quote:
Jesus obviously saw that all that He was about came from the Hebrew Scriptures, so obviously Jesus believed that through Him God the Father had fulfilled the Scriptures. Jesus continuously refers back to those Scriptures in His teaching and it seems to me fairly obvious that a great deal of His self understanding came through those Scriptures as well as through prayer and the Holy Spirit.
Yes the authors of the NT refer back the Hebrew Scriptures, but did the Hebrew Scriptures truly support what the authors claimed?
Luke 24:26 is not supported by the Hebrew Scriptures. Which scriptures support that the Messiah had to suffer what Jesus supposedly suffered?
quote:
In Matthew 11 John the Baptist asks are you (Jesus) the Expected One or shall we look for someone else. John is referring to Malachi 3.
But the rest of Malachi 3 doesn't fit John or Jesus. A prophecy 300 years early is no good to the audience.
quote:
Jesus refers John back to Isaiah 35:5-6 and possibly Isaiah 42:7 when He says in Matthew 11
Yes the author of Matthew pulled lines from several areas. Isaiah 35:5-6, Isaiah 26:19, and Isaiah 61:1.
quote:
He consistently referred to Himself as the Son of Man which obviously goes back to Daniel 7.
The author was trying to make people associate Jesus with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Book of Daniel was a vision and the meaning was explained. I don't see that Jesus fit that bill either. Besides, Daniel's vision was to be kept secret until the end.
It takes a lot of squinting for Jesus to fit with the prophecies of the OT.
quote:
Certainly the early apostles preached Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was the one prophesied to be the Anointed One of God, as foretold in Isaiah 61:1 which again refers back to Jesus’ response to John the Baptist.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the authors of the NT were trying to present Jesus as the Messiah. The point is did the OT support what they were claiming?
PaRDeS is an acronym for four types of Jewish interpretation. The writers of the NT seemed to use these methods.
D’rash is a teaching method where writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning. But it is not to be used to strip the meaning from the original text.
A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
Jesus believing he was the Messiah or calling himself son of man, doesn't mean that the Hebrew Scriptures supported that claim. As a whole Jesus doesn't fit the prophecies.
Since Jesus left no writings of his own, it is difficult to know what Jesus might have actually said and what was put into his mouth by authors.
We need to test the NT writings against claims pulled from the OT.
™ Version 4.2
