The Old Testament was written by non-Christians for non-Christians

The Old Testament Leads to Christ Isaiah 40:3 prophesied that someone would come to prepare the way before "our God." Therefore, the one coming after this messenger would have to be God himself. Matthew 3; Mark 1:1-1; Luke 3:1-9 and John 1:23-34 testify that John the Baptist was indeed that messenger who prepared the way for Jesus Christ. What's more, the New Testament writers and the early Christians (whom at first were mostly monotheistic Jews) agreed that Jesus is God, hence, we have a clear fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3 regarding the Messiah's coming. Deuteronomy 18:15 promised that one day God would raise up a prophet like Moses by whom God will call everyone to account. According to Paton J. Gloag, "The Talmud asserts 'that Messiah must be the greatest of future prophets, as being nearest in spirit to our master Moses.'... This prediction, then, could only receive its accomplishment in the Messiah." (The Messianic Prophecies, from 'The Messiahship of Christ', Minneapolis, MN, Klock & Klock, 1983 rpt., p. 114) Jesus, just like Moses, was Jew, had direct communication with God the Father, fasted in the wilderness 40 days, performed greater miracles than any prophet who came before him, and mediated a covenant between God and his people, thus, its no wonder Luke recognizes this was fulfilled in Jesus. (Acts 3:19-26) We must also remember Luke was getting his information from the eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-4) Isaiah 9:6 records that the Messiah would be both "God," and yet born as "a baby." That could only refer to Jesus, whom is called "my God" by a monotheistic Jew like Thomas (John 20:28) and was worshiped by Jewish Christians in the first century. Isaiah 52-53 was also understood as messianic. It prophesied that the Messiah would be pierced for our sins (53:5), would be silent before his accusers (53:7), would be killed and buried (53:8-9), but would live again to bring in righteousness (53:10-12), all of which the New Testament writers who were contemporaries of Jesus said was fulfilled in his trial, crucifixcion and resurrection. This Isaiah passage is one believed to have influenced some Jews to conceive of a two-Messiah idea. Dr. Raphael Patai writes: "When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic time, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as the Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two." (The Messiah Texts, New York, Avon, 1979, p. 166) The New Testament's overall record of Jesus' actions matches the issues and events that were prophesied. Although many passages concerning the Messiah could be covered, Hebrew scholar Alfred Edersheim extensively reviewed the rabbinic commentaries on the Messianic prophecies. As to whether or not the New Testament claims accurately reflect Messianic expectations, Edersheim summarizes: "Accordingly, a careful perusal of their [456] scripture quotations shows that the main postulates of the New Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by rabbinic statements. Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah; his elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels; his representative character; his cruel suffering and derision; his violent death, and that for his people; his work on behalf of the living and of the dead; his redemption and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of his Law; the universal blessings of the latter days; and his kingdom - can clearly be deduced from unquestioned passages in ancient rabbinic writings... There is, indeed, in rabbinic writings frequent reference to the sufferings, and even death of the Messiah, and these are brought into connection with our sins." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah' (one volume edition), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1972, pp. 164-165) It is a seldom mentioned fact that the pre-Christian Jews viewed more of the Old Testament Scriptures as messianic than did the New Testament authors, so the Gospel authors literally had a fountain of messianic prophecy to tap into and it only bespeaks their honestly in NOT taking taking full advantage of them. But how could Jews view certain statements as messianic prophecies when they at times appear to apply to the time in which the writer lived? The answer is type topology. The typological interpretation of prophecy asserts that the prophets did not so much make singular predictions as proclaim certain theological themes or patterns and that these themes often have several manifestations or fulfilments in the course of human history. These patterns often have their greatest manifestations in the life of Christ, but there may be other fulfilments elsewhere, especially in the immediate historical context of the prophet. Perhaps the clearest example is the suffering servant in Isaiah. ( 42:1-4 ; 49:1-6 ; 50:4-9 ; 52:13-53:12). At one point, Isaiah explicitly identifies the servant as Israel ( 49:3 ), but in 50:4-9 he describes the servant in very individualistic terms and in verse 9 the prophet seems to identify himself as the servant, showing multiple application. This is why NT writers apply texts to the Messiah that also apply to others. No Christians in the Old Testament? I have to agree with this point, because a Christian is someone who follows the law of the New Covenant (the Law of Christ) which was not laid down until Christ came in the flesh and was expounded on further through the ministry and writing of the early church in books such as Acts and the Letters of Paul. OT believers lived under the Law of Moses, so I would expect them not to be Christians. Their way of life was very different, but their OT prophesied the time when a New Covenant would be made, which means a new law would be in effect. So Christianity is the fulfillment of OT prophecy. (Jer 3:16; Hosea 2:11; Amos 8:5, 9; Jer 31:31-33; Heb 8:7-13) OT God has no Christian Values? God's qualities don't change, but his law changes. So his law to Israel was different from his law to Christians, but this doesn't imply that he himself has changed, or that he doesn't share any of the values embedded in the laws to which he gave both groups. The character of God in the NT is the same as in the Old, both books simply give different facets of his one personality, just like any person living today can be loving at times, and harsh at other times, it doesn't show he is two separate people. Exodus 34:6-7 says God is merciful, loving, forgiving, and the same is said about him in the New Testament (1 John 4:8; Heb 8:12) God is a God of vengeance in both the Old and New Testament. (Heb 10:26-31; Deu 32:35-36) And just as God killed people in the OT he also struck people dead in the New Testament. (Acts 5:1-11; 12:21-23; Gen 18:24) So while Pro might think God did things in the OT that disagree with his values as expressed in the NT, God really hasn't changed at all. And my argument is that since God isn't a Christian, he can't have Christian values, he has divine values. We are the ones who have Christian values, which include or incorporate his divine values, just as the OT Jews also incorporated those values into their Judaism.