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

[Minimalist]

Because there is a structure, style, vocabulary, and subject matter that are Pauline.

No.  You have no idea what "pauline" is because we do not have the originals.  We have a group of 4-7 epistles (depending on whom you talk to) that are considered "authentic."  But what does that mean? 

If you sat down at your desk and wrote a series of letters in the name of Shlomo and a couple of hundred years later someone edited them and wrote a few more in the name of Shlomo scholars writing later - after the fear of being burned at the stake by fanatic believers had evaporated - scholars would probably be able to sort out the edits and the forgeries from your original letters based on style.  But all they would be able to do is attribute them to "Shlomo" because none of them would have ever heard of "Danny."

That's your problem with this paul shit.  You take way too much on faith.

[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?  

[Aractus]

No.  You have no idea what "pauline" is because we do not have the originals.

Well that's a completely moot point - we have hardly any original autographs of ancient works, and of those that do exist they're usually very short and incomplete. The fact that what we have contains some copyist redactions does not mean they're not Pauline. Stop using that stupid fallacy.

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.

You really are unbelievably dumb. Even by your own citation, only the Pentateuch is in existence that early. And we know what we have today was modified substantially by Origen in the third century AD, and since the Hexapla no longer exists we don't know how much he modified, but we do know he modified it substantially. Almost every manuscript in existence today that contains "the LXX" contains a copy of the fifth column of the Hexapla and not a copy of what existed before it. And those that don't have Origen's recensions they are late manuscripts and incomplete.

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

There's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus used, or had ever seen, the LXX. The way the he talks about the scriptures is unmistakeably Hebraic. The "complete LXX" does not appear anywhere in history until the third century AD in the fifth column of the Hexapla. True Origen didn't assemble the pre-hexapla version of the lxx - but we don't know when or by whom it was done, it could have been done earlier in the third century. Every time that Luke quotes the Pentateuch he's quoting from the Hebrew, not the LXX - do you dispute this?

Remember it was composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic and it assumes temple cult doesn't exist.

We don't know what language it was composed in - in was written down in Matthew in Greek. That doesn't prove that Jesus was speaking Greek. In fact he could have delivered some teachings in Greek and others in Hebrew, and still others in Aramaic. You can't possibly assume to know what language he was speaking just because Matthew is written in Greek, just like you can't know what edition of the Old Testament he was quoting from.

As for what you're calling "temple cult" I think you have it wrong. Jesus was against what certain groups were teaching about Judaism, and wanted to bring people back to what he saw has true Judaism. He basically asserted that he had authority to teach, and that a large number of other teachers (i.e. those associated with the Sadducees and the Pharisees) were wrong. Jesus was at least associated with the Essenes, and he may have been one. They also made use of the Temple just like the Sadducees & Pharisees. And if Jesus wasn't an Essene then he seems to have shown little interest in opposing their interpretation of Judaism.

[Minimalist]

Well that's a completely moot point

No.  It is exactly the point.  Just because you refuse to face it does not make it moot.  For all anyone knows Marcion - or some scribe working for Marcion - wrote those letters which were then edited later by proto-orthodox scribes to make them conform to the doctrine that the proto-orthodox were pushing at the time.

Without the original - or at least Marcionite versions - you have no idea what the originals said. 

Some proto-orthodox clown created a story and you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

[Firefighter01]

You really are unbelievably dumb. Even by your own citation, only the Pentateuch is in existence that early. And we know what we have today was modified substantially by Origen in the third century AD, and since the Hexapla no longer exists we don't know how much he modified, but we do know he modified it substantially. Almost every manuscript in existence today that contains "the LXX" contains a copy of the fifth column of the Hexapla and not a copy of what existed before it. And those that don't have Origen's recensions they are late manuscripts and incomplete.

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

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

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?

[TheMonster]

Why can't they verify it?

Because none of it happened and it is all fake. It is a man made story. 

Remember when Israel sent its team of "archaeological experts" to the Sinai and Cairo to find evidence of Jewish enslavement in the area? It was meant to be the Jews' deed to the land of Israel as God promised it. They came back empty handed... Which means Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Same shit, except with Jesus.

It is all made up nonsense.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still twisting scrotes, I see.  The sermon on the mount is acknowledged to be a literary creation.  The notion that some jesus the man ever delivered any part of it rests on nothing more than the asumption that there was such a man, but is and would have been irrelevant to the -actual- author of same said sermon, whomever that may have been.  

-Regardless- of whether or not there ever was such a man, the author wrote a story about other stories, in the style -of- those stories...insomuch as we have examples of them.. This is the -worst- example of anything remotely believed to be historical. Even jesus freak "scholars" accept that it's fan fiction, at best. It is very literally taking the collected stories (assumed but not in evidence) of an "uncle remus", and attributing the phrases contained therein to a "historical" br'er bear.

[Firefighter01]

[quote pid='1411609' dateline='1475957892']
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.

Firefighter01
It's relevant if you want to establish him as a historical person to give it geography and a date of delivery. I've given reasonable speeches myself for twenty minutes and Nelson Mandela gave an excellent three hour speech from the dock at the Rivonia Trial. But I'm not talking about reciting lengthy, perfectly crafted literary creations, even though that would be terribly difficult in the open air in a huge crowd. I'm talking about recording it!  Blessed are the cheese-makers?? Jesus wasn't exactly known for his writing abilities was he?  Drawing stupidly in the sand doesn't count.

[vorlon13]

Well that's a completely moot point

No.  It is exactly the point.  Just because you refuse to face it does not make it moot.  For all anyone knows Marcion - or some scribe working for Marcion - wrote those letters which were then edited later by proto-orthodox scribes to make them conform to the doctrine that the proto-orthodox were pushing at the time.

Without the original - or at least Marcionite versions - you have no idea what the originals said. 

Some proto-orthodox clown created a story and you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

Something occurred to me while reading Jesus Interrupted:

'Jesus' might be a composite character. 

Various religious types seemed, then as now, to spring up all the time.  As their followers fanned out with their tales of God and dogma, do we really know the ones later believed to have been preaching Jesus take on things were all inspired by the same dude ?