Could Jesus have read the old testament and pretended to be the messiah?

As you know, the old testament was around during Jesus’ time. From an atheist video I saw, they claimed that Jesus must have read the old testament and then pretended to be the saviour to fulfill the old testament. What do you think? Is it possible? Please don’t be angry when you respond because I know this type of question is going to trigger some people here.

1 Like

Perhaps so, if he had died and never risen from the dead. Without the Resurrection, he would be just another holy man. But he did rise, as many people witnessed.


That’d be rather difficult since he would have to somehow predict after he read it that he would be born in Bethlehem, under the House of David, and have pagan Roman guards that don’t care for Jewish prophecy fulfill a few of them such as not breaking his legs on execution, dividing his garments and casting lots over them, etc


@Quis_UtDeus As Matt Dillahunty would have asked, “where is your proof? Your bible?”

Doesn’t explain His miracles


If He had sought riches and power from proclaiming to be the Messiah, then yes. It is pozssible.

We know that He didn’t. So where would have been His motive?


Hmmmmmm if I pretend to be the Messiah, I’m going to get brutally murdered. Sign me up!

1 Like

Hi Rutherford and welcome. It would have been impossible for Jesus to pretend to be the Messiah . Beside what Quis-UtDEUS said there are just to many things to dispute that Jesus is not our Savior. Also can you imagine all the people who would have had to be " working " with Him? The miracles He preformed , especially Lazarus. Most of all the Crucifixion. His death on that Cross opened Heaven for us.and the Resurrection from His three days in the Tomb. Jesus is the Messiah, no question about that. Those who know that have quite a relationship with Him. One feels the Love from Him in their Hearts.He holds them close to His Merciful Heart. God bless you and keep you close


As any attorney would have responded, “the proof is in the eyewitness testimony of those who were present to witness the events.” :wink:

An atheist who thinks he acts purely on reason, and does not act in any way on ‘faith’, is deceiving himself. In your profile, you present as a Buddhist. How do you know that Siddhartha attained enlightenment?
How do you know that enlightenment is what he claimed it is? How do atheists know that there is no God?
All these are claims of belief, not pure reason. :man_shrugging:


An atheist will respond, “We know there is no God because there is no scientific proof that God exist”.

Rutherford, your thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?

Shroud of Turin? It could possibly be the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus. But atheist would argue that everybody those days looks like that with beard. It could have been anybody’s body.


Gen 49:10 and Mic 5:2 which speaks about being from the line of Judah.
(Jesus wouldn’t have control over that)

Mic 5:2 also speaks about being from Bethlehem
(Jesus wouldn’t have control over where he was born)

Psalm 132:11 and Jer 23:5 speaks about being of the House of David
(Jesus wouldn’t have control over that)

Psalm 22:18 speaks of “them” dividing his garments and casting lots on them
(Jesus reasonably so wouldn’t have control over that)

Psalm 34:20 speaks about not having his bones broken
(Knowing that crucifixions can come with breaking legs, Jesus more likely than not would’ve avoided being crucified, at least avoided more than usual considering people naturally avoid executions)

I hope that suffices.

1 Like

That’s not a proof, though, is it? That’s a belief – one that they would claim is well-founded, of course, but a belief nonetheless. (True, one cannot prove the non-existence of something that does not exist. However, the claim of atheists is that they believe that the null hypothesis has been met; after all, that’s the only way to make the claim of non-existence.)

In any case, in the absence of proof, the only support for a conclusion is belief. (See Newman’s discussion of the ‘illative sense’ in his Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent…) :wink:

1 Like

Yet it had the wounds and the mark from the sword, also no bones were broken, as attributed to Jesus’s death. They broke the legs of others they crucified. My prayers are that Jesus opens your mind and Heart to the Truth. For I believe you cam looking for that.

Motive is missing. Additionally, it would have required a lot of other people coordinating and colluding with him up to and including the Romans and the various Jewish sects who had no reason to want him to be the messiah. What would have been their motive? He wasn’t wealthy. They did not achieve fame and fortune. Almost all of his notable followers were tortured and killed.

There is no motive to fake it. Nothing to be gained in this life or the next. This was all the product of belief, personal experience, and eyewitness accounts.


I agree that He didn’t as well but what confuses me is the belief that He wanted a church that does.

@Wannano Are you referring to the Vatican?

Could an athiest disprove there is a God?

Yes, I guess unless I misunderstand when I perceive the Vatican to be the hub of Catholicism.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit