True/False: Old Testament accurately predicts Jesus is God

True or False: The Old Testament accurately predicts that Jesus is God.

True	28.9%	[ 11 ]
False	60.5%	[ 23 ]
Don't Know	10.5%	[ 4 ]
Total Votes:			[ 38 ]

[joeychips]

Please answer this 1-question survey for a book that I am finishing up.
Thanks!

[Mea quidem sententia]

If we're only using the Old Testament, then I will take the verses from the New that quotes the Old and work from that.

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6)

This verse is taken to mean that Jesus is God. What stands out for many Christians is the epithet, "mighty god". The thing is, Jesus is never called any of these. Furthermore, the "wonderful counselor" epithet would make more sense if used with reference to the holy spirit, not Jesus. Then there's "everlasting father". Jesus is supposed to be the son, not the father. This is no issue for proponents of oneness theology, however.

The idea of this child being a wonderful counselor likely has to do with Yahweh's spirit resting upon this person who was to become a king. He receives a spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and the fear of Yahweh. (11:2) Furthermore, this individual can be a father to the people (22:21). It also shouldn't come to any surprise if the king is referred to as "mighty god", since this was used for another king. (Psa. 45:6)

"You are my witnesses," declares Yahweh, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no savior." (Isa. 43:10, 11)

The idea is that because Yahweh is the savior and that there is no other savior, in order for Jesus to be the savior, he must also be Yahweh. It turns out this isn't true. In 2 Kings 13:5, Yahweh gives Israel a savior. That must mean there is another person who is also Yahweh, making Jesus not as unique as Christians think. If Yahweh can send someone to be a savior, then all that means is that this person was given that authority. This person is simply a shaliach. Think of the story of Joseph and Pharaoh, where Joseph was like Pharaoh, or hey, where Moses was like Yahweh. They had authority given to them from the one who held that power.

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of rightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia." (Psalm 45:6 - 8)

This is quoted in Hebrews 1:8, 9 to support the idea that Jesus is God. If that's the case, then the king who was spoken to in Psalm 45:6 - 8 is also God. If authorities like pharaohs could be manifestations of Ra, the Sun god, why couldn't this be applied to this particular king in question? Well, the reason is because Christians claim to believe in one god, not two or more. Too bad, though, because kings were sons of Yahweh. (2:7; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; these verses are used to support the idea that Jesus is God)

Yahweh says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psa. 110:1)

This verse is also used with reference to Jesus, which is an attempt at proving he is God. In Matthew 22:41 - 46, Jesus asks the Pharisees whose son he is. They say, "the son of David", to which Jesus asks how David could say, "Yahweh says to my lord" if "my lord" is the son of David? In other words, how can the offspring be greater than the progenitor, or more clearly, how can Jesus be the son of David if he is the lord of David?

I can see why biblical unitarians will mention that the word 'adoniy (לַֽאדֹנִי) is used, rather than adonay, a title given to Yahweh. Yet, that's not relevant. What's relevant is that if this psalm was composed by David, then his lord must be King Saul, as supported by the targums. Or the psalmist wasn't David to begin with. Jesus just reinterpreted this verse to support his ministry. That's all.

[Bubblehead0987654321]

I don't even look at the Old Testament. The New Testament is much better in my personal opinion, but even then I don't look at the New much either... Then again, again, I don't look at the Bible in general so.

[Blood Valkyrie]

If it is true, then we're all ********.

[AliKat1988]

Blood Valkyrie

If it is true, then we're all ******** highly unlikely that it is-Christianity follows poorly from Judaism. I think that it would be ok if Judaism was true, though it probably isn't. YHWH is an a*****e, but one that cares more about behavior in this life and doesn't threaten eternal torture.

[DarkSohisohi]

joeychips

Please answer this 1-question survey for a book that I am finishing up.
Thanks!

No, he barely meets the minimum standards of the "savior".

[Moonlit Maria]

The bible teaches that jesus is the lamb from the beginning.

[Kimyanji]

There may be a mention of a messiah in the OT. The Jewish view is that Jesus PBUH does not meet the criteria for being the Messiah. In Islam, he is considered to be the Messiah from the OT, however, neither Islam nor Judaism consider him to be the "God", a "god", or "son of God" in any way.

To the best of my understanding, Christians normally believe that the OT points to him as being the Messiah. However, in mainstream Christian theology, he is considered to be God/son of God/Messiah (among other titles).

So the answer depends on what different groups believe the OT says:
Does OT claim Jesus PBUH was "God"?
Christianity: Yes
Islam: No
Judaism: No

I am Muslim. Personally, I don't think the OT says that he is. In fact, I believe even any claims of his divinity in the NT are actually figurative; not literal.

[Mea quidem sententia]

Kimyanji

There may be a mention of a messiah in the OT. The Jewish view is that Jesus PBUH does not meet the criteria for being the Messiah. In Islam, he is considered to be the Messiah from the OT, however, neither Islam nor Judaism consider him to be the "God", a "god", or "son of God" in any way.

To the best of my understanding, Christians normally believe that the OT points to him as being the Messiah. However, in mainstream Christian theology, he is considered to be God/son of God/Messiah (among other titles).

So the answer depends on what different groups believe the OT says:
Does OT claim Jesus PBUH was "God"?
Christianity: Yes
Islam: No
Judaism: No

I am Muslim. Personally, I don't think the OT says that he is. In fact, I believe even any claims of his divinity in the NT are actually figurative; not literal.

Ah, a name I haven't seen for quite some time. Welcome back, Kimyanji. The idea of kings being sons of God is actually not foreign in the Hebrew scriptures. Pharaohs were believed to be "sons of Ra". Since the Tanakh was written by people in the ancient Near East, this should come as no surprise to believe that kings were gods of some sort. 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7 are perfect examples of this as well.

