Help, a little please


In Utah thousands of souls are going to this forum.
Here is the thread
An Atheist, the owner of the site and a former Mormon has been commenting on the Old Testament and coming up with some good arguments. His main point is that the Old Testament does not prophesize about Jesus, that it is about Jerusalem. When I went there I did not know what I was in for and do not know enough. Is there some good answers to his questions? Hundreds are watching here, people searching!!! Look at the views.

My code name is Rich


24 hits and not one who can help? I am a Catholic, I teach RCIA and I have never ran into this. We have 800 people viewing this post here in Utah. Waiting for a response frm me. Many have left Mormonism and our searching, just look at the views to this posting.

Here is the last Post by thgis sites Owner. He is the Leader of


I decded to take the first passage you quote and analyze it:

Rich: ***
***… The Lord will judge the ends of Earth. He will give strength to His king and exalt the horn of His anointed. (1 Samuel 2:10)

There is nothing in the passage that indicates “His anointed” is Jesus. In fact, look at the following passage. It parallels your passage above but is more clear on what the anointed is:

The Lord is the strength of his people, a fortress of salvation for his anointed one. Save your people and bless your inheritance; be their shepherd and carry them forever. (Psalms 28:8-9)
The Psalms passage says “his people” (Israel) is/are the anointed, not an individual such as Jesus.

[Edit: I should point out that the word “one” after “anointed” in the above passage does not exist in the Hebrew text, nor should the words “His” be capitalized in the first passage above. Capitalization is not a part of Hebrew language. With that in mind the two passages should read like so:

[COLOR=#ff0000]He will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.
The Lord is the strength of his people, a fortress of salvation for his anointed.*

Here’s another passge that clarifies who/what the “king” is in Old Testament Jewish theology:

O Lord, save the king! Answer us when we call! (Psalms 20:9)

It’s clear in the above passage the the king is not an individual but is plural. It’s an “us” not a him. ]

Let me know if you’d like me to analyze another of the passages you reference. After doing this with many Christians who claim Jesus fulfills OT prophecy I’m 100% confident that there isn’t a single passage in the OT that actually does speak of Jesus. You don’t have to take my word for it and believe it, and I’m pretty sure you wont. But according to my study, that’s the way it looks to me. Rich,

I decded to take the first passage you quote and analyze it:


Well the Old testament is ambiguous about the divinity of Christ. It is only in the new testament that the full revelation of the incarnation becomes clear.

Most of the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting a political messiah like Elijah, Moses, or the prophets, in a general sense, but more specifically, an heir to the thrown of David; see Nathan’s prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 12-17, the beginning of Psalm 89, 1 Chronicles 17:11-15. These prophecies are an assurance of the political continuation of David’s dynasty. You also see a prophecy of God’s blessings on Judah in Genesis 49:9-12 which seems to imply that God will bless the world through Judah.
Psalm 72 is probably one of the clearest expressions of the awaited savior King that the Jews were expecting in the day of Jesus. These prophecies are probably some of the oldest ones taken during the glory days of the Davidic Kings.

During the reign of more inept kings like Ahaz and during the exil in Babylon, the messianic hope became more nuanced; see Isaiah 7:14-17, 9:5-6, expressing what seems to be more than just the expectation of a political small m messiah. Isaiah 11 basically shows the Messiah as full of the spirit of God and he will restore humanity to paradise. Micah also expresses this messianic hope in chapter 5:1-6. So did Jeremiah 23:5-6, and Ezekiel 17:22-24. For Ezekiel, this messiah will be David 34:23 and 37:24.

After the exil, when there was no Davidic King in the picture, the Davidic Messiah became much less warlike; see Zechariah 9:9-17. The messiah is the instrument of God’s salvation, but it is a more humble, less kingly Messiah who rides on an ***. It is also the suffering servant shown in Isaiah. It is these last prophecies that most resemble the humble and meek Jesus we know. Jesus often resisted the notion of Messiah that the people tried to pin on him because he did not see himself as a political freedom fighter, and king.

In short, most of the Old Testament references to the messiah are references to a human messiah where the aspect of his divinity is forshadowed but still unclear. The divinity of Jesus is most clearly demonstrated in the New Testament.

Hope this helps,


A simple Google search on how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies would turn up quite a few hits, and despite the fact that some might not be Catholic, most are spot on.

This atheist probably picks and chooses the verses that work best to his advantage and disregards the rest which overwhelmingly point out the obvious. He’s probably not reading Scripture as a whole, cherry-picking his favorite verses.

