• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The New Testament misinterpreting the Old Testament

RAMOSS said:
Oh god, not the Jews for Jesus site. They are horrendously bad, liars, and use forgeries to try to convert Jews to Christianity. Sorry, but anything they write or claim would not have any value to the Jewish conception of the Messiah. Their excuses don't properly address the Jewish law or concerns, except to hand wave it away.
Click to expand...

OK.

Then try this one if you prefer a different messenger:
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties...ferent-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
 
CrabCake said:
OK.

Then try this one if you prefer a different messenger:
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties...ferent-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
Click to expand...

That one is even worse. Sites that I think are horrible when it comes to scholarship are

1) Jews for Jesus
2) Carm
3) Christian Think Tank
4) Tekon Ministries
5) Bible and Science,
6) Any messianic Jewish site (yes, I know it's being redundant with the J4J's)
7) The 'bible believers' web site in australia.
8) Leaderu

The problem with the whole 'Luke is Mary's.. is that,.. well, the bible doesn't say that, nor is it relevant when it comes to people making a claim about 'what the Jewish messiah is'. That badly piece of written is trying to make things up that aren't in the GOL to try to resolve a contradiction, and it makes things up about not only what is written in the Gospel of Luke itself.. but also makes things up about Jewish law and tradition. It skips over the difficulties in the text, makes proclamations, and is very badly written.

Matthew Slick ignores the test in the GOL, ignores the Jewish tradition, ignores Jewish law, and generally making unreasonable assumptions when it comes to trying to resolve a contradiction.
 
RAMOSS said:
That one is even worse. Sites that I think are horrible when it comes to scholarship are
Click to expand...

You'll probably have to fall back on books then. Adolf Schlatter and Karl Barth have written some compelling arguments on this topic. But I have no clue how you go about finding that information online. Good luck.

The genealogy question was a side note anyway, you can remove it from what I said and it subtracts nothing from my point. The point was that Christians are well aware of the Jewish views on the messiah and that what was presented here would not be new information to most Christians. It is well known and understood that Jesus did not meet the jewish expectations of the messiah; that's part of the central thesis of Christianity, that the messiah had come, the prophecies had been fulfilled, but in a remarkable, unexpected, and surprising way that caught even Jesus' closest followers by surprise.
 
CrabCake said:
You'll probably have to fall back on books then. Adolf Schlatter and Karl Barth have written some compelling arguments on this topic. But I have no clue how you go about finding that information online. Good luck.

The genealogy question was a side note anyway, you can remove it from what I said and it subtracts nothing from my point. The point was that Christians are well aware of the Jewish views on the messiah and that what was presented here would not be new information to most Christians. It is well known and understood that Jesus did not meet the jewish expectations of the messiah; that's part of the central thesis of Christianity, that the messiah had come, the prophecies had been fulfilled, but in a remarkable, unexpected, and surprising way that caught even Jesus' closest followers by surprise.
Click to expand...

And, that still does not counter the point of what was expected by those Jews who expected a Messiah, and does not counter the reasons why Jesus does not qualify for the Jewish Messiah, or the issue of how the writers of the Gospels distorted the Jewish scriptures by out of context quotes and mistranslations to write TO the Jewish scripture to tie their beliefs into them.

And I rather suspect that since I am not coming from the presumptions of the NT being true, but rather coming from the Jewish traditions, your conception of 'compelling', and my perception of compelling are two entirely different things.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
And, that still does not counter the point of what was expected by those Jews who expected a Messiah, and does not counter the reasons why Jesus does not qualify for the Jewish Messiah, or the issue of how the writers of the Gospels distorted the Jewish scriptures by out of context quotes and mistranslations to write TO the Jewish scripture to tie their beliefs into them.
Click to expand...

None of those are things I set out to address. That I didn't accidentally counter arguments I had no interest in is...well...uninteresting. My point was that we know what the Jewish people were expecting; we know what messiah meant to them; we know that Jesus did not meet their expectations; and all of these facts are already integrated into the basic core message of Christianity. Jesus did not meet Jewish expectations; if he had, then he would have gained widespread acceptance among the pharisees and sadducees. The fact he didn't meet the expectations is integral to the core message of Christianity. It's ultimately a message about God doing what he promised in a thoroughly unexpected way. That was my point. There's just nothing new or interesting about people pointing out what the Jewish view on the messiah was; kids in Sunday school already know that; it's a well understood concept.

As for bickering about whether Jesus qualifies as the Messiah due to x, y or z, that's just not a field of apologetics that holds any interest for me. The only other thing I was interested in addressing was the fact that biblical writers were using a dual fulfilment hermeneutic...a fact at least one person here appeared to be completely unaware of.
 
Last edited:
As a Jew myself, I am often bothered by how Christians who really don't know anything about Judaism attempt to appropriate it and cherry pick it in order to turn it into a precursor for their own religion. It's very insulting. The assertion that Judaism is somehow a prophecy to support Christian myths is completely untrue and the story of Jesus does not conform at all to what Judaism actually says about its messiah. Jesus is much more like a figure from Greek myth than anything to do with Judaism.
 
distraff said:
We all learned in Sunday school about how Herod killed all the baby boys in Bethlehem because he was afraid of the Rumor that baby Jesus was the king of the Jews and he wanted to keep the kingship to himself.

Honestly I don't see why anyone in their right mind would slaughter tens of thousands of children in a city just because of some ridiculous rumor that some peasant baby would grow up to be the new king. That seems a bit extreme. Plus there is no historical record of such a major horrific event outside of Christian text.

Anyway, when this story was being told in Matthew he tried to show that this event fulfilled a prophesy in the bible. Here is what he said.

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”

The verse quotes Jeremiah 31:15 says:

15 This is what the Lord says:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”

So Matthew interprets this verse to be referring to Herod's slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem. The Book of Jeremiah mostly deals with the banishment of the Jewish people from their land by the Babylonians. The Persians later allowed the Jews to return.

In fact that is what this verse and this Chapter is about. It is about the Jews being banished to Babylon.

The chapter says stuff like:
10 “Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
11 For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.

In fact lets read verses 15, 16, and 17 together:
15 This is what the Lord says:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
16 This is what the Lord says:

“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.

Verse 15 is really about the fact that there are no more Jews in the land of Judea so Rachel an ancestor of the Jews is weeping that they are gone. But then the next two verses affirm that the Jews will return "from the land of the enemy." This is not about the slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem hundreds of years later after the Jews returned.

So the new Testament misinterprets the meaning of Jeremiah 15:31.
Click to expand...

Nt interpretation is NOT exegesis, it's Isogesis, it's alwasy been known to be so.

It's saying that the OT had a literal meaning, but also a higher meaning a prophetic messianic meaning which was realized through Jesus .... That's always been the case.

Although some OT scriptures ONLY had their fulfilment in Christ, whereas others had 2 fulfilments.
 
Paschendale said:
As a Jew myself, I am often bothered by how Christians who really don't know anything about Judaism attempt to appropriate it and cherry pick it in order to turn it into a precursor for their own religion. It's very insulting. The assertion that Judaism is somehow a prophecy to support Christian myths is completely untrue and the story of Jesus does not conform at all to what Judaism actually says about its messiah. Jesus is much more like a figure from Greek myth than anything to do with Judaism.
Click to expand...

What Judaism?

There were plenty of different forms of Judaism in the first Century, and they all had different concepts of the messiah.

Modern Judaism is an offshoot of the only Judaism that survived the Bar Kokhba revolt into the modern age.

So as a Jew yourself it's not really that relevant what modern Judaism said, unless Christians posited that the Rabbinic interpretation of the missianic promise was correct, which they don't-
 
RGacky3 said:
Nt interpretation is NOT exegesis, it's Isogesis, it's alwasy been known to be so.

It's saying that the OT had a literal meaning, but also a higher meaning a prophetic messianic meaning which was realized through Jesus .... That's always been the case.

Although some OT scriptures ONLY had their fulfilment in Christ, whereas others had 2 fulfilments.
Click to expand...

You literally did not address anything I said. You provided no evidence for any of your points. Have a good day. Theology is not for you.
 
distraff said:
You literally did not address anything I said. You provided no evidence for any of your points. Have a good day. Theology is not for you.
Click to expand...

I did, I pointed out that what you're doing is different than what the NT was doing.
 
CrabCake said:
You'll probably have to fall back on books then. Adolf Schlatter and Karl Barth have written some compelling arguments on this topic. But I have no clue how you go about finding that information online. Good luck.

The genealogy question was a side note anyway, you can remove it from what I said and it subtracts nothing from my point. The point was that Christians are well aware of the Jewish views on the messiah and that what was presented here would not be new information to most Christians. It is well known and understood that Jesus did not meet the jewish expectations of the messiah; that's part of the central thesis of Christianity, that the messiah had come, the prophecies had been fulfilled, but in a remarkable, unexpected, and surprising way that caught even Jesus' closest followers by surprise.
Click to expand...

funny that Christ even said i do this so that prophecy might be fulfilled several times during his life. yet they still ignore that as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom