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

[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.