Where in the Old Testament...?

[Elijah John]

This series will be based on several questions I bunched together on another thread.
I think each question warrants more in depth exploration, without the need for untangling one question from another.

Challenge #1:

Where in the Old Testament is it ever suggested that salvation will result from "believing in" the Messiah?

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 8 by Ancient of Years]

Ancient, do you think John had similar notions to Paul regarding substitutionary atonement, or only with regard to Jesus supposed Divinity.

My undersanding is the latter. That both John and Paul saw Jesus as more than human, but less than completely Divine, both saw him as "somewhat" Divine, but inferior to the Father.

So Paul seems to have taught that Jesus "died for our sins" and to believe that propositon is the way of salvation, where John seems to have taught that obeying the will of the Father in the manner prescibed by Jesus, is the Way.

John's Jesus shows the WAY to obey the Father, and John's Jesus, (as do the other Gospel evanelists) portray Jesus as the obeying to such a degree, that he EMBODIES the will of the Father.

Seems the teaching of John, and the teaching of Paul in regard to salvation was not exactly the same, though preachers and theologians conflate the two.

My guess is that Paul got the Son of God idea from Philo, who also called it the Logos. Philo wanted to reconcile Jewish scripture and Neo-Platonist philosophy. Plato’s demiurge who created the world became the Logos. But the demiurge was a separate entity whereas Philo’s Logos was God but also somehow separate from God, an extension of a completely non-material God into the material world. See the kenosis hymn in Paul for his understanding of Jesus.

John does not seem overly concerned with atonement. He does not ignore it, just does not stress it like Paul did. Paul linked to the resurrection and linked that to the supposedly imminent universal resurrection. John is not concerned with anything being imminent.

John is a bit ambiguous about his relationship with the Father. “I and the Father are one� (John 10:30) but “the Father is greater than I� (John 14:28) Philo shows this same ambiguity.

Concerning Jesus embodying the will of the Father, this fits perfectly with Philo, where the Logos is an extension of God into the world and once again with the kenosis hymn.

IMO Paul and John both often speak in a metaphorical style, making it hard to understand just what they meant in literal terms.

[earendil]

This series will be based on several questions I bunched together on another thread.
I think each question warrants more in depth exploration, without the need for untangling one question from another.

Challenge #1:

Where in the Old Testament is it ever suggested that salvation will result from "believing in" the Messiah?

Nowhere that I have been able to find. However, the idea is a logical result of the message of Christ, though the idea of believing in the Messiah is commonly misunderstood. Here is a quote from some book:

There is one thing about Christianity that distinguishes it from every other religion. Typically, religions that acknowledge God and the afterlife promote the idea that through good actions a person is rewarded and through bad actions a person is punished. Christians also consider this idea as it is a natural outcome of the responsibility of free will. However, Christians believe that God has proactively intervened to forgive the sins of each individual, thus they are not rewarded by good actions, but by the mercy of God. So it was written:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

First of all, what is the effect of this forgiveness on the human spirit? We noted earlier that the need for emotional self-value and the response to guilt burdened the soul. It caused misdirected thinking and motivated destructive behavior. But with the forgiveness of sins, guilt is eliminated and emotional self-value is satisfied because God's forgiveness is an act of love. There is no more motivation for the behavior described in the previous section because the person does not need to compensate for lack of emotional self-value. Since God's love is universal, based on the intrinsic nature of humanity, no individual can claim exception in such a way as to promote arrogance.

So ultimately, what makes a person important, what makes a person valuable is the simple fact that God loves him. The one who created his soul, his identity, loves him. This cannot be understated. If a person is considered the most important person by the entire population of the world, what does it really mean? Is that true importance? A person might be judged great by human standards, but when his consciousness disconnects from his physically dead body, what then? Will there be anyone left to praise him?

This is why you will often find people who, despite having great wealth and lacking in no physical comfort or worldly opportunity, will still feel despair in their hearts. They may not be consciously aware of the cause, but their subconscious knows the lack of true self-value.

Of course, the healing effect of God's forgiveness only works if you believe it. Note the part : "who believes in him". Does this mean that one needs to believe in the historical events surrounding Christ? This is something that happened 2000 years ago. Why would belief in a historical event be of any importance? History is merely an academic matter, especially since the past no longer exists. Does this mean that one should put faith in the Christ as he exists (in spirit) now as one would put faith in God? That would be idolatry. It makes sense though if it is to be understood to believe in what Christ represents which is the forgiveness of God.

Christ often identified himself as the message....therefore to believe in him is to believe the message. This was a common theme seen in other texts. For example, if a person would "eat the flesh of Christ", a person would simply be internalizing the message, because Christ was the message.

[Elijah John]

This series will be based on several questions I bunched together on another thread.
I think each question warrants more in depth exploration, without the need for untangling one question from another.

Challenge #1:

Where in the Old Testament is it ever suggested that salvation will result from "believing in" the Messiah?

Nowhere that I have been able to find. However, the idea is a logical result of the message of Christ, though the idea of believing in the Messiah is commonly misunderstood. Here is a quote from some book:

There is one thing about Christianity that distinguishes it from every other religion. Typically, religions that acknowledge God and the afterlife promote the idea that through good actions a person is rewarded and through bad actions a person is punished. Christians also consider this idea as it is a natural outcome of the responsibility of free will. However, Christians believe that God has proactively intervened to forgive the sins of each individual, thus they are not rewarded by good actions, but by the mercy of God. So it was written:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

First of all, what is the effect of this forgiveness on the human spirit? We noted earlier that the need for emotional self-value and the response to guilt burdened the soul. It caused misdirected thinking and motivated destructive behavior. But with the forgiveness of sins, guilt is eliminated and emotional self-value is satisfied because God's forgiveness is an act of love. There is no more motivation for the behavior described in the previous section because the person does not need to compensate for lack of emotional self-value. Since God's love is universal, based on the intrinsic nature of humanity, no individual can claim exception in such a way as to promote arrogance.

So ultimately, what makes a person important, what makes a person valuable is the simple fact that God loves him. The one who created his soul, his identity, loves him. This cannot be understated. If a person is considered the most important person by the entire population of the world, what does it really mean? Is that true importance? A person might be judged great by human standards, but when his consciousness disconnects from his physically dead body, what then? Will there be anyone left to praise him?

This is why you will often find people who, despite having great wealth and lacking in no physical comfort or worldly opportunity, will still feel despair in their hearts. They may not be consciously aware of the cause, but their subconscious knows the lack of true self-value.

Of course, the healing effect of God's forgiveness only works if you believe it. Note the part : "who believes in him". Does this mean that one needs to believe in the historical events surrounding Christ? This is something that happened 2000 years ago. Why would belief in a historical event be of any importance? History is merely an academic matter, especially since the past no longer exists. Does this mean that one should put faith in the Christ as he exists (in spirit) now as one would put faith in God? That would be idolatry. It makes sense though if it is to be understood to believe in what Christ represents which is the forgiveness of God.

Christ often identified himself as the message....therefore to believe in him is to believe the message. This was a common theme seen in other texts. For example, if a person would "eat the flesh of Christ", a person would simply be internalizing the message, because Christ was the message.

Internalizing the message via a ritual act. I like. Still, as you acknowlege in the beginning of your post, there is no real OT counterpart to John 3.16.

John has been called a mystic by some scholars, and this is perhaps an example of his mystical thinking. (Whether or not Jesus actually taught it)

The point I am trying to make in this and the other "challenge" threads is that some conventional Christian teaching is clearly rooted in the OT. Some by a stretch of theological gymnastics, but most of the examples in the series, not at all.

To reiterate for all... where in the OT/Hebrew Bible is it ever made clear that Spiritual salvation would come from "believing in" the Messiah? Let me add, in the PERSON of the Messiah, not his eventual message?

Assuming that Jesus of the NT is the Messiah of the old, once again, where is the equivalent of John 3.16 in the Old Testament?

Is the idea of salvation resulting from "believing in" the Messiah, (Jesus, the Son of God) a new idea originating in John's own understanding, or does that concept have roots in the Old Testament?

If the latter, please demonstrate.

These challenges are especially directed to those who like to point to Jesus in the OT, those who seem to be able to "see Jesus" all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

[earendil]

Internalizing the message via a ritual act. I like. Still, as you acknowlege in the beginning of your post, there is no real OT counterpart to John 3.16.

Ritual act?? Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh...." and they thought he went insane, so they called his family to take him away. Even the disciples were worried, but he later explained that it was only symbolic talk and it only meant for them to accept his message and take it to heart. Jesus did not intend for any ritual. (True, the Catholics have made a ritual of it, but I was not referring to that.)

The point I was trying to make is that if you interpret 3:16 to mean to believe in the person of the Christ, then there is no OT equivalent. If you interpret it as to believe in the message of Christ, then it merely follows logically and the OT does support the message. So with this interpretation, the OT does have an equivalent of John 3:16 in multiple places:

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isa. 53:11-12

He who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord and my God has been my strength— he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.� Isa. 49:5-6

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 14 by earendil]

I agree that it was possible and even likely that Jesus was not instituting a ritual act. And I agree that in spite of the Church's interpretation.

My take? I think it was an obvious metaphor. I don't think Jesus ever meant for any one to literally eat his body, or drink his blood...even if the disciples were scandalized and took it that way.

The Isaiah 53 referance I take to mean Israel as a whole not the Messiah counterpart.

The Isaiah 49? Still nothing about obtaining Spiritual salavation by believing in the Messiah, his person OR his message. Maybe the "light to the Gentiles part" could be referring to his message, but is the passage unambiguously referring to the Messiah? Not established, though it seems it may be.

[earendil]

[Replying to post 14 by earendil]

I agree that it was possible and even likely that Jesus was not instituting a ritual act. And I agree that in spite of the Church's interpretation.

My take? I think it was an obvious metaphor. I don't think Jesus ever meant for any one to literally eat his body, or drink his blood...even if the disciples were scandalized and took it that way.

The Isaiah 53 referance I take to mean Israel as a whole not the Messiah counterpart.

This is a common reading of this chapter, particularly amoung the Jews. I understand this as it is fairly common for the prophets to represent Israel as a person. However... one needs to read 53 carefully. In the first part it does seem to refer to Israel, but as it continues there is a shift and one realizes that it changes from Israel to a specific unknown messianic type of individual.

Furthermore, consider this: Has the nation of Israel done any of this at any time in history? But Jesus Christ.....who can doubt it?

The Isaiah 49? Still nothing about obtaining Spiritual salavation by believing in the Messiah, his person OR his message. Maybe the "light to the Gentiles part" could be referring to his message, but is the passage unambiguously referring to the Messiah? Not established, though it seems it may be.

Actually I was not shown this verse but just happened upon it...and I was astonished. Is it not true that Christianity has brought the concept of God's forgiveness and salvation to the ends of the Earth?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by earendil]

Yes it is true, universal knowlege of God's forgiveness has been one of the postive effects of Christianity's influence to the Nations, of the world. That would seem to fulfill Isaiah 49.

But by that same token, Paul could be considered the Messiah, couldn't he? I say this as one who disagrees with his theology, but his influence is undeniable.

[earendil]

[Replying to post 16 by earendil]

Yes it is true, universal knowlege of God's forgiveness has been one of the postive effects of Christianity's influence to the Nations, of the world. That would seem to fulfill Isaiah 49.

But by that same token, Paul could be considered the Messiah, couldn't he? I say this as one who disagrees with his theology, but his influence is undeniable.

While he was influential, I do not think this association works, because without Jesus, Paul would have had nothing to talk about.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by earendil]

Yes it is true, universal knowlege of God's forgiveness has been one of the postive effects of Christianity's influence to the Nations, of the world. That would seem to fulfill Isaiah 49.

But by that same token, Paul could be considered the Messiah, couldn't he? I say this as one who disagrees with his theology, but his influence is undeniable.

While he was influential, I do not think this association works, because without Jesus, Paul would have had nothing to talk about.

Right, but my point is that influence alone, does not a Messiah make. This statement would apply to Jesus too.

[earendil]

[Replying to post 16 by earendil]

Yes it is true, universal knowlege of God's forgiveness has been one of the postive effects of Christianity's influence to the Nations, of the world. That would seem to fulfill Isaiah 49.

But by that same token, Paul could be considered the Messiah, couldn't he? I say this as one who disagrees with his theology, but his influence is undeniable.

While he was influential, I do not think this association works, because without Jesus, Paul would have had nothing to talk about.

Right, but my point is that influence alone, does not a Messiah make. This statement would apply to Jesus too.

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean.

Isa. 49 claimed that the servant would accomplish this. The religion that did this is named after this servant. This verse just discusses one aspect of the Messiah. Isa. 53 says that the servent will essentially give up his life for the cause. This would be another aspect of the Messiah. I could find for you other verses that show other aspects of the Christian message, so when all put together, not only would it describe the Christian message, but also details in the life of Christ.

Some Christians get carried away with the prophecies and claim sometimes up to 300. In my research I only found 9-13 prophecies that were detailed enough to be valuable. (Considering the details involved though it is still pretty good I think.)

There were probably more from prophets closer to the time of Jesus's life, but these were the prophets that were killed and their prophecies were not recorded.
(It might be that Ezdras 2 contains some of these prophecies, but there is no way to know for sure. Also there is a missing prophecy mentioned in the Gospels.)