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

[Aractus]

It's not about intelligence, it's about evidence. You've stated many times now that there is overwhelming evidence, but you haven't actually presented what that evidence is despite being asked several times. You're citing the gospels as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Well fine - now what is your evidence for the validity of the gospels?

If we had a witness to an event giving testimony, and he spoke as much about talking animals and aliens as he did the alleged events, how would we establish his credibility sans outside sources?

Again that is a false dichotomy. No one is claiming everything the Gospels has to say is valid. That's a completely different claim. Just like the location and Hebrew names of ancient Canaanite cities, there is information to be found within ancient texts, including texts riddled with historical errors or tales of miracles, noting that the New Testament does not contain the same kind of miracles anyway as the Old Testament, and instead refers to incidences of healings. Faith healings have been performed for thousands of years before the time of Jesus, and continue to be performed - so I don't see that as at all as farcical a claim as you seem to imply. That is I accept that Jesus performed healing ceremonies, and people felt as if they had been healed. As a direct comparison consider Catholicism today - in Catholicism a priest will hear confession of individuals from the laity, and following the sacrament the person feels as if their God has forgiven their sins. This event itself still takes place whether or not you believe that the person's god forgave their sins or not, and what the gospels lay claim to in the way of miracles are (at least mostly) no more sophisticated than that. The exceptions that I can think of are 1. the transfiguration, 2. Lazarus raised from the dead (in John), and 3. Jesus raising from the dead in Matthew/Luke/John before ascending to heaven.

I have already put forward the case for the resurrection being an unfolding mythical account that happened after Jesus died. And I think most of us sceptics agree that the Gospel of John is perhaps the least grounded in reality.

But I guess to directly respond to your question I would say that the synoptic gospels, especially Mark, are based directly on the ministry of Jesus c. 30AD. So I think broadly speaking they discuss real events - Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount, he delivered the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and a number of other teachings, and he performed faith healings. And I should note here that I see no evidence that Jesus intended to deceive people with his faith healings, although that's certainly a possibility, it seems his motivations were more to do with waning to preach his own version of Judaism that was different to that being perched by Temple Jews (or what he calls the "Scribes and Pharisees"), and healing ceremonies were simply something to be performed by leaders such as him (there are passages in the Old Testament that detail exactly what practise one should follow when it comes to healing). If anything, Jesus not performing healing ceremonies would be inconsistent with a first century apocalyptic-style Jewsish preacher.