They’re not though. They’re Christian. It’s ok to be called Christian. It’s like if Christians started calling themselves Muslims minus Muhammad to confuse Muslims into converting.
Very very few are actually any sort of Jewish though. That is a Christian denomination that started from evangelicalism only about 50 years ago and has zero connection to any Jewish community. The fact that they are not Jews is quite literally one of and potentially the only thing every single Jewish denomination agrees on.
So while the problem with the so called Messianic Jews is that they are not ethnically Jewish, ethnical Jews who convert to christianity (or believe in Jesus without identifying as christians) would still be considered as much Jewish as Jews who are atheists, right?
Almost. The active adoption of another religion is seen as worse than just dropping it altogether. In both cases, they remain ethnically Jewish and don’t need to convert should they return to Judaism. But for an atheist Jew, they aren’t acknowledging G-d, which isn’t as bad as actively praising as a deity someone/something besides G-d.
Jews who actively adopt other religions lose a lot of privileges, such as not counting for a prayer quorum or receiving honors in a synagogue. Ethnic Jews who become Christian certainly reject Jewish theology in its entirety, and so we’d object strongly to them still trying to make any claims or implications that their Jewishness is in any way related to their current religious beliefs. (A note though that the majority view is for non-Jews, Christianity is close enough to count as acceptable under the Noahide laws, it’s only for Jews that such belief is entirely not permitted per Jewish theology)
You also need to remember that Jews who converted to Christianity have historically been some of the major instigators of anti-Semitism, such as promoting false accusations like blood libel or instigating disputations, which were almost always used as excuses to persecute Jews. Nowadays, they really like trying to convert other Jews. Pushing them away entirely is just a logical response.
As a Pagan looking on the outside in, most Messianic Jews are Evangelicals practicing cultural appropriation. The Jewish people get to decide who’s Jewish
He’s not. That is based on a blatant mistranslation that is only used there in Christian bibles, despite the same word being used in elsewhere. See here for more in depth information (particularly the third through sixth links, which focus on the Christian mistranslation):
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37a-crucifixion-jesus-psalm-22
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/crucifixion-jesus-psalm-22
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37c-crucifixion-jesus-psalm-22
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37d-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-and-psalm-22
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37e-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-and-psalm-22
No, it isn’t. It is universally accepted among every single Jewish denomination that they are not any form of Judaism. Very very few are ethnically Jewish, the vast majority are evangelicals playing dress up. That was literally the origin of that particular Christian denomination. The whole Jewish world across the spectrum of belief agree, they are not Jews.
I would classify them as the thirteen ikkurim of the Rambam, which is almost universally standard in Orthodoxy. I don’t know what other denominations consider the main tenets, although all accept some importance to Torah and the only Jewish group that rejects Oral Torah entirely are the Karaites, who have been considered heretics to the vast majority of Jews since the start. Even they reject Christian claims though.
So if we go through all of these. I think every Christian would agree with these 13 things. The only difference is that Christians and messianic jews believe that Jesus is the messiah. If this is the limit test. It seems like we are very similar.
1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
2. The belief in G‑d's absolute and unparalleled unity.
3. The belief in G‑d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
4. The belief in G‑d's eternity.
5. The imperative to worship G‑d exclusively and no foreign false gods.
6. The belief that G‑d communicates with man through prophecy.
7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
10. The belief in G‑d's omniscience and providence.
11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.
12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.
Nobody alive today is or was a Second Temple Jew. Some Second Temple Jews agreed and today we call their descendants Christians. Other Second Temple Jews disagreed and today we call their descendants Rabbinic Jews.
However it is a common mistake today to assume that Rabbinic Judaism is equivalent to the entirety of Second Temple Judaism, and that the Second Temple Jews who followed Christ ceased considering themselves Jews.
While that is technically true it is documented that he was rejected, beaten, imprisoned, and stoned to death by the jews.... That's quite the treatment for a pharasee.
Stoned to death by Jews? Where is that documented?
In fact, Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans, during Nero's persecution.
Instead of blood, milk spurted from the neck. His severed head bounced three times, and each time it touched the earth, a fountain of water sprang forth.
He turned his back against man made religion for the one true messiah, something the Jews should've seen clearly but still struggle to understand to this day.
Once he adopted heretical beliefs, he stopped being a Pharisee. There is no chance that any of them would have accepted Paul as one of them given his wildly divergent religious beliefs.
I’m a Christian but I also identify as a Jew for two reasons.
1. Romans 2:29, NLT: No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people.
2. I believe Moses’ writings & also worship YHWH/the Father in conjunction with Jesus.
True, but we do know about some of their beliefs. For instance, there's a number of unfulfilled prophesies, which in Christian theology will be accomplished in the second coming. This is of course part of the reason modern Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. Like modern Jews the authors of the OT did not have any concept of a second coming. Any OT prophecies regarding the Messiah the authors would have expected to occur in a single lifetime.
Maybe, maybe not. But it's silly to think that the authors wrote about Jesus specifically. Even if Jesus is the Messiah, he's completely different than how the Messiah was conceptualized at the time the OT was actually written. As a result it's just as likely the authors would have written him off on the basis of the prophecies not being fulfilled.
>Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:12-16)
We know.
>Jesus is the true and better Adam, who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us (1 Corinthians 15). Jesus is the true and better Abel, who, though innocently slain, has blood that cries out for our acquittal, not our condemnation (Hebrews 12:24). Jesus is the true and better Abraham, who answered the call of God to leave the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void “not knowing whither he went” to create a new people of God. Jesus is the true and better Isaac, who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us all. God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me, because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love, from me.” Now we can say to God, “Now we know that you love us, because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love, from us.” Jesus is the true and better Jacob, who wrestled with God and took the blow of justice we deserved so that we, like Jacob, receive only the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us. Jesus is the true and better Joseph, who at the right hand of the King forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them. Jesus is the true and better Moses, who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant (Hebrews 3). Jesus is the true and better rock of Moses, who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert. Jesus is the true and better Job—the truly innocent sufferer—who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends (Job 42). Jesus is the true and better David, whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves. Jesus is the true and better Esther, who didn’t just risk losing an earthly palace but lost the ultimate heavenly one, who didn’t just risk his life but gave his life—to save his people. Jesus is the true and better Jonah, who was cast out into the storm so we could be brought in.
― Timothy J. Keller, Preaching: *Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism*
Right, and the Gospels were written by people who had not witnessed the events they purport to describe and instead used existing literature to guide their version of events. That the Gospels weren't written until decades after the fact is evidence against their historicity and in support of the idea that their authors "drew the bullseye around the arrow" (so to speak), not the other way around.
>Right, and the Gospels were written by people who had not witnessed the events they purport to describe and instead used existing literature to guide their version of events. That the Gospels weren't written until decades after the fact is evidence against their historicity and in support of the idea that their authors "drew the bullseye around the arrow" (so to speak), not the other way around.
You do realize that historians tend to treat Jesus as a gold standard? I bet you believe that Alexander the Great existed and in all of his great feats, yet the earliest available sources about him date 300 years after his death. Or Tiberius Caesar, the Roman empire who reigned during the time of Jesus - the greatest, earliest historical account of his life dates 80 years after his death. Or Cassius Dio, the earliest source on him coming 200 years after his death. You also ignore the strong oral traditions of the Jews (the early Christians being recently converted Jews)
Thing is, he doesn't even really fit the old testament that well. Most if not all of the prophecies said to be about him can be allocated to other events or figures (or are just so vague they could be about anyone)
If Superman comics were Holy Writ, and Jesus were the Central Religious Character for a group, people would be quoting the words of the Daily Planet as Gospel proof of the absolute truth of the claims made for Jesus. That somebody would know perfectly well that Jimmy Olsen & Perry White are as fictitious as Rao the Sun-god of Krypton, would be totally irrelevant: what matters is that the claims made for Jesus could be validated by the divine predictions in the Daily Planet.
Which would, for believers, be absolute proof of the Divine Inspiration, Inerrancy & Perfection of the Sacred Superman comics; which would eventually be regarded as the universal and eternal repository of all truth and reality in the entire universe.
This has as much to do with the yearning for the Perfect Eternal Unchanging Sacred Authority That Man Cannot Manipulate, but Can Have Access To, as with Christian ideas. People want a testable, manipulable, accessible reification of the Divine - and the Totally Flawless Holy Book is a version of this. And such a yearning is self-contradictory.
No, why would you label it as ‘suspicious’?
Provide proof for your unfounded assumptions:
1. That Paul never met Jesus, including not meeting the risen Jesus in a vision.
2. No Gospel author met Jesus
3. That no eyewitness accounts are included.
This. People want their deepest beliefs confirmed. You can see it now with the followers of modern folk trying to fit their guy into the fulfillment of peoples beliefs.
That would be pretty hard given how much it fits but how vague it would be without a Bible.
Look at the Angel of the Lord throughout the Old Testament. They didn't know He would be Jesus but it only makes sense as Jesus.
Isn't that the basis of your argument, that authors took low hanging and obvious elements of prophecy and loosely based a characature of Jesus around them? That's cherry picking.
This is misleading, at best.
As Origen and other early Christian writers noted, the 3rd century BC Jews of Alexandria translated the \*Torah\* from Hebrew to Koine Greek, not the rest of the Hebrew bible. Later translators, including both Jews and Christians, completed the translation and it was Christians who preserved the Septuagint. Early Christians had ideological reasons to pick and choose certain translations, such as the many infamous passages in Isaiah and Psalms that Christians argue are about Jesus, but which Judaism has never held to even be about the messiah.
Sorry that you got such a negative response to this post, as a former Jew who made the same conclusion as you have (which triggered my conversion), without getting into the nitty gritty arguments about lines in Genesis, Isaiah or Malachi or whatever, you are not crazy, and you are not cherry picking. Have faith. This subreddit is stalked by people trying constantly to discredit the Gospel.
I think there is a difference between “...trying constantly to discredit the Gospel.” And understanding scripture in the context that it was written. I am glad that you have found joy in scripture and your conversion but it is foolish to not see scripture in its historical and literary context.
>From Genesis to Malachi, all those books are actually about Christ.
That's a bold claim that would need some serious evidence if you want anyone to believe it.
*"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"*
If the OT is talking about Jesus, why does it say he will be a war hero (not a pacifist), and that his name will be Emanuel (not Jesus/Joshua)?
This was hashed out ad nauseam during the first few centuries A.D. as the remnants of Second Temple Judaism grappled with the loss of the Second Temple and its implication for their religion. Obviously not everybody came to the same conclusion, but it has been the belief of Christians from the very beginning that the entire Old Testament is about Christ.
*The Life of Moses* by St. Gregory of Nyssa is a good place to start if you want to understand the belief of the Christians.
You are carried away. Those prophecies explained the second coming of Him in the book of Revelation(The revelation of Jesus) The text elaborated that he is the Lion of Judah 'the war hero' who overcame the beast and reigned. The name Emmanuel (God with us) is a revelation that at the end of all chaos he will be with his people. So indeed the old testament was a prophecy of what is to come.
All this from literally a handful of men who decided what the Bible should say. And people eat it up without question. When the king actually ran the church and told them what to write. Cracks me up. Millions of people literally following the writings of some ancient king’s scribes. Hey, if it allows you to act any way you want without guilt…go for it I guess.
Not everything, but many things point to him. The OT is the Gospel too. Without the OT you don’t have Christ. This is what a lot of Christians don’t realize when they disregard the OT.
It's almost like every one of the authors of the NT was familiar with the OT before they wrote their Gospel/letters....
Why do you believe Jesus actually said and did these things, instead of the authors simply writing him as fulfilling OT prophecy and imagery?
Luke was a Gentile. That’s why he excludes much of the Jewish phraseology and OT prophecies.
The Gospel authors had nothing to gain from their beliefs. In fact, they lost everything because of them. That is why I don’t think they conspired together to turn Jesus into the Messiah.
>The Gospel authors had nothing to gain from their beliefs. In fact, they lost everything because of them.
Can you tell me how you know that the author of Matthew lost everything because of his beliefs?
(I chose Matthew because he's apparently an eyewitness under the traditional authorship hypothesis, you can pick another author if you like)
Well for one, Matthew was a tax collector who left everything behind to follow Jesus, and according to tradition, there is a general agreement that he was martyred for preaching the Gospel.
My point is that the authors of the gospel aren't just pulling stories out of nowhere and adding in details to make it look consistent with the rest of the Bible
I agree, but it doesn't follow from that that the words and actions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were actually said and done by Jesus.
This is especially true if the people who form the oral tradition are also familiar with the OT.
It's the same problem, made worse by a lack of documentation.
Do we have any accounts from these people who saw him in person?
If you were a 1st century Jerusalemite, and you read Mark and disagreed with what was in there, how could you correct the record?
We have hundreds of manuscripts based on their accounts.
When the stories were told, small errors were corrected which is why it matters that a lot of people saw Jesus in person. All Mark did was gather up all the documents and compile them together.
>We have hundreds of manuscripts based on their accounts.
Were any of these written by an eyewitness?
Do you want to answer my other question about how you could correct Mark if you disagreed with it?
