Was Jesus a false prophet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by iskander »

richardthe7th wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:31 am I am brand new to this forum; not new to the topics in the forum moniker. And forgive me in advance, truly, for 'branching' this thread and feel free to ignore and move on with the OP.
But this topic, which I saw in passing while looking for a different one, reminds me of my most recent pass through Isaiah, and how this time it struck me again and again the number of prophesies of Isaiah not yet fulfilled. But we [Christians] regard Isaiah as a faithful prophet of Y-H [is it ok to spell it out here or not?]. "Yet" is a big exit door here...:)
In Judaism the prophets wrote all the books in scripture.
John Barton , writes,
In Jewish tradition it has long been customary to think of a 'prophet' primarily as an accredited teacher of moral law, one who hands on to succeeding generations inspired commentary on the Torah.
Oracles of God
John Barton
Darton, Longman and Todd
page 14
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

richardthe7th wrote:
But this topic, which I saw in passing while looking for a different one, reminds me of my most recent pass through Isaiah, and how this time it struck me again and again the number of prophesies of Isaiah not yet fulfilled. But we [Christians] regard Isaiah as a faithful prophet of Y-H [is it ok to spell it out here or not?].
I suppose it's fair to ask if Isaiah was a false prophet too (according to the Torah), and I think it would depend on which passages you have in mind and which "Isaiah" said or wrote them (in light of the argument that there is more than one "Isaiah" behind the book of Isaiah), and I would hold them all to the same standard and find it just as curious that their prophetic status was nevertheless as secure as Jesus' if I thought they didn't meet that standard.

In the big picture for me though, and as I said on another thread which spurred me to start this one, I think all prophets are "false" prophets anyway in the sense that I don't believe in the existence of the OT God (whatever anyone likes to call him). For me it's just a question of exploring the implications of my interpretation of the Torah, specifically Dt. 18:17-21, which I think spells out how to recognize a true prophet from a false prophet.
The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
To me this not only applies to all prophets after Moses, it implies that a prophecy must come true in a prophet's lifetime (since they are supposed to be put to death if they don't come true and "I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks") in order to know for sure that they are a true prophet. I'm baffled by the canonization of any prophet (OT or NT) who has predicted anything that hasn't come true yet (especially after two or three thousand years).

And I'm keeping an open mind on the sign of soldiers and chariots in the clouds that Josephus mentions in War 6.5.3 being Daniel's son of man "coming on the clouds of heaven" (and thus possibly Jesus).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by hakeem »

John2 wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:55 pm ....And I think this is why Jesus was a false prophet (at least from the perspective of the Torah), because he made this prediction that "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (echoed in Mk. 9:1: "And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power"; and in 13:26-27: "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens"), and I don't think this ever happened (to judge from Christians themselves!).....
If Jesus was a known false then it cannot be explained how he was worshiped as the Son of God, the Logos, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

There could not be people in the time of Pilate hoping to see the son of man coming in the clouds when they saw that he did not resurrect if he did live, was killed and dead for three days!!

In gMark ch 8, ch9 and ch10 it is claimed that Jesus predicted he would resurrect after he was dead for three days but such an event could have never ever happened.

gMark is not history. It is not that Jesus was a false prophet but that all the stories of Jesus are fasle [fabricated].

No-one saw Jesus at anytime alive, dead, resurrected or ascended.

No-one will ever see the son of man coming from anywhere.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by iskander »

The idea of the prophet as a divinely-inspired teacher of moral law, could only make a prophet true or false if he teaches within the tradition. Theology rules on the truth or the falsehood of the teacher.
Jesus was an innovator
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

As far as Jesus goes, for me his status as a prophet comes down to Mk. 8:38-9:1:
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels. And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”


This is in keeping with 14:61-64, where I think Jesus is sentenced to death for "blasphemy" because he thinks he's Daniel's divine "son of man":
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.


But even in the Long Ending of Mark the "son of man" doesn't appear to have come on the clouds of heaven yet, since after Jesus was resurrected it ends with:
"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
But when did anyone see the "son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven? According to Hegesippus (for example), Jesus' brother James was still waiting up to the time of his death (c. 62 CE) and the grandsons of Jesus' brother Judas were still waiting up to the time of Trajan (98 CE to 117 CE). And whoever wrote Revelation was still waiting at the time it is commonly thought to have been written (c. 95 CE). So I think the best bet in defense of the charge of Jesus being a false prophet is what Josephus says in War 6.5.3:
... a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.


Otherwise it looks like Christians have been waiting for Jesus for an inordinately long time. And if this sign wasn't Jesus and his angels, then I don't understand how/why Christianity continued to exist after c. 150 CE. Maybe the focus became more on the idea of Jesus' death atoning for sins or that his coming has been delayed for this or that reason? I think Jesus is cool for his asceticism and proto-Karaism and I might have followed him had I lived at that time, but I reckon by 150 CE I would have concluded that Christians either missed Josephus' sign or Jesus was a false prophet.
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 »

hakeem wrote:
If Jesus was a known false then it cannot be explained how he was worshiped as the Son of God, the Logos, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

There could not be people in the time of Pilate hoping to see the son of man coming in the clouds when they saw that he did not resurrect if he did live, was killed and dead for three days!!
Regarding the first assertion, my thinking is that Jesus could not have been known as a false prophet until c. 150 CE, after everyone from his time had died and apparently did not see the "son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven (assuming that Josephus' sign was not Jesus, and I don't know any Christians who think that it was).

Regarding the second assertion, I suppose it's debatable whether the resurrection was "spiritual" or physical in early Christianity. Paul at least thinks it is "spiritual" in 1 Cor. 15:35-44:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.


As far as seeing the resurrected Jesus goes, it appears to have been confined to his followers in Mk. 16:6-7:
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”

This is presumably in reference to Mk. 14:27-28:
Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
And Paul says that not "everyone" saw the resurrected Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:3-8:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
But I think the idea of the "son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven is another matter and I reckon it would have been seen by "everyone," like Josephus' sign, regarding which he says, "I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by MrMacSon »

hakeem wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:29 pm
If Jesus was a known false [prophet] then it cannot be explained how he was worshiped as the Son of God, the Logos, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.
Well it depends on when he was considered a false prophet.

John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 pm
... my thinking is that Jesus could not have been known as a false prophet until c. 150 CE, after everyone from his time had died ...
People of his time would have died before 104 CE

What is the relevance of "apparently.. not see[ing] the 'son of man' coming on the clouds of heaven" ??

Also, "assuming that Josephus' sign was not Jesus" is beside the point, as is whether you "know any Christians who think that it was".
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

MrMacSon wrote:
People of his time would have died before 104 CE

What is the relevance of "apparently.. not see[ing] the 'son of man' coming on the clouds of heaven" ??

Also, "assuming that Josephus' sign was not Jesus" is beside the point, as is whether you "know any Christians who think that it was".
According to Hegesippus (and make of him what you will; I think he is the best Christian historian), Symeon bar Clopas lived for 120 years, up to the time of Trajan.

EH 3.11.1-2:
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.


EH 3.32.1-3:
It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”
As I wrote on another thread, there is nothing unusual about this, since this is the age that Moses is said to have died and it is said of other important (and more or less contemporary) figures in Judaism as well, i.e., Hillel, Rabban ben Zakkai (the founder of post-70 CE Rabbinic Judaism) and Rabbi Akiva, as Yadin-Israel notes (citing Sifre to Deuteronomy):
And Moses was 120 years old" (Deut. 34:7). He was one of four who died at the age of 120, and these were Moses, Hillel the Elder, Rabban Yohannan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Akiva.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvjSB ... va&f=false
And Josephus notes that many Essenes lived to be over a hundred (not to say that Jewish Christians were Essenes; in fact, Hegesippus explicitly says they were not) in War 2.8.10:
They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also.
Regarding MrMacSon's other comments, I mean only that I'm unaware of any Christians who think that Josephus' sign was Jesus and his angels, but perhaps it was in any event.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by hakeem »

John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 pm

Regarding the second assertion, I suppose it's debatable whether the resurrection was "spiritual" or physical in early Christianity. Paul at least thinks it is "spiritual" in 1 Cor. 15:35-44:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
The Pauline writers implied Jesus bodily resurrected which is precisely the teachings of the Christian Church. All resurrection in the NT are bodily resurrection. Jesus, Lazarus and others were bodily raised from the dead in Christian writings.

The Pauline writings were used to argue that Jesus bodily resurrected which was in opposition to the teachings of Marcion. All Christian writers that used the Pauline letters taught that Jesus physically resurrected.

John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 pm As far as seeing the resurrected Jesus goes, it appears to have been confined to his followers in Mk. 16:6-7:
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
Mark 16.6-7 does not confirm that Jesus resurrected. The supposed women followers of Jesus did not see his body at the tomb.

John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 pm And Paul says that not "everyone" saw the resurrected Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:3-8:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Of course, the claim by the Pauline writer must be false. No-one can resurrect if they were dead for three days. If Jesus did live and prophesied that he would be killed and would resurrect after three days then he would be known as a false prophet within three days [72 hours] of his death.

The very claim that Jesus resurrected is evidence that the stories of Jesus in the NT are not history--the NT writings are all non-contemporary and fabricated no earlier than 70 years after the time of Pilate.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Post by John2 »

hakeem wrote:
Mark 16.6-7 does not confirm that Jesus resurrected. The supposed women followers of Jesus did not see his body at the tomb.
I think Jesus' resurrection is confirmed by Mk. 16:6-7, since it says, "He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him," and the fact that they didn't tell his disciples that "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you" doesn't matter since it says that Jesus had already told them this (in 14:27-28):
“You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
And I don't get the impression that Mk. 16:6-7 necessarily implies a physical resurrection because his body was gone. It could have been a "spiritual" resurrection. As Paul puts it in 1 Cor. 15:35-52 and Php. 3:20-21, the resurrected body is "transformed" into a spiritual body:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be ...So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body ... For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body..
"Changed"/allassó:
Short Definition: I change, alter

Definition: I change, alter, exchange, transform.

http://biblehub.com/greek/236.htm
"Tranform"/metaschématizó:
to change in fashion or appearance

Short Definition: I change the outward appearance, transfigure, adapt

Definition: I change the outward appearance (the dress, the form of presentment) of something, transfigure; I adapt.

3345 metasxēmatízō (from 3326 /metá, "with, bringing about change, after-effect" and 4976 /sxḗma, "outward shape") – properly, to change outward appearance after a change.

http://biblehub.com/greek/3345.htm
So Jesus' physical body could have been changed into a spiritual body in Mark and that's why his physical body wasn't there.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply