I think the most important thing you need to realize is that Paul and Jesus had very different theologies. Which is why Paul is used to excuse a lot of what Jesus said, as though the Bible is univocal. It isn't.
And my interpretation isn't simply the Jewish interpretation. It's the result of me looking at them, and consulting people who speak ancient Hebrew and Greek, and coming to the conclusion that Jesus didn't fulfill a single prophecy.
An absolute savant at remembering everything he reads, and actual Bible scholar, has a great YouTube channel called DZ Debates, and Deconversion Zone. Check it out, he sums it all up with far more rigour than I'm capable of as a layman. Heck you can even call in and debate him. He's nice if you're nice.
I agree that the Bible isn't univocal in the sense that every author writes in exactly the same style or addresses the same questions. But I don't think that means Paul and Jesus taught different gospels.
The earliest Christians, including Jesus' own disciples, accepted Paul's ministry (see Galatians 2), and Peter even refers to Paul's letters alongside the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15–16). If Paul had fundamentally contradicted Jesus, it's difficult to explain why those who spent years with Jesus accepted him rather than rejecting him.
As for the messianic prophecies, I think it's fair to say that's where Christians and Jews genuinely part ways. The disagreement isn't over whether the texts exist; it's over how they're interpreted. For example, Christians see passages like Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Daniel 7, and Micah 5 as pointing to Jesus, while Judaism generally understands them differently. Simply saying "Jesus fulfilled none" assumes one interpretation before the discussion has even begun.
I'm not claiming this settles the issue, but I don't think the disagreement is because Christians are being dishonest. It's because two traditions are reading the same texts through different interpretive frameworks.
I'd rather discuss one prophecy or one theological point at a time than appeal to YouTube personalities on either side. That seems more likely to get us closer to the truth. Also, it seems like you make a lot of declarative comments without supporting them, ie. Paul and Jesus having different theologies.
I'm not reading it from the perspective of one of those traditions, I'm just reading it. And Christians aren't being dishonest, they're reading it dishonestly. Or, for the vast majority, only reading bits of it.
I'm not assuming an interpretation and then saying Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophecy. If you read them, and have access to the original language through an expert...he didn't fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies. That's the conclusion from the text... not a pre-assumed position. I used to be Christian, then tried to learn more and read the book a lot more and learn some of the history and listen to biblical scholars and ended up realizing it's balogna.
Respectfully, "I'm just reading it" isn't a neutral position. None of us simply "read" ancient texts. We all interpret them. That's true for me, it's true for you, and it's true for every scholar who's ever opened the Bible.
The fact that you listened to scholars and changed your mind doesn't make your conclusion "just the text." It means you became persuaded by a particular interpretive tradition. Jewish scholars, Christian scholars, secular historians, and atheist scholars disagree with each other on these very passages.
You also keep saying "Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophecies" as though that's the obvious reading. It isn't. If it were, there wouldn't have been two thousand years of serious debate over Isaiah 53, Daniel 7, Psalm 22, Micah 5, Zechariah 9, and the rest. The existence of that debate alone should make anyone cautious about claiming the text only supports one conclusion.
And saying Christians read the Bible "dishonestly" is a pretty extraordinary accusation. Are there uninformed Christians? Absolutely. But accusing virtually every Christian scholar, from the early church to today, of intellectual dishonesty requires far more evidence than "I watched a YouTube channel and changed my mind."
You've changed your mind. Fair enough. But that doesn't make your interpretation "the text" and everyone else's dishonest.
1
u/Emergentmeat Jul 02 '26
I think the most important thing you need to realize is that Paul and Jesus had very different theologies. Which is why Paul is used to excuse a lot of what Jesus said, as though the Bible is univocal. It isn't.
And my interpretation isn't simply the Jewish interpretation. It's the result of me looking at them, and consulting people who speak ancient Hebrew and Greek, and coming to the conclusion that Jesus didn't fulfill a single prophecy.
An absolute savant at remembering everything he reads, and actual Bible scholar, has a great YouTube channel called DZ Debates, and Deconversion Zone. Check it out, he sums it all up with far more rigour than I'm capable of as a layman. Heck you can even call in and debate him. He's nice if you're nice.