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

[Firefighter01]

Aractus
The author of Luke-Acts wrote more (by volume) than Paul. But Paul's writings are more original and earlier (Paul is writing before the fall of Jerusalem, and doesn't copy in the way the gospel writers do).

The best anyone can say about anyone's writings in the Bible is that someone wrote them. Who knows for sure who wrote what? 

C'mon Aractus, what would a real person do in that situation?  Imagine that you were a travelling priest and had a vision of Jesus that was so awesome it blinded you for 3 days.

Aractus
Paul never claims that happened.

Ok so he wasn't a priest to start off, he was supposed to be converted.  Is that what you were getting at?

Blasphemy was what I was thinking of, Jesus claimed he was the son of God.  The Jews could have done that without approval from the Romans.

Aractus
I'm not convinced that Jesus made that claim. It is plausible, however it is not what got him executed, he was executed for being a threat to the public peace.

Firefighter01
See John 4:25-26 King James Version (KJV)

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Firefighter01
How do you know what he was supposed to be executed for?

It sounds like they have a pre-supposition that God and Jesus exist, so yes, they have a strong belief and would be extremely biased like most.

Aractus
Everyone has biases. Scholars - the respected ones anyway - are not those who have simply done a course. It's those who are actively engaged in the area. Good scholars are ones that keep their preconceived beliefs in check, just as any good doctor would do as well. The difference though is that doctors have a much more difficult time getting educated in the first place, and the standards set at the point of education is what ensures that we are left with competent people to go into practise.

Firefighter01
Sure, but how could indoctrinated scholars possibly keep their preconceived beliefs in check?

[Aractus]

I don't believe that Paul wrote most, if not anything at all in the Bible, but for the sake of argument there is plenty of instances in there about Paul writing of the divinity of Jesus, for example Romans 8:3.  Just because you can find passages to the contrary just means that the book is a mess of contradictions as you know.

The best anyone can say about anyone's writings in the Bible is that someone wrote them. Who knows for sure who wrote what?

There is no doubt that Paul wrote at least seven of the letters attributed to him, he may have written as many as nine, but not the four pastorals.

You can't just make up your own facts, Paul clearly identifies himself and he has a consistent style across his letters. The location and approximate dating of his letters agrees with the book of Acts as to his whereabouts/movements. This is very well established - for example, after the council in Jerusalem Acts 15 has Paul go up to Turkey. Paul talks about this same event in Galatians 2, and just like in Acts he goes from Jerusalem to Turkey. Both accounts specify that Barnabas went with Paul, and both accounts specify the city Paul goes to as Antioch. To try and suggest there is any doubt here is ludicrous. Paul's entire missionary journey from the start of this time until his last known genuine epistle (when he is under house arrest) has been mapped out and is well known.

Take note of this:

Acts 9:26 When he arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to associate with the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, since they did not believe he was a disciple.
Galatians 1:22-23: I remained personally unknown to the Judean churches in Christ; they simply kept hearing: “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith he once tried to destroy.”

As a very brief summary, this is what happens after Paul is converted:

1. Paul is converted in Acts 9/Galatians 1.
2. Paul goes to Damascus Acts 9/Galatians 1 (Galatians adds by way of Arabia).
3. Paul says he stays with Peter in Jerusalem for 15 days (Galatians 1), and meets James the Just also. Acts 9 mentions that he goes to Jerusalem but is less specific about what he does, although it does make the claim that the Hellenistic Jews tried to kill him.
4. Paul goes back to his home in Tarsus (Acts 9).
5. Paul goes to Syria (Antioch) and Cilicia (Judea) Galatians 1 (Acts 11:26 & 29-30).

As you can see there is so much cohesion between the accounts, that although some of the finer details (particularly in Acts which is written later by a 3rd party) may not be wholly accurate, they describe a valid historical event. All of this is before the "first missionary journey" which then becomes the reason for the Jerusalem Council to be held. Paul leaves the details of that out (simply saying "after 14 years ..."), but he includes the Council and the aftermath which I've already describe which align perfectly with the account given in Acts 15. This I've already explained, so we'll jump ahead to Paul's arrest in Rome.

We learn of Paul's arrest in Acts 28, and the book ends stating categorically that Paul stayed in a rented house for two years. It is interesting to note that Acts does not include his actual death/execution, for whatever reasons.

Nevertheless, we have between 2-3 letters written by Paul while he was under house arrest. Philippians and Philemon are the undisputed letters, and Colossians is the disputed one. Timothy is with Paul in both Philippians and Philemon, and in Philemon he also mentions his colleagues: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke. FWIW, Colossians is consistent in this regard as Timothy is included in the opening greeting, with Demas & Luke mentioned in the closing greeting. Timothy is mentioned in several other places, including in Acts and Paul's other books (notably in Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, and 1-2 Thessalonians). In other words, out of the seven undisputed epistles, Galatians is the only one where Paul doesn't mention him.

So again, it's a cohesive narritive between the epistles, the locations they're sent from, the time they're sent, and the events described in Acts regarding Paul's movements.

The best anyone can say about anyone's writings in the Bible is that someone wrote them. Who knows for sure who wrote what?

Right, so I've shown you above why it's incorrect for the undisputed Pauline Epistles, but I'll also explain Luke-Acts. Both the Gospel According to Luke and Acts of the Apostles are addressed to a gentleman named Theophilus. Also, in the greeting of acts the author specifies that wrote the gospel that came before it. The greeting therefore suggests the same author is writing. Now as I mentioned with Paul, one of the things that scholars look for when attributing authorship is unity of style and consistency with the period. That is a style that is Pauline, and can be dated to the 50's AD. With Luke-Acts there is also linguistic unity, and the sheer volume of the texts makes this finding all the more certain. Luke-Acts makes up more than one quarter of the text of the New Testament. By comparison, all 13 epistles that claim Pauline authorship combined (including the pastorals) only add up to ~23.5% of the volume of text in the NT. Also, there is unity in the work's themes and theology. They are both written to a gentile audience, rather than a Jewish one. Again, the best I can tell you is that scholars are in agreement that Luke-Acts is the work of a single author, however who that author is is not precisely known.

Ok so he wasn't a priest to start off, he was supposed to be converted.  Is that what you were getting at?

Paul.does.not.claim.that.he.had.an.encounter.with.the.risen.Jesus.

How do you know what he was supposed to be executed for?

Because that's what Classicists have told us.

Sure, but how could indoctrinated scholars possibly keep their preconceived beliefs in check?

The peer-review process, the same as for any other historian.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no doubt that Paul wrote at least seven of the letters attributed to him, he may have written as many as nine, but not the four pastorals.

Which Paul?  

You can't just make up your own facts, Paul clearly identifies himself and he has a consistent style across his letters.

Tell that to the many authors whose work appears under the eponym of "Paul".  

The location and approximate dating of his letters agrees with the book of Acts as to his whereabouts/movements.

Acts is considered to be legendary paul, and it's considered to be so even by the jesus freaks.  Is that the paul that you think was really real?

[Aractus]

Rhythm you really are not even worth responding to. Either learn your shit, or stick to arguing with people at your own level of cognitive ability.

[The Grand Nudger]

.........................?




http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/

Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.

I'll ask again, which paul?

Though scholars differ as to what historical use one might properly make of tiers 2, 3, or 4, there is almost universal agreement that a proper historical study of Paul should begin with the seven genuine letters, restricting one’s analysis to what is most certainly coming from Paul’s own hand. This approach might sound restrictive but it is really the only proper way to begin. The Deutero-Pauline letters, and the Pastorals reflect a vocabulary, a development of ideas, and a social setting that belong to a later time.[v] We are not getting Paul as he was, but Paul’s name used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named.”

......or the many authors under his name?

1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)

2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)

3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)

4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

-for your reference.

I thought you'd appreciate a bible thumping source.

[Minimalist]

My guess is that he won't appreciate it.

Say...

Ferdinand Christian Baur, the founder of the "Tübingen School" of New Testament criticism, rested his ideas about the New Testament on the Clementines, and his ideas about the Clementines on St. Epiphanius, who found the writings used by an Ebionite sect in the 4th century.

Can Baur be considered a "real scholar" if he doesn't buy the bible bullshit story?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Bible Bullshit Society certainly bought -his- story. It would be great if we found out these jesus freaks accept a more skeptical view of the texts than the "consensus of scholars" and our resident apologist who cares about them, whoever they are, does.

[Aractus]

I'll ask again, which paul?  

Though scholars differ as to what historical use one might properly make of tiers 2, 3, or 4, there is almost universal agreement that a proper historical study of Paul should begin with the seven genuine letters, restricting one’s analysis to what is most certainly coming from Paul’s own hand. This approach might sound restrictive but it is really the only proper way to begin. The Deutero-Pauline letters, and the Pastorals reflect a vocabulary, a development of ideas, and a social setting that belong to a later time.[v] We are not getting Paul as he was, but Paul’s name used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named.”

......or the many authors under his name?

Read your own cited material. You know very well I am talking about Paul of Tarsus and limiting the discussion to the epistles he undoubtedly penned.

The Bible Bullshit Society certainly bought -his- story.  It would be great if we found out these jesus freaks accept a more skeptical view of the texts than the "consensus of scholars" and our resident apologist who cares about them, whoever they are, does.

There.is.no.such.thing.as.scholarly.consensus.on.anything. Your thinly veiled straw man arguments are obvious. There is a near universal agreement among NT scholars, and Classicists as well for that matter, that we can say that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus were historical people. As for your previous post attacking Acts: ACTS.IS.ONLY.THE.SECONDARY.EVIDENCE.!!! The primary evidence for the historicity of Paul are the Pauline epistles themselves. The deutero-Pauline are further secondary evidence (i.e. that the author is claiming authorship of a historical person).

As I've pointed out, while the parts in Acts that pertain to Paul's missionary may not be a strict historical account of it, they are certainly based on an historical event where Paul went on several missionary journeys, and this is evident from Paul's letter's alone. The reason why you have these extreme doubts is because you do not understand the relationship between the genuine Pauline epistles and Acts, nor do you understand what they say and don't say. Nor do you understand the importance that the deutero-Pauline epistles have irregardless of their genuinity.

I can show that Pauline Christianity is not the Judaism that Jesus preached, and why (he spent ~17 years preaching it before the Jerusalem council even took place!) This is a major problem for Christianity today, because they are all based on a church that developed from this offshoot of early Christianity, which is demonstrably different to what Jesus himself preached for only about 1 year in 30 AD.

[Firefighter01]

Have you ever thought that both these stories may just be fiction?

[Aractus]

Have you ever thought that both these stories may just be fiction?

I just said that I don't view Acts as being "wholly reliable", I think you need to re-read what I said.

Paul cannot fictionalise himself, that's nonsensical. We have at least seven letters that he wrote to early first-century Christian churches. If your argument is that Paul and Jesus never existed then who founded the church? I have a pretty good idea of how it happened. Not a complete picture of course, but enough to say that Pauline Christianity was the strand of Christianity positioned correctly for the latter part of the first century which was crucial in its success. Without it the church most likely would have died off and never made it to the end of the second century.