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

[Aractus]

But no one is telling us to live our lives according to Pythagoras' teachings or we won't get into fucking heaven, Danny.  Likewise, and even more importantly, vicious gangs of Pythagoras' followers are not polluting the landscape trying to push their primitive beliefs into our schools and laws and collecting obscene amounts of money from gullible fools.

Well, had their sect not died off they would be.

Let me put it another way.  You seem to be a lot more Christian than atheist in your views.  So which parts do you think are historically reliable?

That's only because you're twisting everything I'm saying. Christians, for example, believe that Jesus performed actual supernatural miracles - he turned water into wine, cured people of disease, walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, etc. Jesus did perform healings and exorcisms. Atheists are sceptical as to whether those things really cured people of their problems, Christians think that of course he did.

Paul doesn't ever make any claim to have ever healed anyone, even though doing so would have enhanced his missionary work, and yet you still seem to have something against his historicity so please explain what it is? Again I put it to you that you do not know what you are talking about, and are just making assumptions based on "logic".

You forget that we are taking about the supposed creator of the universe beamed down in flesh as his own son.

That's not at all what we're talking about.

What a crock of shit!  I have studied primary and other types of evidence, there ya go pre-supposing again! You aren't entitled to simply invent your own facts in the same way that Fundies do either.

Your arguments are no different to that of YEC's and "Fundamentalists". No different. You are deliberately ignoring the facts presented by historians, and the conclusions they've drawn from them. How is that any more intelligible than Fundamentalism?

You need to get some skeptical glasses on and ignore your ridiculous indoctrinated beliefs.

What "indoctrinated beliefs" am I putting forward? Name them. All I have presented in this thread is the majority views of critical scholars. Identify what I've presented in this thread that is "indoctrinated" and is not a view shared by majority opinion by historians?

[Minimalist]

Well, had their sect not died off they would be.

Uninformed speculation.  In general the so-called "pagans" were far more tolerant of other religions that your xtian pals.

As a matter of fact, our closest pagan commentator on xtian issues tells us:

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...".


Celsus, c 180 AD

You should probably take some time to consider the ramifications of what Celsus is telling you, there.

[Aractus]

Uninformed speculation.  In general the so-called "pagans" were far more tolerant of other religions that your xtian pals.

The Romans were far more tolerant than the Jews, yes. That's why we know Jesus wasn't executed for blasphemy - that was a lesser Roman offence that might get you beheaded, but certainly not crucified. The operative word being "might" - that is to say Romans didn't want to execute people just for "blasphemy" as Trajan's letter to Pliny the Younger shows. Also, what they considered blasphemous was quite different to what the Jews considered blasphemous, which is why even today Judaism is quite tolerant in its beliefs compared to the other Abraham religions.

[Aractus]

BTW, I notice not a single jesus lover has even tried to refute the archaeological findings on the situation in Corinth in the mid first century?  Why do you suppose that is?

Um, no churches or synagogues found from that period in Corinth? Not even a meeting place near fountain for Paul?

I don't know what Min's going on about (Corinth was rebuilt by Julius Caesar in the 40's AD). But again you're showing your clear lack of knowledge - Christians met in houses, not "churches" at that time. Even the Jerusalem Council was probably held in Peter's house.

[Firefighter01]

Let me put it another way.  You seem to be a lot more Christian than atheist in your views.  So which parts do you think are historically reliable?

That's only because you're twisting everything I'm saying. Christians, for example, believe that Jesus performed actual supernatural miracles - he turned water into wine, cured people of disease, walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, etc. Jesus did perform healings and exorcisms. Atheists are sceptical as to whether those things really cured people of their problems, Christians think that of course he did.

Paul doesn't ever make any claim to have ever healed anyone, even though doing so would have enhanced his missionary work, and yet you still seem to have something against his historicity so please explain what it is? Again I put it to you that you do not know what you are talking about, and are just making assumptions based on "logic".

Really?  Haven't you seen these?
Acts 28:8

And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to see him and after he had prayed, he laid his hands on him and healed him.

Acts 14:8-11

8 At Lystra a man was sitting who had no strength in his feet, lame from his mother's womb, who had never walked.
Tools
9 This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well,
Tools
10 said with a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he leaped up and began to walk.
Tools
11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us."

He also performed exorcisms, raised a boy who had fallen from the dead in Acts 20 and somehow survived a stoning at Lystra.  The stones must have been pebbles as he fucked off out of town the next day unharmed.

None of the early Christian churches that he supposedly founded mention him at all, which isn't surprising.  

You forget that we are taking about the supposed creator of the universe beamed down in flesh as his own son.

That's not at all what we're talking about.

Uh yes we are.  It's what this thread is about and you just finished saying that Pythagoras Mythicisim is in fact very similar to Jesus Mythicisim.  Jesus is a tad different from Pythagorus because of what I just mentioned.

What a crock of shit!  I have studied primary and other types of evidence, there ya go pre-supposing again! You aren't entitled to simply invent your own facts in the same way that Fundies do either.

Your arguments are no different to that of YEC's and "Fundamentalists". No different. You are deliberately ignoring the facts presented by historians, and the conclusions they've drawn from them. How is that any more intelligible than Fundamentalism?

I'm not making the claims about their historicity, YOU are. I'm just not convinced because of the lack of evidence and the evidence that is presented is just so piss poor. As I've said previously, historians whose livelihoods and careers are dependent upon Jesus being a historical person are tainted and therefore biased. Jesus & Paul being exposed as myths means nothing to me, but that knowledge is kryptonite to Christians.  There's no secular evidence of either and the best possible witness would have been Philo of Alexandria, but he like Paul, only knew of Jesus as a spirit. I don't think that he even mentions Paul, even though he would have been a contemporary. Capping it all off is the presence of all the mystery cults of the same area and time with their own savior gods. 

I can't say with certitude that either the Jesus of the Bible nor the Apostle Paul ever existed and neither can you, sport.  

You need to get some skeptical glasses on and ignore your ridiculous indoctrinated beliefs.

What "indoctrinated beliefs" am I putting forward? Name them. All I have presented in this thread is the majority views of critical scholars. Identify what I've presented in this thread that is "indoctrinated" and is not a view shared by majority opinion by historians?

See above. You still believe hook, line and sinker what has been presented to you as the Christian truth probably since you were a little boy. If they didn't exist then the majority opinion is wrong.  You don't need a majority to make it the truth.  After all, the vast majority of the world imagines that gods and ghosts exist.

[Aractus]

Really?  Haven't you seen these?
Acts 28:8

And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to see him and after he had prayed, he laid his hands on him and healed him.

Acts 14:8-11

8 At Lystra a man was sitting who had no strength in his feet, lame from his mother's womb, who had never walked.
Tools
9 This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well,
Tools
10 said with a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he leaped up and began to walk.
Tools
11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us."

He also performed exorcisms, raised a boy who had fallen from the dead in Acts 20 and somehow survived a stoning at Lystra.  The stones must have been pebbles as he fucked off out of town the next day unharmed.

Yes really. That's Acts. Paul.himself.never.makes.any.claims.that.he.healed.anyone. You are getting really frustrating to talk to. Either you have no idea what you are saying, or you are just deliberately acting like a fucking jerk. Which is it?

Uh yes we are.  It's what this thread is about and you just finished saying that Pythagoras Mythicisim is in fact very similar to Jesus Mythicisim.  Jesus is a tad different from Pythagorus because of what I just mentioned.

No, we're just talking about the historicity of Jesus - not the divinity of Jesus.

I'm not making the claims about their historicity, YOU are. I'm just not convinced because of the lack of evidence and the evidence that is presented is just so piss poor. As I've said previously, historians whose livelihoods and careers are dependent upon Jesus being a historical person are tainted and therefore biased. Jesus & Paul being exposed as myths means nothing to me, but that knowledge is kryptonite to Christians.  There's no secular evidence of either and the best possible witness would have been Philo of Alexandria, but he like Paul, only knew of Jesus as a spirit. I don't think that he even mentions Paul, even though he would have been a contemporary. Capping it all off is the presence of all the mystery cults of the same area and time with their own savior gods. 

I can't say with certitude that either the Jesus of the Bible nor the Apostle Paul ever existed and neither can you, sport.

And I can't say that the earth wasn't created by Jehovah in 6 days roughly 6000 years ago, and neither can you.

See above. You still believe hook, line and sinker what has been presented to you as the Christian truth probably since you were a little boy. If they didn't exist then the majority opinion is wrong.  You don't need a majority to make it the truth.  After all, the vast majority of the world imagines that gods and ghosts exist.

Again, I put it to you that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Minimalist]

Uninformed speculation.  In general the so-called "pagans" were far more tolerant of other religions that your xtian pals.

The Romans were far more tolerant than the Jews, yes. That's why we know Jesus wasn't executed for blasphemy - that was a lesser Roman offence that might get you beheaded, but certainly not crucified. The operative word being "might" - that is to say Romans didn't want to execute people just for "blasphemy" as Trajan's letter to Pliny the Younger shows. Also, what they considered blasphemous was quite different to what the Jews considered blasphemous, which is why even today Judaism is quite tolerant in its beliefs compared to the other Abraham religions.

