Jesus is not the Messiah, change my mind

The Bible cross references itself more than 63,000 times between the old and New Testament. Think about that. Dozens of different authors spanning over 4,000 years and they all managed to coordinate their texts so that they all convey the same message and information. To me that is proof that the Bible is divinely inspired. And if the Bible is divinely inspired then it was given to us by our creator the Sovereign Lord. And if the Bible was given to us by our creator then what is contained in it is true and good. And if it is true and good then Jesus is our messiah.


The first pic is the visualization of those cross references.
 
  • Dumb
  • Informative
Reactions: Lightsaber Dildo, Meth Until Death, hydrochloric gunt wash and 1 other person
Thanks to everyone who has responded seriously. I appreciate it even if the jannies moved the thread from Deep Thots to Mass Debates.
Fatniggo1488 said:
@Rainbow Child
I'd add Psalms 141 to that because it does sound almost exactly like what happened during and after the crucifixion.

>1 Lord, I cry unto thee: make haste unto me; give ear unto my voice, when I cry unto thee.

>2 Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.

>3 Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.

>4 Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practise wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties.

>5 Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.

>6 When their judges are overthrown in stony places, they shall hear my words; for they are sweet.

>7 Our bones are scattered at the grave's mouth, as when one cutteth and cleaveth wood upon the earth.

>8 But mine eyes are unto thee, O God the Lord: in thee is my trust; leave not my soul destitute.

>9 Keep me from the snares which they have laid for me, and the gins of the workers of iniquity.

>10 Let the wicked fall into their own nets, whilst that I withal escape.

I say this because Christ says to Peter in Matthew 16

>18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He refers to Peter as a rock, and Peter was largely the one who converted Rome to Christianity. With regards to Rome the wicked (Jews) did fall into their own nets which ultimately led to Christianity flourishing in Rome no longer under Jewish oppressions.
Click to expand...
Again, this suffers from the weaknesses I pointed out earlier: There is nothing here that points specifically to Jesus, and many things that argue against such an interpretation (e.g. v. 5 - do you think that righteous people attacked Jesus?). The psalm is perfectly understandable as is, and it only becomes a prophecy of Jesus when you read back into it a highly specific meaning based on a pre-existing Christian viewpoint.
William Tyndale said:
The Bible cross references itself more than 63,000 times between the old and New Testament. Think about that. Dozens of different authors spanning over 4,000 years and they all managed to coordinate their texts so that they all convey the same message and information. To me that is proof that the Bible is divinely inspired. And if the Bible is divinely inspired then it was given to us by our creator the Sovereign Lord. And if the Bible was given to us by our creator then what is contained in it is true and good. And if it is true and good then Jesus is our messiah.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Firstly, I would dispute the idea that these "cross-references" are always saying the same thing. For instance, Deuteronomy 16 may allude to the law of the Paschal sacrifice from Exodus 12, but it presents the observance of the law in a different manner than Exodus prescribes (Sheep and cattle, or just sheep and goats? Boiled or roasted?). Likewise, both Isaiah (2:2) and Ezekiel (40:2) may describe the restored Temple as being placed on a very high mountain, but they vary significantly on who will be welcome there (all nations, or just Israelites?). So although it's true that different books may discuss the same concepts, they don't always convey exactly the same message and information. (I'm not saying that there's no way to harmonize them. I'm saying they fall short of being obviously miraculously coordinated. Also, where do you get the 4,000 year figure from?).

If the above holds for the OT, it's certainly true for the NT. I don't a priori accept the latter as divinely inspired scripture, so the fact that the Gospels cite the prophets as predicting certain events in the life of Jesus holds no weight for me, any more than a Muslim citing Deuteronomy 18:15 as foretelling Muhammad would. In order to make a convincing case for Christianity, you have to show that the NT's interpretations are correct, not just that they exist. Later authors citing earlier scripture proves nothing in and of itself - after all, the Talmud references the Bible thousands of times too, and most Orthodox Jews would argue that it also conveys "exactly the same information".
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Mothra1988
Probably not, but you're Jewish so forgive me for questioning your motivations for the thread lmao
 
