mdarus

I want to agree with this. The New Testament Christians saw a continuity with Judaism. Peter states it was the Spirit of Christ that spoke through the prophets.They even attributed acts to Jesus before he was born.

I Peter 1:10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

Volker

Yes, I've heard that before: That the OT speaks of Jesus. But that is plainly false, because what you have are things that can be interpreted in hindsight that these are prophecies of Jesus. And none of them holds water.

Furthermore, the NT is written to make the most of the OT, to borrow from its authority. Many biblical events are written (or constructed) around stories from the OT, even with applied misunderstandings (e. g. there is a passage that could be interpreted - if you don't know hebrew to well - that someone was riding on two donkeys. So Jesus has to ride on two donkeys to Jerusalem, which is ridiculous.

No one with a right understanding will see Jesus in the OT. Most of the jews, the experts of the OT, do not believe that the old bible speaks of Jesus and reject this interpretation.

Simply, there ist not a single sentence speaking of gods atonement and not a single sentence about Jesus.

Bobinius

We are talking about Christianity here. Was Abraham a christian? We can be saved through Abraham and his faith in God? Where did Jesus go? Just focus on John 14:6.

'Successful faith'? As in salvation without Jesus? Good, that's my point then: Christianity is false. And useless. God sent himself for fun on Earth.

Bobinius

Of course, all the jews are actually christians.

Don't show me post factum retrodictions. Show me a man that lived before Christ and believed in him and his message in order to be saved. Those fathers had no idea that the 'Spirit of Christ' was doing his job: they did not know of any Christ! He did not came yet.

As we speak there are jews having faith in the coming of the Messiah. They are saved because of this? According to you, it worked before.

Anyway, you did not show any premise to be false. And of course, not a word so far about John 14:6. Let me remind you the point:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

mdarus

Volker,

1. Does this mean that anyone who does see Jesus in the OT necessarily has a wrong understanding? Or is the issue debatable?
2. Are Jews the only ones acknoledged to be experts in the OT?
3. Do Jews reject that messianic references are consistent with Jesus because they are experts in the OT or for some other reason?
   

The early Christians had a skill that has grown a little rusty. Its source is ascribed to Jesus:
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he (Jesus)explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Maybe there is more there than we realize.

Decypher

Jesus is unlikely to have been the Messiah. If you look at what are regarded by Jews as genuine Messianic prophecies, Jesus did next to nothing to fulfill them. Christians have to say that Jesus will fulfill the prophecies when he comes back.

Another problem is that tribal affiliation goes via the (biological) father in Judaism. Jesus had no father (virgin birth) and so had no tribe, and no Davidic Lineage.

Christian apologists will try and get around the problem, with Genesis 3:15 for example, but they have no good answer to it.

mdarus

Wow, Bob. That's quite a burden of proof! I think I already showed that the biblical writers believed that the faith of Abraham and other faithful Jews before was anticipatory faith the in the coming Messiah and that this faith was fulfilled in Jesus. These NT writers felt a continuity between this anticipatory faith and their own faith in Jesus. They welcomed non-Jews to be "true children of Abraham" by joining in this common faith.

I can't think of one instance of anyone living before Christ praying the sinners prayer. If that's what you need, then you got me. You win.

But if salvation was possible before 33 AD (and every Christian I know of says it was), your premises 2.1 and 2.2 are false.

By the way, I will concede that a Jewish person having faith in a coming Messiah -- this can still work.

I think you also set up a straw man in premise 1, but we can continue this for focus if you like.

Butters

Hey Bob!

I'd have to agree that from a Christian perspective, all good Jews before Jesus were saved. God had not revealed the nature of his three in one being yet, they only had to believe that a messiah was coming yadda, yadda, yadda.
Not that it makes a REAL difference to your argument. The VAST majority of people that ever lived, before or after Jesus didn't believe in him, or the Jewish God, therefore the VAST majority of people that have ever lived are burning in hell right now, and will for ever, which is certainly enough to support your argument. But as usual, you will find that Christians will not agree. Some will redefine what it takes to be saved. Some will redefine what hell is. Some will redefine words like "all powerful" or "all knowing" or "all loving", just enough to make it look like God did the best that could possibly be done with worthless creatures like humans, which of course, he can't be blamed for just because he created them.

The argument from evil is the most powerful one I know of against the Christian God.

Christians want to give God all the credit for anything good, he created it, he did it, he willed it, etc.
But they also want to deny that he has responsibility for anything bad, somehow.

Did God create everything?
yes!
Then he created evil!
No he didn't!
But you just said he created everything!?
Well, everything EXCEPT evil
(followed by some extremely tortured explanation of how either Satan or Man "brought evil" into the world, see, just say "brought into" the world instead of "created" and you dodged the whole point!)

Good luck!

mdarus

Actually, as I reread your response, it probably is time to talk about the straw man part of the argument. There is nowhere in John 14:6 that Jesus requires knowledge that he is the incarnate son nor does he require belief that he will die to forgive sin. He says he is the only way to the Father but does not detail what is required to define faith in him. The straw man parts of premise 1 are requirements to believe

1. that Jesus is God
2. that he died for sin

It is clear that Christianity relies on these beliefs, but it is not clear that this is what Jesus was talking about. He does not require that everyone who existed before he said this must somehow know about it. They are already dead. But he can still be the way for them based on their anticipatory faith.

The requirements to affirm that Jesus is God and to accept his death as payment for sin as prerequisites for salvation are helpful in most situations but this simplification of the gospel has dangers. One danger is to suppose that this is all there is. Easy believism has created many casualties. Jesus' invitation to participate in the kingdom of God is much bigger than agreeing with two propositions. The other danger is it may be requiring too much. These seeming simple statements stand for complex theological constructs of the Trinity and the atonement. True faith can be a simple thing.

fishbulb

Well, if Satan/Man brought evil into the world, they must have brought it from somewhere. But it still had to be created before he could have brought it, and if God created everything, it must have been created by God.

You can still trip them up in their word games, or at least make them work really hard before you get bored and give up.