The Roman soldiers who crucified him were basically the first people to realize just how mistaken they were.
Pilate himself was hesitant to go through with it, and only did so at the insistence of the Herodian court and the local priests.

Grave robbing isn't cool, or something people back then did lightly.
Especially when Jesus never actually threatened Roman authority or told anyone not to pay Roman taxes, he was always more threatening to Herod's claim.

Basically they saw no need to, and there was no official directive to suppress random cults from the emperor.yet.
So they just never considered it. Projecting a mindset born of later Imperial policy backwards in time is anachronistic.
No Jewish Wars had even happened yet, Temple was still standing, you get the idea.
Robbing a grave would only destabilize the region because of the taboo. It's not only dishonorable, but it's not necessary.

>>18121637
>Especially when Jesus never actually threatened Roman authority
An immortal zombie godman would threaten any and all earthly human authority.

>>18121763
He said to pay Roman taxes with Roman money.
But to keep Roman money out of the Temple.

Basically, give the Roman money back to the Romans and use something else among yourselves instead.
Not complicated. Hard to tax someone who doesn't have any legal tender.
The Pharisees could produce Roman coins on the spot, from their person. You know, because they always have coin of some sort close at hand. And Roman currency being so common among them...

Anyways this teaching is about fiscal independence.

>>18121768
>He said to pay Roman taxes with Roman money.
No, he said to give everything back to ceasar which would collapse ceasar's tax money scam completely if most people weren't using caesar's money to engage in commerce.

>give the Roman money back to the Romans and use something else among yourselves instead. Not complicated.
That would cause incredible complications for the Roman Empire because it would collapse their whole ponzi scheme and take away the financial authority that they leveraged over their people.

>>18121776
Something similar would happen if the world reserve currency were suddenly redeemed en masse.

>>18121779
Exactly, doing what jesus said would be an incredible threat to the standing authority who issued the money that jesus said to give back instead of using as it was meant to be used as a way to grovel to caesar.

>>18121781
Now, how many Romans do you think heard him say that? Keeping in mind this is in the Temple.
Supposing it's possible they did, would the full implications of his advice be apparent to them?
Even to many Christians in our day, with the full benefit of 2000 years time to reflect on this, the full import of it is somewhat obscure and rarely spelled out IMO.

Would the Pharisees or there Herodian lackeys have the nutsack to politely inform the Roman authority this was a possibility at all, or did they have too much personally at stake to risk the thought of upsetting the status quo?
Maybe Roman money was useful to them, supposing they had a certain amount of it.

>>18121637
The empty tomb isn't mentioned until Mark. Paul never talks about it. It wasn't that important for Early Christians, if at all. In fact it's more likely that the initial Christians, Paul especially, believed in a "spiritual" (pneumatic) resurrection. The later Gospels were written in part to argue against this.

The Roman's didn't notice or care about the Christian movement until decades after it started.

>>18121637
>It would've squashed Christianity immediately.
No it wouldn't.

>>18121637
The romans only started giving a shit about christianity as a religion long after Jesus died.
Back when such a move might have had any impact, roman authorities only remembered Jesus as a random ass mob leader like thousands others.

>>18121755
>Especially when Jesus never actually threatened Roman authority or told anyone not to pay Roman taxes, he was always more threatening to Herod's claim.
Threatening Rome's puppet kings definitely counted as threatening roman authority. Jesus's crime in roman eyes was sedition.

>>18122114
>Threatening Rome's puppet kings definitely counted as threatening roman authority. Jesus's crime in roman eyes was sedition.
Not only that, there are two additional layers:
1) Jesus was likely styling himself as the Jewish Messiah, so in other words, the KING of the jews.
2) He was also preaching that the end of the world was soon at hand, and that the old order was going to be swept away in lieu of a new one. How would a Roman take that other than "this current administration sucks", something that they wouldn't stand for.

>>18121755
>The Roman soldiers who crucified him were basically the first people to realize just how mistaken they were.
Lmao nice headcanon.