This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What are the subtle Jesus references in the OT?

#21FlashOfLightPosted 7/16/2013 11:32:28 PM(edited)
So just as this prophecy was fulfilled, and kept through David, the same God who fulfilled it also promised to king David that his seed would be established for ever, and so from Genesis to Deuteronomy, and from Deuteronomy to 2nd Chronicles this consistency in prophecy is kept, and carried all the way into the Psalms -

Psalms 89:3-4

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah."

This promise is once again re-established in Isaiah, as Suibom has pointed out, and it is expressed directly in Isaiah 9:7

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Hosea 3:5 likewise

"Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days."

Zechariah 12:7 "The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah."

This continues all the way to Malachi, as it says -

Malachi 3:1

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."

That Jesus Christ came to the temple is undeniable, it was one of the main causes that the Jews joined hands with the Romans to put him to death. So from Genesis, to Malachi, all of these things are speaking about only one individual - Jesus Christ, the Son of David.
---
Help someone out a little and you'll have a friend, help someone out too much and you'll gain an enemy.
#22_Rasl3rX_(Topic Creator)Posted 7/17/2013 5:06:25 PM
I genuinely do appreciate the feedback. I've always heard this argument and I've never known what it was.


The Jews were very familiar with their genealogy, they kept strict records since doing so was of critical importance to allowing who was and who was not High Priest, as well as family inheritances.

The promise of a Messiah as King was promised specifically to the tribe of Judah, and from the tribe of Judah - to the root of Jesse, and from Jesse to the line of David the King, and that out of David's line the Messiah would arise, and that he would also arise in a specific place in Judah, and that he would be born in a specific city, that he would preach in Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and also likewise be killed by his enemies.


Well, this is Messianic prophecy, and New Testament scholarship (the stuff I tend to study, I know little about the OT besides reading it disjointedly) gives some arguments that the beginning of Matthew (well a lot of Matthew) and the beginning of Luke was meant to shoehorn Jesus into prophecy.

It was an interesting read though, thanks. The main thing I think I see in these sort of things is reflexivity and reflexive literature (one of my main reasons for this topic is testing if this is cognitive dissonance or not)

Like for example, Jesus picked 12 disciples because of the 12 tribes right? But to me, it seems more of a Jesus had 12 disciples because of the 12 tribes in OT as a means of being influenced by it rather than the 12 tribes necessarily being the foundation of the 12 disciples. I worded that horribly, but do you get what I'm saying? I feel like the same thing happens here (and I'm also dubious of whether or not Jesus actually had 12 disciples, on an aside, but that's again not the point of the topic)
---
DarkContractor
#23mrplainswalkerPosted 7/18/2013 4:00:03 PM
I just responded to another topic regarding this, and I'll say it again...Jesus wasn't alive. There are no references. For the same reason that people didn't use microwaves to reheat their day old pizza in the first century.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#24FlashOfLightPosted 7/18/2013 5:37:12 PM
_Rasl3rX_ posted...

Well, this is Messianic prophecy, and New Testament scholarship (the stuff I tend to study, I know little about the OT besides reading it disjointedly) gives some arguments that the beginning of Matthew (well a lot of Matthew) and the beginning of Luke was meant to shoehorn Jesus into prophecy.


Both Matthew and Luke were of critical importance to any Jews that would need convincing to believe in Jesus. Without no record of genealogy, which they would no doubt demand, he would be the more easily rejected. So the Royal line of David had to be established, as well as the direct ancestry towards Abraham, since it was under these two that the Covenants were promised, this is the emphasis in Matthew, while Luke fills in the rest, with the direct ancestry toward Adam, who was the son of God.

This is why in the Gospels, Jesus' titles switch back and forth between "Son of man" and "Son of God", they were to directly target the different beliefs between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in particular, who had different beliefs about who God ordained, and they each had a different method of recognition.

Here is an example from Matthew 9:2-6

"And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house."

