The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights

[Ben Masada]

The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights


On the third day or in three days, simply means after a short period of time. (Hosea 6:2)

Night or day for three days, as we have in the request of Esther to fast for her, means three days or three nights whether one follows the tradition to fast by day or by night. Those terms were used here because it was in the Diaspora where most Persians followed the tradition to fast by night. So, Esther's maids who were not Jewish, would share Esther's pain by showing their solidarity with their night fast. (Esther 4:16)

The case of Jonah dispenses all explanation because it happened during a vision. Therefore metaphorical language. That could be the entire three days and three nights, since everything is possible in a vision or dream. (Jonah 2:1)

Now, for the three days and three nights we are talking about, for Jesus to spend in the tomb, according to Matthew 12:40, the writer must have had a very poor insight about parables or metaphorical language to draw his prophecy in the terms of Jonah's allegory. If he had used the language of Esther or Hosea, he could have saved his prophecy from being a hoax, but now he must account for the whole three days and three nights or parts thereof.

We don't even need another gospel writer to contradict the one of Matthew. This contradicts himself as he declares that the next day, the one following the Day of Preparation, the chief Priests asked Pilate for a guard of soldiers to watch the tomb area for three days. (Mat. 27:62-64) The Jewish Preparation Day is always Friday, and the following day is the Sabbath.

Then, after that Sabbath, as the first day was dawning, the women went to see the sepulcher, there was an earthquake, an "angel" came down from Heaven, removed the stone, and the tomb was empty. Someone had cheated the angel by raising Jesus from there long before the "angel" could at least be an eyewitness to the resurrection.

Based on the Jewish method that a whole day or night can be accounted for any part of the day or night, we can consider the first day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to get Jesus into the tomb before sunset. The first night from sunset to sundawn of Saturday, the second day from sundawn Saturday to sunset that Saturday, and the second night from sunset that Saturday to the sundawn of the first day. It was still dark when the women arrived at the tomb to find it empty. Therefore we are missing a whole day and a whole night to save Matthew 12:40 from becoming a prophetical hoax and a classical contradiction in the NT.

Any volunteers to solve this puzzle?

Ben

 

[wil]

Puzzle?? Puzzle? Who is puzzled? The entire world as we know it knows it was less than 48 hours, without your confusion. Friday night, thru Saturday night, to Sunday morning, that is the portion of the three days, Fri, Sat, Sun. But since it was Friday say 6pm till Sunday say 6am, that would be 36 hours.

The entire world goes Good Friday to Easter Sunday, where is your hoax?

 

[Ben Masada]

Puzzle?? Puzzle? Who is puzzled? The entire world as we know it knows it was less than 48 hours, without your confusion. Friday night, thru Saturday night, to Sunday morning, that is the portion of the three days, Fri, Sat, Sun. But since it was Friday say 6pm till Sunday say 6am, that would be 36 hours.

The entire world goes Good Friday to Easter Sunday, where is your hoax?

Nice joke Will, but it won't help neither you nor any one else. Jesus was buried just before the sunset of that Friday. I'll take as a day those minutes before sunset. That is, one day. Friday night from sunset to the dawn of Saturday, the first night. We have one day and one night. The day of Saturday is the second day. Soon after sunset of that Saturday, as we have from Matthew 28:1, at the end of that Sabbath the women came to see the sepulcher and the tomb was empty. Those few minutes after sunset I'll take as the second night. Therefore, two days and two nights. However, we have in Matthew 12:40 three days and three nights. As you can see, you haven't solved the puzzle. Therefore, the hoax goes on. Any one else? ANY ONE ELSE!
Ben

 

[Dream]

Here is a theory. Let us assume that Matthew was not ignorant and that he also agreed with you that Jonah's story was a metaphor. Then we can reconsider the three day to be the three days that Jonah spent traveling to the heart of Ninevah. (Jonah 3:3). In his vision or else in real life Jonah spent three days traveling to Nineveh's center, protesting I assume, all the way there. Now Jesus, once he had risen appeared to many people for three days. It is no secret of course that he was not at the tomb the very next day after his crucifixion, so where did he go? He went from Jerusalem to Galilee, and he left word with the angel of the tomb to tell the disciples to meet him there. This journey of theirs would have taken at least 3 days.

