Was Jesus a false prophet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

And a spiritual resurrection is also in keeping with Hegesippus' account of the grandsons of Jesus' brother Judas in EH 3.16, who believed that the coming of Jesus was angelic and not physical (and which is why they were dismissed by Domitian).
“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Judas, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan.” These things are related by Hegesippus.


This passage also indicates to me that there was not a physical resurrection in the gospel of the Hebrews/Hebrew Matthew either, given that it was said to have been used by Hegesippus and his reference to Herod the Great above, which is mentioned only in Matthew ("For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it").
Last edited by John2 on Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:14 am, edited 5 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

So I now think that Christianity not only boils down to Daniel, it fits the context of the times, since Daniel was one of Josephus' favorite prophets (and he had been part of the Fourth Philosophy during the early stage of 66-70 CE war); the signs concerning the coming world ruler and the square Temple are arguably based on Daniel (and interpreted by other Fourth Philosophers); and Daniel was the source behind the "Two Powers in Heaven" ideology that was opposed by Rabbinic Judaism. As Segal puts it on page 49 of Two Powers in Heaven:
Both apocalyptic Jews and Christians can be shown to combine the angelic or divine interpretations of [Daniel's son of man] passage with their messianic candidate.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LRzCB ... en&f=false
Like Jesus, as Josephus says regarding these arguably Danielic signs in War. 6.5.4, "these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure."

And, again, I think this is the reason Jesus was charged with "blasphemy" in Mark after saying that "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Last edited by John2 on Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:32 am, edited 7 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

And I'm starting to think that Daniel is the source of Jesus' "three days" prediction too. I'd previously thought that it might have something to do with Hosea 6:2 or Jonah, since that's what I usually hear, but as McKnight, for example, points out:
The singular problem for this text as the scriptural foundation for the three days motif is that Hosea 6:2 is not cited anywhere in the NT and does not (evidently) figure in early Christian exegesis, even though one might argue that it was possibly interpreted with reference to the resurrection in Jewish (proto-rabbinic) interpretation ... These traditions [based on Hosea and Jonah] lead us back to consider another text, Daniel 7:25, as a potential source of reflection for the passion predictions. I continue to be amazed by scholars who refuse to think Daniel 7 could be the context for a suffering Son of man. Daniel predicts suffering in the following words: "He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time." The Son of man of Daniel 7 is vindicated precisely because the Son of man, a figure for the saints of the Most High, has suffered.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GLvGM ... us&f=false
I would add to Jesus' suffering philosophy Daniel's reference to the cut off messiah in 9:26:
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

This would explain why Jesus says that the "son of man" will rise after three days (i.e., after a "time, times, and half a time") in Mk. 8:31, rather than "on" the third day (as it says in Hos. 6:2).
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
Hos. 6:2:
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:24 am This would explain why Jesus says that the "son of man" will rise after three days (i.e., after a "time, times, and half a time") in Mk. 8:31, rather than "on" the third day (as it says in Hos. 6:2).
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
Hos. 6:2:
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
I tend to find the solution to this problem elsewhere: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2453. There are rabbinical texts asserting that a part of a day counts as a whole, and there are equivalences between "after three days" and "on the third day" even by the same author, including Matthew. I think "after three days" is just idiomatic for "on the third day" in many instances.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

Thanks for the link, Ben. I read all of the thread (and the links on it), but I'm still scratching my head. It looks like it boils down to this comment you made there:
If some rabbis were of the opinion that a part of a day counts as a whole, then perhaps expressions like "on the third day" and "after three days" (= part of the first day, all of the second day, and part of the third day) might have been equated even without a specific apologetic purpose in trying to harmonize two passages. Perhaps Matthew was of this mindset, but Luke either was not or simply did not understand it.
As far as Mark goes though, I think "after" three days fits the context, which to me appears to always be Daniel's "son of man," and that makes me think that Mark, at least, has Dan. 7:25 in mind (time, times, half a time).

Mk. 8:31:
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
Mk. 9:31:
He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise."
Mk. 10:33-34:
Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and hand Him over to the Gentiles, who will mock Him and spit on Him and flog Him and kill Him. And after three days He will rise again.”

That Matthew uses both "on" and "after" the third day and Luke uses "on" is interesting and I'm going to have to give that some more thought. In the big picture, and going with the assumption that Mark is earlier than Luke and the canonical Greek Matthew (and John) and that it was perhaps genuinely written by a follower of Peter, I'm wondering if "on" the third day could be a post-Markan development (like, in my view, the idea of a physical resurrection).

But I see that Paul also says "on" the third day in 1 Cor. 15:4, in the context of what he "received" (which I presume to be from Jewish Christians) and "Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."
... that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ...
It looks curious in the Greek though and I need help with it, but I suppose it does mean "on" the third day.