And besides, do you really want to listen to a Johnny-Come-Lately with a fancy new interpretation, as opposed to a solid two thousand year-old truth that’s been defended against all comers? Sounds like the old Antioch situation all over again.


Who is the guy who is making this claim? What is his user-name?


That does help a lot. Can I use this? Put a name to it? Trying to piece this together. Still learning
God Bless


Sure… I paraphrased the information from Fr. Raymon Brown’s Introduction to Christology. He’s not the most Orthodox author…but I couldn’t find fault with his description of the messianic hope.



By the way, the three *** in the text was filtered out. You can use the word donkey instead. :slight_smile:



Here is one of his posting. The problem here it’s not about one Johny Come Lately, its about thousands of Mormons who are lost, who are questioning thier own faith here in Utah, going to his site to be led further away from the Christ we know. He has 1500 dollar Billboards right here in Northern Utah. Right now 800 are viewing this post.

Here is one of his replys to me. I just need a solid good Christian answer that will end this and I can move on with my day, and 800 people will not go away thinking this guy is right. I do not want that on my Conscience. I am asking for help here, I need all I can get. I will compose it today and then post it tonight. God Bless
Amazing how I came to be in this place today.

Rick wrote
For example, the author of the New Testament Gospel of Matthew loved to rip pieces of Old Testament verses out of context and claim they were really about Jesus.
A classic example of this is found in Matthew 2, where the New Testament author claims that Jesus “fulfilled” Hosea 11:1.

Matt 2:14-15
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, **Out of Egypt have I called my son(Jesus)

The author of Matthew wants his readers to think that Jesus was the “son” who God was talking about in Hosea 11:1.
The author of Matthew rips a piece of Hosea 11:1 out of context, turns it into a prophecy, and manufactures a fulfillment of it by Jesus.

The actual scripture of Hosea 11 states:
*Hos 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and **called my son(Israel) out of *Egypt.

***** The son is Israel and not Jesus.
***** There is no prophecy here at all, as the passage is written in past tense.

However, despite this subterfuge by the author of Matthew, Christians have no problem rationalizing this so that the whole dishonest scripture twisting exercise by the author of Matthew can appear valid.

Christian writes:
This fulfillment is easy to confirm.
Typological parallels between Jesus and Israel are all over the Gospel of Matthew, once one starts looking for them.
When Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 (originally about Israel’s exodus from Egypt) to Christ, he is demonstrating one of his major themes, namely, that Christ took upon Himself the role of the nation of Israel as God’s servant-representative to the nations (a sort of macrocosm/microcosm thing, if you will).


That Donkey is already there. I am going to keep coming back here today, pray and such. Put together a response that I can feel honest about, then post it. Keep it coming. Again thanks for your post. It really helps

Peace in Christ


Both Mormons (officially) and Catholic (habitually) fall prey to picture thinking. We try to imagine what the Trinity looks like as though the Trinity were a material object to be manipulated, or observed. This is a problem with our materialistic society. We have a tendency to try to reduce all phenomenon to material realities and ignore the immaterial realities like truth, justice, beauty, intellect, the soul etc… In Christian teaching, from the start, we see (intellectually) that God is spirit and therefore non-material. He does not have parts or a body.

When Mormons hear, “God created man in his image”, they think this means that God is a man, with a body, or at best, a spiritualized body. But what this really does is reduce God to a limited finite creature. According to Mormon theology, God does not create matter out of nothing, but matter preexists God. So in a sense matter is greater than God since God comes from matter. They also believe that God the Father was a man on another planet who at one point who ascended to Godhood. Mormons believe that they will one day receive their own planets, depending on how well they did in their eartly existence. (Godhood applies only to men…)

My question is, who would want to worship a finite creature? Who would call such a being, God?

The big difference between Catholic and Mormon theology is our concept of God. God is the creator of all time, space, and matter. He makes it ex nihilo. He sustains all things in existence. Revelation tells us that he is one nature with three persons. This truth cannot be proved by reason, but it does not contradict reason either.

We understand, “God made man in his image” as refering to the spiritual and intellectual aspect of our nature. Our spiritual nature is the closest that a natural finite being can come to the infinite, uncreated, omnipotent being.

