To put it in "Old" Testament terms

[Elijah John]

Granted that the name "Jesus Christ" does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. The "Old" Testament.

But to put it in OT terms, how many heroes of the Old Testament accepted the Messiah as their "personal Lord and Savior"? Or looked to the Messiah for the forgiveness of their sins?

Did anyone in the Old Testament look to anyone but YHVH God as their Savior?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

No, the O.T. has no concept of a "crucified Messiah" whose death atones for sins. There was no doubt in any canonical author's mind, whether Moses or Malachi, that a repentant heart accompanied by temple sacrifice atoned for sin. And what Paul says of Jesus in Phil 2 and 1 Cor. 8 may have horrified Moses. That is of course pure speculation. What is not speculative is that the teachings about Jesus in the N.T. have no O.T. precedent; it came like lighting out of a clear blue sky: no one could have expected it.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

So then, according to that line of thinking, Jews of today who look only to Father YHVH (Adonai) for salvation, are implicitly covered by the merits of Jesus even though they do not acknowledge him that way?

I cannot speak in such absolute terms; I can only point out what N.T. authors thought. It seems, from Ro. 11, that unbelieving Jews (with respect to JEsus) remain in the covenant. That is, Paul believed that the rest of the Jews would eventually accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord (the second title being divine). To answer your question more precisely, I think they remain in the covenant of God because of God's promise to Abraham, not because of Jesus' "merits". That is acquired only through sincere confession.

This of course begs the theoretical question, "What about Jews who will never acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Lord?" Or, "Jews who died as unbelievers?" Paul (frustratingly!) rarely dealt with the theoretical; for him it was simply a non-negotiable that eventually Israel would "become Christian".

[brianbbs67]

"it is your belief that saves you"

God offered absolution over and over in the OT. Give up your evil ways was His only requirement. Christ seemed to uphold this.

It is written:
1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and we should love one another just as He commanded us.

If you seek YHWH, you will find Christ.

So...Jews seek YHVH, that is what their religion is all about. But most do not find "Christ". Why is that?

Is your claim here erroneous, or are they just not seeking YHVH the "right way"?

Many seem to have found YHVH God without finding "Christ".

I am saying salvation comes from God. Christ an instrument of it. I am finding that most of the sayings of Christ(the original title of Mathew) are contained in the Talmud(Misnah revisions too) and the Tanakh and most are attributed to Hillel the head of the Pharisees in Jesus' time. I am almost convinced Christ was a follower of Hillel. Hillel was in the manor of Christ, also, in the way he conducted himself. And he was troubled by his fellows also because of his humble behavior.

I would say that Jesus is "savior" only insomuch as he pointed to Father YHVH as savior. He did preach the love and mercy of the Father. And his theophonic name means "YHVH saves" or "YHVH is salvation". Apt.

Interesting comments regarding Hillel. I think there's something to that comparison, but am not too familiar with him beyond his encapsulating the Torah with his version of the Golden Rule. And that he was a reformer too.

Here's a little more Of Hillel

IMG_0984 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

IMG_0985 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

I would say that Jesus is "savior" only insomuch as he pointed to Father YHVH as savior.

All the prophets of the O.T. did this. Along this line, the N.T. should never have been written. In that period, the age of prophecy was considered done; God had said all he had to say. John the Baptist never engendered a body of literature representative of a new religion.

The question that needs to be asked is, why did Jews (who knew the O.T. as well if not better than we) said things about Jesus which they didn't say about such eminent figures as Elijah or Isaiah? In Gal. Paul pits Jesus against Moses and Jesus (for him) wins; the gospels have Moses and Elijah conferring with Jesus, and the heavenly voice calls Jesus "Son" (please not, I am not presupposing the historicity of this event, only that a movement within Judaism led to such a story).

The quote above seems to have ignored 90% of the N.T., and selected only those portions which make him one more prophet in the line of O.T. prophets.

If the historical Jesus was simply a Jew "preaching the love of YHWH", then why aren't we reading about him in only the pseudapigrapha, or the Mishnah, or the Talmud? He should NOT be a big deal.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

I would say that Jesus is "savior" only insomuch as he pointed to Father YHVH as savior.

All the prophets of the O.T. did this. Along this line, the N.T. should never have been written. In that period, the age of prophecy was considered done; God had said all he had to say. John the Baptist never engendered a body of literature representative of a new religion.

The question that needs to be asked is, why did Jews (who knew the O.T. as well if not better than we) said things about Jesus which they didn't say about such eminent figures as Elijah or Isaiah? In Gal. Paul pits Jesus against Moses and Jesus (for him) wins; the gospels have Moses and Elijah conferring with Jesus, and the heavenly voice calls Jesus "Son" (please not, I am not presupposing the historicity of this event, only that a movement within Judaism led to such a story).

The quote above seems to have ignored 90% of the N.T., and selected only those portions which make him one more prophet in the line of O.T. prophets.

If the historical Jesus was simply a Jew "preaching the love of YHWH", then why aren't we reading about him in only the pseudapigrapha, or the Mishnah, or the Talmud? He should NOT be a big deal.

Yes, Jesus was in line with John, (the Baptist) and the OT prophets in preaching the love and mercy of Father YHVH. But he didn't stop there, he claimed to be the Messiah.

We do not read about Jesus in the Mishnah or the Talmud (except for a few, disparaging passages) because he was at variance with normative Judaism in more than a few significant ways. Mainly his (likely) belief that he was the Messiah. When his life ended with crucifixion, without ushering in the liberation of Israel, and the universal era of world peace under Israel's leadership, and without perpetuating universal knowledge of YHVH, then it was clear to most Jews that Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah.

If there is any prophecy in the OT/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would need two advents to get the job done, it is not clear. Is it any wonder why most Jews rejected Jesus?

Jesus is a "big deal" because of Paul and the emporer Constantine. There just were not that many Jewish converts to the Jesus movement, so Paul turned to the Gentiles. And when Constantined made "Christianity" the state religion, well....the rest is history.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

No, the O.T. has no concept of a "crucified Messiah" whose death atones for sins. There was no doubt in any canonical author's mind, whether Moses or Malachi, that a repentant heart accompanied by temple sacrifice atoned for sin. And what Paul says of Jesus in Phil 2 and 1 Cor. 8 may have horrified Moses. That is of course pure speculation. What is not speculative is that the teachings about Jesus in the N.T. have no O.T. precedent; it came like lighting out of a clear blue sky: no one could have expected it.

What about Psalm 22? David's dream put into prose describes almost all that happened to Christ including the fact no bones were broken.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

I would say that Jesus is "savior" only insomuch as he pointed to Father YHVH as savior.

All the prophets of the O.T. did this. Along this line, the N.T. should never have been written. In that period, the age of prophecy was considered done; God had said all he had to say. John the Baptist never engendered a body of literature representative of a new religion.

The question that needs to be asked is, why did Jews (who knew the O.T. as well if not better than we) said things about Jesus which they didn't say about such eminent figures as Elijah or Isaiah? In Gal. Paul pits Jesus against Moses and Jesus (for him) wins; the gospels have Moses and Elijah conferring with Jesus, and the heavenly voice calls Jesus "Son" (please not, I am not presupposing the historicity of this event, only that a movement within Judaism led to such a story).

The quote above seems to have ignored 90% of the N.T., and selected only those portions which make him one more prophet in the line of O.T. prophets.

If the historical Jesus was simply a Jew "preaching the love of YHWH", then why aren't we reading about him in only the pseudapigrapha, or the Mishnah, or the Talmud? He should NOT be a big deal.

Yes, Jesus was in line with John, (the Baptist) and the OT prophets in preaching the love and mercy of Father YHVH. But he didn't stop there, he claimed to be the Messiah.

We do not read about Jesus in the Mishnah or the Talmud (except for a few, disparaging passages) because he was at variance with normative Judaism in more than a few significant ways. Mainly his (likely) belief that he was the Messiah. When his life ended with crucifixion, without ushering in the liberation of Israel, and the universal era of world peace under Israel's leadership, and without perpetuating universal knowledge of YHVH, then it was clear to most Jews that Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah.

If there is any prophecy in the OT/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would need two advents to get the job done, it is not clear. Is it any wonder why most Jews rejected Jesus?

Jesus is a "big deal" because of Paul and the emporer Constantine. There just were not that many Jewish converts to the Jesus movement, so Paul turned to the Gentiles. And when Constantined made "Christianity" the state religion, well....the rest is history.

Many rejected him but a lot followed him literally. Remember the 4000 and 5000? In some spots the crowd is large and all Jewish, as that's who he came for in the first place.

Also, Paul didn't turn to the Goyim. He was assigned to them after Peter's dream and the meeting of the disciples. There was very little ministry to the gentiles by Christ. After death, when raised, he commanded it.

[101G]