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

[Firefighter01]

It's not at all based on the structure of the Septuagint. The LXX does not appear anywhere in history as a structured, organised, complete collection of the Hebrew scriptures until the 3rd century AD (as the fifth column of the Hexapla). You aren't entitled to make stuff up - all that we know for sure existed when Jesus was alive was some earlier version of the Pentateuch that later became the LXX (and possibly, if not probably, Isaiah and the Psalms as well). Like I keep saying, some proto-lxx that we don't know much about, other than the fact that it contained the Pentateuch. What you call the LXX is a collection of translations done at separate times by separate people and collected as a single library (and then later bound as a codex).

Huh?  I said the structure of the SOTM was based on the understanding of the LXX. Anyway it was created in the 3rd Century BCC According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint:

History
The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.

and it was the bible that Jesus and his disciples used http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-stu...38841.html
So what I am saying is that the composition of the SOTM was based on an understanding of the LXX

And again, the Greek vocabulary does not mean anything. Some gospel writers did use a proto-lxx, but not all did. There are several instances where the text exactly matches the Hebrew against the LXX. Luke for examples quotes from the Hebrew Pentateuch, and not the LXX Pentateuch. At other times he quotes from some proto-lxx version of Isaiah and Psalms. Matthew on the other hand, does appear to make use of some proto-lxx Pentateuch. So when Matthew quotes Jesus quoting the Pentateuch it's from the LXX, and when Luke does it it's from the Hebrew. Conclusion: the gospel writers have redacted the citations.

Anyway, the Sermon on the Mount is not too long or convoluted for a preacher in ancient times to remember. It may not be a single sermon, and it may be made up of two or more separate sermons that Jesus gave - that hardly worries me as an atheist. Like I said before, Jesus probably peached the Sermon or Sermons several times to several different audiences, and for those who repeatedly attended (like the disciples) remembering it wouldn't have been too difficult. After all they are meant to be taught by these Sermons.

I'm concerned that you think that the Sermon on the Mount was a historical event with Jesus belting out that hugely complicated literary work in front of multitudes and someone recorded it perfectly. Remember it was composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic and it assumes temple cult doesn't exist.  Jesus would be saying stuff like don’t go to the temple, the temple cult won’t save you, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the temple cult. 

The whole structure of the Sermon is in 3 levels,
1.      How to Obey the Torah
2.      How to Worship God
3.      How to Deal With Other People in Society
Those were the 3 structures the rabbi developed after the destruction of the temple to help their religion survive.  Why would Jesus be giving instructions on how to worship God after the destruction of the temple if the temple was still in existence?