So we have the figurative Jonah as a model to explain all of this. Now I ask you, what would be more important to you -- three days of a man in his grave or three days of a dead man testifying?

 

[Ben Masada]

Here is a theory. Let us assume that Matthew was not ignorant and that he also agreed with you that Jonah's story was a metaphor. Then we can reconsider the three day to be the three days that Jonah spent traveling to the heart of Ninevah. (Jonah 3:3). In his vision or else in real life Jonah spent three days traveling to Nineveh's center, protesting I assume, all the way there. Now Jesus, once he had risen appeared to many people for three days. It is no secret of course that he was not at the tomb the very next day after his crucifixion, so where did he go? He went from Jerusalem to Galilee, and he left word with the angel of the tomb to tell the disciples to meet him there. This journey of theirs would have taken at least 3 days.

So we have the figurative Jonah as a model to explain all of this. Now I ask you, what would be more important to you -- three days of a man in his grave or three days of a dead man testifying?

Hi Dream, no offense meant, but your words to solve the puzzle of the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 are no more, no less than verbal juggling that explains nothing. Besides, Luke reports in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his passion (or suffering). This is a reference to the cross. To appear after one's passion is no prove that one even died, let alone that he resurrected.

Josephus reports in his book "Wars of the Jews" that it was not uncommon for crucifieds to linger on their crosses for up to three or four days, going out and back again till death eventually happened. Jesus was taken off his cross after only a few hours. It is very probable that he was still alive when Joseph of Arimathea removed him from his cross, laid him for an hour or two in order not to call uncessary attention and returned with his men to raise Jesus from that tomb and take care his wounds with the help of Nicodemus who had brought along about 100 pound of medication. (John 19:39)
Ben

 

[Dream]

Hi Dream, no offense meant, but your words to solve the puzzle of the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 are no more, no less than verbal juggling that explains nothing. Besides, Luke reports in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his passion (or suffering). This is a reference to the cross. To appear after one's passion is no prove that one even died, let alone that he resurrected.

None taken. You made the assumption that the author of Matthew must be ignorant of Biblical metaphors, but I have pointed out he may have been using a metaphorical interpretation of Jonah. In response to me you have now referred to books other than Matthew for support, Acts, John and also Josephus. More than that you have abandoned the assumption that Matthew contradicts himself about three days, or do you still insist on that? I have changed at least two things about your argument.

There is a reference in Matthew to three days, but it could easily be a metaphor. "Matthew 26:61 and said, "This fellow said, `I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." Well, what is the point of him mentioning the temple here? He did not destroy 'Destroy my body' but 'This temple' for a reason. You can claim its his body, but if you are familiar with Christianity you know that the people are themselves a body. For example in I Peter 2:5 the people are called living stones.

Matthew never says Jesus body was in the grave three days. Preachers say it, but Matthew doesn't. Maybe other books say it.

Josephus reports in his book "Wars of the Jews" that it was not uncommon for crucifieds to linger on their crosses for up to three or four days, going out and back again till death eventually happened. Jesus was taken off his cross after only a few hours. It is very probable that he was still alive when Joseph of Arimathea removed him from his cross, laid him for an hour or two in order not to call uncessary attention and returned with his men to raise Jesus from that tomb and take care his wounds with the help of Nicodemus who had brought along about 100 pound of medication. (John 19:39)

Unbelievers have claimed for millenia that Jesus never really died. Fine, but nobody listens to them. Its a common claim and nothing near to proving a NT author self contradicted himself about the resurrection.

Besides, Luke reports in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his passion (or suffering). This is a reference to the cross. To appear after one's passion is no prove that one even died, let alone that he resurrected.

Jesus has now appeared for 40 days to his disciples since the time of his suffering. Either this suffering refers to the crucifixion or to a day or so before it. Yes, according to Acts Jesus stuck around for forty days. It does not really make a point. I suppose it depends upon what forty days means and upon why three days is supposed to be a significant number. They are both considered magical numbers.

 

[Ben Masada]

None taken. You made the assumption that the author of Matthew must be ignorant of Biblical metaphors, but I have pointed out he may have been using a metaphorical interpretation of Jonah.

Great! If you wanna go metaphorical here, it is okay with me. So, Jesus' resurrection was metaphorical of what, of Jonah or vice-versa? But if Jonas was metaphorical of Jesus' resurrection, why is bodily resurrection strange to the Scriptures? Last but not least, why would a member of a foreign religion use Judaism to, metaphorically, enhance his church?

In response to me you have now referred to books other than Matthew for support, Acts, John and also Josephus. More than that you have abandoned the assumption that Matthew contradicts himself about three days, or do you still insist on that? I have changed at least two things about your argument.

I definitely insist on that. If he had simply said "in three days" as he said in Matthew 26:61 for the destruction of the metaphorical body of Jesus, I could conciliate a compromise, but the precision of three days and three nights has over ruled the bounderies of allegories.

There is a reference in Matthew to three days, but it could easily be a metaphor. "Matthew 26:61 and said, "This fellow said, `I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." Well, what is the point of him mentioning the temple here? He did not destroy 'Destroy my body' but 'This temple' for a reason. You can claim its his body, but if you are familiar with Christianity you know that the people are themselves a body. For example in I Peter 2:5 the people are called living stones.

Do you recall who claimed to have heard Jesus say that he was able to destroy the Temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days? Two false witnesses. (Mat. 26:30) Therefore, it could not have been true; unless you believe in false witnesses. So, you might as well forget all about this saying. It could very well be that Jesus never said such a thing.

Matthew never says Jesus body was in the grave three days. Preachers say it, but Matthew doesn't. Maybe other books say it.

Right, Matthew did not say three days in the grave; he said "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Mat. 12:40) which is a metaphor for grave.

Unbelievers have claimed for millenia that Jesus never really died. Fine, but nobody listens to them. Its a common claim and nothing near to proving a NT author self contradicted himself about the resurrection.

Well, Luke was not an unbeliever and he said that Jesus proved that he was alive by "many infallible proofs" as eating and drinking with his disciples as if after resurrection we are supposed to live no differently from how we used to live before in the flesh. (Luke 24:39-43)

Jesus has now appeared for 40 days to his disciples since the time of his suffering. Either this suffering refers to the crucifixion or to a day or so before it. Yes, according to Acts Jesus stuck around for forty days. It does not really make a point. I suppose it depends upon what forty days means and upon why three days is supposed to be a significant number. They are both considered magical numbers.

Aha! Now, you are getting into the mood. Magic! That's all the gospels need to collapse even faster.

Ben

 

[Dream]

Great! If you wanna go metaphorical here, it is okay with me. So, Jesus' resurrection was metaphorical of what, of Jonah or vice-versa? But if Jonas was metaphorical of Jesus' resurrection, why is bodily resurrection strange to the Scriptures? Last but not least, why would a member of a foreign religion use Judaism to, metaphorically, enhance his church?

I agree with you about resurrection being weird, but its outside the scope of the discussion. To me, a layman, I think if Genesis says Abraham died 'Old and full of years', that alone makes physical resurrection questionable. If he is full of years it seems to me to mean his life is complete, perhaps. To me its not what we're discussing.

I definitely insist on that. If he had simply said "in three days" as he said in Matthew 26:61 for the destruction of the metaphorical body of Jesus, I could conciliate a compromise, but the precision of three days and three nights has over ruled the bounderies of allegories.

Your argument rests upon the phrase "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

You helpfully suggested in your first post that three days simply means 'A short time'. That works for me, but what do you mean by precision of three days? Perhaps Matthew read this prophet, Jonah, and imagined Nineveh to be the belly of the great leviathan, and though in his heart Jonah did not want it, Jonah trudged through that city and tried to save it. That city was like being in a fish's belly, and he felt dead in there. (in Ninevah or in some other city) He battled himself and tried to resist his prophetic calling but the calling won. Matthew may be placing Jesus into a similar role. In Matthew 26:38 Jesus says "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death;..."

Do you recall who claimed to have heard Jesus say that he was able to destroy the Temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days? Two false witnesses. (Mat. 26:30) Therefore, it could not have been true; unless you believe in false witnesses. So, you might as well forget all about this saying. It could very well be that Jesus never said such a thing.

Sharp eye, Ben. Thanks I might have poked myself.

Right, Matthew did not say three days in the grave; he said "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Mat. 12:40) which is a metaphor for grave.

The early Christians were fond of the Psalms, and in them this word 'Earth' did not always refer to the ground itself but could refer to Israel. Comparing Israel to Nineveh may not be fair, either, but I suspect that is what Matthew is doing. When Jesus says "As Jonah was three days....heart of the earth" he may have been talking about a short period of suffering for himself in Jerusalem.

Well, Luke was not an unbeliever and he said that Jesus proved that he was alive by "many infallible proofs" as eating and drinking with his disciples as if after resurrection we are supposed to live no differently from how we used to live before in the flesh. (Luke 24:39-43)

I'm not arguing that resurrection is reasonable.

Aha! Now, you are getting into the mood. Magic! That's all the gospels need to collapse even faster.

I should say they are often thought of that way. The forty days seems like it has to do with waiting periods just like the three days does. Jonah suffers and waits for three days, Esther fasts for three days. Moses is on the Mt 40 days, Jesus is tested in the wilds for 40 days and so forth. They are not well understood numbers, but it is sensed that they have some further use than just enumeration.

 

[Ben Masada]

I agree with you about resurrection being weird, but its outside the scope of the discussion.

Resurrection is all that this discussion is about.

You helpfully suggested in your first post that three days simply means 'A short time'. That works for me, but what do you mean by precision of three days?

The precision is in the accuracy of "three days and three nights."

When Jesus says "As Jonah was three days....heart of the earth" he may have been talking about a short period of suffering for himself in Jerusalem.

If you want to take "the heart of the earth" as to mean Jerusalem, I could
compromise to agree, but Jesus' suffering in Jerusalem started when he was arrested in the dawn of that Friday, when about 3pm he died. It does not solve the puzzle of the three days and three nights.

They are not well understood numbers, but it is sensed that they have some further use than just enumeration.

There is no precision or accuracy in the numbers of the other cases mentioned by you and me, as there is in the case of Matthew 12:40.

Ben

 

[Dream]

Resurrection is all that this discussion is about.

I can see that is what you want to focus on, but the three days is more debatable and is what you started with. You put forward a puzzle, but a puzzle must have a solution.

The precision is in the accuracy of "three days and three nights."
|
(and further down)
|
There is no precision or accuracy in the numbers of the other cases mentioned by you and me, as there is in the case of Matthew 12:40.

You mean because it mentions days and nights together? Anyway, it wasn't Jesus who said he would rise from the grave in three days but an accuser who said he was talking about that when he mentioned the 'Sign of Jonah'. Jesus is portrayed in Matthew as having many enemies looking for ways to accuse him. They may have misconstrued his reference to Jonah. (That is, arguing inside a framework where everything in Jesus story is a literal retelling. I think Jesus' enemies are caricatured comical figures that don't seem to have real personalities. They seem like tragic clowns in Shakespeare.)

If you want to take "the heart of the earth" as to mean Jerusalem, I could
compromise to agree, but Jesus' suffering in Jerusalem started when he was arrested in the dawn of that Friday, when about 3pm he died. It does not solve the puzzle of the three days and three nights.

Sometimes there is more than one solution. I believe I have presented one possible solution, so I should get a treat.

 

[wil]

Nice joke Will, but it won't help neither you nor any one else. Jesus was buried just before the sunset of that Friday. I'll take as a day those minutes before sunset. That is, one day. Friday night from sunset to the dawn of Saturday, the first night. We have one day and one night. The day of Saturday is the second day. Soon after sunset of that Saturday, as we have from Matthew 28:1, at the end of that Sabbath the women came to see the sepulcher and the tomb was empty. Those few minutes after sunset I'll take as the second night. Therefore, two days and two nights. However, we have in Matthew 12:40 three days and three nights. As you can see, you haven't solved the puzzle. Therefore, the hoax goes on. Any one else? ANY ONE ELSE!
Ben

No joke...Friday night to Sunday morning...

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

I don't know what you go on about.

Mathew 12:40 doesn't speak of an occurance, but of a prediction.

And so we've got three days and two nights... Just like the way they sell a cruise today....

And what is this foriegn religion crap, Jesus was a Jew, as were all his followers...and the Christian bible includes the Jewish Canon...

me thinks the only hoax is what you are trying to perpetrate.

as for me...I don't care if he was resurected or healed, I think it all questionable, and has NOTHING to do with my belief, or the words he was to have spoken in LIFE. I find value in his words and deeds, be they real or imaginary has no bearing on their value to mankind, or at least me.

 

[Ben Masada]

I can see that is what you want to focus on, but the three days is more debatable and is what you started with. You put forward a puzzle, but a puzzle must have a solution.

And I am waiting for you with the solution that you haven't found as yet.
And there is another solution: To admit the contradiction. Are you ready for that?

You mean because it mentions days and nights together? Anyway, it wasn't Jesus who said he would rise from the grave in three days but an accuser who said he was talking about that when he mentioned the 'Sign of Jonah'.

Listen Thomas, did you read Matthew 12:40? I am starting to doubt. If you did, do you see Matthew as an accuser? He was the one who reported Jesus saying that "Just as Jonah spent three days and three night in the belly of the great fish, the son of man (himself) would spend three days and three nights in the heart (grave) of the earth. Be careful or you might be digging for an extra contradiction.

Jesus is portrayed in Matthew as having many enemies looking for ways to accuse him. They may have misconstrued his reference to Jonah. (That is, arguing inside a framework where everything in Jesus story is a literal retelling.

Literal!!! Neither literal was Jonah inside the big fish nor Jesus in the grave. Be careful, I told you. Contradictions are sensitive cases.

I think Jesus' enemies are caricatured comical figures that don't seem to have real personalities. They seem like tragic clowns in Shakespeare.)

You mean, they are there and they are not there? That's a possibility, considering that the guys who wrote the gospels, did them about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

Sometimes there is more than one solution. I believe I have presented one possible solution, so I should get a treat.

Sorry, but can you refresh me with the solution you have provided? I can't find it.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

No joke...Friday night to Sunday morning...

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

I don't know what you go on about.

Mathew 12:40 doesn't speak of an occurance, but of a prediction.

And so we've got three days and two nights... Just like the way they sell a cruise today....

And what is this foriegn religion crap, Jesus was a Jew, as were all his followers...and the Christian bible includes the Jewish Canon...

me thinks the only hoax is what you are trying to perpetrate.

as for me...I don't care if he was resurected or healed, I think it all questionable, and has NOTHING to do with my belief, or the words he was to have spoken in LIFE. I find value in his words and deeds, be they real or imaginary has no bearing on their value to mankind, or at least me.

It means that the basis of what you have posted above is purely faith. You don't care if it was true or not; if it happened or not. You believe and that's final. That was exactly the attitude of the faithfuls of Jim Jones.
There is no place in faith for research or the possibility to find out the truth. Well my friend, where faith begins, knowledge ends; and for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6) The bottom line is that you have found a solution for you but not for the hoax of the three days and three nights. Good luck then.
Ben

 

[iBrian]

It means that the basis of what you have posted above is purely faith. You don't care if it was true or not; if it happened or not. You believe and that's final.

Ben, that's called faith, and that's why it's called faith.

I do not think any faith would stand up to reasonble scrutiny of reason and science that we have now.

Heck, even our science is still young and immature, though.

 

[radarmark]

Brian--pretty much holds for science as well (that is faith, pure subjectivity drives a lot of what passes for science).

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, that's called faith, and that's why it's called faith.

I do not think any faith would stand up to reasonble scrutiny of reason and science that we have now.

Heck, even our science is still young and immature, though.

