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

[Aractus]

Yes, if you believe in the Bible story, he had God as his father and the Virgin Mary as his mother.  But I asked you whether you think that Jesus of the Bible had a literal family relationship.

Okay, I think you're missing the point here. Jesus had to have had two natural parents who are named in the Bible as Joseph and Mary. All I said is that he had to have had parents, not that we know absolutely they were Joseph and Mary - but it would seem the most likely as no other candidates are named as his parents. I did not suggest that Jesus's literal father was Jehovah.

He may have written a lot, but not what is written in the gospels about his birth, location (I don't even think he writes about Nazareth or Bethlehem), ministry, miracles apart from the resurrection, cleansing of the temple, ride into  Jerusalem, arrest, or trial.  All the stuff about him being alive on Earth in other words.

Right, so much of that is stuff we wouldn't really expect Paul to write about, as it's not his focus.

He does. 1 Corinthians 15King James Version (KJV) is an example.

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

That's not the same. He never opens a letter saying "Paul, brother of Jesus".

He isn't though.  I note that he was educated at Christ's College. I find it hard to believe that you dismiss the nativity stories, yet you and Scott are convinced of the trial and crucifixion stories.  I wouldn't find it hard to believe that Scott probably thinks the nativity stories are fair dinkum too.

Firstly I never said I was "convinced" of the trial, and if you'd bothered to check you would have realised that Scott like almost any other historian of ancient Rome agrees that Jesus would have been convicted under Pilate without any Jewish influence, and they would not be influenced by the Jewish authorities to carry out a crucifixion.

Here you are clearly demonstrating your prejudice against the profession, so once again I ask you to explain it please. How is it any different from being prejudiced against modern medicine or other academic fields of study?