Blobby's Murder Knife said:
God was fed up with Israel's constant nonsense. You can read it in what Jesus said in the NT about Jews at the time. I think he literally was trolling them sending Jesus to some extent as they all expected some worldly warrior that would fight for them regardless. All Jesus/God wanted was people who would follow his law and accept what God told Abraham, that blood sacrifice was not going to work ultimately in the way they thought.
Click to expand...
Why did God choose the Jews when he knows they're beyond saving?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Super Guido
What exactly are you referring to when you say that you don't see "how it squares with the teaching of the Old Testament"? Do you have specific scriptures in mind or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Balalaika Z Bree
SSj_Ness said:
What exactly are you referring to when you say that you don't see "how it squares with the teaching of the Old Testament"? Do you have specific scriptures in mind or something?
Click to expand...
It's not any one part of scripture in particular, it's the totality. You don't need specific verses to understand why Christians don't accept Islam; it's apparent that the latter tells an entirely different story than the former, even if it claims to be the true continuation of the message of Jesus. The Old Testament has a certain idea of God and his relationship with Israel, and the New Testament has a very different one. The biggest proof of this is the fact that virtually none of the Jews accepted Jesus's claims to be the Messiah/God, precisely because his ideas about both were so radically different then what they were expecting. (Contrast this with the widespread belief in Bar Kochba's messiahship a century or so later.)

It's hard to give you examples of specific Christian beliefs that the OT is in opposition to, because a) things are not usually as black and white as Jewish anti-missionaries make it seem* and b) it's really an issue of the absence of Christian ideas more than explicit contradiction. For example, it's incorrect to read the Shema as a polemic against the Trinity, because the concept of the Trinity wouldn't be developed for another three millennia, give or take; but that doesn't mean that Moses's concept of God was trinitarian - there's no hint of that in the Torah.

*I don't mean that they're wrong in the broader sense of various Christological readings not being correct - obviously, I think they aren't. I'm talking about someone like Tovia Singer claiming that בר in Psalms 2:12 should not be translated as "the son" because that's the meaning of the word in Aramaic and the Psalms are in Hebrew. Anyone who knows anything about the Hebrew Bible knows that it's full of Aramaisms, and most classical Jewish commentators agree that son is the correct translation here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hydrochloric gunt wash
on reflection, I honestly think it isn't possible to prove scripturally that the NT directly follows the OT as the doctrine of the God that exists in both bodies of writing. even if you exclude the hairier questions by assuming things like the divine inspiration & inviolacy of the OT (and that the NT's divine inspiration & inviolacy hinges solely on the question of Jesus' divinity), the historicity of the existence of Jesus, etc., the OT prophecies are worded extremely vaguely, as prophecies tend to be - at no point does anybody stand up and say "the Messiah is going to be named Jesus and he's going to be born X years from now in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph" or whatever. the divinity of Jesus specifically is attested exclusively in the NT and demonstrated through seemingly apocryphal anecdotes like the virgin birth, the baptism, testimony of the miracles, etc., meaning, the OT threw the ball, the NT claims to have caught it, but what happened in the air between is anyone's guess. additionally, as mentioned by the OP, the form of the doctrinal shift presented by the NT directly disagrees with some of the OT's predictions: for one, the New Covenant was implied to pertain to Jews exclusively (Jeremiah 31:31,33); the idea of filthy gentiles having access to the Chosen Faith is very much against the OT tradition.