God bless,


Anyone with a Jewish background would know that “anointed” refers to prophets, priests, kings and the messiah. Jesus is a prophet, a priest, the messiah and the king. If you want to dig into the Jewish literature related to your text read a copy of

The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Tyndale House Studies) by Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham Philip E. Satterthwaite (Editor)

There simply is not a simple answer to your question that I can think of besides going through scripture on the word anoint to show that prophets, priests, kings and the messiah are anointed. Then go through the NT to show that Jesus is prophet, priest, king and messiah.

Surprisingly, Satterthwaite finds only an ideal picture of God’s anointed king in the books of Samuel, but the books of Kings do not look forward to a future ruler from the line of David who will restore the fortunes of that line! This is all the more startling since in Satterthwaite’s discussion of the crucial 2 Samuel 7 text, no discussion is made of key issues such as the phrase in 2 Sam 7:19, wezo’t torat ha’adam, which I have argued elsewhere can mean nothing less than “And this is the charter/law for humanity” (“The Blessing of David: A Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974] 298-318), a teaching that parallels the point of Gen 12:3b. This expression in 2 Sam 7:19 is parallel to the Akkadian term, terit nishe, which Henri Cazelles translated many years ago as “qui fixe le destin des hommes” (H. Cazelles, VT 8 [1958]: 322). Surely David is promised a “house, a throne and a kingdom” that will last “forever.” It will do little good to protest that Cad Colam, and le

From CC,

436 The word “Christ” comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means “anointed”. It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that “Christ” signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets.29 This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively.30 It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.31 Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king.

The very greek word for Christ means "anointed"±touch+Messiah+King+Priest+Prophet


Now that I had a chance to read Rick’s posts over there. All he is doing is borrowing arguments from “Jews for Judaism”. Jews for Jesus goes head to head with them often enough, so check their site for answers to specific questions.

Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah is true because the Jews back then were looking for two Messiah’s Yeshua Ben David and Yeshua Ben Joseph. The prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill in his first coming will be fulfilled in his second coming.

Michael L. Brown has written four volumes called Answering Jewish Objections to … in response to the Jews for Judaism group.

The Messiah Texts Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years
Raphael Patai documents the various viewpoints concerning the messiahs including those above.

Monarch Press has also printed some books in response to JFJ.

Walter Riggins wrote Yeshua Ben David, Yeshusa Ben Joseph



One of the problems with this is that most O.T. prophecies have at least dual references. So yes, a lot of them are about Israel, but also about Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. Others are about Israel and also about the Church.

By today’s standards of biblical study, a lot of Matthew’s use of O.T. scripture is problematic. The easy answer to that is that Matthew wasn’t writing a Ph.D. dissertation; he was writing about Jesus, and he saw Jesus all over the place in the O.T. I would trust Matthew’s intuitions on this subject over “Rick’s.”


Jesus Ben Joseph by Walter Riggans

Yeshua Ben David by Walter Riggans

The suffering servant :
Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian sources /
Author: Janowski, Bernd,; Stuhlmacher, Peter.
Publication: Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2004

The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish interpreters (in 2 vols.) Author: S. R. Driver
Publisher: Varda Books
Published: 2005
Language: Hebrew and English translation
Pages: 1248

Driver documents major Jewish interpretaters who have understood the text to mean,

the messiah



So, Ricks use of Jews for Judaism materials that only recognise one of the three interpretations is not being honest.


dear catholic-rcia

I don’t know if the following would help, but I think the entire issue here is of understanding in general why God first gives the Jewish Covenant before the New. This really boils down to that God would need to foreshadow the ultimate spiritual mysteries, which are unveiled within the New Cov, by using PHYSICAL things, etc in the Old Cov to foreshadow them.

Given this argument, I have at least a few essays in this regard. As a primary, one essay addresses this in the question of how to interpret the apoc (and, that is, to show that neither futurists nor preterists, “get the point”).

a similar article that ties in Babel i also have.

finally, I put it all together in a small treatise on how the New Covenant in its SPIRITUAL history FULFILLS the similar history of the Old.

I can give you the links if you think this would help.

I pray that God be with you in your efforts to share the love and truth of God Our Father!

scott :slight_smile:


Yes, Please give me the links.
God Bless
Rich Horrell


Great! here you go:

Why Both Futurists and Preterists Miss the Point?

Why the Tower of Babel (Derivatively, why the Old and then the New)?

The NT Cov history will most likely fulfill the OT Cov history

Hope this will help in some sense.

Again, I wish God to be with you as you share the deep faith we have!




Peace in Christ


You’re welcome.

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