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

[Aractus]

There's a simpler explanation...that doesn't require all that fan fiction, Aractus.  

There was no body to find, there was no "jesus".

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth, and he performed healings, and gave religious teachings, and called disciples, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I think that much we can be certain of, and I might add that the gospels were for a long time the only evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate as the governor of Judaea at that time in the first century AD. If your argument was that there was no Jesus then you have to explain where the book of James came from, as well as where the Sermon on the Mount came from? James is written as much as 10 years earlier than the gospel of Mark, and Mark doesn't even contain the Sermon on the Mount anyway! It's only found in the gospel of Matthew, which scholars think was written c. 70-80AD. The Epistle of James was written most likely before the Jerusalem Council in 50AD, or possibly not very long after - ie. c. 45-55 AD. Thus it is not based on any known pre-existing gospel, so if there was no historical Jesus where did James learn the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount from? And how did he come to know about it 20-40 years before it written down in the Gospel of Matthew?

The reason I point this out is because Paul has a much greater emphasis on his own teachings that he receives "by revelation" whatever that means. But we can see very clearly that the Epistle of James is based directly on the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, yet written much earlier. Even with the earliest possible date that Matthew and Luke could have been written (c.60-62AD), James was still written earlier. He can only have known about the teachings if the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew was based directly on a sermon delivered by Jesus. I'm not saying that it's complete, in fact I'd argue that the Sermon on the Plain was most likely the same sermon delivered at a different time to a different audience, which would strongly suggest that this sermon was delivered on multiple occasions which is what made it more memorable to be later recorded in the gospels.

There was no body to find because no one was "looking for it". By 60AD (according to the Pauline Epistles), the belief among his followers was that he had ascended to heaven after his death - but there was no belief in a bodily resurrection to speak of. Mark or proto-Mark was written around this time as well, and it doesn't contain the resurrection either. The Resurrection doesn't appear in the gospels until Matthew and Luke and they're thought to be written c. 70-85AD. They also contain the nativities which is evidence of an expanding mythology surrounding the person-hood of Jesus. As I just mentioned that isn't unusual or unexpected, Ned Kelly also had an expanding mythology from just two decades after his death, and by the time Matthew/Luke are written there has been 4-5 decades that have passed.