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

[Aractus]

So you don't like what it says in Acts? So what if Paul.himself.never.makes.any.claims.that.he.healed.anyone. ? Does that make him more historical? You are getting really frustrating to talk to. Either you have no idea what you are saying, or you are just deliberately acting like a fucking jerk. Which is it? I can play those games too.

I'm going to quote Richard Carrier to you:

Meanwhile, the false premise has to do with his treatment of the Pauline epistles. Really the only evidence for historicity there is is a scant few obscure passages in the Pauline epistles (e.g. references to “brothers of the Lord”), so they are really the most important evidence to deal with, and he deals with them almost not at all. In fact, his answer to them is to declare them all forgeries, and Paul himself a fiction. Brodie makes no clear case for this conclusion, and what arguments he does have are fallacious (e.g. the letters have certain features that forged letters sometimes share–except, so do authentic letters), and the position as a whole is too radical to be useful. Not that it hasn’t had serious defenders before this. But it constitutes a whole additional fringe thesis one must defend successfully first, before one can use it as a premise in an argument for the ahistoricity of Jesus. And I am skeptical that that can really be done (see my comments here and here). Certainly none of his arguments in Beyond are convincing on this subject.