1. Where is your evidence? 2. What difference does this make to 1 Cor, Galatians, or Romans?

[Aractus]

From one of the 3 Pastoral epistles: (Titus 2:13)

You and I both agree that isn't by Paul, so what's the point?

Paul never mentions Jesus being somewhere at a time or date.  It's all spiritual for him, that's why he didn't confirm what he had experienced with the disciples, his "revelation" and the scriptures were all he needed. Which is crazy if he really wanted to learn more about Jesus, why not validate everything in the apparition with the guys that actually walked with Jesus to find out if the Jesus that he saw looked like and acted like the guy that the disciples knew? More likely is that the disciples didn't exist either, so it was useless going back to Jerusalem.

Nonsense, he wasn't writing a bibliography, he was preaching.

Do you mean stoning wasn't allowed?  How about the stoning of Stephen? Scholarships are paid for and awarded aren't they? I know that there are supposedly secular colleges around, but I'm deeply suspicious of secular Bible colleges. They would hardly promote atheism IMO. It's obvious that you are still indoctrinated by your belief in the historicity of the Bible which is clearly a mess. Our whole society is indoctrinated by the stupid Bible stories and the media propagation of Christmas and Easter. I don't know enough about Finkelstein to comment

I'm not sure where you got this from. All I said is that the Jews had no sway over Roman law. They could perform stonings, but they couldn't take someone to the governor and say "crucify him". Jesus didn't commit a crime, at least not one recorded in the gospels anyway, that would warrant stoning though...

No Bible college would promote atheism, true, but you have plenty like St Mark's that are pretty neutral on belief. I know Christians that will refuse to listen to anyone educated in such an establishment!

[Minimalist]

It's not MY claim.  Go watch the Ehrman video.  You may need to get his book to be able to look up the bibliography and see who else has written on the subject but surely for a scholar of your class that shouldn't be too much to ask.

Should it?

Here, since you probably distrust Ehrman, we'll give you something else to chew on.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/newtestame...ion8.rhtml

Most scholars agree that 2 Corinthians is a combination of several letters written by Paul to the community of Christian believers in the Greek city of Corinth. These letters would have been written at intervals of several months.

I'm not posting this stuff to bust your balls ( okay, maybe a little ) but to shake your confidence in the bullshit story you have bought hook, line and sinker.

[Aractus]

And what does that have to do with 1 Cor, Galatians, or Romans?