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

[Aractus]

No, not quite you don't.  What you refuse to realize is that we do not have anything resembling the original letters of anyone named "paul."  Proto-orthodox writers in the late 2d/early 3d century tell us that Marcion of Sinope issued a canon with 10 epistles of this paul-guy and the gospel of the lord...which turns out to be a good part of gLuke.  Marcion was denounced as a heretic, which must have been amusing since the Roman church in the mid 2d century was not a big deal compared to all the xtian sects in the East but whatever.  As previously noted, Justin writing c 160 AD never heard of "paul" so since Marcion dates to around 144 we can assume that it took over 40 years before the proto-orthodox completed the re-write of "paul" and tacked on the first two chapters of Luke to the gospel of the lord.  Obviously, Marcion's idea was too good to pass up but it sure as fuck was going to say what they wanted it to say.
However, the consensus you seek is illusory.

Right, so you're putting forward another fallacy. We don't know how many strands of Christianity there were by the second century, I postulate there were at least three: the Pauline Christians, the Jewish Christians, and the Gnostic Christians. There could have been more that were more closely associated with other Apostles. I actually thought I'd coined the term "Pauline Christianity" when I used it a few posts back, but it turns out your man-crush scholar Dick C Carrier has used that term himself. Anyway, Paul says that he was personally unknown to the Jerusalem church until the council in 50AD. If he was unknown to them, then others may have been unknown to them too, and we don't have an account of who they were or what their activities were either; so no it is not unexpected to have a second century "church father" that has a Christian lineage that is not pure Pauline to not know who Paul is.

Furthermore please note the Carrier quote I quoted to FF regarding Pauline mythicism.

BTW, Second Corinthians contains this little gem:

In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.

2 Cor 11:32

Aretas III did capture Damascus, c 84 BC.  Aretas IV is last seen in history fleeing from the Roman army c 37 AD and he sure as shit did not capture Damascus.  Yet, 2 Cor is one of these alleged authentic letters.  Xtians, I have noted, run like scared rabbits from this one.

Right, again I'm not convinced by your argument. 2 Corinthians as you rightly point out is an amalgamation of Pauline epistles to the Corinthians. But even without it we know that he wrote to them because of 1 Corinthians. Given that Acts says Paul was a tentmaker and Corinth was a young town at the time, it makes perfect sense that Paul would have spent quite a bit of time in Corinth and therefore care about the town quite a bit and write several letters. Now with that said, I don't know the state of scholarly criticism on the letter - but I do know that at least one verse (or part thereof) is thought to be a later addition, and I presume that's what you're talking about. It doesn't alter the fact that the majority of the content is authentic Pauline, even if some of it is not.