however, informally, I will make this point: the general thrust of the OT's narrative is that God made an exclusive deal with the descendants of Abraham, because Abraham was cool, but it turns out his descendants were mostly shitheads. so there's a continuous cycle of God handing down the law, the Jews disregarding it and giving God the finger (despite the fact that God is said to be physically extant in many cases), God cooking up some kind of horrific ordeal to put them in their place, followed by a (usually short-lived) rededication and revival. the OT has a lot of hilarious stories in this vein and I encourage anybody curious about the scriptural characterization of the Jews as chronic fuckups to just read the entire book of Exodus. with that in mind, the fact that the NT starts with the Jews ruining their own ancient sacred covenant by being retarded and letting the gentiles into the club in the process not only has the flavor of canon but is also pure kino and probably the way I'd do it myself if I were the Big Man
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: hydrochloric gunt wash and Sewer Level 9
Hugger Brother said:
the general thrust of the OT's narrative is that God made an exclusive deal with the descendants of Abraham, because Abraham was cool, but it turns out his descendants were mostly shitheads
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing about that, Abraham was a shithead as well. He has sex with Hagar to get a son which causes Sarah to be jealous and exiles Hagar and Ishmael, which would end up creating the Caaninities that the Jews will fight with later. He literally jews God down to save Sodom and Gomorrah which doesn’t work. He tries to kill his son, which may or may not have led to Sarah dying of shock (and I could see the possibility that God was looking for Abraham to refuse the sacrifice of Isaac considering that whole story is about how God doesn’t want human sacrifice). The Jews may be the chosen people, but they aren’t the perfect people.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Romeo, Cheerlead-in-Chief, Sewer Level 9 and 1 other person
It may not be the angle you're coming from, but in regards to a common argument, I think the idea of Jesus' divinity being a collaborative lie between Roman and Jewish elites starts to fall apart when you consider He was strongly critical of the flaws of both, especially the Jewish elites, and both Jews and the Roman Catholic Church have spent the next two thousand years either denying His existence and calling His following heretical, in the case of Judaism, or subverting, corrupting, and twisting His teachings into a bizarre ritual cult of idolatry and the blatant worship of false gods and mortal men that's suspiciously popular among elites, in the case of Roman Catholicism. It'd be very counterproductive to make up an entire story to further your influence, then spend all your years after it trying to errode, corrupt, and snuff out the legacy of that story and its influence, like Mao putting out movies about how terrible he is or telling you to also hang up pictures of capitalists and priests and thank them every morning.
 
Hugger Brother said:
the OT prophecies are worded extremely vaguely, as prophecies tend to be - at no point does anybody stand up and say "the Messiah is going to be named Jesus and he's going to be born X years from now in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph"
Click to expand...
Are they really that vague, though? Sure, biblical prophecy about the future generally doesn't name specific individuals, but that's not to say they don't make specific predictions. The prophets all foresaw a literal restoration of the Davidic kingdom, and they weren't particularly circumspect about it.
Hugger Brother said:
for one, the New Covenant was implied to pertain to Jews exclusively (Jeremiah 31:31,33); the idea of filthy gentiles having access to the Chosen Faith is very much against the OT tradition.
Click to expand...
Not at all, that's a misunderstanding of Jeremiah. A new covenant with Israel doesn't exclude gentiles from worshipping God:
And it shall be in those days when you become numerous and are fruitful in the land,” declares the Lord, “they will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ And it will not come to mind, nor will they remember it, nor miss it, nor will it be made again. At that time they will call Jerusalem ‘The Throne of the Lord,’ and all the nations will assemble at it, at Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord; and they will no longer follow the stubbornness of their evil heart. (Jeremiah 3:16-17)
Click to expand...
Other prophets may have expressed different sentiments, but it's certainly not against the OT tradition. I mean, look at Isaiah 19:
On that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a memorial stone to the Lord beside its border. And it will become a sign and a witness to the Lord of armies in the land of Egypt; for they will cry out to the Lord because of oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Champion, and He will save them. So the Lord will make Himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the Lord on that day. They will even worship with sacrifice and offering, and will make a vow to the Lord and perform it. And the Lord will strike Egypt, striking but healing; so they will return to the Lord, and He will respond to their pleas and heal them.

On that day there will be a road from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria; and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians.

On that day Israel will be the third party to Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of armies has blessed, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: AgendaPoster, Backpack Knight and I'm Retarded?
EyeGuy said:
Are they really that vague, though? Sure, biblical prophecy about the future generally doesn't name specific individuals, but that's not to say they don't make specific predictions. The prophets all foresaw a literal restoration of the Davidic kingdom, and they weren't particularly circumspect about it.

Not at all, that's a misunderstanding of Jeremiah. A new covenant with Israel doesn't exclude gentiles from worshipping God:

Other prophets may have expressed different sentiments, but it's certainly not against the OT tradition. I mean, look at Isaiah 19:
Click to expand...
I was always suspicious about Christians and their New Testament liking.
Why would you renounce the parts of the Bible that hate degenerates, polytheism and demand that we hunt down witches and magic users?
That's like the best part of religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back