[Lady Vizsla]

Well it definitely predicts his death as the Messiah:

But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)

He had done no wrong
and had never deceived anyone.
But he was buried like a criminal;
he was put in a rich man’s grave.
(Isaiah 53:9)

After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, Messiah will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. (Daniel 9:26)

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
are only a small village among all the people of Judah.
Yet a ruler of Israel,
whose origins are in the distant past,
will come from you on my behalf.
(Micah 5:2)

Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died. (Zechariah 12:10)

As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was led into his presence. He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal—it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7: 13-14)

There are other examples but I hope this helps!

[Mea quidem sententia]

Lady Kariel

But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)

The Hebrew word chalal can be translated "pierced" (meholal in the Hebrew) and while Christians will interpret this word to mean the nails driven into Jesus' wrists and feet, this verse isn't going to do any justice for the Christian interpretation. It doesn't say anything about where the piercing took place. If this is supposed to be applied to the time where Jesus is stabbed by a Roman soldier while he's on the cross, that's not saying anything either, especially with Jesus already dead prior to that.

Lady Kariel

After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, Messiah will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. (Daniel 9:26)

It bothers me that you use "Messiah will be killed", rather than, "an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing." The concept of being cut off simply refers to being exiled in this context. Jesus was never exiled, although you might try to reinterpret this verse in a manner to fit your theology.

Lady Kariel

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
are only a small village among all the people of Judah.
Yet a ruler of Israel,
whose origins are in the distant past,
will come from you on my behalf.
(Micah 5:2)

And how is this Jesus?

Lady Kariel

Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died. (Zechariah 12:10)

Once again, this doesn't say where this person is "pierced".

Lady Kariel

As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was led into his presence. He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal—it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7: 13-14)

The word "like" is used in similes. If Jesus was a human (and all Christians believe that), then to be "like a son of man" doesn't make any sense if applied to Jesus.

[joeychips]

I appreciate all the replies to this survey and the deep discussion. Keep those votes coming in and thank you.

[Arcoon Effox]

Lady Kariel

Well it definitely predicts his death as the Messiah

Not without considerable confirmation bias, and no small amount of shoehorning.

Also, concerning your use of the phrase "The Messiah": None of these prophecies refer to "the Messiah" at all, because "messiah" is not a personal pronoun. It simply means "anointed", and is used throughout the OT to describe numerous things (such as altars and unleavened bread) and people (including a Persian emperor). The idea that Jesus is "the" Messiah is a completely Christian one, established long after the concept was mistranslated to mean something it did not.

Lady Kariel

But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)

He had done no wrong
and had never deceived anyone.
But he was buried like a criminal;
he was put in a rich man’s grave.
(Isaiah 53:9)

Ugh, you're using the NLT for this...?

Anyway, Isaiah 53 is not talking about Jesus, but the nation of Israel as a people. Looking at the chapters before and after 53 make this abundantly clear.

FYI, in the verses above, "He" refers to Israel, and "we" are the other nations of the world.

Lady Kariel

After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, Messiah will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. (Daniel 9:26)

Likewise, this is also not talking about Jesus.

Lady Kariel; bolding added for significance

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
are only a small village among all the people of Judah.
Yet a ruler of Israel,
whose origins are in the distant past,
will come from you on my behalf.
(Micah 5:2)

Note that when Matthew 2:6 "quotes" this prophecy, he changes the name of a clan of Judah into a city in Judea:

And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah,
are not least among the ruling cities of Judah,
for a ruler will come from you
who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.

Ephrath was the clan to which the Bethlehemites belonged to, so the passage from Micah gives us a pretty clear reference to David (who came from this clan), his descendants, and the promise of another Davidic King to act as a ruler or shepherd to protect and deliver the people from the threat of Assyria. Further prophecies detail this ruler's smashing of Assyria, and all other foes of Israel until the long-awaited utopian future has arrived. As such, it seems pretty clear that, contextually, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus, as he did not destroy the Assyrians*. The further language of these prophecies point to a fiercely military leader, one who destroys and crushes Israel's foes... which is, of course, not at all in line with later Christian teaching of a "spiritual" victory through his death.

* When the Assyrians were eventually destroyed, it was by neo-Babylonian hands, rather than those of a Davidic King... meaning that this was a false prophecy to begin with, regardless of whom it spoke of.

Lady Kariel

Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died. (Zechariah 12:10)

Once again, context disproves this being about Jesus.

Lady Kariel

As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was led into his presence. He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal—it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7: 13-14)

Yet again, reading what surrounds these two verses makes prophecy speaks of a coming messiah who reestablishes the Davidic dynasty, this time through his children. Now, considering how Christians generally get pretty indignant at the notion of Jesus having children, since nothing in their scriptures even suggests such a thing, it's fairly likely that this isn't talking about him, either.


I swear, Christians take the Bible out of context more often than any atheist ever has...

[Mea quidem sententia]

Arcoon Effox

Lady Kariel

Well it definitely predicts his death as the Messiah

Not without considerable confirmation bias, and no small amount of shoehorning.

Also, concerning your use of the phrase "The Messiah": None of these prophecies refer to "the Messiah" at all, because "messiah" is not a personal pronoun. It simply means "anointed", and is used throughout the OT to describe numerous things (such as altars and unleavened bread) and people (including a Persian emperor). The idea that Jesus is "the" Messiah is a completely Christian one, established long after the concept was mistranslated to mean something it did not.

What's funny is that even the KJV properly translates moshiach in Daniel 9:26, although it is biased in capitalizing "M" in "messiah".