Does The Old Testament, Prove The New Testament.

[Guest Valk0010]

I have been talking to in the chatroom, which a lady by the name of onequestion. Her best arguement for the validity of christianity is that all the OT proves the NT, and predicts the NT. I am not a expert in either really. But I am curious on other peoples views on it. And with that lack of expertise, comes reason enough for me, to make a thread about such things.

 

I have a problem with this argument(using the bible to prove the bible and prophecy) I won't bore you with the obvious.

 

For one, it defys logic to say, that the ot predicts the nt, because beliefs build forward, not backwards, You start with god, and come up with divine revelation, as a example. Abraham and isaac couldn't have started as foreshadowing of jesus, if the writers didn't even know who jesus was, or that there was going to be a son of god, or a messiah. We have no reason to believe that god, revealed that yet to abraham or isaac.

 

It reads into the OT what could just as possibly not be there. A couple of different times in our discussion she brought up how, god resting on the seventh day in creation is like god resting now after jesus. What is he resting from as well.

 

My problem with that is, that it assumes the NT is accurate, and that jewish theology wants a messiah like jesus. A quick look through of jewish theology today proves a decent argument against Jesus being the messiah.

 

She brought up how, of course the jews wouldn't get it, that is prophecy fulfillment as well. Of course that assumes christianity was correct. And also, forsakes the possibility of whoever having the most rational argument.

 

In general, I stay away from prophecy and foreshadowing as a argument, because it subjectivity. You can make a text mean whatever you want, look at how Christians do that with the NT.

 

So one, if you ever read this, remember how I said about there are people who are smarter then me. Try the arguments here, there are former preachers, and former Christians of decades of experience. Would be a cool read anyway.

 

nah I will actually point out the obvious. And please correct me I am wrong.

 

Its a circular argument, its using the bible to prove the bible.

 

It ignores the fact that if a prophecy or a story is a common knowledge thing, people are going to try to fulfill it.

 

Meaning of stories, is some what subjective. Like when I was a christian I would have never in a million years, thought to connect genesis 7th day rest with the stuff that happens after jesus. Probably because, its playing fast and loose with the idea of god resting. I also believed that god still works within the world.

 

So christians, or sorta christians, got any ot versus that predict the OT, would like to hear them. Nonchristians, why would a argument like this, not convince you.

 

PS. Sorry for the lousy writing, had a long day.

[litassio]

The story of Jesus in the New Testament was especially adjusted in such a way [by different editors] that is seemed as though Jesus fulfilled certain predictions made by prophets in the Old Testament books. This was important for the early Jewish christians because they wished to impress the non-christian Jews in that way. Most of what was written about Jesus [including a large part of what he was supposed to have said] was made up anyway, xianity is largely mythical.

[Vixentrox]

Yep, easy to make your work of fiction fit a prophecy if you already have heard the prophecy.

[pratt]

if jesus took off his clothes and dance on the street, he would fulfill King David's dancing on the street,,,,,

 

if jesus died and his blood dripped on the floor, and the dogs licked it, it would have fulfilled another prophecy,,,

 

if jesus said : "I been sabotaged", you can be rest assured that they will find a verse or make one up just to fit into the situation,,,,,

[Eugene39]

Her best arguement for the validity of christianity is that all the OT proves the NT, and predicts the NT.

 

One thing had bothered me for years, and that was this: why do the Jews reject Jesus as Messiah when it seemed so obvious in the NT that he was. About 3 or 4 years ago, I read the OT completely through. By the time I was done, I completely understood why. The Messiah is to bring peace to the Jewish people, peace to the world, and the occupation of the world will be the study of the OT. Did Jesus do any of that? The answer is obvious. Another thing I found was that I would be reading along, and would recognize a verse or a part of a verse that is quoted in the NT as part of prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. If you chop a few words out of here and there, a person can make anything say anything they want - which is what they did.

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

The OT does not prove the NT. Check out post #747 in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/24702-why-do-you-remain-a-christian/page__st__740

[florduh]

Does the first Star Trek movie prove the second Star Trek movie?

[oddbird1963]

Why would an argument like "the OT predicts the NT" not convince me? I read the OT for myself. That's why.

 

The foreshadowing and allegories made from OT passages which supposedly reflect Jesus Christ or some other Christian concept are cases of Christian writers reading their own biases into the OT texts.

 

The prophesies which supposedly predict the Jesus of the NT usually are not predictive prophesies at all, have nothing to do with a messiah or, if a messiah is predicted, could be applied many different ways. You can actually read where some of the messianic prophesies were fulfilled in the same book as the supposed prophesy.

 

The best thing to do when a Christian talks about the OT proving the validity of the NT is to get them to cite specific examples. You can then show them later how the example is false or mistaken.

[Overcame Faith]

If the OT contained prophecies (in this sense, prophecies mean words spoken by god to a human being which foretell future events) which were, in fact, fulfilled to the letter at a time after the prophecies were made and those actual fulfillments were accurately recorded in the NT, then, yes, the OT could prove the NT. However, the problems in proving that that actually happened are insurmountable and what evidence there is is not convincing in the least.

 

Let's take one of my favorites. Take a close look at Psalm 22. Christians love to say that Psalm 22 is a prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus, or to put it in the vernacular used by onequestion, is a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus. And it does contain some snippets which, if viewed without careful analysis, appear to mirror what the gospel accounts say happened to Jesus during the crucifixion. Here is an example:

 

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

 

Psalm 22:1

 

Now let's look at how this "foreshadowing" plays itself out in the gospel accounts. Begin with the earliest of the four gospels, Mark:

 

33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

 

Mark 15:33-34[

 

This sounds pretty good when compared to Psalm 22:1 and, if we accept that it is an accurate rendering of Jesus' actual final words, we might have a case of foreshadowing.

 

Now to Matthew, the second gospel chronologically speaking:

 

45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

 

Matthew 27:45-46

 

Again, sounds pretty good and could also arguably be a foreshadowing. Now, on to Luke, the third gospel from a chronological standpoint:

 

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

 

The Luke gospel, which built upon both Mark and Matthew, changed the whole scenario in this scene, but kept the literary device of having Jesus quote a Psalm just before he died. Luke decided that he didn't want Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1, but he preferred having Jesus quote from Psalm 31:

 

5 Into your hands I commit my spirit;

 

Psalm 31:5

 

Now, there is a way for an apologist to try to reconcile Matthew's account with Luke's account. In Matthew, after Jesus said the famous words from Psalm 22, the following is what is said to have happened:

 

47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”

 

48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

 

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

 

Matthew 27:47-50

 

The apologist would say that when Jesus "cried out again in a loud voice" he said the words recorded in Luke. Thus, the harmony is that Jesus said both things and not just one of them. But let's look at the chronology and see if what appears to be a nice tight harmony really works.

 

For these purposes, let's look at the tearing of the curtain in the temple which is a part of these events. In Matthew, the moment that Jesus "cried out again in a loud voice" he "gave up his spirit." Matthew 27:50. This obviously means he died. So the harmonized sequence is that Jesus cried out in a loud voice saying what he did in Luke quoting Psalm 31, died, and then the curtain was torn in two. The problem is that Luke does not allow this harmonization because there the sequence is that the curtain in the temple was torn in two before Jesus quoted Psalm 31 and before he died. In Luke, the curtain was torn, Jesus then quoted Psalm 31 and thereafter died. The harmony, therefore, simply does not work.

 

Again, what was happening is that the accounts are literary in nature, and not factual. The authors of Mark and Matthew used the literary device of Jesus quoting from Psalm 22. However, the author of Luke retained the literary device of having Jesus quote from a psalm, but decided that Psalm 31 was preferred. And the tearing of the curtain in the temple prevents a harmonization, thus confirming what was actually going on - a work of fiction (or myth, if you prefer) being fashioned.

 

If what I have written above is not convincing enough, let's look at the account in John for this same scene. John was the last gospel chronologically speaking. Most scholars agree that John took a different approach to the story of Jesus and did not follow the outlines set forth by Mark, Matthew and Luke. Rather, it was more independent. Here's what the author of John said happened:

 

28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

 

John 19:28:30

 

The author of John does not employ the literary device of having Jesus quote a line from Psalm as his final words. Rather, that author simply has Jesus saying, "It is finished." But note that immediately after Jesus said these words, "he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." In other words, according to John, Jesus said "It is finished" and immediately died. However, according to Luke, Jesus died immediately after quoting Psalm 31.

 

There was no foreshadowing in the least. Rather, there were authors who tried to make a compelling story and make it look like Jesus' was fulfilling what they claimed were prophecies. The authors of Matthew and Luke built upon the foundation laid by the author of Mark while the author of John laid his own foundation. If one is open to the truth, this becomes patently obvious.

[NaturalMary63]

A lot has been written about the (non)prophecies of the OT and NT. Basically it amounts to the fact, as others have stated here, that the NT stories were made to fit bits of the OT as it suited the purposes of the writers. Including the fact that some of the supposed prophecies mentioned in the NT seem to be completely invented since no OT verse corresponds to them.

 

You can check out the information at infidels.org

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/prophecy.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

 

or here

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

 

I used to know of another list, but I can't find it. If I come across it, I'll let you know.

[Thackerie]

... Christians love to say that Psalm 22 is a prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus, or to put it in the vernacular used by onequestion, is a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus. And it does contain some snippets which, if viewed without careful analysis, appear to mirror what the gospel accounts say happened to Jesus during the crucifixion. ...

 

Even if Jesus had actually existed and had actually shouted out one or both of the referenced Psalm verses just before he died, it would not have been a fulfillment of prophecy. The guy would have been well-versed (no pun intended) in the Psalms and other Jewish scriptures. Lived his life around them, in fact.