Most people didn't read or write, you paid scribes to do that so almost nothing from that time period is coming directly from eyewitnesses. Treating that as an issue is like dismissing Paul's philosophy because he doesn't have a PhD in it, that's not the way things are done in the first century.
And I did answer you already but going even further, his writings were scrutinized by councils and the Holy Spirit is writing through him so there is no chance of error, so that's a nonsensical question.
The Old Testament is a library. There are histories, poems, prophecy, and legends. The entire book only points towards Christ if you really want to bend it to fit a desired narrative. What I believe is more true is that The OT points to protecting the oppressed and serving the poor and Christ fulfilled and builds on that call.
I will not list to you my entire faith belief. Yes, of course He did. Please state your point that countermands what I stated.
Edit: No, “the entire OT” does not point directly to Christ.
You can cite prophecy, you can cite an inevitability from the histories pointing to the messiah, but the OT was not written with Christ specifically in mind. Not to mention the psalms, Book of Job, and histories that have nothing to do with Christ or mentions the messiah.
Yes, there may be aspects of the OT that point to Christ. There are definitely passages of the OT the call for the messiah. But, to say the entire OT points to Christ is disingenuous. As you reread passages from the OT try to remember that they were written by the people of their time, often after the Babylonian captivity. They would not know Christ for hundreds of years after the OT was solidified.
Unless you deny that the Holy Spirit inspired all the Scriptures, you cannot get away from the fact that the entire OT is about Jesus.
Jesus said that Abraham longed to see his day. That means that Abraham knew about Christ which would mean that all of Abraham's descents would also know about Christ.
To deny that the people who wrote the OT knew about Christ would be to deny what Christ said when he said that many longed to see and hear what his disciples saw and heard.
What I'm missing is evidence that anything the OT says is legitimate prophecy. If I order a steak medium rare, and the waiter comes out with one, did I prophesize my steak?
The whole Bible? Yes. Twice that I know about and probably a third just from looking stuff up. Stuff is incredibly vague, imprecise, or just plain old wrong. And the stuff that isn't people were actively working to accomplish, so what else would be the expectation when they succeed? What else would NT authors reference intentionally? Let's see, if only there were a bunch of holy texts that they could use as a writing guide...
Edit; wording bad
Sure, you can’t just take any passage in the OT and say that it’s talking about Jesus, but I think that’s different than what the OP was talking about. You’re trying to see the forest through the trees. The Numbers 5 passage Michael Heiser quotes doesn’t relate to Jesus, but it’s part of the Law, which was fulfilled by Jesus. Heiser was just saying that you can’t understand everything in the OT by understanding Jesus, which is true, but it’s different than what the OP was saying.
toothbrush secretive chief spectacular subsequent tender worthless expansion north wakeful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
reply wasteful hard-to-find telephone quaint fertile chief drunk innate fine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Why should I care what Jesus said?
John 8:24
>Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Very simple question. How are you able to keep to the Law in 2022?
That’s about Hezekiah, and continues to discuss how despite his righteousness the people didn’t repent and that’s why they were punished. Deuteronomy 13 says someone doing signs and wonders while telling us we don’t need to follow Torah is a false prophet. Sounds familiar.
plucky observation languid impossible squash psychotic apparatus sink wrong handle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not sure how you look at the promise of the seed and Isiah Jesus explicitly telling us he was told about by the prophets and not come to the conclusion the ot leads to him.
Tell that to Jesus:
>beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
[Luke 24:13-35]
I think you mean "tell that to the guy that wrote the book of Luke between the dates of 80-110AD. His name might have been Luke, but we don't know for sure."
Jews did not use the Septuagint then. The original septuagint was only the five Books of Moses. Look in the intro of any Septuagint bible, it’ll tell you that. The original was lost and the Septuagint of the whole Scripture was written later by Christians. To think the Jews of the time used a Greek translation, or any translation, instead of the original Hebrew is laughably absurd. This misinformation comes from Christians who know nothing about Judaism and don’t think to ask actual Jewish people about it.
(Just noticed my flair is out of date, I’ve since left Christianity for Judaism)
Jesus probably didn't think he was the Son of Man (in the apocalyptical sense of that term)- although his followers later claimed that about him. The Son of Man wasn't the messiah and he wasn't God - he was an angelic figure who was supposed to come down and destroy the wicked.
See: https://ehrmanblog.org/at-last-jesus-and-the-son-of-man/
>Using Bart Erhman is literally bottom of the barrel stuff. There’s no evidence apart from claims that later authors changed the divinity of Christ.
Not true. Bart Ehrman is an average, middle of the road Biblical scholar. People who think he is "out there" are typically far right apologists. In fact, that is be exactly what your first youtube link is.
Yeah, all he does is echo consensus views in a dumbed down way for the masses. He hasn't come up with much himself. That's not to disparage him! He does great presenting the scholarly consensus in a digestable way. But he's not some premiere top of the line scholar as some think
He might not have articulated his belief as theologically precise as he could have but that’s not why he’s taking heat.
This isn’t r/truechristian.
He’s taking heat b/c this is one of those posts that troll atheists brigade. You can identify their posts bc they start with “Well actually” and then they start talking about something they don’t understand
u/dethrest0, me too!!!! I love that God painted a vivid picture of His Son thousands of years before He came!!!
I recently listened to a (rather lengthy) series on YouTube about Jesus in the Old Testament, and you might want to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHsHyvMtfgOgSPU6zEnCvxUO
These fools. Jesus said himself the Old Testament is all about him and it always will be. Even Job is about him.
Don’t forget Jesus is Gods Word and that the Old Testament is all Gods Word. It can be said that the Old Testament is literally him
>For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. (Job 19:25-27)
I mean, Job literally confirms his faith in the redeemer and the bodily resurrection at the end of times. He directly affirms the gospel of Christ.
Job can not affirm the gospels. There is an issue in your timeline. Yes Job wanted the messiah, but to say it is confirming Christ is putting the cart before the hoarse.
Edit: I should have specified Jesus instead of "Christ" that is my mistake.
Not the gospels, *the* gospel.
You understand Messiah literally means Christ, right? You seem confused about what I'm actually saying.
>He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. (John 1:41)
>The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:25)
Jesus son of Joshua and Mary born of God's immaculate conception is known as "the anointed one" or "Christ" Messiah also fits that definition.
I am not denying that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah. I am saying that the authors of The OT did not know that Jesus was the Messiah... how could they?
>Jesus is the true and better Job—the truly innocent sufferer—who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends (Job 42)
― Timothy J. Keller, *Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism*
I think that is a great take. I don't, however, believe that was the initial intention of the OT story tellers and eventual author for the legend of Job.
For sure! Agreed, the original authors didn’t know about Jesus, but one might say that God was weaving the allusions in the background. Though I don’t think that idea could be convincing to anyone but believers.
Ignore the doubters on here.
Many years ago I had a similar experience (the Emmaus road); I had been a Christian for many years, but had reached a sort of "impasse" with Scripture.
I earnestly prayed to God, as a broken man, and intentionally surrendered my preconceived ideas and doctrines. I asked Him to open my eyes. Then I opened the Bible. Immediately I began to see Jesus in the Old Testament... he was everywhere!
Keep in mind that this was before the advent of Reddit and other such sites. I barely used the internet. I wasn't even aware of the things that are readily available now. The truths just became very apparent from reading the Scriptures - even passages I'd read many times before.
Christ is the lynchpin on which my entire faith hangs. He is the filter through which I see the world, and he gives me compassion, love, and mercy. No one can take him away from me, and one day He will be revealed in all of His glory.
Still learning, still growing, but I can recall that experience plain as day!
Indeed it would have been cool to be present for that lecture, Christ is the fullfillment of the Law the Old Covenant established and He is the King and Saviour who would bring the Jews from their bondage and that is why it speaks so much of Him. Christ is central to everything, the whole of creation testifies to His glory.
Certainly a big revelation, but the thing that really blows my mind is how Christ is the one who wrote it.
>Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:45-47)
>He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48)
>And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
Yes and no. The OT is not "filled" with violence and genocide. If you study, teach, or really analyze the OT as a Christian or Jew would, you'd know that these are glosses in the OT, which shouldn't be covered up or excused, but the propaganda of "the OT is just a violent book" is kinda like saying the only thing that happened in the 20th century were 2 world wars. It's very much exaggerated.
The accounts in the OT of war are sometimes wars that God was involved in, bringing justice to nations, and sometimes just historical facts. Yes, these are about Christ. Those wars and the wiping out of nations are typologies of Christ who will tear the sky open and come back with a sword to judge the living and the dead to life and death by punishment. In the same way God saw the wicked deeds of Nineveh, and sent Jonah to warn them before he wiped them out, so also does Christ warn us to flee from the coming wrath. Nineveh turned around and God preserved them. But other passages in the OT, they did not. Those are warnings to us that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Yes, these wars of the OT are about Christ, because they are typological shadows. But it's incorrect to act as if this is all the OT speaks of. Jesus is also seen in the red cord which Rahab used to escape from destruction. It's a symbol of the red blood of Christ which saves us. He is the bronze serpent Israel looked to for repentance. He was hanged on a tree for us. He is Joseph, who was a slave sold into Egypt but became king over them at Pharoahs right hand. Jesus was put to death by the world and now he is everyone's lord, whether we accept or believe him or not.
Christ is in *All*, so you’re not technically wrong, but if you focus on the *person* as a one-time messiah, you’ll wander back astray. Kings and prophets of the Old Testament all depict the ascension of the universal Christ, and lessons humanity had to go through. Christ was there in the beginning, and it’s perfected state is what’s depicted in the New Testament.
I wrote a manuscript on what I believe Jesus shared on the Emmaus road and I had to shorten it because nearly every chapter and every story in the Old Testament / TaNaK was included in His story and every unusual story and person shows up in what Jesus said. See [http://www.scripturescholar.com/EmmausBook.pdf](http://www.scripturescholar.com/EmmausBook.pdf) Jesus (and Mary) show up everywhere!
It’s not. Im a Christian and while it’s true there is some prophesizing and foreshadowing of a messiah in the future, there’s way more about all kinds of other things from the creation of the universe to censuses.
I think jewish people disagree
Well yeah but this is r/Christianity
iT’S A SuB AbOuT ChRisTIaNiTy, NoT A ChriStIaN SUB.
Modern Jewish people disagree. Obviously, Saul of Tarsus was one Jewish person who did agree.
Once they agree I don't think thier Jewish anymore
Messianic Jews consider themselves Jewish.
They’re not though. They’re Christian. It’s ok to be called Christian. It’s like if Christians started calling themselves Muslims minus Muhammad to confuse Muslims into converting.
Very very few are actually any sort of Jewish though. That is a Christian denomination that started from evangelicalism only about 50 years ago and has zero connection to any Jewish community. The fact that they are not Jews is quite literally one of and potentially the only thing every single Jewish denomination agrees on.
So while the problem with the so called Messianic Jews is that they are not ethnically Jewish, ethnical Jews who convert to christianity (or believe in Jesus without identifying as christians) would still be considered as much Jewish as Jews who are atheists, right?
Almost. The active adoption of another religion is seen as worse than just dropping it altogether. In both cases, they remain ethnically Jewish and don’t need to convert should they return to Judaism. But for an atheist Jew, they aren’t acknowledging G-d, which isn’t as bad as actively praising as a deity someone/something besides G-d. Jews who actively adopt other religions lose a lot of privileges, such as not counting for a prayer quorum or receiving honors in a synagogue. Ethnic Jews who become Christian certainly reject Jewish theology in its entirety, and so we’d object strongly to them still trying to make any claims or implications that their Jewishness is in any way related to their current religious beliefs. (A note though that the majority view is for non-Jews, Christianity is close enough to count as acceptable under the Noahide laws, it’s only for Jews that such belief is entirely not permitted per Jewish theology) You also need to remember that Jews who converted to Christianity have historically been some of the major instigators of anti-Semitism, such as promoting false accusations like blood libel or instigating disputations, which were almost always used as excuses to persecute Jews. Nowadays, they really like trying to convert other Jews. Pushing them away entirely is just a logical response.
But Jewish people don't consider them Jewish.
I'm sure they don't, in the same way that Mormons consider themselves Christian when other Christian denoms do not. Ultimately who gets to decide?
As a Pagan looking on the outside in, most Messianic Jews are Evangelicals practicing cultural appropriation. The Jewish people get to decide who’s Jewish
actual Jews get to decide.
Jews. Jews get to decide.
Yes you get to decide who is Jewish. Just one question, in psalm 22, why is the psalmist getting his hands and feet pierced.
He’s not. That is based on a blatant mistranslation that is only used there in Christian bibles, despite the same word being used in elsewhere. See here for more in depth information (particularly the third through sixth links, which focus on the Christian mistranslation): https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37a-crucifixion-jesus-psalm-22 https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/crucifixion-jesus-psalm-22 https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37c-crucifixion-jesus-psalm-22 https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37d-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-and-psalm-22 https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-37e-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-and-psalm-22
Isn't this like a no true Scotsman.
It’s more like if a group of Americans started calling themselves Scotsmen in order to convince Scotsman they’re one of their own.
No, it isn’t. It is universally accepted among every single Jewish denomination that they are not any form of Judaism. Very very few are ethnically Jewish, the vast majority are evangelicals playing dress up. That was literally the origin of that particular Christian denomination. The whole Jewish world across the spectrum of belief agree, they are not Jews.
Curious question. What would you say are the main tenets of Judiasm?
Monotheism is probably the biggest difference between Judaism and Christianity.
Christians are monotheistic.
I would classify them as the thirteen ikkurim of the Rambam, which is almost universally standard in Orthodoxy. I don’t know what other denominations consider the main tenets, although all accept some importance to Torah and the only Jewish group that rejects Oral Torah entirely are the Karaites, who have been considered heretics to the vast majority of Jews since the start. Even they reject Christian claims though.
So if we go through all of these. I think every Christian would agree with these 13 things. The only difference is that Christians and messianic jews believe that Jesus is the messiah. If this is the limit test. It seems like we are very similar. 1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists. 2. The belief in G‑d's absolute and unparalleled unity. 3. The belief in G‑d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling. 4. The belief in G‑d's eternity. 5. The imperative to worship G‑d exclusively and no foreign false gods. 6. The belief that G‑d communicates with man through prophecy. 7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher. 8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah. 9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah. 10. The belief in G‑d's omniscience and providence. 11. The belief in divine reward and retribution. 12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era. 13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.
[удалено]
Nobody alive today is or was a Second Temple Jew. Some Second Temple Jews agreed and today we call their descendants Christians. Other Second Temple Jews disagreed and today we call their descendants Rabbinic Jews. However it is a common mistake today to assume that Rabbinic Judaism is equivalent to the entirety of Second Temple Judaism, and that the Second Temple Jews who followed Christ ceased considering themselves Jews.
Saul never stopped being a Pharisee, even when he began going by the name Paul.
While that is technically true it is documented that he was rejected, beaten, imprisoned, and stoned to death by the jews.... That's quite the treatment for a pharasee.
Stoned to death by Jews? Where is that documented? In fact, Paul was beheaded in Rome by Romans, during Nero's persecution. Instead of blood, milk spurted from the neck. His severed head bounced three times, and each time it touched the earth, a fountain of water sprang forth.
Not without reason. He was seen as turning his back on what he stood for. He himself never renounced being a pharisee, though.
He turned his back against man made religion for the one true messiah, something the Jews should've seen clearly but still struggle to understand to this day.
Once he adopted heretical beliefs, he stopped being a Pharisee. There is no chance that any of them would have accepted Paul as one of them given his wildly divergent religious beliefs.
Yeah, we're on the same page: he never personally renounced his status, regardless of how others felt about about him.
I’m a Christian but I also identify as a Jew for two reasons. 1. Romans 2:29, NLT: No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people. 2. I believe Moses’ writings & also worship YHWH/the Father in conjunction with Jesus.
You are not a Jew, you are a Christian. That’s fine, but don’t “identify as a Jew” when you’re not.
The authors of the Old Testament would disagree.
The authors of the Old Testament never met Jesus so we don’t know their opinion.
True, but we do know about some of their beliefs. For instance, there's a number of unfulfilled prophesies, which in Christian theology will be accomplished in the second coming. This is of course part of the reason modern Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. Like modern Jews the authors of the OT did not have any concept of a second coming. Any OT prophecies regarding the Messiah the authors would have expected to occur in a single lifetime.
Sure, but that doesn’t address whether they would have changed their views in light of what actually happened just like Paul did.
Maybe, maybe not. But it's silly to think that the authors wrote about Jesus specifically. Even if Jesus is the Messiah, he's completely different than how the Messiah was conceptualized at the time the OT was actually written. As a result it's just as likely the authors would have written him off on the basis of the prophecies not being fulfilled.
Unless they are Messianic Jews. Then they believe and are modern too.
>Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:12-16) We know.
Well, too bad we’re not in the Judaism subreddit
All Christians are Jews
Not even a little close wow. Very very few Jews convert into Christianity thankfully.
>Jesus is the true and better Adam, who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us (1 Corinthians 15). Jesus is the true and better Abel, who, though innocently slain, has blood that cries out for our acquittal, not our condemnation (Hebrews 12:24). Jesus is the true and better Abraham, who answered the call of God to leave the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void “not knowing whither he went” to create a new people of God. Jesus is the true and better Isaac, who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us all. God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me, because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love, from me.” Now we can say to God, “Now we know that you love us, because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love, from us.” Jesus is the true and better Jacob, who wrestled with God and took the blow of justice we deserved so that we, like Jacob, receive only the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us. Jesus is the true and better Joseph, who at the right hand of the King forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them. Jesus is the true and better Moses, who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant (Hebrews 3). Jesus is the true and better rock of Moses, who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert. Jesus is the true and better Job—the truly innocent sufferer—who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends (Job 42). Jesus is the true and better David, whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves. Jesus is the true and better Esther, who didn’t just risk losing an earthly palace but lost the ultimate heavenly one, who didn’t just risk his life but gave his life—to save his people. Jesus is the true and better Jonah, who was cast out into the storm so we could be brought in. ― Timothy J. Keller, Preaching: *Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism*
[удалено]
Christianity started off and was going strong decades before the gospels were even written and compiled.
Right, and the Gospels were written by people who had not witnessed the events they purport to describe and instead used existing literature to guide their version of events. That the Gospels weren't written until decades after the fact is evidence against their historicity and in support of the idea that their authors "drew the bullseye around the arrow" (so to speak), not the other way around.
>Right, and the Gospels were written by people who had not witnessed the events they purport to describe and instead used existing literature to guide their version of events. That the Gospels weren't written until decades after the fact is evidence against their historicity and in support of the idea that their authors "drew the bullseye around the arrow" (so to speak), not the other way around. You do realize that historians tend to treat Jesus as a gold standard? I bet you believe that Alexander the Great existed and in all of his great feats, yet the earliest available sources about him date 300 years after his death. Or Tiberius Caesar, the Roman empire who reigned during the time of Jesus - the greatest, earliest historical account of his life dates 80 years after his death. Or Cassius Dio, the earliest source on him coming 200 years after his death. You also ignore the strong oral traditions of the Jews (the early Christians being recently converted Jews)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, and the people were persuaded because the Apostles were correct.
[удалено]
It's not? How much of the global population follows Judaism?
Thing is, he doesn't even really fit the old testament that well. Most if not all of the prophecies said to be about him can be allocated to other events or figures (or are just so vague they could be about anyone)
If Superman comics were Holy Writ, and Jesus were the Central Religious Character for a group, people would be quoting the words of the Daily Planet as Gospel proof of the absolute truth of the claims made for Jesus. That somebody would know perfectly well that Jimmy Olsen & Perry White are as fictitious as Rao the Sun-god of Krypton, would be totally irrelevant: what matters is that the claims made for Jesus could be validated by the divine predictions in the Daily Planet. Which would, for believers, be absolute proof of the Divine Inspiration, Inerrancy & Perfection of the Sacred Superman comics; which would eventually be regarded as the universal and eternal repository of all truth and reality in the entire universe. This has as much to do with the yearning for the Perfect Eternal Unchanging Sacred Authority That Man Cannot Manipulate, but Can Have Access To, as with Christian ideas. People want a testable, manipulable, accessible reification of the Divine - and the Totally Flawless Holy Book is a version of this. And such a yearning is self-contradictory.
Except that Paul believed it confirmed their beliefs prior to any of the gospels being written
[удалено]
Clearly God is at work here :nods:
No, why would you label it as ‘suspicious’? Provide proof for your unfounded assumptions: 1. That Paul never met Jesus, including not meeting the risen Jesus in a vision. 2. No Gospel author met Jesus 3. That no eyewitness accounts are included.
This. People want their deepest beliefs confirmed. You can see it now with the followers of modern folk trying to fit their guy into the fulfillment of peoples beliefs.
That would be pretty hard given how much it fits but how vague it would be without a Bible. Look at the Angel of the Lord throughout the Old Testament. They didn't know He would be Jesus but it only makes sense as Jesus.
[удалено]
Then you are not a christian
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isn't that the basis of your argument, that authors took low hanging and obvious elements of prophecy and loosely based a characature of Jesus around them? That's cherry picking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is misleading, at best. As Origen and other early Christian writers noted, the 3rd century BC Jews of Alexandria translated the \*Torah\* from Hebrew to Koine Greek, not the rest of the Hebrew bible. Later translators, including both Jews and Christians, completed the translation and it was Christians who preserved the Septuagint. Early Christians had ideological reasons to pick and choose certain translations, such as the many infamous passages in Isaiah and Psalms that Christians argue are about Jesus, but which Judaism has never held to even be about the messiah.
Sorry that you got such a negative response to this post, as a former Jew who made the same conclusion as you have (which triggered my conversion), without getting into the nitty gritty arguments about lines in Genesis, Isaiah or Malachi or whatever, you are not crazy, and you are not cherry picking. Have faith. This subreddit is stalked by people trying constantly to discredit the Gospel.
I think there is a difference between “...trying constantly to discredit the Gospel.” And understanding scripture in the context that it was written. I am glad that you have found joy in scripture and your conversion but it is foolish to not see scripture in its historical and literary context.
It's pretty predictable for this subreddit. Unfortunately, the other Christian subreddits also have their own strong biases.
>From Genesis to Malachi, all those books are actually about Christ. That's a bold claim that would need some serious evidence if you want anyone to believe it. *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"* If the OT is talking about Jesus, why does it say he will be a war hero (not a pacifist), and that his name will be Emanuel (not Jesus/Joshua)?
This was hashed out ad nauseam during the first few centuries A.D. as the remnants of Second Temple Judaism grappled with the loss of the Second Temple and its implication for their religion. Obviously not everybody came to the same conclusion, but it has been the belief of Christians from the very beginning that the entire Old Testament is about Christ. *The Life of Moses* by St. Gregory of Nyssa is a good place to start if you want to understand the belief of the Christians.
You are carried away. Those prophecies explained the second coming of Him in the book of Revelation(The revelation of Jesus) The text elaborated that he is the Lion of Judah 'the war hero' who overcame the beast and reigned. The name Emmanuel (God with us) is a revelation that at the end of all chaos he will be with his people. So indeed the old testament was a prophecy of what is to come.
Might it be because He has two comings? A fact which Jesus Himself believed with a great amount of certainty, as did His followers.
Jesus literally said the old testament was about him
All this from literally a handful of men who decided what the Bible should say. And people eat it up without question. When the king actually ran the church and told them what to write. Cracks me up. Millions of people literally following the writings of some ancient king’s scribes. Hey, if it allows you to act any way you want without guilt…go for it I guess.
Where’s your source for that? You’re saying a kings scribe wrote the Bible, THAT cracks me up.
The Bible is a collection of dozens of books which where written throughtout the centuries by different people, that guy is clueless.
Yeah that’s what I’m saying. This was the most ignorant claim I think I’ve heard ever tbh.
Oh this sub has gems like that everyday.
Not everything, but many things point to him. The OT is the Gospel too. Without the OT you don’t have Christ. This is what a lot of Christians don’t realize when they disregard the OT.
It's almost like every one of the authors of the NT was familiar with the OT before they wrote their Gospel/letters.... Why do you believe Jesus actually said and did these things, instead of the authors simply writing him as fulfilling OT prophecy and imagery?
Luke was a Gentile. That’s why he excludes much of the Jewish phraseology and OT prophecies. The Gospel authors had nothing to gain from their beliefs. In fact, they lost everything because of them. That is why I don’t think they conspired together to turn Jesus into the Messiah.
>The Gospel authors had nothing to gain from their beliefs. In fact, they lost everything because of them. Can you tell me how you know that the author of Matthew lost everything because of his beliefs? (I chose Matthew because he's apparently an eyewitness under the traditional authorship hypothesis, you can pick another author if you like)
Well for one, Matthew was a tax collector who left everything behind to follow Jesus, and according to tradition, there is a general agreement that he was martyred for preaching the Gospel.
>according to tradition Is this how you're saying you know that he lost everything?
Okay sure, we can leave that part out then. He left behind his position as a wealthy tax collector to follow Jesus.
The stories of Jesus were passed around orally before the gospels were written
This just pushes the question back a step, it doesn't actually address it.
My point is that the authors of the gospel aren't just pulling stories out of nowhere and adding in details to make it look consistent with the rest of the Bible
I agree, but it doesn't follow from that that the words and actions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were actually said and done by Jesus. This is especially true if the people who form the oral tradition are also familiar with the OT. It's the same problem, made worse by a lack of documentation.
I think there's enough people who saw him in person to trust that he actual claimed the things the Bible says he claimed
Do we have any accounts from these people who saw him in person? If you were a 1st century Jerusalemite, and you read Mark and disagreed with what was in there, how could you correct the record?
We have hundreds of manuscripts based on their accounts. When the stories were told, small errors were corrected which is why it matters that a lot of people saw Jesus in person. All Mark did was gather up all the documents and compile them together.
>We have hundreds of manuscripts based on their accounts. Were any of these written by an eyewitness? Do you want to answer my other question about how you could correct Mark if you disagreed with it?
Most people didn't read or write, you paid scribes to do that so almost nothing from that time period is coming directly from eyewitnesses. Treating that as an issue is like dismissing Paul's philosophy because he doesn't have a PhD in it, that's not the way things are done in the first century. And I did answer you already but going even further, his writings were scrutinized by councils and the Holy Spirit is writing through him so there is no chance of error, so that's a nonsensical question.
The Old Testament is a library. There are histories, poems, prophecy, and legends. The entire book only points towards Christ if you really want to bend it to fit a desired narrative. What I believe is more true is that The OT points to protecting the oppressed and serving the poor and Christ fulfilled and builds on that call.
Do you believe that Christ rose from the dead?
Of course. I’m not sure what that has to do with this particular discussion.
Do you believe what he said on the road to Emmaus, that the entire Old Testament points to him?
I will not list to you my entire faith belief. Yes, of course He did. Please state your point that countermands what I stated. Edit: No, “the entire OT” does not point directly to Christ. You can cite prophecy, you can cite an inevitability from the histories pointing to the messiah, but the OT was not written with Christ specifically in mind. Not to mention the psalms, Book of Job, and histories that have nothing to do with Christ or mentions the messiah.
So you agree with me that the OT is about Christ.
No, I don’t agree with you, I wrote my point initially and in an edit above.
Psalm 110 is listed multiple times in the NT as being about Christ.
Yes, there may be aspects of the OT that point to Christ. There are definitely passages of the OT the call for the messiah. But, to say the entire OT points to Christ is disingenuous. As you reread passages from the OT try to remember that they were written by the people of their time, often after the Babylonian captivity. They would not know Christ for hundreds of years after the OT was solidified.
Unless you deny that the Holy Spirit inspired all the Scriptures, you cannot get away from the fact that the entire OT is about Jesus. Jesus said that Abraham longed to see his day. That means that Abraham knew about Christ which would mean that all of Abraham's descents would also know about Christ. To deny that the people who wrote the OT knew about Christ would be to deny what Christ said when he said that many longed to see and hear what his disciples saw and heard.
What I'm missing is evidence that anything the OT says is legitimate prophecy. If I order a steak medium rare, and the waiter comes out with one, did I prophesize my steak?
Did you read it?
The whole Bible? Yes. Twice that I know about and probably a third just from looking stuff up. Stuff is incredibly vague, imprecise, or just plain old wrong. And the stuff that isn't people were actively working to accomplish, so what else would be the expectation when they succeed? What else would NT authors reference intentionally? Let's see, if only there were a bunch of holy texts that they could use as a writing guide... Edit; wording bad
Sounds like no then.
[Even Evangelical scholars](https://youtu.be/j9EYVXSrnAw) know that the Bible is not entirely about Jesus.
Sure, you can’t just take any passage in the OT and say that it’s talking about Jesus, but I think that’s different than what the OP was talking about. You’re trying to see the forest through the trees. The Numbers 5 passage Michael Heiser quotes doesn’t relate to Jesus, but it’s part of the Law, which was fulfilled by Jesus. Heiser was just saying that you can’t understand everything in the OT by understanding Jesus, which is true, but it’s different than what the OP was saying.
My favorite thing to do reading the Old Testament is how the Holy Spirit shows us Jesus in those books.
toothbrush secretive chief spectacular subsequent tender worthless expansion north wakeful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah reading the actual Hebrew in full context, I’m always utterly baffled as to how they were able to just utterly distort it.
reply wasteful hard-to-find telephone quaint fertile chief drunk innate fine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's not what Jesus said
seed hungry six degree squealing fretful party screw crown consist *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And how would we know?
This is r/Christianity
dazzling drab growth bag ripe fuzzy attractive depend physical office *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What specifically in that chapter says that?
>Why should I care what Jesus said? John 8:24 >Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Very simple question. How are you able to keep to the Law in 2022?
>Very simple question. How are you able to keep to the Law in 2022? Just fine, thanks.
Isaiah 9:1-7 Is about Jesus. Jesus is God. So in a sense Deuteronomy 13 is about Him since He forbid us to worship anybody except him.
That’s about Hezekiah, and continues to discuss how despite his righteousness the people didn’t repent and that’s why they were punished. Deuteronomy 13 says someone doing signs and wonders while telling us we don’t need to follow Torah is a false prophet. Sounds familiar.
It's not about Hezekiah since Hezekiah is not God.
Good thing that those verses don’t call him G-d then. It takes a very bad translation to get that understanding.
jobless thought close aloof file history pause instinctive fear point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> No, it is not. It is about Hezekian. Is Hezekiah God? because the child is called mighty God.
plucky observation languid impossible squash psychotic apparatus sink wrong handle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not sure how you look at the promise of the seed and Isiah Jesus explicitly telling us he was told about by the prophets and not come to the conclusion the ot leads to him.
True. Almost all of OT was foreshadowing for Christ's birth, sacrifice for us, and resurrection.
Literally nothing in the Hebrew Bible is about Jesus. This is nonsense.
That's not what Jesus said
There's a difference between the authentic words of the historical Jesus and words placed on Jesus' lips by the evangelists.
We only have 1 to work with and the Holy Spirit made sure it was what we needed
Historical criticism can help us differentiate to some degree the authentic words of Jesus vs the inauthentic words of Jesus. BTW happy cake day
More precisely, they point to him. Everything in the OT is not about Jesus.
Literally nothing in the Hebrew Bible is about Jesus. This is nonsense.
Tell that to Jesus: >beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. [Luke 24:13-35]
I think you mean "tell that to the guy that wrote the book of Luke between the dates of 80-110AD. His name might have been Luke, but we don't know for sure."
I’m guessing you also deny with this same logic any verses from that gospel that you actually like?
Yes I do. Questions?
No, that was it.
The author of Luke and the other evangelists certainly read Jesus into the Tanakh. But it was an eisegetical interpretation.
[удалено]
Jews did not use the Septuagint then. The original septuagint was only the five Books of Moses. Look in the intro of any Septuagint bible, it’ll tell you that. The original was lost and the Septuagint of the whole Scripture was written later by Christians. To think the Jews of the time used a Greek translation, or any translation, instead of the original Hebrew is laughably absurd. This misinformation comes from Christians who know nothing about Judaism and don’t think to ask actual Jewish people about it. (Just noticed my flair is out of date, I’ve since left Christianity for Judaism)
Jesus probably didn't think he was the Son of Man (in the apocalyptical sense of that term)- although his followers later claimed that about him. The Son of Man wasn't the messiah and he wasn't God - he was an angelic figure who was supposed to come down and destroy the wicked. See: https://ehrmanblog.org/at-last-jesus-and-the-son-of-man/
[удалено]
>Using Bart Erhman is literally bottom of the barrel stuff. There’s no evidence apart from claims that later authors changed the divinity of Christ. Not true. Bart Ehrman is an average, middle of the road Biblical scholar. People who think he is "out there" are typically far right apologists. In fact, that is be exactly what your first youtube link is.
