The old testament is the new concealed? – The rear end of Augustine

Let me clarify somthing.

There is a phrase used by some which states the following: you are talking from out of your backside. What does it mean? The “backside” refers to your bum or your bottom, the anus. When a person “talks out of the backside”, this means that the quality of what they say has as much value as the natural product of the anus. I will leave that there as that is as graphic as I want to get.

Getting to the point

So there’s a statement that is believed to have been made up by some ancient christian called Augustine which said something like this: “the old testament is the new testament concealed and the new testament is the old testament revealed”. Another way that it is stated is “the new testament is in the old concealed, and the old testament is in the new revealed”.

When I looked around for what people understood this phrase to mean. One statement which stands out to me said the following: “it means that wishful thinking is not a new phenomenon.” I think this is one of the best explanations of the value of this statement.

Why?

As has been discussed in previous articles, the central tenets of the so-called “new testament” have no clear and explicit mention in the Jewish Bible. A messiah figure that comes twice, a dying and rising messiah, even the very use of the word “messiah” to refer to the future promised Davidic king of Israel, the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in some new covenant, a crucifixion, the importance of the cross, the notion of the death of a man by mundane mutilation and execution being a valid offering to God, the notion of one man conferring his righteousness upon another, the contradiction between faith or grace and law; over and over and over again, the main tenets of the new testament and the modern christian has no clear explicit mention in the Jewish Bible.

In other words, the central tenets of the new testament are not seen in the Jewish Bible.

Now some christian may stand up and say the following: “Well, isn’t that what the saying actually says? The New Testament is in the Old Testament, but it’s just not seen.” And I would reply that this is exactly the problem. The problem is two-fold.

1) The new testament is not seen in the Jewish Bible
2) The Jewish Bible outright contradicts the doctrines of the new testament.

Not seen

The problem with the claim that something is hidden is the assumption that it is actually there. If I don’t have that assumption, there needs to be clear evidences that what is supposedly hidden is actually there.

To make this both concrete and relevant, let me put it this way. The problem with the claim that the new testament is hidden in the Jewish Bible is the assumption that it is actually there. If I don’t have that assumption, then there needs to be clear evidences that the new testament is actually there in the Jewish Bible.

Let me give an example. Christians will say that the sacrifices foreshadowed the “better sacrifice” in the death of Jesus. But the problem is that the Jewish Bible doesn’t make this link. There is no overt message that someone called “messiah” is going to die for others. The Torah law only legalizes objects lower in the food chain, like animals, flour and spices. It gives no hint with its various and specific stipulations that a certain human being (or hybrid manGod freak) is intended. The Law of Moses gives no sign or hint, when read in its own context, that it’s foreshadowing anything, and God gives no special key to decode the Jewish Bible and make it transform into the new testament or christian or Pauline message.

So there is no basis in the Jewish Bible to think that sacrifices refer to a human death by mundane execution. Their very particular and specific nature gives the opposite message: that God actually said what he meant and no additions or decryptions are needed.

The issue here is the christian presumption. The problem is that they devoted themselves to a man first. They bowed their knees and hearts to the Nazarene first. And then they looked at the Jewish Bible with that devotion in mind. Therefore we are not talking about “the old testament being the new concealed” but rather “I had the new testament in mind and heart already, the old testament must agree in some way whether it does or not.”

To wrap this up a bit, when something is not seen in the text, there is just as much chance that it is because it is not really there at all. So the central tenents of new testament not being seen in the Jewish Bible really could imply that those tenets are not there at all. It is only the presumption of the christian that forces their beliefs into the text.

Unwanted contradictions and conflicts

When the Jewish Bible outrightly contradicts or conflicts with the central tenets of the new testament, it not only makes it unlikely that the new is hidden in the Jewish Bible; it makes it downright impossible.

For example, the christian belief from the new testament is that Jesus’ blood atones for sin. They will sometimes use Leviticus 17 to state how the blood makes atonement. But Leviticus itself conflicts with such a notion when the same verse specifies that blood is supposed to atone on the altar. The only altar spoken of in the Law is in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. Jesus’ blood was supposedly spilt outside of the city of Jerusalem where he died. In case you didn’t know, a cross is not a valid altar, the details of which are specified in the law.

The new testament makes a big deal out of Jesus’ miracles, advising people to listen to and believe in him based on those miracles. Christians even make a bigger deal out of the claimed resurrection. Yet when it comes to identifying the messiah, there is absolutely no text in the Jewish Bible that says that he will be identified through miracles, even personal resurrections.

The Jewish Bible speaks of the promised king bringing peace to the world. Jesus claimed that his coming would bring the exact opposite and that he did not come to bring peace.

Paul and the anonymous author of the book of Hebrews speaks of the passing away of the Law of Moses, its sacrifices, a change of priesthood and the fact that Jesus’ “sacrifice” ends and fulfils all previous sacrifices. But God through his prophet of the Jewish Bible only spoke of the continued and perpetual existence of the law to the point that it is kept naturally by the people and its sin sacrifices are continued even through to the future third Temple which will be built by the future promised Davidic king, the “messiah”. In the Law of Moses, it speaks of the perpetual nature of the Levitical priesthood and later Jeremiah states that the Levites will always have a man available to do the job.

Paul says no man is righteous and that righteousness isn’t attainable by doing what God commands, i.e., his Law. Yet over and over and over, ad nauseum (to the point of nausea – just a turn of phrase) the Jewish Bible speaks of men being righteous, of the righteous people. It even says that a man who avoids certain acts is righteous. Moses outrightly says that keeping the Law is the means of righteousness and that it is not beyond a person’s reach to keep it and do it. Abraham was blessed because he did what God commanded. Noah was righteous before God: God himself said that. David was held up by God as a standard of righteousness for all future kings. The Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are replete with references about the righteous, upright, innocent. And no place links this righteousness to belief in a messiah figure.

Christians claim that Jesus’ sacrifice makes them righteous, that righteousness is imputed upon them as if God sees the supposed righteousness of Jesus upon them. Yet the Jewish Bible is clear, everyone is responsible for his own actions, the righteousness of one man cannot be placed on another.

Time after time after time, ad nauseum, the Jewish Bible not only slaps the new testament doctrines across the face: the Jewish Bible chops away the legs of the new testament and leaves it bloodied and beaten in some dirty Roman gutter to perish.

I know. I know the question that can come to the mind of some: how can people accept the new testament? The most likely reason has been stated before: people devote themselves to the idol first, they commit their heart to a man first, and with such devotion and indoctrination they then approach the Law of Moses and the Jewish Bible with the absolute faith that what contradicts it actually “fulfils” it.

The backside of Augustine

Let’s bring back some original thoughts.

The claim that the new testament is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed does mean what was stated before: “it means that wishful thinking is not a new phenomenon.” It is wishful thinking to believe that that which the Jewish Bible says nothing about is somehow hidden inside it. It’s silly to believe that that which contradicts the Jewish Bible reveals it. The truth is the following: the new testament is the Jewish Bible neglected, the Jewish Bible is the new rejected.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible puked, the Jewish Bible is the new nuked.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible suspended, the Jewish Bible is the new up-ended.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible frustrated, the Jewish Bible is the new negated or decimated.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible broken, the Jewish Bible is the new … errrr …. errrr …. hmmm ….

Ok, I like to rhyme. Sorry. (Grin!)

That is why the words of Augustine, which repeated by adherents of christianity, should only be given the value of what comes out of a person’s rear end. In other words, he’s talking out of his backside.

About hesedyahu

I'm a gentile living in UK, a person who has chosen to take upon himself the responsibility God has given to all gentiles. God is the greatest aspect of my life and He has blessed me with a family. I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways. I love music. I love to play it on the instruments I can play, I love to close my eyes and feel the groove of it. I could call myself a singer and a songwriter ... And that would be accurate. What else is there?
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The old testament is the new concealed? – The rear end of Augustine

  1. searchinmyroots says:

    Excellent post Hesedyahu!

    So much truth that anyone can CLEARLY see. Unless of course you are “blinded” by an emotional connection to a religion that has no part in Judaism.

    Loved your rhymes.

    Hear is one that has been said in reference to the teachings of the Christian Bible as well –

    If it’s new then it is not good. If it’s good, then it’s not new.

  2. searchinmyroots says:

    It may come across as insulting to some, but to whom it does are probably the same ones who will say the Jews have been blinded, or “don’t have the spirit” and that to me is insulting as well.

    I recognize if Christians may say they understand the NT better than a Jewish person. But the door swings both ways. A Jewish person who understands the Hebrew language will most certainly understand the Hebrew bible better than a Christian. Especially if the Christian does not understand biblical Hebrew.

    I’m sure a Christian may understand what I am saying if a Muslim told them what the NT means. Not trying to belittle Islam, just making a point. I mean after all, isn’t part of the NT spoken of in the Koran? So when a Christian agrees the believers of Islam understand the NT better than they do, then I’ll believe the Christians understand the Hebrew bible better than the Jewish people. The Jewish people to whom it was given to, to whom G-d Himself told the Jewish people to teach it to their children, their children’s children and the nations of the world. Why would G-d tell us to teach it to the world if He didn’t think we would understand it?

  3. Chris says:

    ILLUSION. Some fall PREY to Illusion, rather than The Truth. Jesus is The Truth, and there is no other. And when someone dissemintates Deception, they are not only responsible for the lies they tell themself but for every soul they misled as well.

    KLEPTOS.

    • hesedyahu says:

      The irony is that you first convey the illusion that the nazarene is “the truth” and then speak of someone disseminating deception. As long as you see the nazarene as the truth, then you won’t know what deception is. So there’s no real power to your words at all. But thanks for showing me how concise someone can phrase their deception.

  4. lisman34 says:

    hi Hesedyahu,

    I find your website after searching the word ” the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed”. I got this words from testimony page in Pastor Joseph Prince ministries and share this link and and hope that it will be useful to you (LINK:[link removed]). From what I know pastor Jospeh reveal a lot of Jesus in the old covenant.

    • hesedyahu says:

      Rather than refer us to someone else, it is better that you know the issues yourself to that you put your case forward yourself in your own words. There have many times in the past where someone told me that I just have to check this pastor or that minister, and I have found such claims to be empty. What is needed is evidence rather than referrals. Thanx but no thanx.

  5. samson120 says:

    I left a note on another blog, but this is the one how I found your sight. This is a little older, so again i hesitate to post a response. However, again I feel a need.to comment

    One of the problems with foreshadowing is just that. It is a shadow cast towards a direction, the future in this case. However, at the time it is unclear and hazy at best. This doesn’t mean it isn’t there, but it does require more information to bring those items into focus. For Christians, we see this as the New Testament. Did you know that Old Testament verses are used 855 times in the New Testament. You can check out BlueLetterBible.org for the references..

    As a Christian, we see Christ in events like Joseph saving his family in Egypt during the famine. Jonah is in the belly of the fish for three days or the image of the snake when Israel was in the wilderness are a few others. Passover is another very important reference for us. But at the time of writing that isn’t known.

    So, how can we see Christ in the Jewish Bible? My favorites are Psalms 22, Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53. If I remember correctly, Tehillim 110 says something like Hashem said unto Adoni. In the King James, it translates to the, “Lord said to my Lord..”. Again, if I remember correctly, Hashem and Adoni are both references to God. Hashem, being related to Yahweh, but not as formal. While Adoni referencing a superior, possibly divine. With David, being the Author, only God in theory is superior.

