Wait a minute, the ram is Jesus, isn't it?

this is your brain on denial

You're arguing against an innovative theology of atonement that was popularized in western confessions in the middle ages.

>(Jesus after all is a human sacrifice
No he isn't ffs

>So Christian theology has to shove interpretations in the old testament that simply aren't there
holy moley this couldn't be more wrong

OT prefigures Christ and the NT. Christ is the fulfillment of the OT.

There's more typological connections like in
>pic related

The various scribes and rabbis that assembled, wrote, and edited the old testament had no concern for a rogue Jewish preacher and his that hadn't even been born or his public execution which hadn't even happened. That's my point.

Would you also say that no books of the Old Testament prophesy a coming messiah?

That's essentially what atonement theology is: except wrapped up in pretty words. Even more brutal it's the sacrifice of an innocent human.

If you had a couple hundreds and legions of priests to whack at it you could probably find allusions to Jesus in Harry Potter and Aztec holy books.

harry potter was based on scripture bud.. Not a particularly good example.

don't forget that the Ark contained the 10 Commandments which is the Word of God, The Rod of Aaron that signified Aaron's high priest status, and Manna, which is the bread that came down from heaven.
Jesus is the Word of God, He is the high priest, He is the Bread of Life that came down from heaven. But that's just wild speculation, a stretch.

What I'm saying is the documents present such different values and terms that even that question doesn't make any sense. A Jewish messiah is a generic term for some sort of person that advances the Jewish people's interest. There's a ritual they have to undergo. There's some prophecy about one particular messiah who will be a general that allows the Jews to enslave their enemy and acquire earthly power.

Than there is the Christian messiah who is something else entirely. It's a result of early 1st centuary Christians who had a shitty understanding of Jewish theology, or just made shit up entirly.

we got a phoneposter here

Wait a minute, Odysseus is Jesus, isn't it?

How many times have you read the Bible cover to cover? In what ways does the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, as presented by Paul, contradict Old Testament prophecy? Can you give any specific examples of 1st century Christian theology (with the name of the author and a quotation from their work) that demonstrates a "shitty understanding of Jewish theology?"

>all the triggered christcucks in this thread

I actually never looked at it that way.

...

In a way, yeah. The Eucharist is the new sacrifice.

The drama of the Book of Genesis reaches its greatest intensity in 22:1-9, the heart-wrenching story of Abraham offering his beloved son as a sacrifice on Mt. Moriah. So momentous is the event and its outcome that it stands as one of the defining moments of salvation history. Had Abraham shown anything less than heroic faith, there is no telling how the grand narrative of the Bible would have developed thereafter. The question if how to interpret the significance of the episode. For some, the story is a protest against the rituals of child sacrifice that plagued the biblical world. By holding back the knife, the Lord shows that he rejects rather than requires this kind of savagery in the name of religion. For others, the story is a lesson in trusting God and obeying his word, even when life's circumstances seem to contradict his promises. Stretching out faith beyond comfortable limits is seen as the path to greater blessing that Abraham blazes for us by example. Both of these readings provide genuine insights into Genesis 22. But more can be said about the spiritual and theological dimensions of the episode. In the interpretive tradition of Judaism and Christianity, the sacrifice of Isaac is an even of monumental historic importance. It is one of the few events in scripture that have a lasting effect on the shape of God's plan for the future of the world.

1/3

Spiritual significance:
For Abraham personally, the sacrifice of Isaac marks the highpoint of his developing relationship with the Lord. Ever since his call in Genesis 12, Abraham's faith in God has been gradually deepening and maturing to the point where, in Genesis 22, God sees fit to test the strength of his commitment. Preceding chapters describe how the plot builds to reach this climactic moment. (1) Initially Abraham is asked to leave is home and set out for the land of Canaan at the Lord's direction (12:1-2). (2) Later he is asked to sacrifice animals from his herds (15:18-20). (3) Then the patriarch is asked to sacrifice part of himself in a covenant of circumcision at the age of ninety-nine (17:1-21). (4) Finally, the Lord asks for the life of Isaac, Abraham's beloved heir (22:102). No greater sacrifice could be asked of a father than this, all the more so since God's promises to bless Abraham are literally bound up with Isaac on the altar (see 17:19). So it is that Abraham learns the lesson of trustful surrender to the Lord. At each stage in the process, more is asked of him than before, until all that Abraham holds dear is given over to God and nothing is held back. Each time he is summoned to sacrifice, he is asked to love the Creator more than his creatures and to esteem the divine Giver above his most precious gifts. Even when God's promises and credibility hang by a thread, the only acceptable course is to entrust ourselves to him in faith. Because Abraham followed this course, he shows himself to be one who fears God (22:12). This is significant because the Bible extols "fear of the Lord" as the preeminent religious virtue, the very essence of what it means to possess wisdom and to live uprightly in the eyes of the Almighty (Ex 20:20; Job 1:1; 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 1:7).

he realized it was a big fucked up ax someone to kill their kid, so he's like "i wouldnt ax u to do sth i wouldnt do myself" like any good manager, so he sent his own son

Theological significance:
In early Jewish theology, the sacrifice or "binding" of Isaac is an event that sends ripples down through the history of the covenant people. It is said, for example, that Isaac played an active role on Moriah by offering himself as a willing victim and that the merits of his action were stored up for the redemption of Israel in future days. Thus, saving events such as the Exodus from Egypt, the forgiveness of the people after the golden calf apostasy, and the crossing of the Jordan into the Promised Land were all made possible by the sacrifice of Isaac. Likewise, the cultic ministries of the Temple, especially the daily burnt offering and the yearly Passover sacrifice, were considered liturgical memorials of Isaac's offering. In these and other ways, the sacrifice of Isaac was believed to secure lasting benefits for the descendants of Abraham.

From a Christian perspective, the sacrifice of Isaac points forward to the salvation of the world by the Messiah. Anticipation of this rests on both a prophetical and typological reading of Genesis 22. Prophetically, the divine oath to bless the world through Abraham in 22:16-19 is fulfilled in Jesus Christ as the messianic offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16). Through him the blessing of God's covenant with Abraham, destined for all families and nations, are poured out for the salvation of Israel and the Gentiles alike (Mt 28:19; Acts 3:25-26; Gal 3:14). In this way, the curses of the Adamic covenant are surpassed and surmounted by the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled by the Messiah (see Rom 5:12-21).

Typologically, the offering of Isaac serves as a preview of how the world's redemption would be accomplished. Like Isaac, Jesus is an only beloved Son (Mt 3:17; Kn 3:16) who is not spared by his Father but is offered in sacrifice (Rom 8:32). So too, as Isaac is returned alive to the arms of his father, thanks to the intervention of God (22:12), Jesus is restored to life in his Resurrection (Heb 11:17-29). Building on this NT foundation, the Fathers of the Church went on to correlate Isaac carrying the firewood (22:6) with Jesus bearing his own Cross (Jn 19:17), to link the deliverance of Isaac on the third day after consignment to death (22:4) with the deliverance of Jesus from death on the third day (Mt 16:21), and to see the ram caught by its thorns in the thicket (22:13) as a depiction of Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb (Jn 1:29), Finally, the sacrifice of Isaac is said to have taken place on Moriah (22:2), which is none other than the mountainous elevation of Jerusalem (2 Chron 3:1) the city where Jesus was called upon to offer his life in sacrifice. Given these remarkable prophetical and typological features, it is no surprise that Christian tradition places Genesis 22 alongside other OT passages such as Isaiah 53 that most clearly describe the work of the Messiah for our redemption.

>hatin' on typological exegesis

spotted the non-christian

The ram was Iphigenia
jesus was actually (unironically) Dionysus

>blood magic

>So Christian theology has to shove interpretations in the old testament that simply aren't there.
Are you sure?

Nice painting

The Old Testament never stops talking about Jesus. From the garden of Eden to the Minor Prophets the Old Testament references Jesus almost every step of the way

Wondering if OP posted this because it was Sunday's OT reading.

