Jesus Died On the Cross For Our Sins.. WHERE is the logic?

reply to post by windword

If reincarnation is a truth it takes a lot of emphasis off the importance of the death of Jesus.

That's why it is not true, because it cannot be. Reincarnation contradicts both old and new testaments. If you got a do over everytime you f'ed up, there would be no need for Jesus at all. The hugest old testament evidence against reincarnation comes right out of prophet Isaiah's writings.

Isaiah 53:4-6

4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Right there, no need for a do over at anytime. The concept of karma is pointless, if the sins of the world are placed on another and as I said before you can't pre-exist, or it would make you God. There's only One who Was and Is and Is to Come (Rev 1:8,4:8).

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by windword

 

If reincarnation is a truth it takes a lot of emphasis off the importance of the death of Jesus.

That's why it is not true, because it cannot be.

What we have here is an Argument from ignorance .

Reincarnation contradicts both old and new testaments

No it doesn't.

If you got a do over everytime you f'ed up, there would be no need for Jesus at all.

When one finishes 4th grade, they move forward to 6th grade. When one graduates from grade school, one moves forward to high school.

The hugest old testament evidence against reincarnation comes right out of prophet Isaiah's writings.

Isaiah 53:4-6

4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

But you preach that there are qualifiers for this to work for everyone. They have to "do something" for this magic spell to work for there iniquity. Iniquity is defined as "Gross immorality or injustice", while sin is defined as "Missing the mark." What of those who miss the mark?

Right there, no need for a do over at anytime. The concept of karma is pointless, if the sins of the world are placed on another and as I said before you can't pre-exist, or it would make you God. There's only One who Was and Is and Is to Come (Rev 1:8,4:8).

What of Jesus' promise of eternal life? What of his promise to the "born again" that they would be free as the wind?

What of this?

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is done violence against, and violent men seize it.

"See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept, he is Elijah, the one who was to come.

Where are the saints, who were given charge, "Feed my sheep"? Are they just kicking back in heaven drinking pina coladas, while the world burns? The Great Work isn't finished.

reply to post by windword


Lets not forget this....

John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture

It just blows me away that Christians can't see it... great example of indoctrination

I haven't yet read any of the responses, past the day that I posted this, but I seem to see quite a few people quoting the bible.. I never really understood how so many christians believed every word in the bible either, since it WAS written by man and has been changed/altered/edited, etc, etc over the course of thousands of years.

reply to post by TheIceQueen


Well, since Jesus is a "BIBLICAL" character, and his existence is only found in the Bible, one needs the Bible to answer your question, "Why did Jesus have to die for sin.?" And use the Bible to counter that.

reply to post by windword


He isn't only found in the Bible. Period historians and hostile sources also mention Him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No, not credible sources, not really. But, this isn't the thread for that. Start one yourself, "Proving Jesus outside of the Bible". Don't derail this one with that argument, it's off topic.

reply to post by pthena


So what your saying is that the bible makes a bunch of claims that
are actually not true and we are still suppose to believe them......
also using that type of analogy god would only be spreading
fear and not love, i would not love someone who claimed to have
murdered 40 children, especially if i had no way to know if what
he said was true, i would fear them and their morality though.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnaChispa

 

The bible tells us that the "wages of sin is death". We sinned. We deserve to die because we have broken God's perfect law. Yes, God is good and God is love, but he is also holy, just and righteous Our evil nature cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven because God has an opposing nature. Isaiah 64:4 tells us that 'our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." That is how holy God is.

Phrases like, "uptight", "anal retentive", and "stiff-lipped" come to mind. Guess we'll just add 'perfectionist' and 'obsessive compulsive' to the long list of character defects.

I agree with very few things AI says (no offense AI ) however this nails it even though the snarkism is laid on thick.I've been around Christianity for so long this Bible chess quoting approach makes nails on a chalk board sound like Mozart.Quoting scripture and swinging it like a bayonet is not the same as the sword of the word.I've never seen anyone even approached being convinced but this heavy headed method..... for good reason... it has no meaning.God is not words in a book ... any book.If anything it is like hiding behind a mothers skirt and tossing peebles at someone who is "wrong"...it isn't murder just very, very annoying and futile.

At least a good ole fashion tin foil hat rant is just personal lunacy.To invoke God when he didn't speak up and say it is GODS word is about as far off track as anyone can get.I know this is just de rigueur for many but you guys have to eventually figure out it is not only utter futility but barking up the wrong tree of knowledge to boot.

Especially here at ATS where these same bible quotes have been tossed about like hand grenades ad nauseum.There is a "real" honest answer to this question..for most people (christians included ) it should be..uhhh ...I don't know.I know I'd have much more respect for that answer than these status quo formulas that may be well meaning but are WAY off target of speaking the truth and only the Truth..Truth does it's work...that's always the best alternative when you JUST don't know.

reply to post by bloodreviara

. . . and we are still suppose to believe them......

I don't think that he was suggesting in his post that we should believe the stories.
He was saying that was apparently the idea in the minds of the people who wrote them down in order to perpetuate them.
You will see things in the Old Testament where people who do not recognize this particular deity will have rain withheld from their country so that there will be famine and the people die.
Then you will see things such as in Malachi that says if you give this same deity ten percent of all your land's produce, then He will send rain, and protect your crops from disease damage and pests.

So you see this combination of threats and promises that are useless if the people do not believe in them.
If you have built into your religious books, this idea that the first always goes bad (or always has something bad happen to them), with stories like Adam and Eve, how they sinned, and Cain who murdered his younger brother out of jealousy, Ishmael driven off into the desert by Abraham to die of thirst, Isaac, Sarah's firstborn son being offered for sacrifice, and Esau loosing his birthright, then it keeps the concept of fear going from generation to generation, wondering what will happen to your own offspring.

reply to post by Rex282

Especially here at ATS where these same bible quotes have been tossed about like hand grenades ad nauseum.

It's not only people on ATS, but a lot of people who should just know better, who aren't stupid or evil, but just having been indoctrinated from birth in a certain type of rhetoric to where they believe it is the truth.
I have found in recent years that a lot of things that I thought were biblical, existed only in the hymns sung in church, where they were proclaiming what was thought to be theological truths. When they are repeated enough times, it is very difficult to reverse that in your mind to where you believe that they were just one person's opinion, the one who wrote that song.
But it isn't just that, it is a board of critically minded people who decided to insert that song into the hymnal, and at a local level, the church members who put it on the play list for that day's service. So how could it possibly be wrong, you may be asking yourself in maybe a subconscious way, to where it passes the credibility barrier, and is accepted in your own mind as the unshakable truth.
What I posted here in response to that post being criticized, matches a conversation that I had very recently with a member of my church who was not stupid or evil, but was an overworked self-employed businessman with a large family who just did not have the leisure time that I have to sit there for hours a day contemplating the teachings of people like Paul in the New Testament.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, not credible sources, not really. But, this isn't the thread for that. Start one yourself, "Proving Jesus outside of the Bible". Don't derail this one with that argument, it's off topic.

What the heck? You brought it up. So don't think you can interject unchallengeable assertions.

And some of the most notable period historians in the world mentioned Him outside the Bible, and the Talmuds do as well which is a hostile source. Had He not been a real Person a hostile source would have made that argument instead of arguing that He was not the Messiah and a magician.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Most likely, Jesus was a composite figure, comprised of several messianic figures of the time, as well, his legend is woven in with Greek and Roman mythology. In my opinion.

The biblical character of Jesus was a messianic figure, and is portrayed as such through Jewish Old Testament prophecy. "Christ" on the other hand is a Greek construct of an ethereal spirit. The title "Christ" dates back hundreds of years before the advent of Jesus. "Jesus Christ" never existed.

Chrestos in Pagan Antiquity

In reality, the term "Chrestos" or χρηστὸς has been used in association with a plethora of people and gods, beginning centuries before the common era. Chrestos and its plural chrestoi were utilized to describe deities, oracles, philosophers, priests, oligarchs, "valuable citizens," slaves, heroes, the deceased and others. Importantly, chrestos appears to have been the title of "perfected saints" in various mystery schools or brotherhoods, associated with oracular activity in particular.

This word χρηστός or chrestos appears in ancient Greek sources such as those of playwright Sophocles (497/6-406/5 BCE), who discusses ὁ χρηστὸς, "the good man," in Antigone (520). Also composed during the fifth century BCE and containing numerous instances of chrestos are playwright Euripides's works Heraclidae, Hecuba, Troiades and Iphigenia. Other ancient writers such as Herodotus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Pseudo-Xenophon, Plato, Isocrates, Aeschines, Demosthenes, Plutarch and Appian likewise use this term chrestos or "good," sometimes quite often. In an anonymous tract discovered among the possessions of historian Xenophon (c. 430–354), the "Old Oligarch," modernly styled Pseudo-Xenophon (fl. c. 425), contrasts "the good man" (chrestos) with "the wicked man" (poneros), a common juxtaposition through

Socrates the Chrestos

The fact that Plato (424/423-348/347 BCE) frequently mentions "the good" (χρηστὸς) when discussing various figures (e.g., Plat. Rep. 5.479a) serves as an indication of the word's importance among philosophers and religionists. This association is especially germane considering the exalted place afforded Plato among spiritual seekers for centuries into the common era, including many Christians and assorted "Neoplatonists." Indeed, Plato (Theaetetus 166.a.2) uses the word to describe famed philosopher Socrates: ὁ Σωκράτης ὁ χρηστός - "Socrates the Good."

"In the fifth century BCE, Plato referred to the famous Greek philosopher of Athens as 'Socrates the Chrest.'"

The term continued to be used throughout classical antiquity, into the common era. Indeed, the Greek historian Plutarch (c. 46-120 AD/CE), writing precisely at the time when the Christian effort begins to become noticeable, uses the word χρηστός chrestos numerous times, including to describe Alexander the Great (Alex. 30.3), illustrating the term's ongoing or increased currency at this time. There are also many uses of the plural word χρηστοί or chrestoi in ancient writings, such as in Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Isocrates, Plato and numerous times in Xenophon. What we discover, then, is a slew of chrests in ancient, pre-Christian literature, including as concerns the biblical god, as we will see below. We also find repeated references to chrests in the writings of early Church fathers, such as Clement Alexandrinus (Strom. 2), Gregorius Nazianzenus, Athanasius, and especially Cyrillus Alexandrinus and Joannes Chrysostomus.

The Gods Must Be Chrestoi

In addition, it is claimed that this title chrestos/chreste was conferred upon the Greek god and goddess Hades and Persephone, divinities of the underworld. "Chrestos" was also bestowed upon the "ubiquitous mystic" or Greek god Hermes, the "Psychopomp" or guide to the afterlife, also an important figure in underworld mythology and in mystery schools. So too is the title claimed of the Greek sun god Apollo, god of oracles. In the Saturnalia (3.4.8) of ancient Latin author Macrobius (c. 400 AD/CE), we read that, "according to Cassius Hemina, the Gods of the Samothracian mysteries were styled Θεοὶ Χρηστοὶ [Theoi Chrestoi]." (Mitchell, 18)

www.truthbeknown.com...

The Chi-Rho Symbol, Chrestos and the Cross

Chrestes as Oracle

reply to post by bloodreviara

So what your saying is that the bible makes a bunch of claims that
are actually not true and we are still suppose to believe them......

The system was rigged in such a way that no matter what, the deity was never considered at fault. The people caught all the blame.
Example:

6 But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better promises has been given as law. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, he said,

“Behold, the days come,” says the Lord,
“that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,
in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;

for they didn’t continue in my covenant,
and I disregarded them,” says the Lord.

10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days,” says the Lord;

“I will put my laws into their mind,
I will also write them on their heart.

I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

- - Hebrews 8 WEB(World English Bible)

Basically it's saying that it was the people's fault that the Moses covenant failed. The New Covenant was supposed to fix that problem. But the authority for the New Covenant is rather shaky, because the passage from Jeremiah 31 which is quoted doesn't even exist in the oldest Greek text. Some one added it in later.

In another thread you observed that we seem to be stuck with having to repeat history over and over again. People are doing that, because of holding on to old obsolete ideas. The Judaists who had a covenant with a primitive clan deity abandoned the clan deity and gave his name to a newly invented "Universal One and Only Deity", and then pretended that those two were the same.

Christianity stands or falls based on whether this New Deity is real or only an invention. Personally, I believe him to be a delusion. The sad thing is that ultimately, before definition, before even the distinction of "Living God" or "Not Living God" the source is One. But to say that the Newly invented one is the One is false, IMHO

The whole episode is about the church and guilt. When someone gives there life for you, you will most likely feel guilty. It's a way to keep you in a state of shame. In some ancient apocryphic texts it clearly states the likeness of Jesus was placed on another man. It was this twin (I'isa) that was placed on the cross. Jesus was said to have risen through the skylight in the roof. When the roman centurions came to get Jesus, this double ran to tell them that he had already departed. This double was then taken instead, for he look liked who they came for. This information is kept well hidden ,and for nefarious reasons.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by UB2120

 

By your answer it appears you believe in the effectiveness of sacrifice and/or atonement to God.

I agree with Paul, when you can find what is authentic writings by him in the New Testament.
Paul sees a reconciliation between man and God taking place through the gift of Jesus from God, so it is not like the Old Testament idea that we have to offer things to placate an angry god, but a way to show people that God is approachable through Jesus, and shows that God actually loves us by giving of Himself, his son, in order to expose what is our enemy (evil) and to demonstrate who is on our side in the fight against it (God).

All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness.

As it is often taught by some preachers, I would agree, but I think they are wrong and are not properly interpreting the New Testament, and giving too much recognition to Old Testament concepts, or rather what they imagine the writers of the OT were saying (more misinterpretation).

Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers.

Not just that, but that there is no limit to where you can take it, even to the point of death, which is what Jesus meant when he said to pick up your cross.
For example, this whistleblower, Snowden, look at how his life is virtually destroyed by pointing out the criminality of some unaccountable government agencies. What if everyone who worked for the government had the same attitude and the willingness to put themselves out there as a target? Corruption would not be able to exist.

Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God.

Salvation is being reconciled with God. What happens beyond that is yet to be seen, and is not now predictable.

The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.

Not exactly. We do those things first because God tells us to.

edit on 2-7-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I believe the thought that any kind of reconciliation was needed is humanizing God to a degree. No reconciliation was required from Gods point of view. He is Eternal and changeless. He love us just as much now as he did before Jesus' life. The only reconciliation that Jesus tried to do was to get humans out of the stagnate pond we call ritual and ceremony. It stifles the creativity and beauty that should be associated with worshiping God.

Theology may fix, formulate, define, and dogmatize faith, but in the human life of Jesus faith was personal, living, original, spontaneous, and purely spiritual. This faith was not reverence for tradition nor a mere intellectual belief which he held as a sacred creed, but rather a sublime experience and a profound conviction which securely held him. His faith was so real and all-encompassing that it absolutely swept away any spiritual doubts and effectively destroyed every conflicting desire. Nothing was able to tear him away from the spiritual anchorage of this fervent, sublime, and undaunted faith. Even in the face of apparent defeat or in the throes of disappointment and threatening despair, he calmly stood in the divine presence free from fear and fully conscious of spiritual invincibility. Jesus enjoyed the invigorating assurance of the possession of unflinching faith, and in each of life’s trying situations he unfailingly exhibited an unquestioning loyalty to the Father’s will. And this superb faith was undaunted even by the cruel and crushing threat of an ignominious death.

ok jesus was sent to show us our sinning ways?seriously if there is a god then it would just be easier to show himself and say step out of line and all my wrath will come down on you.

god forgives etc for our sins and stuff,does he forgive himself for the children and loved ones who are killed and leave families devastated?

if gods all loving etc then none of that would happen in first place.as i,ve said its human nature to believe we,r here for a reason and that we,r not alone and thats why people are looking too the sky hoping to find life elsewhere.

what we know now wasn,t possible in them days thats why they had to believe in something so to me they made up a superior being that they could turn to in a time of need.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by UnaChispa

 

he bible tells us that the "wages of sin is death".

Paul said that, in Romans. The word translated as "wages" comes from a ration of dried fish that the Roman soldiers were given, which would theoretically at least keep them going for another day, but wasn't especially enjoyable. Paul was personifying Sin and making an analogy to the Imperial government not being lavish on their solders but needing them only to be able to do the work of keeping up the system. The idea was to compare that kingdom that we naturally live in (which we "serve" by sinning), with the kingdom that God has to offer (where we serve God and live righteously).
Too many people take the verse, not just out of context but in a contrived context, to make it mean that rather than a "wage", that it is talking about the opposite, a debt, which is not what Paul was talking about. This is another example of the wrong way to use "proof-texts" to create theology.

We sinned.

and so it has been from the very first man, up to Jesus.

We deserve to die because we have broken God's perfect law.

That may have been the case in the Sinai wilderness as it is described in the Torah. According to the New Testament, a sin means that we need to make amends to whoever we have wronged. The NT nowhere orders Christians to kill anyone.

Yes, God is good and God is love, but he is also holy, just and righteous Our evil nature cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven because God has an opposing nature.

Which is why we need to be born of the spirit to have a new nature.

Isaiah 64:4 tells us that 'our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." That is how holy God is.

What Isaiah was talking about there was how when Babylon came and destroyed the temple at Jerusalem, the priesthood saw themselves as the victims of the punishment brought down upon the nation thanks to those who were circumventing the temple services, while the priests who were righteously serving the correct temple, were the ones carted off into captivity.

Simply put, we broke the law. We deserve judgement and punishment.

Right, if you were in the camp in Sinai and Moses saw you sinning, you very well could have been killed. Luckily for us, we don't live under Moses, but directly with the Lord, Jesus, who says to repent and be baptized and be forgiven.

Jesus (second person of the Trinity) paid our fine by dying an undeserved, gruesome death; the death that we all deserve.

Except that there is nowhere in the NT that says that Jesus died to pay anything.
You may be thinking of the verse in Colossians where it says that the ordinances against us were cancelled. The ordinances themselves were canceled. It was not cancelling the punishments deemed necessary by those ordinances by satisfying those demands. I realize that preachers sometimes add this bit on there, where they will say something like, "and all there was left was a note saying, 'paid in full'" but that is not an actual Bible quote.

Through his blood, we as believers are cleansed and justified.

OK, but how do you come up with the definition of what it means to be cleansed. If you mean in a way of blood being a sort of literal cleaning agent that removes sin debt, then that is not taught in the New Testament, but probably a way of seeing how things worked spiritually back at some point in the Bronze Age.
The way that we are cleansed of sins is by believing in Jesus, and then repenting, and being baptized, and having the spirit of God dwell in us to give us rebirth and a new nature to where we no longer sin, then we are cleansed of sins, meaning we no longer have sin attached to us and defiling us because we now live righteous lives.

edit on 2-7-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

"For the wages of sin is death." I don't see how I was taking that verse out of context. Pretty straightforward to me. how about Ez 18:4...."...the soul who sins shall die"?