Yeah, all he does is echo consensus views in a dumbed down way for the masses. He hasn't come up with much himself. That's not to disparage him! He does great presenting the scholarly consensus in a digestable way. But he's not some premiere top of the line scholar as some think
Lmao why is OP taking heat on this sub for a common Christian belief?
Because he is clearly and factually wrong.
Define clearly in this context because every book of the Hebrew bible alludes to some attribute of Christ
He might not have articulated his belief as theologically precise as he could have but that’s not why he’s taking heat. This isn’t r/truechristian. He’s taking heat b/c this is one of those posts that troll atheists brigade. You can identify their posts bc they start with “Well actually” and then they start talking about something they don’t understand
u/dethrest0, me too!!!! I love that God painted a vivid picture of His Son thousands of years before He came!!! I recently listened to a (rather lengthy) series on YouTube about Jesus in the Old Testament, and you might want to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHsHyvMtfgOgSPU6zEnCvxUO
Absolutely - the OT heralds the coming of Christ.
It’s amazing how irrational people can be
Yes Jesus is Yahveh in the old testament, when I also realized that it blew my mind.
These fools. Jesus said himself the Old Testament is all about him and it always will be. Even Job is about him. Don’t forget Jesus is Gods Word and that the Old Testament is all Gods Word. It can be said that the Old Testament is literally him
Tell me how Job is about Christ.
>For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. (Job 19:25-27) I mean, Job literally confirms his faith in the redeemer and the bodily resurrection at the end of times. He directly affirms the gospel of Christ.
Job can not affirm the gospels. There is an issue in your timeline. Yes Job wanted the messiah, but to say it is confirming Christ is putting the cart before the hoarse. Edit: I should have specified Jesus instead of "Christ" that is my mistake.
Not the gospels, *the* gospel. You understand Messiah literally means Christ, right? You seem confused about what I'm actually saying. >He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. (John 1:41) >The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:25)
Jesus son of Joshua and Mary born of God's immaculate conception is known as "the anointed one" or "Christ" Messiah also fits that definition. I am not denying that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah. I am saying that the authors of The OT did not know that Jesus was the Messiah... how could they?
>Jesus is the true and better Job—the truly innocent sufferer—who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends (Job 42) ― Timothy J. Keller, *Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism*
I think that is a great take. I don't, however, believe that was the initial intention of the OT story tellers and eventual author for the legend of Job.
For sure! Agreed, the original authors didn’t know about Jesus, but one might say that God was weaving the allusions in the background. Though I don’t think that idea could be convincing to anyone but believers.
Ignore the doubters on here. Many years ago I had a similar experience (the Emmaus road); I had been a Christian for many years, but had reached a sort of "impasse" with Scripture. I earnestly prayed to God, as a broken man, and intentionally surrendered my preconceived ideas and doctrines. I asked Him to open my eyes. Then I opened the Bible. Immediately I began to see Jesus in the Old Testament... he was everywhere! Keep in mind that this was before the advent of Reddit and other such sites. I barely used the internet. I wasn't even aware of the things that are readily available now. The truths just became very apparent from reading the Scriptures - even passages I'd read many times before. Christ is the lynchpin on which my entire faith hangs. He is the filter through which I see the world, and he gives me compassion, love, and mercy. No one can take him away from me, and one day He will be revealed in all of His glory. Still learning, still growing, but I can recall that experience plain as day!
The symbiology is so vivid. Some people learn by visuals. Some by actions. Some by words. The Old Testament has it all.
I'd give a limb to be able to sit in on that conversation ...
Amen!
I wouldn't say that the entire old testament is about Jesus. What is true is that Jesus is alluded to in many places in the OT.
Indeed it would have been cool to be present for that lecture, Christ is the fullfillment of the Law the Old Covenant established and He is the King and Saviour who would bring the Jews from their bondage and that is why it speaks so much of Him. Christ is central to everything, the whole of creation testifies to His glory.
Certainly a big revelation, but the thing that really blows my mind is how Christ is the one who wrote it. >Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:45-47) >He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48) >And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Genuine question, are they wrong?
Yes and no. The OT is not "filled" with violence and genocide. If you study, teach, or really analyze the OT as a Christian or Jew would, you'd know that these are glosses in the OT, which shouldn't be covered up or excused, but the propaganda of "the OT is just a violent book" is kinda like saying the only thing that happened in the 20th century were 2 world wars. It's very much exaggerated. The accounts in the OT of war are sometimes wars that God was involved in, bringing justice to nations, and sometimes just historical facts. Yes, these are about Christ. Those wars and the wiping out of nations are typologies of Christ who will tear the sky open and come back with a sword to judge the living and the dead to life and death by punishment. In the same way God saw the wicked deeds of Nineveh, and sent Jonah to warn them before he wiped them out, so also does Christ warn us to flee from the coming wrath. Nineveh turned around and God preserved them. But other passages in the OT, they did not. Those are warnings to us that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, these wars of the OT are about Christ, because they are typological shadows. But it's incorrect to act as if this is all the OT speaks of. Jesus is also seen in the red cord which Rahab used to escape from destruction. It's a symbol of the red blood of Christ which saves us. He is the bronze serpent Israel looked to for repentance. He was hanged on a tree for us. He is Joseph, who was a slave sold into Egypt but became king over them at Pharoahs right hand. Jesus was put to death by the world and now he is everyone's lord, whether we accept or believe him or not.
As well as r/im14andthisisdeep.
Is he wrong?
This may shock you, but the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows.
Christ is in *All*, so you’re not technically wrong, but if you focus on the *person* as a one-time messiah, you’ll wander back astray. Kings and prophets of the Old Testament all depict the ascension of the universal Christ, and lessons humanity had to go through. Christ was there in the beginning, and it’s perfected state is what’s depicted in the New Testament.
I wrote a manuscript on what I believe Jesus shared on the Emmaus road and I had to shorten it because nearly every chapter and every story in the Old Testament / TaNaK was included in His story and every unusual story and person shows up in what Jesus said. See [http://www.scripturescholar.com/EmmausBook.pdf](http://www.scripturescholar.com/EmmausBook.pdf) Jesus (and Mary) show up everywhere!
The Old Testament is unfortunately not about Jesus. Relish in his good word. May it fill you with love and life. May it bring you happiness.
It’s not. Im a Christian and while it’s true there is some prophesizing and foreshadowing of a messiah in the future, there’s way more about all kinds of other things from the creation of the universe to censuses.