Given that the Gospels all tell slightly different and contradictory accounts of who was at Jesus' empty tomb, it wouldn't really be surprising that there was no tomb at all.
Another head-scratcher is in John 19:39; it says Nicodemus had Jesus' body prepared with 75lbs. of expensive ointments. In contrast, the body of the influential rabbi Gamaliel was prepared with 80lbs. of ointments some twenty years later (Antiquities 17:8:3). So the gospel writer would have us believe that not only was Jesus taken off the cross, but the Romans allowed his body to be given roughly the same amount of respect as Gamaliel's would. I'm no mythicist, but I think that's kinda nuts.
Or, if one insists on keeping the tomb burial, you could throw out the fictional crucifixion and just say he was stoned to death. This would make more sense anyway if there was an historical Jesus at all.
OnePointSix12 Early Christians did some focus group testing that showed the cross was a more marketable symbol then a little stone. No one wants to wear a small peace of granite on a necklace
I'm sure if Erhman is going to take the execution as something that did happen, he must also accept how and why it happened, who did it and so forth. Which means this execution wasn't wanted by Pilate at all. According to the scriptures, Pilate found no fault in Yahshua and he wanted to deliver him but was persuaded by a Jewish cabal who wanted Yahshua dead. Therefore, why would Pilate refuse to not allow Yahshua to be buried when he didn't want his execution? When Pilate washed his hands of the whole matter, I believe that includes burying him as well. The Jewish cabal didn't care whether he was buried or not, as long as he died as they requested. So the argument put forth in this video doesn't hold water if we're going to say he was executed, we can also make a good case for Yahshua being buried in a tomb as well.
Also, the other "Messiahs" of the period were crucified as well, they were not given a burial either. Why would one person get special treatment? The Law of Rome was final. There's the myth that the Jews did not have a law to put a person to death. Death by stoning. Jews put people to death for saying the name of god, working on the Sabbath, etc. If the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus they could have done it easily with no guilt or repercussions. If there was blasphemy involved, the Sanhedrin would NOT have allowed Jesus to preach for 3 years, he would have been stoned to death in less than 6 months.
Atheist Meme OMG lol you're so original and clever! You big, smart atheists always have the best jokes lol!!! I Wish I was so witty as to think of that one myself.
Well the whole scrifice idea is flawed anyway by way of the hilarious resurrection. You can't claim a sacrifice if it doesn't stay sacrificed. I have a neighbor who puts out the "He is Risen" sign on his lawn every Easter Sunday and I just want to tell him that being sacrificed in the actual meaning of being sacrified doesn't including coming back to life and living forever in paradise. That's cheating. Besides the ridiculous idea of having to bleed all over the place to apease some sadist invisible god's sensibilities.
RhondaH I wanted to encourage you to not judge your fellow man so quickly. If you knew the religious beliefs associated with his death & resurrection, it would be no mystery. A Quick reveal follows. Jesus was following the Hebrew passover. He was the lamb that was sacrificed. This was an offering to God. Once received by God, he is then the first to receive the resurrection. So in effect, God received the sacrifice & then restored him. If we do this with our lives (metaphorically speaking), then he covers our sins & frees us. It makes no sense to you now, but have you tried reading the Bible & asking questions? You May not believe, but you may find your neighbor is not so crazy to believe. Either way, I again encourage you not to be so quick to find fault with things you do not understand. God Bless
Ok that’s one scholars view the majority of the 4000+ scholars and I’ll repeat that the majority concede to an empty tomb. .Period I know those approximately 5000 people that begin following Jesus after the crucifixion in the city of where it happened was because the tomb was empty and not because he was still in it lol use a little bit of logic. Atheist be like deer in the headlight.
His point of no tomb is a guess. He is saying he thought about it & this is what he came up with. All that is is a doubt to muddy the water. A doubt not based in fact, is no reason to doubt a faith. The Romans were still very superstitious. The rulers wanted tribute, not troubles. The governor would have bent the rules for a rabbi that did not cause sedition especially after his wife dreamed that he should not be harmed. They knew it was a wrongful arrest, but they did it as a favor to the people (like the prisoner release). If this happened in Rome, he might have a point. It happened in the outer territories. The governor had the ability, a dream from his wife, & could have easily been bribed by a person of wealth. If you have a nice tomb to just give away, your are well off. Believe whatever you want to, but the Gospel is both reasonable & rational. In effect this is an attempt to discredit on a technicality. You do not believe, but if this is your reason, it is weak. I suggest education. Read the Bible for comprehension. If you understood why Jesus had to die & resurrect, this video/book would not bother you. I believe because of knowledge not doubt. I pray you gain the knowledge I have. God Bless
Mavors It's the same book that scholars like Ehrman read to determine what actually happened and they view the books as historical data with real history behind them such as names of people and places and even dates. You can take your BREAK now.
Развлечения![The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k2Z37xdpGpI/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]](/img/tr.png)
Given that the Gospels all tell slightly different and contradictory accounts of who was at Jesus' empty tomb, it wouldn't really be surprising that there was no tomb at all.
