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

[Aractus]

Not as dumb as you, my friend. According to Britannica.com, "Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bce and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bce."
You are referring to a revision of copyist errors by Origin

What you're quoting is opinion, not an objective look at the evidence. You're the one going off at me for "believing what scholars think", and yet you're the one accepting this nonsense based on a thinly held together scholarly opinion. Look, I already said there's evidence for the Pentateuch existing before Jesus, and some of the other books. That's partially confirmed trough the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. Now, they had more copies of the book of Daniel than any other biblical book (a total of eight copies), and they were all in Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew. Given their reverence for this book the absence of a copy of the LXX version would clearly suggest that it was translated later than the Pentateuch translation.

It is very difficult to find reliable information about the Septuagint on the internet - believe me - and that's partly because of how pervasive the traditional belief in its "early completion" is. But I should note that there is scholarly agreement that it was not the work of a single set of translators, and that it was done over quite some time, and no one knows how long it took. So assuming that it was done and completed by the second century BC is not helpful, because if it wasn't "completed" until later in the first century then Jesus and the disciples could not possibly have made use of a complete set of the 22 scrolls translated into Greek. It does appear that they used a proto-lxx version of the Pentateuch - I already said that, but curiously while Matthew may have used it, it appears Luke relied on the Hebrew Pentateuch for his citations. Both of them quote Jesus quoting the Pentateuch - in Matthew he appears to be quoting the proto-lxx, and in Luke he appears to be quoting the Hebrew (proto-MT).

And, again I really must point this out to you, scholars use the term 'Septuagint' to refer to two entirely different editions: the stuff that existed before the Hexapla (now lost), and the fifth column of the Hexapla. That's why I'm suggesting that what existed in the second century AD before it was heavily redacted intentionally by Origen should be called the proto-lxx if you're going to call the edition that exists today "the LXX". If, however, you don't wish to do that then we can call what came to Origen "the LXX" and what came later "the fifth column". If that's the case then the LXX does not exist today, only the fifth column does. Again, it is incredibly misleading to claim that we have a complete copy of the LXX if you are meaning a copy of the unmodified books as they were before their Hexaplaic Redactions. The way you are using the term is just as invalid as if I were to say that the first century temple scrolls were the Masoretic Text. What is correct is if I say the temple scrolls were the proto-MT.

It is my understanding that the entire reason for the assembling of the SOTM was to provide instructions on how to recover from the destruction of the temple (which is well after the Jesus stories, as you would know). It's lovely for Christians and people like yourself to imagine that Jesus gave this perfect speech at the top of his lungs to the multitudes while memory experts took in every word, but common sense tells you that it would have been extremely improbable. But you are convinced it was a great historical event, what more can I say?

I'm not saying it was "a historical event", stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it's based on the teachings and sayings of Jesus, and based on at least one sermon he gave - probably on a mount, or on a plain, or both. It's irrelevant where and when he gave the sermon. I've seen no scholarly reason to doubt that the SOTM was based on the teachings of Jesus. I want to reiterate my point to you, the SOTM existed as a story before it was written down in Matthew, and it was used extensively by James in his short Epistle. It's not a literary creation of Matthew.

And your whole argument that the sermon was too long for someone to remember is pure nonsense. I've seen people deliver sermons for 30 minutes without needing to refer to any notes, and not lose their place. But the other thing is - who's to say Jesus didn't make use of notes anyway? He could have if he'd wanted to.