27 April 2007

Everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus

Christians often say that everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus. But do they really believe it?

Does Malachi 2:3 point to Christ?

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

How about Ezekiel 23:20?

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12?

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

All the nasty, cruel, absurd stuff in the Old Testament points to Jesus?

If I were a Christian, I think I'd point these verses at someone else.

28 comments:

beepbeepitsme said...

I would look at it the other way round. The Jesus concept was created to make it look like he fitted the supposed prophecy of the jewish OT.

Or, let's build a new religion. What will we use as our template? I know, let's use this book which has an element of prophecy. Now, what does the prophecy call for?

Yeah, call me a skeptic and you won't be wrong.

Jason said...

lol You GO Steve!!!

Ryan said...

It was probably because people started seeing holes and imperfections in the bible, and Christianity was starting to lose faith, so they had to do SOMETHING to cover their butt, thus the creation of the New Testament. (And other versions of the bible, ex: King James, New Recovery, etc.)

Don said...

Couldn't agree more! That's the thing about prophecies, you can be high on pot and translate everyting to suit your goal.

Steve Wells said...

Jason said...

lol You GO Steve!!!

lol? What do you find so funny, Jason? Is it your original statement (That everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus)?

Or is it the Old Testament verses that amuse you?

The verses that I quoted are in the Old Testament, so they must point to Jesus. Right? How?

Is Jesus planning to spread dung on our faces? Does he like to tell dirty stories? Does he think we should cut off a woman's hand if she touches a man's genitals?

Jason said...

I find you funny, Steve. I think it's funny that you'll take my "every" comment as including every word and verse ever written and yet take the "every" comment in Genesis as being exclusive (i.e. no sea creatures). All in all, you're just an all around funny guy. :)

Steve Wells said...

Oh, I see.

You think it's funny that I thought that you meant to say that everything in Scripture ultimately points to Christ when you said "Everything in Scripture ultimately points to Christ."

Thanks for clearing that up Jason. You have a peculiar way of expressing yourself!

So I guess you don't think that everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus (even though you said it did). Do you think that anything in the Old Testament points to Jesus?

Jason said...

Steve, you're looking for a cheap argument and I'm not taking the bait :)

Christ can be found in Malachi 2 (an examination of proper priestly behaviour, of which Christ was one himself), Deut 25 (the old law in general pointed forward to Christ) and Ezek 23 (prophetic of the apostate church, a church which professes to know Christ but which has already fallen away).

Don said...

Way to go Jason, taking your argument from a book that has been edited countless times and has been proven to not contain a grain of truth (Moses VS Egyptian anyone?)

Besides every civillization has a 'messiah is a coming' complex that predates the Torah or Bible and surprise surprise, being preistly is usually one quality of being a messiah

Jason said...

Don't worry Don, my beliefs don't threaten you. I'll believe whatever book I want and you believe (or don't believe) whatever book you want. It's all good.

Don said...

To Tell you the truth Jason, it's really great to hear that from religious people. Whatever we believe, at least we as men should live in peace with each other.

Unfortunately you are a rare breed my friend, being Bible thumped to everyday in this country makes me hope there are more people like you!

Jason said...

Don, thanks for your comment :)

techhstuff said...

hi

there is this page i found which tracks all the top blog news about atheism in just a single page
http://www.netreputation.co.uk/directory/atheism
you are on it too

angelsdepart said...

Pick and choose Jason, pick and choose!

Jason said...

What're my options?

JR said...

Hello everyone. Just got started with blogging, but after coming across this blog, thought I'd throw my "Christian perspective" into the mix.
In context of what you've written, these passages serve to illustrate the seriousness of sin. You've selected verses from 3 different periods of time in the Bible (hundreds of years, actually). To answer as generally as possible, God spent alot of time trying to keep the Israelites clean and apart from the sin and debauchery of the world around them. Child sacrifice, ritual prostituion, rampant murder and debasement were everywhere. Law law kept Israel in convenant, set apart, until Jesus came and fulfilled it by becoming a sacrifice for the corporate sin of Israel, and the world.