    I’m interested in your take with Isiah. According to YISHEYAH 53:12 (at least according to the Complete Jewish Bible) says, “Therefore I will assign him a share with the great, he will divide the spoil with the mighty, for having exposed himself to death and being counted among the sinners, while actually bearing the sin of many and interceding for the offenders.” In this chapter God is speaking through Isaiah. He, God, is referencing someone unnamed. He describes someone who ultimately gives up is life, bearing the sins of many people but yet an intercessor. At first glance this seems at odds with Levitical law. However elsewhere in the Psalms it is also written, that God doesn’t want the sacrafices. He wants the obedient heart. So it appears that the sacrifices were an external mandate prior to God, writing a new covenant on the hearts of men as described in Jeremiah.

    This is my attempt to explain my understanding of scripture. I used only a few examples of prophecy that appears to be unfilled in the Jewish Bible. I do understand your thoughts, but I also see the OT and NT living in harmony not conflict. But these are my thoughts. Feel free to contact me with any questions. With that I leave you in Peace.

    • James Wood says:

      Most of the Scripture references are addressed in my book. Please read it here http://tinyurl.com/ljbflip

    • hesedyahu says:

      The problem with your example is that the words of the Jewish Bible do not comport with your image of Jesus. It wouldn’t matter if the new testament quoted or referred to the Jewish Bible 1000 times or more, if the message is different or contradicts, then it’s still worthless. It’s a bit like the sum 855 multiplied by zero. “zero” would refer to relevance or meaning. If those references or quotes don’t tied meaningfully into your conception of message, then the amount of quotations are worthless. There could be texts that don’t refer to the Jewish Bible once yet could be more at harmony with its message than the NT. So the issue isn’t the number, the quantity of references but the quality. And in the case of the NT, it does nothing to reflect the idea of “foreshadowing”.

      If a christian choses to impose “Jesu” or “Yeshu” on passages – as you said “we see [Jesu] in events like Joseph saving his family in Egypt” – then the issue is not what the Hebrew Bible actually says, what its message is, but rather the fact that you’ve chosen not to let scripture speak for itself. The scripture talks of one thing, and you’re thinking something else. Scripture isn’t speaking, you’re painting your desires onto scripture. It’s what Muslims and Mormons do when they see their respective messages in the Jewish Bible. It’s what atheists and God rejectors do to distort the meaning of the Jewish Bible to help their goals. It’s more honourable to the author of a text to actually deal with scripture based on what it says rather than painting your desires onto it.

      So in that same vein, it’s easy to know why you see Jesus in Psalms 22, Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53. It’s not because of the text, because “messiah” is totally absent from the text of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. In fact, Psalm 22 is just a song that is meant to be sung by anyone going through struggling. It isn’t even a prophecy. Isaiah 53 is preceeded by multiple clear statements saying that the servant is the nation of Israel, Jeshurun, not some individual and conflicts with the actual life of Jesus. You misrepresent what Psalm 110 says when you claim that “adoni” is a reference to God. If you did a search in the Scriptures for the exact term “adoni” you’ll find that it is mostly used for humans and maybe once or twice for angels, but never for God. Plus Psalm 110 is a sung meant to be sung by others, so even if David was the author (and I’m not saying he is), he wrote it for, let’s say, the Levites to sing in the Temple. So it could refer to any king that sat on the throne of Israel. And then the context itself has nothing to do with Jesu, even the words about “the righteous king” or some have it has “Malki-Tzedeq”.

      Isaiah himself said the servant was Israel, Jeshurun, Jacob, words that refer to the nation and he never says the servant is “messiah”. So that would be my take on Isaiah 53 taking Isaiah’s words for what Isaiah says without an agenda of making sure that someone I want to fit in it fits in it. Bearing sins has more meanings than literally taking someone else’s sins. And the fact that Isaiah has named Israel numerous times in previous chapters, I’m not sure why you claim that this servant is unnamed.

      I’m sorry that you have chose to seen Jesu in the Jewish Bible rather than letting the scripture speak for itself. I hope that changes.

  6. Chad says:

    It’s a simple concept. Jesus and the New Testament authors had nothing to preach from other than the New Testament. Therefore the New is a revelation of the Old. The nature of the bible is prophetic. In Joel we are told that the God of Israel has a new covenant in store for his people because of the faultiness of the old. What say you to that? This exact concept and verse is repeated in the New T book of Acts. One can babble on about the Jewish this and Hebrew that, the fact is although the New T was written to gentiles it was written by Jews with only 2 exceptions. To claim that they were not aware or reflective in their writings of Hebrew and Old T concepts is asinine. Christ, a Jew, said in Matt. 7 that not one jot or tittle would in any wise pass from the law (Old T, first 5 books in particular) until all be fulfilled. All the Old T prophets knew and looked forward to this fulfillment. Let me give you a for instance: In John 1 around the 14th, 15th verse says that Christ came to ‘dwell” among us. That word is the Greek word for Tabernacle. We are told again in the book of revelation that Chris is the Tabernacle of God among men. The only way to fully understand this is to study the 50 plus chapters in the Old T about the Tabernacle of God. There is easily months worth of information pointing to Jesus, suffice it to say this tabernacle took 9 months to build and was literally a house of skin that God dwelt inside in order to fellowship and speak to his people. Sound familiar? Add to that there is an actual book called Yeshua (Joshua in English) in the Old T. Yeshua, you may know is Jesus filtered back through Greek and then Hebrew. In other words Jesus’ real name was Yeshua, as is the name of that book. hmmmm…. Anyhow the real problem is obviously that you do not believe in the Bible at all and therefore are subject to your own confirmation bias. Why would someone who does not believe be so concerned with a comparison of the 2 testaments, and why would anyone listen to such a one?

  7. Debbie says:

    I’m not a bible scholar, but I can say one thing from my own experience. Since I gave my life to Christ, I have never known such peace. It is not of this world, that it comes from.

    • hesedyahu says:

      Subjective emotions, feelings that you alone feel inside (you can only speak for yourself), have nothing to do with truth. Sexual orgasms can feel incredible. But the feeling doesn’t justify having sex with anybody one can, including family members or people of the same gender, animals or an individual who is already married to someone else. The feeling doesn’t make something right or true.

      The Law of God warns a person against just following emotions and instead challenges a person to live according to his standard, not some perceived “otherworldly” feeling. It is obedience to him regardless of feelings that is the doorway to life, not trust in a mundane execution.

  8. Peter G. says:

    This article only confirms what was written a long time ago regarding the rejection of the person and work of Christ, especially among the Jewish community: “The stone which the builders rejected, has become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:22). Israel rejected its own promised Messiah, but God in His infinite wisdom utilized the rejection Christ to establish eternal redemption for all who believe. What Augustine wrote is totally accurate, and those unable to acknowledge the significant volume of messianic prophecy contained in the Old Testament have been grossly blinded.

    • hesedyahu says:

      You used a good amount of words, but there’s no evidence of truth in them. At the centre of your response lies a hollow claim, that Israel rejected Jesus who was their messiah. But there is no predictive passage in the Jewish Bible which overtly speaks of a messiah or anointed king of Israel that clearly and unambiguously points to Jesus. That’s why your whole response is worthless with regards to truth and faithfulness to the text and tradition of the Jewish Bible.

  9. Guest says:

    Moses said God would raise a prophet, just like him.
    Let us compare the life of his with Jesus:
    Both are in danger of being put to death as soon as they are born.
    Both are raised in Egypt.
    Both bring an exodus of people through water (Nile and baptism)
    Both mediate a law and covenant.
    Both are related to a “Miriam”
    Both offer their lives to save their people.
    Both speak for God.
    Both do miracles
    Both faces are transfigured with light up a mountain

    • hesedyahu says:

      Your response betrays a foundational ignorance of word usage and of biblical context, as well as a distorted and twisted hermeneutic.
      Firstly, your ignorance of biblical context.
      The declaration of God that he would send a prophet like Moses, that comes from Deuteronomy 18:18. But what is the context? From chapter 17, God talks about the institution of courts (8-13), then about the institution of the king (14-20), and then, continuing in chapter 18, the institution of the priesthood (1-8). The law about the institution of the prophet starts from verse 9, which first prohibits the Israelites from using certain means of getting occult (meaning “beyond human understanding, about supernatural agencies”) knowledge. It forbids divination, magic, necromancy, etc. God then says the Israelite should not use such methods. Moses then says, in contrast to such methods, that God shall raise up a prophet like him. Continuing, he says that this is what the people correctly asked for at Sinai, that there be a person to receive God’s messages, what God says, and deliver those sayings to the people. Now this is just the rules about a prophet, not a particular and distinct individual to come over 1000 years later. The law is that such a person, such a prophet, should be listened to. This is a general rule, not a specific prophecy. This is shown by the fact that, as the text of chapter 18 continues, just as there may be prophets that speak God’s message, there will be false prophets, and the text gives rules for such people.
      So who, in Israel’s history, comports with this LAW about “a prophet who speaks the sayings of God?” Joshua was “a prophet.” Isaiah was “a prophet.” Jeremiah was “a prophet.” Samuel was “a prophet.” Each of these men fit the words of this LAW, being a prophet like Moses, in the way that they speak God’s sayings to Israel, as Moses did.
      You ignore all this biblical context from the Jewish Bible to single out Jesus.
      Now I’ll show you your ignorance about wording.
      The wording of the LAW is that God will raise A PROPHET like Moses. Note that it does not say “a man like Moses.” It does not say “a person who lived a life like Moses.” It doesn’t say “a lawgiver like Moses.” It doesn’t say “a man having someone in his family called Miriam like Moses.” It didn’t say “a miracle worker like Moses.” It only says “a PROPHET like Moses.” The context of the law only relates the way in which this person speaks God’s sayings to Israel. That’s all. So you should look for what the word “prophet” means, and then you’ll know what this person should do. The word primarily relates to receiving God’s word and sharing it with people. That’s it.
      How did you distort the wording and context of this law?
      “Let us compare the life of his with Jesus …”
      What you tried to do showed that you were not interested in what the law in Deuteronomy stated, the promise he gave to Israel. You generally neglected the words of the law, the promise of God, and instead focused on “the life of Jesus.” Let’s look at some of your most irrelevant and irreverent attempts at comparison.
      “Both are in danger of being put to death as soon as they are born.”
      Nothing to do with being a PROPHET like Moses. Of course, I could do what you do and ignore the words “a prophet” and focus on the words “like Moses.” But then I wouldn’t be respecting God’s words by ignoring some of them.
      “Both are raised in Egypt.”
      Same comment.
      “Both bring an exodus of people through water (Nile and baptism)”
      Same comment. In fact, this is quite silly. Don’t you understand that Moses literally had a nation behind him, following him out of Egypt? Exodus 12:37 says that 600,000 were men ON FOOT. That doesn’t include the children. It doesn’t include the men that wasn’t on foot due to being too young or old, it doesn’t include the women, knowing that men could have multiple wives and multiple daughters, not counting the widows and single women. That would mean that there were literally millions following Moses! That was a literal exodus. You want to compare that to the unknown relative few that literally followed Jesus in his life, or stretched that beyond that using the words of Paul to spiritualise it all using the word “baptism” which does not properly relate to what Moses did bringing the nation of millions through THE RED SEA (or the Suph river)??? That is a horrible mutilation of the texts of Exodus to make it similar to Jesus.
      “Both mediate a law and covenant.”
      Refer to the first comment, “nothing to do with being a PROPHET…”
      “Both are related to a “Miriam””
      Hahahahahahaha! Refer to previous comment. LOL!
      “Both offer their lives to save their people.”
      Refer to previous comment.
      “Both do miracles”
      Refer to previous comment.
      “Both faces are transfigured with light up a mountain”
      Refer to previous comment.
      There is only one comparison you gave that gave any respect to the words of Deutoronomy.
      “Both speak for God.”
      Only this. And in this you trip yourself up in that you must concede that the words of the law are general, not specific to your view of Jesus. Jeremiah spoke for God. Joel spoke for God. Micah spoke for God. Nathan spoke for God. Gad spoke for God. Loads of prophets, real ones, spoke for God. So in one way. You’ve only said that Jesus is like all the others.
      Except that I don’t accept your claim that Jesus spoke for God. There’s two ways of dealing with this.
      If you believe that Jesus was God, then Jesus could not speak FOR God, he could only speak for himself as God. Therefore Jesus was not a prophet, a human speaking God’s words. He would be God speaking for himself. And trying to split up God, saying that Jesus was speaking for God the Father (not for God the son or God the holy spirit) makes this so much worse as you now prove that you worship more than one God, that you’re a polytheist. You divide the “Persons.” Now you show that the different Gods in heaven have separate words and wills. You have the impossible “three (or two) omnipresents,” which is the epitome of falsehood.
      Also think about this! Who did Moses speak for? God? Which “God?” God the Father? What were the other “Gods” doing? Being silent? But christians teach that the word “God” in Hebrew is plural, thereby encompassing the belief that God is plural, three in one. Therefore, if Moses spoke for God, he spoke for all, Father God, Son-God and Spirit God, a group that excludes him. But then who did Jesus, “Son-God,” speak for? A group that includes him. So in this way, Jesus is therefore not like Moses.
      But what if you’re a true monotheist, accepting Jesus was not and never God, but spoke for him? Then it still would not matter. Why? Jesus’ falsehood comes in claiming to be a or the messiah, the promised descendant of David. If you’re claiming that a liar or deluded person, which Jesus would have to be, was a prophet, then I don’t think you know what a prophet is.
      So you have no grounds upon which to claim Deuteronomy 18 applies only or primarily to Jesus.

      • Guest says:

        Jesus was a prophet and he could speak for Himself, being God.

        Let’s take the story of Joseph.

        His brothers hate him.

        He is sold for silver.

        In jail there are two prisoners, one who dies and the other who is saved.

        He becomes the number 2 man, after Pharao, the right hand man.

        When he is reconciled with his family, he says to the effect provdence let them do evil to him so he could one day save the land of Egypt, not just his brothers.

        Maybe that’s a coincidence. Let’s go to the binding of Isaac.

        He is about thirty years old so he offers himself willingly for his father’s sake.

        He carries wood up a mountain

        Abraham is said to be convinced that God can raise his dead son.

        His father is supposed to offer his life as sacrifice.

        Sound familiar? Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Elijah and Elisha multiplied bread or raised the dead. Maybe it’s just coincidence that David danced naked in front of an ark, and Jesus was stripped of his clothes to die in front of Mary. If Jesus were God, wouldn’t she have been carrying the Word of God inside her? Eve came from Adam, and if true New Adam came from New Eve. Why does Israel winning a battle against heathens require Joshua to have two men at his sides keeping his arms raised? What figure does it make? Why does Jesus hang from a wooden cross like a fruit from the tree of life? Why does Melchideziak offer bread and wine sacrifices? Why eat a Passover lamb that doesn’t break a bone? Why is there darkness in homes where the lamb is not consumed or where his blood is not smeared? I say it has something to do with spiritual darkness.

        All these random seeming things makes sense when read in light of the New Testament. And we see the New Testament foreshadowed in the Old. So St Augustine was right.

      • hesedyahu says:

        “Jesus was a prophet and he could speak for Himself, being God.”

        Fundamentally wrong. If Jesus was God, he could not be a prophet. Remember in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 18, the people did not want to talk to God directly. The prophet was the man that would be between the people and God.

        So according to the bible, the role of the prophet is

        GOD -> prophet -> people

        Jesus being God destroys the role of the prophet, since now it is

        GOD -> people

        You’ve said Jesus is God, so there is now no in-between. Dude, you haven’t proven Jesus is the prophet; you’ve shown that Jesus cannot be the prophet!!! You’ve destroyed the place of the prophet!

        Wow! I didn’t fully know how foolish the idea was of Jesus being the prophet until you came along. Thank you!