There are two modalities of belief. One is to believe by faith, when one is sure of what he claims without any evidence to substantiate his or her claim. That's irrational. Hence the tragedy to the faithfuls of Jim Jones. The other is the belief on the basis of probability, which only brings credit to the believer, for being rational.
Ben

 

[iBrian]

The other is the belief on the basis of probability, which only brings credit to the believer, for being rational.

I can't imagine there being any such faith, because there are always serious holes and contradictions that a follower must overcome through a leap of faith. Partly because there will always be gaps in knowledge, and additionally because most faiths claim to be a divine construct, in the absence of human guidance - when it would be easy to deconstruct most any faith as a human construct in the absence of divine guidance.

 

[Dream]

Listen Thomas, did you read Matthew 12:40? I am starting to doubt. If you did, do you see Matthew as an accuser? He was the one who reported Jesus saying that "Just as Jonah spent three days and three night in the belly of the great fish, the son of man (himself) would spend three days and three nights in the heart (grave) of the earth. Be careful or you might be digging for an extra contradiction.

I'm not calling Matthew an accuser but refer to the accusers mentioned in Matthew 27:40. Jesus accusers are constantly misunderstanding him and misconstruing things he says. It is their part. They interpret Jesus words to mean three days in the grave, but whatever they claim that he says is not necessarily what he says or means. For some reason Matthew didn't specifically say that Jesus would be dead for a certain about of time. If Matthew chooses not to say grave, then there is a reason for it. Perhaps it doesn't mean grave. If we are looking at the other gospels that may not be the case.

Literal!!! Neither literal was Jonah inside the big fish nor Jesus in the grave. Be careful, I told you. Contradictions are sensitive cases.

To me a sensitive case is something requiring confidentiality, and a contradiction is when two statements are logically incompatible. I am not sure what you mean by 'Sensitive cases' and what by 'contradictions'.

You mean, they are there and they are not there? That's a possibility, considering that the guys who wrote the gospels, did them about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

They are like foils in a play. They always misunderstand everything, always make the wrong decision and always are in the wrong. (Actually, so are Jesus disciples. Jesus frequently befuddles his disciples by speaking in terms that they will misunderstand.)

Sorry, but can you refresh me with the solution you have provided? I can't find it.

Based upon Matthew alone, there is nothing that concretely says Jesus or Matthew claimed Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights, so there is no contradiction when he emerges from the tomb the next day after he dies. Further, I have pointed out how 'Heart of the earth' may not refer to the grave but possibly to the capital of Israel, and for this I've alluded to 'The Psalms' and the way Matthew may have understood them.

 

[Ben Masada]

I can't imagine there being any such faith, because there are always serious holes and contradictions that a follower must overcome through a leap of faith. Partly because there will always be gaps in knowledge, and additionally because most faiths claim to be a divine construct, in the absence of human guidance - when it would be easy to deconstruct most any faith as a human construct in the absence of divine guidance.

I can't agree with you more. But it is impossible to argue against faith. This modality of belief is so blind and fundamentalistic that it can take one to death, as it happened to almost a thousand of the faithfuls of Jim Jones. The belief modality based on the concept of probability is not of the realm of faith. I would say more akin to Agnosticism.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

If Matthew chooses not to say grave, then there is a reason for it. Perhaps it doesn't mean grave. If we are looking at the other gospels that may not be the case.

The other gospels do not mention 3 days and 3 nights. The guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew might have had some good reason to specify 3 days and 3 nights. Perhaps his reason was only to plagiarize Jonah as an extra prophecy to enhance Jesus' case.

They are like foils in a play. They always misunderstand everything, always make the wrong decision and always are in the wrong. (Actually, so are Jesus disciples. Jesus frequently befuddles his disciples by speaking in terms that they will misunderstand.)

Like in the use of parables. As we have today many who misunderstand the text by sticking to the letter.

Based upon Matthew alone, there is nothing that concretely says Jesus or Matthew claimed Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights, so there is no contradiction when he emerges from the tomb the next day after he dies.

Matthew did it. I mean, the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew. He said 3 days and 3 nights. And that's not what happened. Therefore, a contradiction between the so-called prophecy and the fulfillment of it.

Ben