The question of whether Jesus prophesied His own crucifixion and resurrection has long been a subject of theological debate and scrutiny. Recently, Dr. Ismail raised several objections to this claim, questioning the authenticity of Jesus’ prophecy and its alignment with Old Testament scripture. In this article, I engage with his arguments, addressing the five problems he raised and demonstrating how they fail to refute the historical and theological validity of Jesus’ predictions. By examining the biblical context, historical background, and logical consistency of the Gospel accounts, we uncover the strength of the evidence for Jesus’ prophetic claims. Join us as we refute the arguments made by Dr. Ismail. We will quote Dr. Ismail and respond to each of his claims.
Re: Food For Thought
Dr Ismail
Did Jesus prophesy his own crucifixion and resurrection ?
In the gospel, Jesus himself is “reported” to have prophesied his own crucifixion and resurrection on the third day.
(See Matthew 17:22-23, Luke 9:22)
For a Christian, this self prophecy by Jesus in the gospel might sound like an adequate proof for the crucifixion and resurrection so much that any attempt to deny it would just be fruitless.
My Response (YahwehSaves)
Let’s address the claim carefully and thoroughly.
Claim summary:
You question whether Jesus truly prophesied His own crucifixion and resurrection. The use of “reported” implies skepticism about the authenticity of the Gospel accounts. You suggest Christians view this prophecy as “adequate proof,” making any denial “fruitless.”
My Refutation:
a) Clarification of Prophecy vs. Specific Method of Death
Jesus does indeed prophesy His death and resurrection. In Matthew 17:22-23 and Luke 9:22, Jesus explicitly states He will be:
1. “delivered into the hands of men,”
2. killed, and
3. raised on the third day.
However, these passages do not specify crucifixion in these particular instances. They focus on the certainty of His death and resurrection. The crucifixion as the means of death is later clarified in other contexts but is ultimately determined by His enemies (e.g., Roman authorities who chose crucifixion as their method of execution).
b) Historical context of Crucifixion
Crucifixion was a common Roman execution method during Jesus’ time, especially for perceived insurrectionists or rebels. By prophesying His death at the hands of men, Jesus would have implicitly understood that crucifixion was a likely possibility, given the historical and political context of Roman-occupied Judea.
c) Prophecies of death and Resurrection
Jesus’ statements about His death and resurrection align with Old Testament Messianic prophecies, such as Isaiah 53 (the Suffering Servant) and Psalm 16:10 (foretelling the resurrection). These prophecies do not specify the method of death but highlight the Messiah’s suffering, rejection, and eventual vindication.
d) Logical Fallacy- Strawman Argument
You assumes that Christians rely solely on Jesus’ prophecy in the Gospels as “proof” of His crucifixion and resurrection. This is a misrepresentation of the Christian position.
Christians base their belief on a combination of factors, including:
* The eyewitness testimony of the disciples (e.g., Peter, John).
* The empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances.
* Fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
* The transformative power of the resurrection evidenced by the birth of the early church under persecution.
By oversimplifying the argument, you construct a strawman that is easier to attack but does not reflect the actual Christian position. The Gospels are not presenting Jesus’ prophecy as the sole evidence but rather as a fulfillment of a larger divine plan.
Logical Fallacy- Argument from Skepticism
You implies doubt by saying Jesus is “reported” to have prophesied these events, suggesting the prophecy might be fabricated. This is an argument from skepticism, which assumes doubt without providing evidence to justify it.
Skepticism alone is not a valid argument; it must be supported with evidence. Without concrete reasons to doubt the reliability of the Gospels, this assertion carries no weight.
Additional Logical Fallacy- Appeal to Consequences
You suggested that denying Jesus’ prophecy would be “fruitless” because Christians view it as proof. This may imply that Christians are unwilling to consider counterarguments.
However, Christian theology has long welcomed scrutiny, as seen in the robust historical, textual, and philosophical defenses of the faith. The “fruitlessness” of denial is not a product of blind belief but the strength of the evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection.
We shall continue the refutation soon.
Dr. Ismail
One easy but effective way to scrutinize this prophecy in order to validate or invalidate its ascription to Jesus is to assess the peripheral/background claims that the prophecy come along with.
My Response (YahwehSaves)
Here is the Summary of your claim:
You suggested that we should scrutinize the prophecy by examining the “peripheral/background claims” that come with it. The implication is that these background elements can determine whether the prophecy was truly spoken by Jesus or falsely ascribed to Him.
Refutation:
Logical Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof
You appear to shift the burden of proof by implying that peripheral claims should validate or invalidate the prophecy itself. This is problematic because:
a) The primary focus should be on the prophecy’s content, historical context, and evidence for its fulfillment.
b) Peripheral claims may provide additional context, but they cannot definitively prove or disprove the prophecy. This approach risks diverting attention from the central issue. Before I proceed to address the next claims, I will show How Peripheral claims may provide additional context, but cannot definitively prove or disprove the prophecy and how your approach risks diverting attention from the central issue.
It is unclear what you considers as “peripheral/background claims.” Are they referring to:
– The context of Jesus’ prediction?
– The cultural, political, or religious environment of His time?
– Details about how the prophecy was recorded or transmitted?
Clarification is necessary to engage with the claim meaningfully. However, if what you meant is/are historical or circumstantial factors, these often reinforce the authenticity of the prophecy rather than undermine it:
1. Jesus’ death and resurrection are central events recorded by multiple sources.
2. His prediction aligns with Jewish Messianic prophecies, adding credibility rather than casting doubt.
To assess the authenticity of Jesus’ prophecy, we need to examine its:
a) Specificity
Jesus foretold not just His death but also His resurrection on the third day. Such a precise claim, coupled with its fulfillment, is difficult to explain as coincidence or fabrication.
b) Fulfillment
The Gospel accounts provide multiple independent testimonies that His death and resurrection occurred as He predicted.
c) Continuity with Jewish Scripture
The prophecy fulfills numerous Old Testament passages (e.g., Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 53:5-12; Psalm 16:10). This continuity strengthens its authenticity.
Logical Fallacy-Appeal to Skepticism
Your suggestion to “scrutinize” the prophecy by its peripheral claims seems to rely on an appeal to skepticism. This tactic creates doubt without offering substantive evidence against the prophecy’s authenticity. Scrutiny is reasonable, but skepticism without justification does not invalidate a well-supported claim.
Permit me to reframe your method.
Instead of focusing on “peripheral” elements, it is more logical to evaluate:
1. The historical reliability of the Gospel accounts.
2. The consistency and coherence of the prophecy within the broader context of Jesus’ ministry.
3. The fulfillment of the prophecy, which is the most direct test of its authenticity.
On this part I can conclude that your method, while sounding reasonable, shifts the focus from the core evidence of the prophecy to undefined “peripheral/background claims.” This approach risks creating a distraction rather than offering meaningful critique.
Let us move on to the next…. to show why this methodology or approach will be flawed…
CRITICAL POINT: ⚠️⚠️⚠️
How Peripheral claims may provide additional context, but cannot definitively prove or disprove the prophecy and how your approach risks diverting attention from the central issue.
Peripheral claims can offer supplementary context, but they are not central to proving or disproving the prophecy because they do not address the core question: Did Jesus prophesy His own crucifixion and resurrection, and did this prophecy come to pass? Here’s why relying on peripheral claims is problematic and how it risks diverting attention from the central issue:
1. Peripheral Claims as Secondary Context
Peripheral claims include interpretations, reactions, and assumptions made by individuals or groups surrounding a prophecy. For instance:
1. The disciples’ initial shock at Jesus’ prediction.
2. The general misunderstanding of Messianic prophecies among first-century Jews.
3. The alleged difficulty in identifying clear Old Testament references to a suffering and rising Messiah.
These elements provide additional context but do not directly address:
1. What Jesus said.
2. Whether His statements were fulfilled.
Why they cannot definitively Prove or Disprove:
a) Prophecy Stands on Its Own Merit
The validity of Jesus’ prophecy depends on its fulfillment, not on how well people at the time understood or interpreted it. A prophecy is inherently forward-looking and may not always be fully grasped until it comes to pass (1 Peter 1:10-12).
For example, the disciples’ misunderstanding does not negate the prophecy; it merely highlights their need for Jesus to clarify the scriptures (Luke 24:25-27).
b) Irrelevance of Public Perception
The reactions of individuals (e.g., shock, disbelief, or misunderstanding) are subjective and influenced by cultural, theological, and historical contexts. These reactions do not alter the objective truth of whether the prophecy was made and fulfilled.
2. Risk of Diverting Attention
A. Shifting focus from the Main Question
Peripheral claims shift attention away from the central issue to tangential debates, such as:
1. Why certain groups misunderstood or ignored Messianic prophecies.
2. Whether Jewish expectations align with Jesus’ teachings.
3. The historical preservation of Old Testament texts.
While these are interesting discussions, they do not directly answer whether:
1. Jesus explicitly prophesied His death and resurrection.
2. This prophecy was fulfilled.
Emphasizing Human reaction over Divine Revelation
Your methodology places undue emphasis on human responses (e.g., disciples’ shock or Jewish leaders’ resistance) rather than examining:
1. The prophecy itself-Did Jesus clearly predict His crucifixion and resurrection?
2. The outcome-Were His predictions fulfilled in history?
Such an approach risks undermining the divine nature of prophecy, where human comprehension is often secondary to God’s sovereign revelation.
3. Biblical Examples of Peripheral Claims
The Bible itself provides examples where peripheral claims existed, but they did not determine the truth of a prophecy:
Isaiah 53 – Misunderstood by Many
The prophecy of the Suffering Servant was often misinterpreted or ignored, yet its fulfillment in Jesus is undeniable. Public misunderstanding did not invalidate the prophecy.
Jonah’s Message to Nineveh
Jonah’s warning to Nineveh was clear, but the reaction of the people could not disprove its divine origin or intent. God’s revelation stood apart from human response.
Jesus’ Resurrection Predictions (Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23)
The disciples’ shock and Peter’s rebuke (Matthew 16:22) show they misunderstood Jesus’ mission. However, their initial reaction does not negate the accuracy of Jesus’ words, later confirmed by His resurrection.
4. How Peripheral Claims Can Create Confusion
A. Subjective Misinterpretation
Peripheral claims invite subjective interpretations and debates, leading to unnecessary distractions from the prophecy’s objective nature. For example:* You may focus on whether the disciples were “appalled” rather than on whether Jesus rose on the third day.
B. Potential for Logical Fallacies
Your methodology often introduces red herrings (diverting from the core question) and straw man arguments (by the end it will resort to misrepresenting the prophecy by tying it to unrelated issues, like alleged biblical corruption).
C. Loss of Focus on Fulfillment
Fulfillment of prophecy is the ultimate proof of its authenticity. Peripheral claims risk sidelining this crucial evidence by focusing on interpretive issues, cultural contexts, or textual disputes.
Peripheral claims can offer supplementary context, but they are not central to proving or disproving the prophecy because they do not address the core question: Did Jesus prophesy His own crucifixion and resurrection, and did this prophecy come to pass? Here’s why relying on peripheral claims is problematic and how it risks diverting attention from the central issue:
1. Peripheral Claims as Secondary Context
Peripheral claims include interpretations, reactions, and assumptions made by individuals or groups surrounding a prophecy. For instance:
The disciples’ initial shock at Jesus’ prediction.
The general misunderstanding of Messianic prophecies among first-century Jews.
The alleged difficulty in identifying clear Old Testament references to a suffering and rising Messiah.
These elements provide additional context but do not directly address:
What Jesus said.
Whether His statements were fulfilled.
Why They Cannot Definitively Prove or Disprove:
Prophecy Stands on Its Own Merit:
The validity of Jesus’ prophecy depends on its fulfillment, not on how well people at the time understood or interpreted it. A prophecy is inherently forward-looking and may not always be fully grasped until it comes to pass (1 Peter 1:10-12).