We still continue to sin, even after Jesus. Jesus didn't stop the human race from sinning. He was our blood sacrifice for all the repent and believe. 1 Jn 1:8... "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."


You say, "a sin means that we need to make amends to whoever we have wronged." Sources please? I've never heard that before.


That Isaiah passage still applies to us. We are no better than the people of that day.


You say, "nowhere in the NT that says that Jesus died to pay anything." You are mistaken. 1 Peter 2:24... "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed."

reply to post by UnaChispa

"For the wages of sin is death." I don't see how I was taking that verse out of context. Pretty straightforward to me.

By itself, with no context, it is meaningless since everyone dies, then what difference does it make if someone sins or not.
What gives it meaning is the context. Now you can create your own context, which you did, but does your message have truth, seeing how the only reason it would have truth as a quote from the Bible is if you used it in the context in which it was written, which you didn't.

how about Ez 18:4...."...the soul who sins shall die"?

It's establishing a proceedure of justice where the one who does wrong gets the punishment, rather than someone else, such as the children of whoever did that punishable act.
Again, it means nothing without the context, or it means something other than what the Bible said when you put it into a different, made-up context for the sake of an argument. Now you, being apparently brought up believing in this already, may not see it as a argument, but someone who has to be persuaded to believe some thing they don't already, would see it for just that.

We still continue to sin, even after Jesus.

Are you saying that Jesus sinned, or are you saying that Jesus was lying when he told someone to go and sin no more?

Jesus didn't stop the human race from sinning.

The entire human race does not believe in Jesus, yet.

He was our blood sacrifice for all the repent and believe.

Why do you need blood to repent?

1 Jn 1:8... "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

The writer of the letters of John was dealing with people who thought that you could not sin because that was just your body, as if your "true self" was not connected to it. He was dealing with heretics who tolerated sin, not people who believed that they had attained a certain high degree of righteousness.

You say, "a sin means that we need to make amends to whoever we have wronged." Sources please? I've never heard that before.

The Gospels. Jesus said if you are walking to a meeting at the synagogue or whatever, and you suddenly remember that you had wronged someone, turn around and go back and find that person to make it right, before you go to say your prayers or whatever. He was prioritizing doing things to make things right, over doing things that made you look religious.

That Isaiah passage still applies to us. We are no better than the people of that day.

Are you a priest being taken off to spend fifty years as a hostage while your temple lays in ruins?

You say, "nowhere in the NT that says that Jesus died to pay anything." You are mistaken. 1 Peter 2:24... "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed."

Point out where there was a transaction of payment for debt, or whatever.

reply to post by pthena

The system was rigged in such a way that no matter what, the deity was never considered at fault. The people caught all the blame.
Example:

- - Hebrews 8 WEB(World English Bible)

Basically it's saying that it was the people's fault that the Moses covenant failed. The New Covenant was supposed to fix that problem.

I think Hebrews 8 is "rigged", in that it is talking to Jewish converts to Christianity.
According to the commentary on Hebrews that I own, which is in the Word series (publication date: 1991 Nov 11), the letter was written for the benefit of those Christians who were discouraged by persecution, considering going back to practicing Judaism, which I would have to think was a viable option only as long as the temple in Jerusalem was still standing.
So this would explain the appeal to the Torah and the OT prophecy, and quoting the mention of Israel and Judah. The letter probably would have little or no relevance to non-Jews, who would not have put any stock in OT law or prophecy.
It makes no mention of God's part in the so-called old covenant. Seeing the people failing to abide by it probably did not take the power of a god, but doing something about it did, where only God could get inside people's heads and hearts to change them to the better.
So, like most NT writings, the Christian God stands at arm's length from the OT Law, but is of course always present to throw in a bit of good stuff into the prophecies.