RTR - Part 5: The Burial Account and the Empty Tomb

[Mithcoriel]

why do you assume no one found the story compelling? Does it say in the bible that people didn't believe them?

[hermanoarnoldo]

These stories [...] contain outrageous improbabilities, such as the Jewish supreme Council meeting on Passover Eve to get rid of Jesus. It's just out of the question. Or Pontius Pilate letting go a known killer of Romans and insurrectionist, Barabbas, and just letting Jesus being thrown to the mob after, however, trying to get him off the hook, as if he has to have a vote on it. It just defies any kind of historical verisimilitude.

-Bob Price

[Freethinker7718]

Yeshua bar Abbas = Yeshua ha Mashiach = the same guy and hence a legend. The story is symbolic and the real guy, probably did think he was mashiach and died as an insurrectionist. The Sadducees and the Romans collaborated to dump his body after the 'official' burial for the 'temple tantrum' and exhonerate themselves by blaming the disciples.

[draconusrex33]

archaeologists have found at least one body of a victim of roman crucification that was given to the family for proper burial so it was possible that Pilate would have done so for Joseph ,he was a bit of an appeaser ,or would have done it for spite,a kind of in your face to the Jews since they forced his hand to get him crucified.

[DahStranger]

All of the members of the Sanhedrin ordered for Jesus to be killed?

According to Jewish law, if they all voted for him to be killed, he would have actually been deemed innocent.

i can actually point out more, but not much would be relevant.

[draconusrex33]

such as the trial before the Sanhedrin was at night which was also illegal .

[AsparagusBoB]

Jesus is overrated. Nuff said

[OraculusMaximus]

Great vid!

[hardhittn63]

Where do you get your information?

[flatpicker1234]

Was Jesus found guilty by the romans or the Jews ? If it were by the Jews, would pilate really care what was done with the body?

[tooltime9901]

the Romans had an interest in his body because he was a would-be messiah figure with followers who might use his body to cause trouble.

[grfield1]

This guy is out to lunch on this stuff. Joseph of Arithemathea was a businessman/trader not a member of the the sanhedrin. Jesus didn't need an empty tomb to demonstrate the resurrection, he could have just revealed himself and that would have been enough. The Romans released the body because they were not in fear of resurrection or uprise because the body supposedly would invoke fear...which it did. Prophecy does speak of the death of the messiah although Jews do no undertsand it.

[tooltime9901]

it is clearly stated in the gospel of Mathew that the Pharisees had the Romans send guards to the tomb because of Jesus' claim that he would rise after 3 days.

[grfield1]

Yeah...so....there were guards there...so...He rose anyway. The Jews asked for guards, the Romans complied, what's your point. Pilot let Barabbas go because that is what the Jews wanted, release a murderer and crucify an innocnet man, It is interesting to note that Barabbas means "Son of the father". Also in my notes above I was incorrect about Joseph, he was indeed part of the Sanhedrin, however the gospels record that he was not in favor of their decisions about Jesus.

[wanderingivie]

I generally agree with you, but Pilot truly did "wash his hands" of the Crucifixion. I don't normally ascribe much credibility to the Bible, but since it's the only record of this story, I will. It says in the Bible that he offered the people a choice: One man would be crucified and one would go free. The choice was between Barabbas (a serial murderer) and Jesus. The crowd chose Jesus. Some accounts say he tried to get Jesus to defend himself.

[tooltime9901]

Well, just because the gospels are the only *possibly* historical accounts we have does not mean that even actually happened. In fact, that story does not sit well with what we know about Roman government at the time and Pilot himself. The idea that he would let Barabbas go simply is outlandish and it seems more likely that the story was invented to shift the blame off the Romans and thereby avoid unnecessary persecution.

[wanderingivie]

I know how unlikely it is that the Bible's stories ever happened. That's why I'm an atheist.

But since the Bible is the only record of Jesus' hypothetical crucifixion, it is the definitive word on the subject (if only because no other source says anything about it).

[hardhittn63]

Not really. Obviously lot of the new testement could have been fabricated. How could we really know what accounts of Jesus' life are accurate barring common sense? The gospels aren't consistant enough to take seriously for their intended purpose. Anyone can write a story set in the period of time they live in, and then still completely make up the rest.

[bitbutter]

A snappy syllogism from 'Atheism, Morality and Meaning':

a. If the empty tomb stories are true, the location of the tomb was known.

b. If the location of the tomb was known, it is likely that Christians would have venerated the tomb shortly after Jesus' resurrection (in the same way that saints tombs were venerated).

c. Christians did not venerate the tomb shortly after J's resurrection.

d. It is unlikely that the empty tomb stories are true.

[migkillertwo]

the location of the tomb may have been known for a short time, but any record of this may have been destroyed by the Romans when they destroyed the temple in 70 A.D.

[tooltime9901]

The people of the city would not have needed records to know where something was.

[bitbutter]

"The people of the city would not have needed records to know where something was."

Exactly.

[darklink0112]

bitbuterr (b) says christians would have venerated the tomb shortly after Jesus resurection in the same way the saints tomb were venerated.

The only reason, the saints tomb were venerated was because in the FUTURE they will be resurrected at The end of the world, but in jesus case HE WAS ALREADY Resurrected prior to the end of the world.

Bill craig adresses this issue as evidence FOR the resurrection, since the reasons christians didn't venerate his tomb was because he was resurrected.

[NEWSTOGOD]

Hmmm---I think your rationale is excellent. Just more confirmation that jesus story is a myth.