So, I've weighed in. Hope this was illuminating. :)

P.S. I'm over at JordanRising.Blogspot.com

cranky old fart said...

A most telling point is that the Jews, you know, the ones who wrote the OT before it was the "Old" T, say Christians have it all wrong.

In fact, they find the whole idea of the Messiah (remember it's their Messiah) being viciously killed by Romans/Jews more than a bit daft.

David said...

Just a few notes:

1) To say the "Jews" who wrote the OT say Christians are wrong is rather silly. The first Christians WERE Jewish converts. So, Jews are saying Jews got it wrong. Which Jews are right?

2) No one claims the entire OT points to Christ. For example, Isaiah 7:14 is sometimes used by Christians as proof of "virgin" birth of Christ. But the Hebrew word actually means young woman. So, that passage may actually refer to that period and time. Christians have no problem with this. Much of the OT isn't talking directly about Christ. But, ultimately, the central message points to Christ and specifically, read, just one example, Psalm 53.

3) The historical proof of Christ is so overwhelming that if you don't agree He existed, you are lying to yourself. Now, that we know He existed, you then have to ask, "How is it possible this guy fulfilled not 1, but 66 specific verses of the OT perfectly?" People, I'm not talking about broad prophecies here, we're talking specifics. Do your homework, don't rely upon the message boards (or me for that matter). You owe it to yourself to do your homework from INDEPENDENT sources.

Dragnet said...

David,
I must take exception to your position on the existence of "Christ". While I would be willing to acknowledge that there was most likely a man with a fair amount of popularity, a charismatic if you like that was even possibly named something close to Jesus or George or what ever name you feel works for you.
I can not even come close to agreeing that this person is some sort of deity.
The historic person is much more myth than reality, especially after 2000 years.
If you try to claim that just simply because he existed he is proof of something is a real problem as soon as you acknowledge the existence of Mohamed. Now Mohamed even mentions Jesus but he certainly does not believe he is a “messiah” By that fact alone it renders your argument flat. Mohamed is a VASTLY popular figure in Abrahamic theism.
He came after Jesus not before. His name is used almost as much as Allah when invoking some type of curse or praise. I think you are the one that needs to do your homework, only do it with new eyes. Look farther back in time and you will see where more that one civilization has some similar stories to the Jesus myth. When you read the Jesus myth and compare them with the previous myths you might see the coorelation.

Stories in the bible could be and were ripped off from earlier civilizations and combined to make a theology work for the group that had strung them together.
In civilizations, if you want to control your population you give them something to believe and educate them in the things you want them to know and you can then reap the rewards as you sit in your temple/palace and everybody pays you to keep god happy. It is easy to blame them for sinning if things don't go right, after all you are having a fine time so it must be them. As we grew in population and new ideas (or old ones) came about people tried to isolate themselves from these different ideas and became more and more segregated. Differences of opinion are a byproduct of more than one person occupying a room at the same time. In today's world, religion is going to either kill us all or cease to exist. It is like a quote from Frank Zappa. Communism won't work, because people like to own stuff. It the same for religion. It can't work because it is imperfect. In order for it to be perfect , everybody has to think the same way. As long as the text of any system has flaws, (ALL OF THEM DO) then the interpretations will differ. If god wanted all people to believe that same thing then asking some poor schmuck to write it down was a huge mistake. If God can make mistakes then it is not a god.
This is really just re-iterating the same old stuff from others but it makes me feel better to have said it.

ANDY said...

dragnet said,
"If god wanted all people to believe that same thing then asking some poor schmuck to write it down was a huge mistake."

The development of the written word was the single most significant factor in liberating humanity from the stone age and it continues to be the absolute rock-bottom basis for all modern civilization. I can't think of a better method for God to get His message across. He certainly couldn't have done better even if He spoke audibly directly to each of us.

Most people think that if God wanted us to believe in Him, He should just manifest Himself physically. However, the Israelites of the Old Testament were constantly experiencing God's supernatural intervention and they just got used to it. They received manna in the desert and water from a rock for 40 years and yet they never stopped complaining.

God tried to interact directly with us - we got bored. Faith works better. Don't expect to see and then believe. Believe first, then you'll see.

God knows that we have to believe in Him FIRST before we'll believe His message. And our modern world is still filled with evidences of the divine, for those with eyes to see. Stop and consider a watermelon seed for a moment. Yes, science can explain how it works, but isn't it still amazing? But we've just grown accustomed to it. We're bored by God's amazing creation.

Jesus said, "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign..." (Matthew 16:4). In Luke 16:31, he says, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

You've got to know to understand. Jesus said it several times - "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Dragnet said...

Andy's quote from the bible.
Jesus said, "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign..." (Matthew 16:4). In Luke 16:31, he says, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

You've got to know to understand. Jesus said it several times - "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
All this seem svery convenient to me.
I was once there and thought I was hearing the "word" all I was hearing was a circular reference.
You have no way to prove there was EVER an interactive god only word written down by OLD DEAD people.
How are we to believe it.
Sure it was great for them if were true. Why stop then. why not continue to interact.
A watermelon seed is a SAD attempt to prove creation. It is back to the circle if that is all you have.

Paul said...

dragnet: "You have no way to prove there was ever an interactive god only word written down by OLD DEAD people. How are we to believe it."

Well, as Jesus said in your quote from Luke - some people will "not listen" so will never be convinced. Take beepbeepitsme's comment: "The Jesus concept was created to make it look like he fitted the supposed prophecy of the jewish OT." A slightly more than cursory reading of Old and New Testaments and history with an open mind would show how absurd that statement is, but seems like he's already made up his mind based on some other source (hearsay?).

And Don's comment: "taking your argument from a book that has been edited countless times..." This statement is made so assuredly, surely the evidence of its truth must be overwhelming? Don, if you really believe this, I don't blame you for being skeptical. But is your faith based on reason and evidence? Or is it a reaction to being bible-thumped every day?

I'm struggling to even imagine how all the instances of even a single OT book kept under jealous guardianship and reverence by the scribes in various locations across the middle east could be "edited" even once, let alone "countlessly".

Furthermore, the OT was translated into Greek hundreds of years before Christ so no editing or insertion would have been remotely possible. If you look at Daniel's clear prophecy (Dan 9:25 to pick one) giving the sequence of the Messiah (including the precise timing of his appearance!), his rejection, the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and its precise fulfilment in history, I would have thought a reasonable person have to open their mind a little.

Of course the Jews themselves prefer to overlook this amazing prophecy of their Messiah - in doing so they only prove the words he spoke in Luke 16:31.

Dan 9:25: Proof of an "interactive God" or "only words written down by OLD DEAD people"? Well I think that depends on whether you're really listening or not.

Michael said...

To all the Christians weighing in, I just want to say that the easiest way to leave Christianity is to come to doubt the Bible is an authority in any matter. Once we do this, we learn that there are zero, yes ZERO contemporary references to a man named Christ ever having lived. And when we compare the stories about Christ with the stories of other risen savior gods that existed during this time period, we learn that they are very similar.

Why, may I ask, is this?

David, you seem to believe that certain stories in the OT point to Christ. But can you demonstrate that they HAD to? The point is that most people can align a story with any character if they have enough examples from which to pick. Since you never met Jesus and since the accounts of Jesus disagree in many respects within themselves, how can you say anything about it? You are not a contemporary of Jesus and thus cannot compare any writings since you'll never know the true Jesus.

You also stated that the historical proof "is so overwhelming..." which is laughable. Try googling the phrase "did jesus really exist?" or pick up a book such as "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. He's not alone. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have their doubts as well. But regardless of what you read or don't read, please consider that I believe it's unlikely that Jesus ever existed and, even if he did, his story is not compelling to me. It's nonsense. So if the God of the Universe which you say exists can't even persuade me to go this far, then what kind of God is this? He sounds pretty ineffectual.

When it comes down to it, there isn't a single merit to having faith that can't be applied in equal measure to those of other faiths. When you come to realize that faith leads you to Christianity just as often as it leads you to Islam, Krishna, and Vishnu then you'll start to see what I'm saying. It's not about "not listening". I am listening but there's nothing to hear. I thought there was for the 24 years of my life that I wasted being a Christian, but then I went to the doctor and he pointed out that I had cotton in my ears the whole time and that the only voices I could have been hearing were those of my very own.

Bman said...

Is it just me or did time happen to be based on Jesus' Death? Oh so your saying that 2008 "AD" has nothing to do with the death of the Son of God? You're living in this time.. After Death of Jesus Christ. Thanks for acknowledging that for me people. This is a never ending argument and No one is going to win. All you hypocrites, relax, your never going to prove a any point that is worth listening to anyway. Honestly, give it up people! Grow up! Do something worth while, maybe ride a bike to work to save on gas/oil, read a kid a Dr. Seuss book, Help an old lady across the street, Read the bible to find the good in it. If you'd stop being all knowing jackasses maybe the world would be a better place for you and you wouldnt be such a downer around everyone. Do yourself a favor: Stop trying to prove that Christ didn't exist and Check todays date. I'm right, your wrong, I'm not sorry. Have a good day and God Bless.

Daniel said...

Bman,

Time is actually measured based roughly on the Earth's rotation on its axis as well as its orbit around the sun. Of course, this only applies to Earth.

When a ruling body, in this case the church, decides that their subjects will record years using a provided system, the subjects usually follow suit. The fact that a powerful entity such as this can impose their will proves nothing other than who is in charge.

Typically, years represented using this system are recorded with 'AD' in front of the year, for example AD 1800, rather than in the manner you show. AD is short for Anno Domini meaning 'in the year of the lord', not 'after death' as you suggest. Another important point to note is that the basis of this system is the supposed birth of Jesus, not his death. These are all easy mistakes to make for someone who does not care to research the topic.

This system was not developed until the 6th century and not widely used until several centuries after that.

So to answer your question, no, time (or more accurately, the recording of the years) is not based on the death of a man named Jesus. It was more of a marketing tool invented many years after said death in order to more cement the idea of Jesus and the church into history and peoples' minds.

In addition to addressing that question of yours, I would like to ask you: who exactly in this blog is being hypocritical? I think maybe you mean 'heretics' or 'unbelievers'. At any rate, it seems that you do not know the meaning of hypocrite. However you give a nice example of hypocracy by telling others to find a better use of time than posting to this blog as you post to this blog.

You namecall, in my opinion you speak arrogantly and flippantly, you display a great amount of ignorance, and then you tell people to have a good day and to educate themselves. You're not serving as a very good example of what I would think a Christian should be.

Jess said...

How about Isaiah 7:14?
14Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.

Or how about 2 Samuel 7:16
And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'"

See Micah 5:1-2
Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek.
2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

I could give you many more, but I have a feeling you will not like what I give.

Do not be so narrow-minded as to claim that Christianity is a farse, when all you believe is a broken story with no end in sight and no beginning but the broken shards in your head.

Anebo said...

Jess,

Those OT texts and many others were consulted when the the Gospels authors created their works. That is, in fact, sure proof that they have nothing to do with the life of Jesus. They were text early Christians turned to too to make sense of later events, in the same way fundamentalists today turn to the Bible now and make spurious associations between events in their lives and the ancient texts.

kebm said...

@Bman,

If you think that using the measuring system with "AD" after out dates proves the existence of the man-god, does your calling Thursday "Thursday" mean that you accept the existence of Thor, whom Thursday was named for? Ditto for the other days of the week. This is a 7th-grade argument my 6th grader can see through.
--
Kevin