Another head-scratcher is in John 19:39; it says Nicodemus had Jesus' body prepared with 75lbs. of expensive ointments. In contrast, the body of the influential rabbi Gamaliel was prepared with 80lbs. of ointments some twenty years later (Antiquities 17:8:3). So the gospel writer would have us believe that not only was Jesus taken off the cross, but the Romans allowed his body to be given roughly the same amount of respect as Gamaliel's would. I'm no mythicist, but I think that's kinda nuts.
Or, if one insists on keeping the tomb burial, you could throw out the fictional crucifixion and just say he was stoned to death. This would make more sense anyway if there was an historical Jesus at all.
OnePointSix12 Early Christians did some focus group testing that showed the cross was a more marketable symbol then a little stone. No one wants to wear a small peace of granite on a necklace
I'm sure if Erhman is going to take the execution as something that did happen, he must also accept how and why it happened, who did it and so forth. Which means this execution wasn't wanted by Pilate at all. According to the scriptures, Pilate found no fault in Yahshua and he wanted to deliver him but was persuaded by a Jewish cabal who wanted Yahshua dead. Therefore, why would Pilate refuse to not allow Yahshua to be buried when he didn't want his execution? When Pilate washed his hands of the whole matter, I believe that includes burying him as well. The Jewish cabal didn't care whether he was buried or not, as long as he died as they requested.
So the argument put forth in this video doesn't hold water if we're going to say he was executed, we can also make a good case for Yahshua being buried in a tomb as well.
Also, the other "Messiahs" of the period were crucified as well, they were not given a burial either. Why would one person get special treatment? The Law of Rome was final.
There's the myth that the Jews did not have a law to put a person to death. Death by stoning. Jews put people to death for saying the name of god, working on the Sabbath, etc. If the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus they could have done it easily with no guilt or repercussions. If there was blasphemy involved, the Sanhedrin would NOT have allowed Jesus to preach for 3 years, he would have been stoned to death in less than 6 months.
Jesus is as real as Zeus is.
Atheist Meme OMG lol you're so original and clever! You big, smart atheists always have the best jokes lol!!! I Wish I was so witty as to think of that one myself.
Jesus was actually a historical figure though...
Well the whole scrifice idea is flawed anyway by way of the hilarious resurrection. You can't claim a sacrifice if it doesn't stay sacrificed. I have a neighbor who puts out the "He is Risen" sign on his lawn every Easter Sunday and I just want to tell him that being sacrificed in the actual meaning of being sacrified doesn't including coming back to life and living forever in paradise. That's cheating. Besides the ridiculous idea of having to bleed all over the place to apease some sadist invisible god's sensibilities.
RhondaH
I wanted to encourage you to not judge your fellow man so quickly. If you knew the religious beliefs associated with his death & resurrection, it would be no mystery. A Quick reveal follows.
Jesus was following the Hebrew passover. He was the lamb that was sacrificed. This was an offering to God. Once received by God, he is then the first to receive the resurrection. So in effect, God received the sacrifice & then restored him. If we do this with our lives (metaphorically speaking), then he covers our sins & frees us.
It makes no sense to you now, but have you tried reading the Bible & asking questions? You
May not believe, but you may find your neighbor is not so crazy to believe. Either way, I again encourage you not to be so quick to find fault with things you do not understand.
God Bless
And they were crucified stark naked - the ultimate humiliation for a Jew, if one can believe Genesis 9:20-25.
Ok that’s one scholars view the majority of the 4000+ scholars and I’ll repeat that the majority concede to an empty tomb. .Period I know those approximately 5000 people that begin following Jesus after the crucifixion in the city of where it happened was because the tomb was empty and not because he was still in it lol use a little bit of logic. Atheist be like deer in the headlight.
search "jesus myth theory" !! real deal
His point of no tomb is a guess. He is saying he thought about it & this is what he came up with. All that is is a doubt to muddy the water. A doubt not based in fact, is no reason to doubt a faith.
The Romans were still very superstitious. The rulers wanted tribute, not troubles. The governor would have bent the rules for a rabbi that did not cause sedition especially after his wife dreamed that he should not be harmed. They knew it was a wrongful arrest, but they did it as a favor to the people (like the prisoner release).
If this happened in Rome, he might have a point. It happened in the outer territories. The governor had the ability, a dream from his wife, & could have easily been bribed by a person of wealth. If you have a nice tomb to just give away, your are well off.
Believe whatever you want to, but the Gospel is both reasonable & rational. In effect this is an attempt to discredit on a technicality. You do not believe, but if this is your reason, it is weak.
I suggest education. Read the Bible for comprehension. If you understood why Jesus had to die & resurrect, this video/book would not bother you. I believe because of knowledge not doubt. I pray you gain the knowledge I have.
God Bless
Mavors It's the same book that scholars like Ehrman read to determine what actually happened and they view the books as historical data with real history behind them such as names of people and places and even dates. You can take your BREAK now.