And in John 10:33-36 -

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

I worded that horribly, but do you get what I'm saying? I feel like the same thing happens here (and I'm also dubious of whether or not Jesus actually had 12 disciples, on an aside, but that's again not the point of the topic)


The Scripture also gives a direct answer to this, in Luke 22:29-30

"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

So the Disciples were purposely picked to be judges over the 12 tribes, which itself goes back to the Old Testament - Deuteronomy 16:18

"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment."
---
Help someone out a little and you'll have a friend, help someone out too much and you'll gain an enemy.
#25DarkContractorPosted 7/18/2013 5:49:19 PM
In trying to demonstrate the prophecy fulfillment alleged by the beginnings of Matthew and Luke you didn't even analyze any of those verses... you just prooftexted. And I find KJV to be irritable to read personally, so please forgive me as I give you a cookie cutter video to demonstrate my views on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU

As for the twelve tribes/twelve disciples, that's my point, that's reflexive literature. Some disciple's names, such as Andrew or Barthelemow or Thaddeaus, we never hear from again until legends about their martyrship pop up in the 2nd century; there's really no evidence of their existence whatsoever. Hell, in that verse you quoted, Jesus just told Judas he would be a ruler of one of the 12 Kingdoms (this is a point I'm arguing in my topic about Judas, hopefully the arguments of that debate don't spill too much into here, but the reasons for that argument are similar to my doubts of the disciples) I do believe in a historical Jesus, ftr, but I do not believe there is reason to believe in the existence of some of the disciples outside of the non-epistemology of 'faith'.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#26Imperator420Posted 7/20/2013 4:15:10 AM
There are no subtle references to Jesus in the OT. He didn't exist when it was written.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#27bsballa09Posted 7/20/2013 11:41:13 AM
There are none.
---
Diet Coke does not taste like regular Coke. If they did, there wouldn't be a Diet Coke.
#28inferiorweaselPosted 7/21/2013 12:11:34 PM
JonWood007 posted...
^^How do you know that Jews actually waited for a messiah and it wasn't a product of an evolution of theology then retroactively applied on the text?


Because scientific study of the dead sea scrolls show us that some of the scrolls/texts are thousands of years older than we thought. Which pre-date any attempt to doctor the message. Then you compare the dead sea scrolls to the Ethiopian Texts, and the fact that they are an identical match, after being separated for thousands of years shows that nothing was doctored or altered when you take the actual translations. In the case of English we know where the mistakes were made, but each language has their first bible that is their go to book.
---
Live and Learn / Forgiveness is Divine.
(Read those. If you still feel the same way.... Well, you are redcount. - Vyyk)
#29bsballa09Posted 7/22/2013 1:04:29 PM
inferiorweasel posted...
JonWood007 posted...
^^How do you know that Jews actually waited for a messiah and it wasn't a product of an evolution of theology then retroactively applied on the text?


Because scientific study of the dead sea scrolls show us that some of the scrolls/texts are thousands of years older than we thought. Which pre-date any attempt to doctor the message. Then you compare the dead sea scrolls to the Ethiopian Texts, and the fact that they are an identical match, after being separated for thousands of years shows that nothing was doctored or altered when you take the actual translations. In the case of English we know where the mistakes were made, but each language has their first bible that is their go to book.


Comparisons of the Masoretic Texts, the LXX and the DSS show that the Masoretic Text is vastly more similar to the DSS than the LXX is to the DSS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the various texts associated with the Hebrew Bible, including the Septuagint.[52] Peter Flint,[53] cites Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the scrolls,[54] who identifies five broad variation categories of DSS texts:[55]

Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category (e.g. 1QIsa-b)

Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls, for example, 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, and 4QJer-b, 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share distinctive individual readings with the Septuagint, although they do not fall in this category.
---
Diet Coke does not taste like regular Coke. If they did, there wouldn't be a Diet Coke.
#30JonWood007Posted 7/22/2013 1:53:45 PM
inferiorweasel posted...
JonWood007 posted...
^^How do you know that Jews actually waited for a messiah and it wasn't a product of an evolution of theology then retroactively applied on the text?


Because scientific study of the dead sea scrolls show us that some of the scrolls/texts are thousands of years older than we thought. Which pre-date any attempt to doctor the message. Then you compare the dead sea scrolls to the Ethiopian Texts, and the fact that they are an identical match, after being separated for thousands of years shows that nothing was doctored or altered when you take the actual translations. In the case of English we know where the mistakes were made, but each language has their first bible that is their go to book.


1) They can't be "thousands" of years older.....that would mean before 1100 BCE or so.

2) So what? I'm not referring to the texts. I'm referring to the interpretations of the texts. Just because a message is old doesn't mean it's not taken out of context.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768