        Now as for you trying to impose Jesus on the Joseph story, again you undermine your argument. How? You don’t show the revealing of the new testament, you just take bits and pieces of the real story and make the story of Joseph an analogy. But lots of people can do that! Many people have been betrayed by family. Many have been sold as slaves. Lots of people had a worse life that Jesus and had a better claim at being like Joseph. Jesus was never a slave. Joseph wasn’t just sold; Joseph was sold into slavery! With every aspect of the story, you hack off so many parts, suck out all the meaning to place your candidate inside.

        Here is where you reveal the foolishness of your analogy:

        “He becomes the number 2 man, after Pharao, the right hand man.”

        I don’t think you understand the utter self-refuting nature of this analogy. You said Jesus is God. So God became number 2 to who? To God. But it wasn’t the same God, right? One God, the Son, became number 2 to God, the Father. So you have two separate Gods. You’re a polytheist. Not only that, you think there is glory and sense in saying that God, in any way, is number 2, not the highest, but that he’s in second place.

        I’m gonna leave that just as it is, to marinate.

        I don’t have to go point by point through the analogy. The way it can be used by many others to point to other people, the way you literally have to go away from the text, the way the analogy fails in such horrific and blasphemous ways, all that points to the fact that you’ve just spewed garbage worthy of a gutter here.

        And what’s sad is that you speak with the confidence of a fool. It’s scary. It reminds me that it is the most sincere people who will kill you and think they’ve done service to God.

        Then you try to crap on the binding of Isaac. Let’s see how this goes.

        “He is about thirty years old so he offers himself willingly for his father’s sake.”

        No evidence of his age in the text. And then “offering himself for his father’s sake” is another non-textual assertion. You can try to say “well, it’s not stated but it’s easy to reach the conclusion.” I’ll just stick with the “it’s not stated” part.

        “He carries wood up a mountain”

        Wow. I guess no other man carried wood up a mountain. It’s interesting how subjective and arbitrary your “interpretation” goes. It’s odd that you’ll ignore the fact that something other than the son was eventually killed which, of course, throws a spanner in your analogy, but hey, you’re on a roll, right?

        “Abraham is said to be convinced that God can raise his dead son.”

        That’s not part of the text at all. That’s not in Genesis 22. The son didn’t die at all in Genesis 22. So the analogy fails.

        “His father is supposed to offer his life as sacrifice.”

        No he wasn’t. The text of Genesis 22 starts of with saying this was all a test for Abraham. At the end, God stated that this was all there as proof that Abraham feared God. So your “supposed to” is totally false.

        Well, so much for your analogies.

        “Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Elijah and Elisha multiplied bread or raised the dead.”

        I’d have to accept that the writers of the new testament told the truth. I don’t. And there is such thing as plaigarism.

        Also, Jesus doing similar miracles to other prophets doesn’t make him some sort of clarifier of the Jewish Bible, only that God can do such things thru his human servants. So on all levels, this is bogus.

        “Maybe it’s just coincidence that David danced naked in front of an ark, and Jesus was stripped of his clothes to die in front of Mary.”

        Huh? The ark is Mary? David dances in worship and his clothes come off by David’s choice, not by external force. There is no link between that and Jesus being coerced and stripped before … before Mary??? LOL! Hahahahaha! That’s hilarious!

        “Why does Israel winning a battle against heathens require Joshua to have two men at his sides keeping his arms raised?”

        Joshua? Don’t you mean Moses? Maybe it’s because you don’t know the Jewish Bible that you make such terrible conclusions. By the way, the text didn’t say why. The new testment doesn’t mention it. It’s only coming from you. That’s no authority to me. In fact, this is all subjective.

        “All these random seeming things makes sense when read in light of the New Testament.”

        Actually, what you’ve shown is that cherry picking passages from the Jewish Bible and shoving your doctrine onto it does nothing to the Jewish Bible, but just makes you out to be a liar as Proverbs 30 teaches. “don’t add to God’s word, lest you be shown to be a liar.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s