>one person's good acts make up for others' shittiness
Is there anything stupider than mainstream Christian theology?

This is your brain on Christianity.

This. This is why you can't trust Christians to interpret the Bible, they have to distort parts of it to make it in any way consistent, not to mention making it consistent with the non-Biblical parts of their ideology.

Although
> is completely invalid in the old testament, so is the idea of God having a son
It's worth noting that angels are sometimes called "sons of God" in the OT and in some cases it may have been meant literally. By the time Jesus came around Jews probably regarded it as a non-literal title, the way Christians do now, hence Jesus could be considered God's "only son."

Wait a minute, Krishna is Jesus, isn't he?

Hey remember that time a biblical hero actually did sacrifice his child to Yahweh?
>promises to sacrifice the first thing he sees when he gets home if God grants his wish
>God grants his wish
>first thing he sees is his daughter
>d'oh!
>has to go through with it cuz he promised
>no angel steps in to stop it

Not when the text contained the seeds of it's own fulfillment.

-3/8 b8 m8

Typology is confirmation bias elevated to high art. Here's how to prove something prefigures something else
>point out any similarities
>ignore any dissimilarities because a figure is never identical
That's all it takes! Pro tip: the significations don't even have to be consistent, things can be as mixed up as you want. Why, in this example it appears that David and Obed-Edom are both figures of Elizabeth and David is additionally a figure of her son John. Isaac is Jesus and so is the ram that replaces Isaac. Moses is Jesus because he delivers the old law, which prefigures Jesus's new law and Joshua is Jesus because Moses's old law is insufficient to bring people to Heaven, which the Promised Land is a figure of, so his task has to be completed by Joshua/Jesus (also because they're both named Yeshua, I've actually heard christfags argue this). But wait, doesn't Joshua represent the old law just as much as Moses? If Moses is a figure of Jesus, why couldn't he bring the people to a figure of Heaven? Eh, it's typology, I ain't gotta explain shit. Using this method, you can show that anyone who does anything good is a figure of Christ.

Also, if a passage is clearly referencing an earlier work that the writer would have known, say it's the other way around. The older work is simply "prefiguring" the newer work! It's similar to what you should do if someone in the NT quotes a psalm: say the psalm was actually about the occasion on which it was quoted all along (or partly about it, if there are verses in it that make it impossible for it to be strictly about that event) because David prophetically saw that it would happen, even though David is never portrayed as a prophet in the historical books and needed to use prophets like Nathan as a medium to talk to God.

How does anybody fall for this shit? It couldn't be more transparently bullshit.

Deafening silence

Can’t you see it as both a typological prediction, as well as retaining its original metaphorical concepts?

It was a test that he failed. He should have learned from the binding of Isaac, but he didn’t.

I guess the daughter failed too by submitting to being sacrificed? That's pretty cold.

Yeah too bad

just go over that bit in kierkegaard again

So interesting that Noah's name means comfort, rest. Like the world before the flood was full of haste, like it was becoming recently, and then the flood washed away all the sin and let time almost slow down again.

>who enslaves their enemies
no they annihilate the enemies of Israel they don’t enslave the goyim fuck off with your religious anti-Semitism and Jesus is clearly the Jewish messiah even if its all fucking bullshit
please shut the fuck up you Zeitgeist faggot, Dionysus fucked women, made people go mad, drank and killed, was a god of mania, festivity and oracles he wasn’t a redeemer. He is depicted as saving Ariadne and Semele from Hades he is also depicted as being eaten by Titans and reborn. He is never depicted as absolving people of sins

Joshua is the prefigurement of Jesus there, not Moses. After all, "Jesus" is literally a corruption of "Yeshua," which is "Joshua." So the Jesus figure is the guy who actually does lead the Israelites into the Promised Land.

Although Moses prefigures Jesus in a certain way, too. All the patriarchs do.

He was the god of wine, son of the almighty who represented resurrection after death