Example: The disciples’ misunderstanding does not negate the prophecy; it merely highlights their need for Jesus to clarify the scriptures (Luke 24:25-27).
Irrelevance of Public Perception:
The reactions of individuals (e.g., shock, disbelief, or misunderstanding) are subjective and influenced by cultural, theological, and historical contexts. These reactions do not alter the objective truth of whether the prophecy was made and fulfilled.
2. Risk of Diverting Attention
A. Shifting Focus from the Main Question
Peripheral claims shift attention away from the central issue to tangential debates, such as:
Why certain groups misunderstood or ignored Messianic prophecies.
Whether Jewish expectations align with Jesus’ teachings.
The historical preservation of Old Testament texts.
While these are interesting discussions, they do not directly answer whether:
Jesus explicitly prophesied His death and resurrection.
This prophecy was fulfilled.
B. Emphasizing human reaction over Divine Revelation
Your methodology places undue emphasis on human responses (e.g., disciples’ shock or Jewish leaders’ resistance) rather than examining:
1. The prophecy itself – Did Jesus clearly predict His crucifixion and resurrection?
2. The outcome – Were His predictions fulfilled in history?
Such an approach risks undermining the divine nature of prophecy, where human comprehension is often secondary to God’s sovereign revelation.
3. Biblical examples of peripheral claims
The Bible itself provides examples where peripheral claims existed, but they did not determine the truth of a prophecy:
Isaiah 53: Misunderstood by many
The prophecy of the Suffering Servant was often misinterpreted or ignored, yet its fulfillment in Jesus is undeniable. Public misunderstanding did not invalidate the prophecy.
Jonah’s Message to Nineveh
Jonah’s warning to Nineveh was clear, but the reaction of the people could not disprove its divine origin or intent. God’s revelation stood apart from human response.
Jesus’ Resurrection Predictions (Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23):
The disciples’ shock and Peter’s rebuke (Matthew 16:22) show they misunderstood Jesus’ mission. However, their initial reaction does not negate the accuracy of Jesus’ words, later confirmed by His resurrection.
4. How Peripheral claims can create confusion
A. Subjective misinterpretation
Peripheral claims invite subjective interpretations and debates, leading to unnecessary distractions from the prophecy’s objective nature. For example:
You may focus on whether the disciples were “appalled” rather than on whether Jesus rose on the third day.
B. Potential for logical fallacies
Your methodology often introduces red herrings (diverting from the core question) and straw man arguments (misrepresenting the prophecy by tying it to unrelated issues, like alleged biblical corruption).
C. Loss of focus on fulfillment
Fulfillment of prophecy is the ultimate proof of its authenticity. Peripheral claims risk sidelining this crucial evidence by focusing on interpretive issues, cultural contexts, or textual disputes.
5. Why the Central Issue Matters
The central issue, “Did Jesus prophesy His own crucifixion and resurrection?” , can be addressed as follows:
a) Jesus explicitly predicted these events
* Recorded consistently across the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 16:21, Luke 9:22, John 2:19).
* Details include the manner of death (crucifixion) and the timing of resurrection (on the third day).
b) Fulfillment confirms the prophecy
* Jesus’ crucifixion is a historical fact, affirmed by Roman and Jewish sources.
* His resurrection is attested by eyewitnesses, empty tomb evidence, and the transformation of His disciples.
c) Peripheral claims do not alter Core Evidence
Misunderstanding by contemporaries (e.g., disciples, Jewish leaders) only highlights the need for Jesus’ clarification, which He provided.
Peripheral claims provide additional context but are ultimately irrelevant to proving or disproving Jesus’ prophecy. Your emphasis on these claims would diverts attention from the central question and risks confusing subjective human interpretation with the objective truth of divine prophecy.
By focusing on Jesus’ explicit statements and their historical fulfillment, the question, “Did Jesus prophesy His own crucifixion and resurrection?”, can be definitively answered: Yes!!!.
Now let’s continue with the refutation to your claims in Part II