The history of Roman-Jewish relations is not one of the highlights of Roman colonial administration.  To a large degree this can be attributed to the fact that the highly Hellenized Roman ruling class regarded the jews as barbarians and circumcision was always a key source of derision.  The Great Revolt of 66 was triggered by the theft of money from the temple by the prefect, Gessius Florus on top of a whole series of lesser insults.  The bar Kochba revolt arose after Hadrian thought he was doing the jews a favor by ripping down the ruins of Jerusalem and rebuilding a new Roman city.  After the revolt he threw them out and formed a Roman colony there called Aelia Capitolina.  One would have to say that the jews brought that one on themselves.  In general, when the Romans moved into an area they adopted the gods of that region into their pantheon.  The jews were a little unwilling to go along with that sort of thing but until Caligula they were generally given some special treatment. 

But after 3 revolts between 66 and 135 the jews were decidedly persona non grata in the empire and the writings of the xtian gospels become progressively more anti-semitic.

I doubt that the Romans worried much about blasphemy unless it was directed at one of the state cults.

[Minimalist]

Um, no churches or synagogues found from that period in Corinth? Not even a meeting place near fountain for Paul?

I don't know what Min's going on about (Corinth was rebuilt by Julius Caesar in the 40's AD). But again you're showing your clear lack of knowledge - Christians met in houses, not "churches" at that time. Even the Jerusalem Council was probably held in Peter's house.

Thanks for replying to this one, Danny.  I  had missed it.

Acts seems to be a much later work designed to rehabilitate "paul" from his Marcionite beginnings.  It soothes over "paul's" anti-jewish tendencies which devolved from Marcionism and tries to pretend that everything was all hugs and smiles.....which brings me back to my comment about Celsus detailing the intense rivalries between the various xtian sects.  Again it is a subject worth studying.

If you had absorbed anything from the archaeology of Corinth lesson it should have been that far from being a thriving city Corinth prior to Vespasian's re-founding of the place was a flop.  Caesar had very little time in 44 to rebuild anything as he was murdered on 3-15-44 BC. 

The notion that mid-first century Corinth was any sort of going concern is a much later xtian fantasy.  And while I agree that handfuls of xtians would have met in private houses we are supposed to believe that there was a thriving "jewish community" in Corinth with synagogues.  Yet, there is no evidence.  In fact, the earliest indication of a synagogue in Corinth is a 5th century lintel from a doorway. 

So, no, FF.  I think your paul stories are total bullshit invented later and in many ways mimic the popular Greek romances of the day.

[Aractus]

The notion that mid-first century Corinth was any sort of going concern is a much later xtian fantasy.  And while I agree that handfuls of xtians would have met in private houses we are supposed to believe that there was a thriving "jewish community" in Corinth with synagogues.  Yet, there is no evidence.  In fact, the earliest indication of a synagogue in Corinth is a 5th century lintel from a doorway. 

So, no, FF.  I think your paul stories are total bullshit invented later and in many ways mimic the popular Greek romances of the day.

Acts says that Paul was a tentmaker. Now we can't know for certain the accuracy of that, but if it is accurate it means that Paul could have served the Corinthian community as a tentmaker while establishing the church in Corinth. I don't think Paul anywhere (or Acts) makes any claims that Synagogues were in Corinth - but if there were they almost certainly would have began by using tents rather than structures for their Synagogues. But that aside, Paul proselytised to the gentiles, not to Jews. So first century Corinth not having a Jewish community at all, or only a small one, would be consistent with Paul's missionary work. It would also be consistent with its geography. I imagine this is why Paul needs to tell them what is sexually immoral (1 Corinthians 5), and seems to be shocked by their behaviour. Again that chapter is consistent with everything else we know about Paul and the early church, and the decision made just a few short years before at the Jerusalem Council.

I doubt that the Romans worried much about blasphemy unless it was directed at one of the state cults.

It was seen as anti-Roman not to venerate the deities of other families. So if you went around saying "your gods are all false, come worship the one true god" then that's when the Romans would have taken action, and there are plenty of examples of the Christians doing this in the second and third centuries, and getting themselves executed by the State - but none of them that we know of were ever crucified for that crime. Because Jesus was crucified we know that he was not convicted for that offence - it had to have been a more serious offence.

[Minimalist]

Danny, I think Acts is a pile of shit.  It serves a very definitive purpose to bridge the divide between the pro-jewish xtians like the Ebionites and the anti-jewish xtians like the Marcionites.

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to thee. synagogue.
8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Acts 18

But this isn't bad.  You're definitely getting better at it.  Too bad we are on opposite sides of the world.  Makes conversation difficult!