The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights

[Princely]

Most of the time Jesus referred to the son of man as "HE" and not as "I". So ,keeping that in mind when He said the son of man would be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth, was He actually talking about himself or someone else/something else and not really the earth but within the people? Could it have been the period of time when His message finally is understood by someone who actually followed His lead? Like Jesus said when He spoke of the son of man coming back He said" For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day".

"Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands."

If you look at that last verse ,He says human hands as if the son of man was not in human hands before.I know what he meant but that is because I do what He did. To know Him you must serve Him.

"And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;

Why in that verse did He switch from saying "I "to then say the son of man. Again, could it be they are not the same? Something for you to figure out.

"The Lords power will be known to His servants."

"My chosen ones will inherit the land my servants will dwell there".

"The righteous will dwell in the land the honest will remain in it".

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

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

You have mentioned Jim Jones several times now. The thought that strikes me is that shying away in fear from the most extreme point of a spectrum, that could be described as religion, will leave you with one of the other extremes. I'm just sharing my thoughts now; faith alone didn't lead to the catastrophe that was Jonestown, and I don't think there could ever be a faith or ideology that will protect us from the horrible of humanity. Do you? Do most?

 

[Dream]

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.

Plagiarized or merely alluded? You have a hard time accepting that Matthew might have alluded to some commentary about Jonah. Its not impossible. There were libraries, and Luke may have had access to written treatises about its meanings, just as there are books about it today by publishers such as Oxford Press. Look how many people geek out over the Bible's mystical numbers and ponder meanings of them but don't actually study Gem-atria. There are books about books.

Besides, there are additional ways to account for his saying 'Three days and three nights.' It could be an allusion to the first three 'Days and nights' in Genesis, and Matthew may have been referring to the beginning of Jesus own ministry as such. Perhaps Jesus is part of a cosmology in which he is likened to the appearance of the sun.

Matthew 4:16 "the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light"
Matthew 17:2 "and his face shone like the sun, and his garments..."
Matthew 24:29 "after...those days the sun will be darkened"

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

I am sorry to hear that is the situation. What happens over there affects people over here.

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.

Hmm. Well, arguments evolve as they progress. Anything I've said to you, you will hear it again from someone else. There does not appear to be any simple way to say conclusively Matthew contradicted himself. Even if he were to do so, the book is very old, I can claim the book was altered, or I can claim you don't understand it. I can also completely reinterpret 'Three days and three nights' in multiple ways. With very little effort I was able to show that it might not refer to time spent in the grave at all. Your problem starts with the way Matthew adds '3 nights'. It is clearly redundant, so it begs to be counted as an allusion to Genesis. I don't think people would talk that way normally, particularly considering a Jewish day in which night is included as part of a day.

 

[wil]

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

Faith? Faith that Fri/Sat/Sun is three days? I guess so.

Where does it say three days and three nights other than prophecy? (ie after the resurection)

But where is your faith...do you have faith Moses existed? No archeological evidence to prove so....Abraham? Adam and Eve?

hint: you are barking up the wrong tree with me... I don't need any of them to have existed for my belief.

 

[Ben Masada]

Most of the time Jesus referred to the son of man as "HE" and not as "I". So ,keeping that in mind when He said the son of man would be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth, was He actually talking about himself or someone else/something else and not really the earth but within the people? Could it have been the period of time when His message finally is understood by someone who actually followed His lead? Like Jesus said when He spoke of the son of man coming back He said" For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day".

"Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands."

If you look at that last verse ,He says human hands as if the son of man was not in human hands before.I know what he meant but that is because I do what He did. To know Him you must serve Him.

"And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;

Why in that verse did He switch from saying "I "to then say the son of man. Again, could it be they are not the same? Something for you to figure out.

"The Lords power will be known to His servants."

"My chosen ones will inherit the land my servants will dwell there".

"The righteous will dwell in the land the honest will remain in it".

Son of man in Hebrew means "ben-adam." Ben-adam means human being, simply a person. Here in Israel it is very common to addrees one another as ben-adam. And it applies to man or woman. No sexual distinction. And there is nothing super natural or mystic about the cognate son of man.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

You have mentioned Jim Jones several times now. The thought that strikes me is that shying away in fear from the most extreme point of a spectrum, that could be described as religion, will leave you with one of the other extremes. I'm just sharing my thoughts now; faith alone didn't lead to the catastrophe that was Jonestown, and I don't think there could ever be a faith or ideology that will protect us from the horrible of humanity. Do you? Do most?

But of course, faith alone leads to nothing if it is not accompained by action. Faith does not protect any one from the dangers of everyday life. We, for instance, here in Israel, would have been long pushed into the sea if we had not acted against the waves of human hatred.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Plagiarized or merely alluded? You have a hard time accepting that Matthew might have alluded to some commentary about Jonah. Its not impossible. There were libraries, and Luke may have had access to written treatises about its meanings, just as there are books about it today by publishers such as Oxford Press. Look how many people geek out over the Bible's mystical numbers and ponder meanings of them but don't actually study Gem-atria. There are books about books.

Besides, there are additional ways to account for his saying 'Three days and three nights.' It could be an allusion to the first three 'Days and nights' in Genesis, and Matthew may have been referring to the beginning of Jesus own ministry as such. Perhaps Jesus is part of a cosmology in which he is likened to the appearance of the sun.

Matthew 4:16 "the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light"
Matthew 17:2 "and his face shone like the sun, and his garments..."
Matthew 24:29 "after...those days the sun will be darkened"
I am sorry to hear that is the situation. What happens over there affects people over here.
Hmm. Well, arguments evolve as they progress. Anything I've said to you, you will hear it again from someone else. There does not appear to be any simple way to say conclusively Matthew contradicted himself. Even if he were to do so, the book is very old, I can claim the book was altered, or I can claim you don't understand it. I can also completely reinterpret 'Three days and three nights' in multiple ways. With very little effort I was able to show that it might not refer to time spent in the grave at all. Your problem starts with the way Matthew adds '3 nights'. It is clearly redundant, so it begs to be counted as an allusion to Genesis. I don't think people would talk that way normally, particularly considering a Jewish day in which night is included as part of a day.

The guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew, could not have alluded to Genesis, because there is no hint that the book of Genesis is talking about resurrection. Besides, Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. IMHO, the author simply committed a blunder by alluding to a dream with the intent to collect as many prophcies to document Jesus' resurrection as possible. If not the author himself, the Church in the 4th Century, when pious forgeries was the order of the day.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Faith? Faith that Fri/Sat/Sun is three days? I guess so.

Where does it say three days and three nights other than prophecy? (ie after the resurection)

But where is your faith...do you have faith Moses existed? No archeological evidence to prove so....Abraham? Adam and Eve?

hint: you are barking up the wrong tree with me... I don't need any of them to have existed for my belief.

That's what belief on the basis of probability means. We can prove nothing but if it is there, possibly it happened. Now, to believe by faith is to believe without knowing why one believes. You guess so above that Fri/Sat/Sun are indeed three days. Good! It could be, but, how about the three nights? That's the blunder the guy who wrote Matthew got trapped with and nobody can solve the puzzle.
Ben

 

[Dream]

The guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew, could not have alluded to Genesis, because there is no hint that the book of Genesis is talking about resurrection. Besides, Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. IMHO, the author simply committed a blunder by alluding to a dream with the intent to collect as many prophcies to document Jesus' resurrection as possible. If not the author himself, the Church in the 4th Century, when pious forgeries was the order of the day.
Ben

You must admit most Jews do believe in the future. In Genesis , Joseph the son of Rachel orders that someday his bones should be dug up, removed from Egypt and reburied in another place. (Gen 50:25) There does not have to be a hint of resurrection for Matthew to make use of allusions to optimistic passages like these. Suppose the hero in Fiddler on the Roof makes a toast and says "Here's to life." I suppose he's talking about courage and grit etc, but someone can misconstrue what he is saying to be about resurrection -- with an allusion. After all, 'Here's to life' is not grammatically correct. What is the subject and what is the object? I suppose one could go up to the cast afterwards and ask for clarification.

the author simply committed a blunder by alluding to a dream with the intent to collect as many prophcies to document Jesus' resurrection as possible

Perhaps, but his usage of the words 'three days and three nights' does not do the trick. He lives in a time where death is all around him. He has a collection of very optimistic passages which he says are about resurrection.

 

[wil]

That's what belief on the basis of probability means. We can prove nothing but if it is there, possibly it happened. Now, to believe by faith is to believe without knowing why one believes. You guess so above that Fri/Sat/Sun are indeed three days. Good! It could be, but, how about the three nights? That's the blunder the guy who wrote Matthew got trapped with and nobody can solve the puzzle.
Ben

three nights was the prophecy, not what happenned.

Of course there aren't three nights, everyone knows there aren't three nights, no one is arguing that there were three nights....

you are making mountains out of mole hills, arguing about minutia.

there are soooo many holes in the Old and New testament, mistakes, errors, additions and ommissions, why would you be so tormented by something so trivial?

 

[salishan]

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 Masada
exquisite creature

Evan Fales comes up with an ingenious solution in
The Empty Tomb (2005 "Taming the Tehom" pages 307-348)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

back in the mid-90s when i am a smart-ass teen
i (too) bounce onto this contradiction , wondering how
no more than 40 hours could be described as "3 days & 3 nights"
proud of my discovery , i ask Ma

it's just a story , honey
she says (& says no more) , deflating my pride

by "story" , she means it's an "allegory"
(my folks were not big on taking the Bible literally)

since then i've taken "3 days & 3 nights" to be
just a young author's stylistic flourish , miming Hebrew-Bible rhetorical touches
phraseology like done in Genesis , (Noah's) "40 days & 40 nights"

"Matthew" probably grows-up hearing all sorts of stories
in & around the Diaspora synagogue , where he studies Torah as a "boy"
till after the disastrous Jewish Rebellion , & the Jesus-sect thinks it prudent to
distance itself from the 30-some other Judaic sects who share the local synagogue
& (it is then) that conscientious Matthew (despite his shaky Greek) decides

to collect all these oral folk-legends together &
link them to passages from the old Hebrew Bible
passages which Matthew (also a smart-ass) knows backwards & forwards
with the hope of converting his fellow Jews before it is "too late" , re
the coming apocalypse , when the righteous will bodily be raised up from the grave

Matthew's text reads (to me) more like
a composite polemic , where Hebrew-scripture allusions trump logic
(it's just a story , honey
but what a compelling story it is , Ma)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Matthew's narrative may be 100% hard-fact or 100% made-up

but , whereas i see Matthew's gospel as lowbrow folk-narrative
Evan Fales (instead) interprets Matthew's text as a highbrow "myth"
(one where the stakes are big for the protagonist's community)

a "myth" is a literary genre featuring a god &/or a hero as protagonist
here it is both , in the person of Jesus &
in this genre , there is typically

- a lot of foreshadowing of future events going-on
- multiple archetypal figures on display
- clear stages of development (tests) the hero must go thru​

a journey into Hades is almost mandatory

Odysseus goes there for travel-info (& to exchange news with old war-buddies)
Gilgamesh goes there to find-answer to the problem of Death
Orpheus goes there out of deep love & unbearable longing

Jesus ?
to redeem Adam's sin (the "fall of Man")
to become society's sacrificial "scapegoat" for their collective venality , &
to point the way to righteousness

in Evan Fales' sophisticated text-savvy reckoning
Jesus (actually) starts his journey down into Hell
32 hours before he physically dies upon the cross

- the Judas-betrayal sends Jesus several steps into Hell
- the condemnation by the Sanhedrin takes him deeper within Hades
- Pilates' Roman legal-judgment sends Jesus deeper still , &
- Golgotha is Hell Central​

(Jesus descends thru deeper & deeper rungs of Hell
deeper & deeper abysses of evil

- evil within the immediate community
- evil from the cultural centerpiece of the Jewish nation
- evil at the core of the civilized-world
- evil throughout the entire of material-existence)​

in earlier centuries , in the Eastern Mediterranean world
human sacrifice is performed at "high places"
a tribal-chieftain or king would sacrifice his eldest son
(as "scapegoat" to their god , the prince taking-onto-himself all the people's sins)
to save the rest of the "people" from some murderous army
from something horrendous , from some impending dire fate

this is Jesus on Golgotha
the Father sacrificing the Son , to save

- the community
- the nation
- the civilized-world
- entire existence​

(the price ?)
3 days & 3 nights of Hell ! !