ἐγήγερται (he was raised) τῇ (the) ἡμέρᾳ (day) τῇ (the) τρίτῃ (third)

So to me it looks like the issue is more about Paul, Matthew and Luke, since I feel pretty good about Daniel's "time, times, half a time" being a factor in Mark.
Last edited by John2 on Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

Regarding your comment above that "If some rabbis were of the opinion that a part of a day counts as a whole," would this not make Daniel's "time, time, half a time" count as four days (i.e, "after three days")?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:34 am Thanks for the link, Ben. I read all of the thread (and the links on it), but I'm still scratching my head. It looks like it boils down to this comment you made there:
If some rabbis were of the opinion that a part of a day counts as a whole, then perhaps expressions like "on the third day" and "after three days" (= part of the first day, all of the second day, and part of the third day) might have been equated even without a specific apologetic purpose in trying to harmonize two passages. Perhaps Matthew was of this mindset, but Luke either was not or simply did not understand it.
As far as Mark goes though, I think "after" three days fits the context....
But not literally in any way, right? I mean, the resurrection in Mark does not take place "after" three days. Counting Friday (the day of Preparation) as the first day, Saturday (the Sabbath) as the second, and Sunday (the first day of the week) as the third, Jesus rises literally on the third day. So why does Mark consistently say "after" three days? That is the question. But it makes sense if "after three days" is simply idiomatic for "on the third day," as several lines of inquiry seem to demonstrate.
...which to me appears to always be Daniel's "son of man," and that makes me think that Mark, at least, has Dan. 7:25 in mind (time, times, half a time).
I have thought about that possible connection, and I think it is gossamer. Times, a time, and half a time make 3½ units, the significance of which would be that 3½ × 2 = the holy number 7. This seems to be a totally different line of thought than the number 3 as used in various passages relevant to the resurrection.

Is there anything along those lines that can come as close to being thematically relevant as Hosea 6.2b? "He will raise us up on the third day." Or as relevant as the rabbinical belief that the spirit lingers around the body for three days after death? (This would explain why it was important in John 11.17, 39 to point out that Lazarus had been dead for four days; his spirit was no longer hanging around the body, hopeful of resuscitation.)
It looks curious in the Greek though and I need help with it, but I suppose it does mean "on" the third day.

ἐγήγερται (he was raised) τῇ (the) ἡμέρᾳ (day) τῇ (the) τρίτῃ (third)
It does mean "on the third day," yes. There is nothing unusual about the Greek here; it is simply a dative of time (or of "time when").
Regarding your comment above that "If some rabbis were of the opinion that a part of a day counts as a whole," would this not make Daniel's "time, time, half a time" count as four days (i.e, "after three days")?
Probably. But, again, I personally think that the 3½ thing cuts in a completely different direction and has nothing to do with the 3 days in the gospels.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote;
This seems to be a totally different line of thought than the number 3 as used in various passages relevant to the resurrection.

Is there anything along those lines that can come as close to being thematically relevant as Hosea 6.2b? "He will raise us up on the third day." Or as relevant as the rabbinical belief that the spirit lingers around the body for three days after death? (This would explain why it was important in John 11.17, 39 to point out that Lazarus had been dead for four days; his spirit was no longer hanging around the body, hopeful of resuscitation.)
As McKnight says above:
I continue to be amazed by scholars who refuse to think Daniel 7 could be the context for a suffering Son of man. Daniel predicts suffering in the following words: "He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time." The Son of man of Daniel 7 is vindicated precisely because the Son of man, a figure for the saints of the Most High, has suffered.
And the context of Daniel, of course, is the End Time and resurrection.

12:1-3:
But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
But I didn't consider the literal timing in Mark (Friday through Sunday), so I will take a look at that.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:05 am Ben wrote;
This seems to be a totally different line of thought than the number 3 as used in various passages relevant to the resurrection.

Is there anything along those lines that can come as close to being thematically relevant as Hosea 6.2b? "He will raise us up on the third day." Or as relevant as the rabbinical belief that the spirit lingers around the body for three days after death? (This would explain why it was important in John 11.17, 39 to point out that Lazarus had been dead for four days; his spirit was no longer hanging around the body, hopeful of resuscitation.)
As McKnight says above:
I continue to be amazed by scholars who refuse to think Daniel 7 could be the context for a suffering Son of man. Daniel predicts suffering in the following words: "He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time." The Son of man of Daniel 7 is vindicated precisely because the Son of man, a figure for the saints of the Most High, has suffered.
I completely accept that Daniel 7 can be at least part of the context for a suffering son of man; just not for three days in the tomb.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply