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

[Aractus]

I'll ask again, which paul?  

Though scholars differ as to what historical use one might properly make of tiers 2, 3, or 4, there is almost universal agreement that a proper historical study of Paul should begin with the seven genuine letters, restricting one’s analysis to what is most certainly coming from Paul’s own hand. This approach might sound restrictive but it is really the only proper way to begin. The Deutero-Pauline letters, and the Pastorals reflect a vocabulary, a development of ideas, and a social setting that belong to a later time.[v] We are not getting Paul as he was, but Paul’s name used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named.”

......or the many authors under his name?

Read your own cited material. You know very well I am talking about Paul of Tarsus and limiting the discussion to the epistles he undoubtedly penned.

The Bible Bullshit Society certainly bought -his- story.  It would be great if we found out these jesus freaks accept a more skeptical view of the texts than the "consensus of scholars" and our resident apologist who cares about them, whoever they are, does.

There.is.no.such.thing.as.scholarly.consensus.on.anything. Your thinly veiled straw man arguments are obvious. There is a near universal agreement among NT scholars, and Classicists as well for that matter, that we can say that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus were historical people. As for your previous post attacking Acts: ACTS.IS.ONLY.THE.SECONDARY.EVIDENCE.!!! The primary evidence for the historicity of Paul are the Pauline epistles themselves. The deutero-Pauline are further secondary evidence (i.e. that the author is claiming authorship of a historical person).

As I've pointed out, while the parts in Acts that pertain to Paul's missionary may not be a strict historical account of it, they are certainly based on an historical event where Paul went on several missionary journeys, and this is evident from Paul's letter's alone. The reason why you have these extreme doubts is because you do not understand the relationship between the genuine Pauline epistles and Acts, nor do you understand what they say and don't say. Nor do you understand the importance that the deutero-Pauline epistles have irregardless of their genuinity.

I can show that Pauline Christianity is not the Judaism that Jesus preached, and why (he spent ~17 years preaching it before the Jerusalem council even took place!) This is a major problem for Christianity today, because they are all based on a church that developed from this offshoot of early Christianity, which is demonstrably different to what Jesus himself preached for only about 1 year in 30 AD.