 

So, in the last moments of his life, it is not surprising that these sayings came to mind. It would only have been a matter of how his mind had been conditioned previously and memory.

 

It is no more a prophecy than the act of a dying Catholic taking last rites or a dying back-sliding Christian making a death-bed confession is evidence that the dogma that underlies these acts is evidence of the truth of that dogma.

[Overcame Faith]

... Christians love to say that Psalm 22 is a prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus, or to put it in the vernacular used by onequestion, is a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus. And it does contain some snippets which, if viewed without careful analysis, appear to mirror what the gospel accounts say happened to Jesus during the crucifixion. ...

 

Even if Jesus had actually existed and had actually shouted out one or both of the referenced Psalm verses just before he died, it would not have been a fulfillment of prophecy. The guy would have been well-versed (no pun intended) in the Psalms and other Jewish scriptures. Lived his life around them, in fact.

 

So, in the last moments of his life, it is not surprising that these sayings came to mind. It would only have been a matter of how his mind had been conditioned previously and memory.

 

It is no more a prophecy than the act of a dying Catholic taking last rites or a dying back-sliding Christian making a death-bed confession is evidence that the dogma that underlies these acts is evidence of the truth of that dogma.

 

Nicely said and all true.

 

I chose one of many examples. I could have chosen the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothing which would have been an event over which this Jesus character would have had no control and demonstrated how that alleged event was also a literary device which was developed in the gospels and was no fulfilled prophecy in the slightest. I'm not going to do that because I don't have time, but here's the quote from Psalm 22:

 

18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

 

Psalm 22:18

[centauri]

I have been talking to in the chatroom, which a lady by the name of onequestion. Her best arguement for the validity of christianity is that all the OT proves the NT, and predicts the NT.

The NT is revisionist theology that uses pieces of the OT to validate itself.

It special pleads that God changed both his rules and his plan.

Then Christianity uses circular logic to "prove" that the NT, with all of its revisionism, must be true because the NT says it is.

[hereticzero]

The OT actually rejects the NT argument for a perfect sacrifice. In the OT book of Jeremiah, Jeremiah wrote that the scribes lied when they claimed god gave the commandment of sacrifice to the Jew. Jeremiah claims Moses received no such law from god. He also claimed all the truth had fled the land. In my point of view, this invalidates the Christian claim of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice. If god disliked sacrifice then he would also dislike the use of Jesus as a sacrifice. The only people who can burn enough brain synapses to validate the NT with the OT text are Christians. Moses is not even found outside the OT writings and the Jews did not even exist until about 500 years before Jesus when they wrote their OT scrolls. The Jews invented themselves. There wasn't even an Exodus from Egypt. Their prophecies were written after the fact which makes the whole prophecy thing mythical stories. Christians claim the NT is based on Hebrew writings. This is such a bogus claim. The entire NT books were written in Greek and presented in Greek until the Catholic church translated them into Latin. Never once was a Hebrew book used to translate the Greek into Latin or English. This claim came about only a few years ago with the Yeshuaists and the Holy Name movement, or are you worshiping the Real Jesus™ ministry that has sucked so much money out of its believers! The story of Jesus is a Greek tragedy that grew into a religious movement. It's all fiction no matter what angle you look at it.

[LivingLife]

In my research, I came across a piece of info, the xrefs in the center margins of the kjv comes form ab exercise carried out by some dude who was incarcerated for a very long time, loooong after the canon was put together, can't remember who. Likewise, much of the crap apologists come from the schoefield buybull and that was his interpretation which has also found its way into the kjv either as footnotes or margin references. Furthermore, the gospels were penned after paul's stuff was already in circulation, iirc about 30-40 years after paul's crap.

 

John of Patmos, John of the gospel and John of the epistles are NOT the same author. The Greek style of writing differs greatly. John was written after the apocalypse viz revelation and when you have this little factoid, the whole foundation of the NT crumbles. If John of Patmos was the same as John the evangelist, then he would have used a far more scary approach. John's gospel is very lovey dovey compared to the others and has some real well thought out mind fucks, hence the folk after you "get saved" always suggest reading John first then the rest of the gospels. When you study up on the shit that was in, then out prior to that big pow-wow in ±400AD, then you can see that the formulation of the canon was only man driven and had fuckall to do with the holy spook (maybe someone can help with that pow-wow name, on the tip of my tongue but it is late here)

 

Back then they did not have the internet and putting this all to bed in a matter of a few months must have been a daunting task, the woo woos cannot even agree now after 2k+ years what is truth or not and what are translation errors etc.

 

Point is most woo woos have never even read the bible cover to cover on their own and the few that have, have had a study guide to explain what the stuff means so that does not count. When you dig in on your own, you discover a heap more lies and innuendos that mainstream woo woo land does not tell you or probably hasn't a frigging clue about.