Page 3 of 9

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:46 pm
by MrMacSon
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:45 pm
According to Hegesippus ... Symeon bar Clopas lived for 120 years, up to the time of Trajan.

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
It is said they all lived to 120 yrs of age b/c they were all revered. The truth is likely to be quite different

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:48 pm
by MrMacSon
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:45 pm ... Josephus' sign ...
Which sign were you thinking of?

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:07 pm
by hakeem
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:30 pm 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.”
An empty tomb or missing body does not confirm that a dead person resurrected.
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:30 pm So Jesus' physical body could have been changed into a spiritual body in Mark and that's why his physical body wasn't there.
Again, all resurrection in the NT are bodily. There are multiple claims that people are bodily raised from the dead.

If a person is physically dead then a supposed spiritual resurrection on the third day would make no sense since such a person would be seen to be still dead and rotting.

It is simply absurd to suggest that if a dead body disappears that means it resurrected when it is the opposite that should happen--if a body is dead then it must APPEAR alive sometime afterwards to prove it has resurrected.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
by John2
MrMacSon wrote;
It is said they all lived to 120 yrs of age b/c they were all revered. The truth is likely to be quite different.
Well, I think they are all exaggerated ages, but in any event it isn't implausible given what Josephus says about Essenes ("many of them live above a hundred years").
Which sign were you thinking of?
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.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:18 pm
by John2
hakeem wrote:
If a person is physically dead then a supposed spiritual resurrection on the third day would make no sense since such a person would be seen to be still dead and rotting.

It is simply absurd to suggest that if a dead body disappears that means it resurrected
Well, the idea of resurrection (physical or spiritual) is absurd to me, but this is how resurrection works according to my understanding of Paul. The physical body "dies" and is changed/transformed into a spiritual body, just like a seed doesn't stay a seed after it is sown; it is transformed into a new body.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:43 pm
by John2
And this is in keeping with 1 Peter 3:18, which I think is genuine, and the earliest account of the gospel of Mark (Papias) says that it was written by a follower of Peter:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:53 pm
by MrMacSon
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm MrMacSon wrote;
It is said they all lived to 120 yrs of age b/c they were all revered. The truth is likely to be quite different.
Well, I think they are all exaggerated ages, but in any event it isn't implausible given what Josephus says about Essenes ("many of them live above a hundred years").
Possible or plausible doesn't mean probable or likely. Life expectance in those days would not have been that good.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:59 pm
by John2
Possible or plausible doesn't mean probable or likely. Life expectance is not in those days would not have been that good.
It was not unheard of, as Josephus notes, and if "many" Essenes lived over a hundred, I don't see why the same could not have happened to one Christian.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:21 pm
by Ben C. Smith
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:59 pm
Possible or plausible doesn't mean probable or likely. Life expectance is not in those days would not have been that good.
It was not unheard of, as Josephus notes, and if "many" Essenes lived over a hundred, I don't see why the same could not have happened to one Christian.
The trouble I have with believing this particular number is that it is exactly how long Moses is said to have lived. I believe Rabbi Akiva, Hillel the Elder, and Yochanan ben Zakkai were all said to have lived 120 years, as well. I think this is an honorary device, not an accurate record of a great man's lifespan.

Re: Was Jesus a false prophet?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:19 pm
by Secret Alias
John2 uses these texts like Eisenman. There is a profound naivete to hop from Josephus to Hegesippus to the gospels to Acts and threading a "history" with all this hopping. These sources range from just "bad" to "hopelessly unreliable." Every time you add a low probability source your theory has less of a chance hitting it's target.