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

okay , Evan Fales' tidy literary analysis is
(admittedly) a bit of a stretch

descending into Hades before u die ?
(psychologically it "feels right" , but visually ?
it doesn't play on the Big Screen)

& where is Evan Fales' textual evidence
of this "death before death" ?

well , turns out he has one very good piece of evidence !

(at this time in history & in this part of the world
u anoint a dead-body shortly after a person dies , but
when did the women in Jesus' circle anoint his dead-body ? )

now while Jesus was at Bethany in the House of Simon the Leper
a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment
& she poured it on his head as he sat at the table
...
Jesus said
...
by pouring this ointment on my body
she has prepared me for burial
...

now if this is at breakfast , Thursday ... ?

("Jesus as Jonah" ? , maybe not a literary lapse
nor a hoax , on Matthew's part)​

3 days & 3 nights

 

[Ben Masada]

You must admit most Jews do believe in the future. In Genesis , Joseph the son of Rachel orders that someday his bones should be dug up, removed from Egypt and reburied in another place. (Gen 50:25) There does not have to be a hint of resurrection for Matthew to make use of allusions to optimistic passages like these. Suppose the hero in Fiddler on the Roof makes a toast and says "Here's to life." I suppose he's talking about courage and grit etc, but someone can misconstrue what he is saying to be about resurrection -- with an allusion. After all, 'Here's to life' is not grammatically correct. What is the subject and what is the object? I suppose one could go up to the cast afterwards and ask for clarification.

Perhaps, but his usage of the words 'three days and three nights' does not do the trick. He lives in a time where death is all around him. He has a collection of very optimistic passages which he says are about resurrection.

Yes, I do admit that we believe in the future, but here on earth. That's why we do the utmost to prepare our children to do better than we have done; and to be better educated to succeed but in life.

And about the author of Matthew's collection of very optimistic passages about resurrection sounds to be a good evidence that the gospel is Hellenistic par excellence.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

three nights was the prophecy, not what happenned.

Of course there aren't three nights, everyone knows there aren't three nights, no one is arguing that there were three nights....

you are making mountains out of mole hills, arguing about minutia.

there are soooo many holes in the Old and New testament, mistakes, errors, additions and ommissions, why would you be so tormented by something so trivial?

All right, not more about it. As long as we both are in agreement that prophecies in the NT do not happen. And about the holes you claim to be in the Tanach, show me one. I am all ears.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada
exquisite creature

Evan Fales comes up with an ingenious solution in
The Empty Tomb (2005 "Taming the Tehom" pages 307-348)

Hi Salishan, I read your interesting finds by Evan Fales. Now, I have a question to you. Very simple question. Was the Apostle Matthew a Jew? Taken that your answer is yes, a Jew would never write about the Greek myth of a demigod to be born as a Jew. Judaism was the Faith of Jesus; there is no such a thing in Judaism. Therefore, Matthew, the Jewish man who become one of Jesus' apostles was not the author of the gospel that carries his name. The writers of the four gospels were Hellenists who wrote under the leadership of Paul who was himself a former Hellenistic Jew. That being said, I am only confirming the Catholic statement that Christianity is a Hellenistic religion. (Bible Dictionary of NAB - Saint Joseph's edition)
Ben

 

[wil]

All right, not more about it. As long as we both are in agreement that prophecies in the NT do not happen. And about the holes you claim to be in the Tanach, show me one. I am all ears.
Ben

Where would one start? At the allknowing omniscient walking thru the garden not knowing where A&E are? Or how about Moses writing the story of his death?

 

[Dream]

Yes, I do admit that we believe in the future, but here on earth. That's why we do the utmost to prepare our children to do better than we have done; and to be better educated to succeed but in life.

Perhaps at one time you decided that believing in the afterlife in connection with that? You can change your minds, and possibly have done so. I wouldn't know. It appears to me that you haven't either supported or not supported the afterlife, but you seem to allow the verses some wiggle room.

And about the author of Matthew's collection of very optimistic passages about resurrection sounds to be a good evidence that the gospel is Hellenistic par excellence.

I understand Matthew better than I used to, and it changes as you become familiar both with it and with the Tanak, (which has unfortunately become labeled Old Testament). How well do I understand the Tanak? -- meh; but better than before. Now it seems to me that this entire 'Riddle' of the hoax of three days was nothing but bait to evoke a much more general discussion, and I have already pointed out multiple times that you cannot pin down Matthew well enough to insist that he contradicted himself about the three days. To conclude such contradiction would be a reflex, but I think you have thought about it already.

Your real goal is to claim that Matthew was a Hellenist, which you have repeated multiple times, but even that is elusive. It can be argued that he was a nihilist as yourself and speaking in figures. Matthew 10:7 says As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' How can it be near to them if it is on the other side of death? Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Of course the soul could be passed on by word of mouth, depending upon how you interpret what it is. It would depend upon how Matthew viewed 'The soul'.

 

[salishan]

Hi Salishan, I read your interesting finds by Evan Fales. Now, I have a question to you. Very simple question. Was the Apostle Matthew a Jew? Taken that your answer is yes, a Jew would never write about the Greek myth of a demigod to be born as a Jew. Judaism was the Faith of Jesus; there is no such a thing in Judaism. Therefore, Matthew, the Jewish man who become one of Jesus' apostles was not the author of the gospel that carries his name. The writers of the four gospels were Hellenists who wrote under the leadership of Paul who was himself a former Hellenistic Jew. That being said, I am only confirming the Catholic statement that Christianity is a Hellenistic religion. (Bible Dictionary of NAB - Saint Joseph's edition)
Ben

Ben Masada
exquisite creature

since my interest is historical context , not lit-crit cleverness
i will not defend Evan Fales' "mythic" analysis , but

i will point-out that "myth" (to Fales) is not exclusively Greek
think Joseph Campbell (Hero with a Thousand Faces)
"myth" as a universal archetype , present in every human's subconscious

this analysis ("archetypal journey of a hero") therefore should apply to
Biblical figures other than Jesus (or Jonah) , it should apply equally well to
Joseph (in Genesis) or Moses (in Exodus-Numbers) or David (in 2 Samuel)
"heroes" trekking through a long journey of self-realization

this "literary/psychological" approach is (in my view) the wrong way
to approach these Biblical figures , but u probably wouldn't like any better
my preference
to see the Joseph or Moses or David (or Jesus) stories as
adroitly crafted folk-legends where what is deeply interesting is found
not in the surface story but within its subtext (its parable) of meaningful rebellion

Matthew (admittedly) pounds u over the head with his message
(Luke is subtler & John more sophisticated) but Matthew's gospel (to my ear) is
very consistent (in choice of content & style of rhetoric) with Hebraic folk-legends

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Was the Apostle Matthew a Jew?

the apostle Matthew (if a real historical figure) is a Galilean Jew
a tax collector , hated by rich & poor alike
probably based-out-of Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee
(thus likely collecting taxes for Herod Antipas , not the Romans)
& would be a competent speaker of both Aramaic & Greek

Matthew, the Jewish man who become one of Jesus' apostles was not the author of the gospel that carries his name.

correct , two different Matthews

most scholars put Mark's gospel first
(probably just after the destruction of the Second Temple)
then after Mark's gospel has circulated half-a-generation
there arrives Matthew & Luke
(about the time the Jesus-sect splits with Judaism)

Matthew-the-gospel-writer is likely a Jewish-Christian
because his text specifically seems to target an audience
deeply familiar with the Tanach (a Jewish audience)
in order to bring to fellow Jews the "good news" that
"the Messiah has come , as foretold in the Hebrew scriptures"
his gospel proving a neatly effective polemic , if a little
heavy-handed in literary terms , & its style-of-rhetoric
more Hebrew in tone than Greek , despite being written in Greek
(though it was once thought that Matthew's gospel is originally
written in Hebrew then is later translated into Greek)

The writers of the four gospels were Hellenists who wrote under the leadership of Paul who was himself a former Hellenistic Jew.

were the 4 gospels "written under the leadership of Paul" ?
not a chance !
the story of the "empty tomb" (for instance) is something
Paul (from his letters) has never heard of , he exhibits no familiarity with
most of the gospel tales of Jesus' birth & life & death & resurrection

this is despite spending quality-time with Peter & with others in
Jesus' inner circle (eye-witnesses who should know) , no
most of the gospel stories are a vast elaboration of the facts , or
(in the case of the "empty tomb" & "Bethlehem birth" & some other episodes)
out & out inventions

Paul is a (rare) sophisticated thinker , much of his reckoning quite Hellenistic (yes)
but he merges many of his Hellenistic ideas with smart Pharisee-style legalism
Paul's ideas about "Jesus" & "grace" & "resurrection" are frankly
theologically far too radical (too "modern") for the more conservative gospel writers
& (if familiar at all with Paul's viewpoint) they self-consciously take
a full step back away from Paul , choosing instead to "popularize" Jesus
Jesus & what he stood for (to give Jesus an identifiable & compelling backstory)

each of the 4 Gospels detail an inspirational folk-legend , each with
its own separate stylistic & polemic agenda , but (all & all) pretty lowbrow
(with the possible exception of John , most Hellenist of the gospel writers)
they collectively produce the Sunday-School version of Christianity
& nothing here close to the sophistication of the letters of Paul

Christianity is a Hellenistic religion.

after Constantine , Christianity synthesized pagan elements
if that's what u mean

but back in the 1st century , there is nothing in the Hellenistic world
which is anything like either Judaism or Christianity
(their safety-net social-services for widows & orphans & the poor
there is nothing like it in any of the other religions in the Roman empire)

temple religions are (by nature) highly conservative , support the status quo
but some sects of Judaism (including the Jesus-sect) are deeply rebellious
(against Temple-based religion) see a new (messianic) world arising , one with
social justice & a new (more caring) type of relationship between persons

the Hellenistic world in its rebellious newness , its (anti-superstitious) modern-ness
is Mind-centered
(which becomes important in Jewish & Christian theology only in later centuries
with exception of a few early thinkers , like Philo or Paul or Origen)
the Judeo-Christian world's newness (its novelty within the Roman world) is in
how thoroughly Gyd-centered it is , (personal emotion liberated from pagan trappings)

Ben Masada , scholars have uncovered
32 sects of 1st-century Judaism by name & 4 more sects by description
(not to mention numerous splinter-factions within most sects of Judaism)
a massive hodgepodge of competing beliefs , but out of this great debate
only the two most forward-looking sects of Judaism survive into later centuries
(the Rabbinic Pharisees & the breakaway Christians) , & this happens
(in my view) not by chance (or politics) but by the profundity of their faith

 

[Ben Masada]

Where would one start? At the allknowing omniscient walking thru the garden not knowing where A&E are? Or how about Moses writing the story of his death?

Good start! The walking of God thru the garden not knowing where A&E were, is to be understood, metaphorically, as the direction of who should be searched after; not man by God but God by man. That's one of the reasons why A&E had to be banished from the Garden of Eden. To search for God out in the greater world and not the other way around.

Regarding Moses writing the story of his own death, have you ever noticed that Moses is referred to in the third person? Because he was not the one who wrote the Torah, except for the book of the Law which was so short that it could be read in public in a standing of a short time. The Decalogue with some commentaries. The Decalogue survived but the book got lost. It was called the Book of the Covenant. The story of Moses per se, was written many years later from oral tradition and fragments throughout the History of Israel. Baruch de Spinoza believed that the main author of the Tanach was Ezra, who organized the Scriptures from the time that he was still in Babylon and completed it with a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31) Besides, the writing is so clear that the author was on the west bank side of the Jordan River and not on the east.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

It appears to me that you haven't either supported or not supported the afterlife, but you seem to allow the verses some wiggle room.

I have never supported afterlife, apart from being dead in the grave forever.

Now it seems to me that this entire 'Riddle' of the hoax of three days was nothing but bait to evoke a much more general discussion, and I have already pointed out multiple times that you cannot pin down Matthew well enough to insist that he contradicted himself about the three days. To conclude such contradiction would be a reflex, but I think you have thought about it already.

I see nothing complicate about the hoax of the three days and three nights of the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew. He said three days and three nights and we have neither three days not three nights.

Your real goal is to claim that Matthew was a Hellenist, which you have repeated multiple times, but even that is elusive.

No, that's not my goal. Matthew was not a Hellenist. He was a Jew and not a Hellenistic Jew for that matter, as Paul was.

Matthew 10:7 says As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' How can it be near to them if it is on the other side of death?

The kingdom of heaven, according to Jesus himself was esoteric; within ourselves. (Luke 17:21) That's how near us it is. And there is nothing on the other side of death, but dust and physical corruption.

Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Of course the soul could be passed on by word of mouth, depending upon how you interpret what it is. It would depend upon how Matthew viewed 'The soul'.

Not Matthew, the apostle, but the Hellenistic guy who wrote that gospel. When Adonai formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul. To become is to be and not to have. Therefore, we don't have a soul; we are souls. Soul is the combination of body with the breath of life. At death, that combination is undone. (Gen. 2:7)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada
exquisite creature

Matthew's gospel (to my ear) is

very consistent (in choice of content & style of rhetoric) with Hebraic folk-legends

I can hardly see that consistency in the gospel of Matthew. Especially as it is confronted with the Luke about the events of Jesus at birth.

the apostle Matthew (if a real historical figure) is a Galilean Jew

a tax collector , hated by rich & poor alike probably based-out-of Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee (thus likely collecting taxes for Herod Antipas , not the Romans) & would be a competent speaker of both Aramaic & Greek.

But this Matthew was not the one who wrote that gospel.

most scholars put Mark's gospel first

(probably just after the destruction of the Second Temple) then after Mark's gospel has circulated half-a-generation there arrives Matthew & Luke (about the time the Jesus-sect splits with Judaism)

Jesus' sect was the sect of the Nazarenes, which was a Jewish sect. It never had anything to do with the Christianity of Paul.

Matthew-the-gospel-writer is likely a Jewish-Christian

because his text specifically seems to target an audience deeply familiar with the Tanach (a Jewish audience) in order to bring to fellow Jews the "good news" that "the Messiah has come , as foretold in the Hebrew scriptures" his gospel proving a neatly effective polemic , if a little heavy-handed in literary terms , & its style-of-rhetoric more Hebrew in tone than Greek , despite being written in Greek (though it was once thought that Matthew's gospel is originally written in Hebrew then is later translated into Greek)

Matthew, the apostle of jesus was not a Christian but a Jew; and he did not write that gospel. He couldn't. The gospel is too Hellenistic.

were the 4 gospels "written under the leadership of Paul" ?

not a chance ! the story of the "empty tomb" (for instance) is something Paul (from his letters) has never heard of , he exhibits no familiarity with most of the gospel tales of Jesus' birth & life & death & resurrection

The death and resurrection of Jesus was all that Paul wrote about. Otherwise he could not raise his Christology. Paul started writing about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. And the gospels started appearing 50+ years later with the care not to contradict Paul.

after Constantine , Christianity synthesized pagan elements

if that's what u mean

After Constantine!!! By the time of Constantine the NT had already synthesized all the pagan elements it needed to identify Jesus with a Greek demigod.

but back in the 1st century , there is nothing in the Hellenistic world

which is anything like either Judaism or Christianity

Judaism but not Christianity. This has been Hellenistic since its birth.

temple religions are (by nature) highly conservative , support the status quo

but some sects of Judaism (including the Jesus-sect) are deeply rebellious (against Temple-based religion) see a new (messianic) world arising , one with social justice & a new (more caring) type of relationship between persons

The sect of the Nazarenes which was the Jesus' sect, was rather very much Temple oriented

Ben Masada , scholars have uncovered

32 sects of 1st-century Judaism by name & 4 more sects by description (not to mention numerous splinter-factions within most sects of Judaism) a massive hodgepodge of competing beliefs ,

A Christian is the last one to criticise the number of sects in Judaism, when Christianity has them by the hundreds if thousands could be an exaggeration.

but out of this great debate

only the two most forward-looking sects of Judaism survive into later centuries (the Rabbinic Pharisees & the breakaway Christians) , & this happens (in my view) not by chance (or politics) but by the profundity of their faith

If by "breakaway Christians" you mean from Judaism, you have missed the head of the nail. Christianity rose already a separate religion apart from Judaism, about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. And it arose in Antioch after a whole year that Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26)

Ben