What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[angellous_evangellous]

Then what you are basically saying is that no matter what is presented to you, you will not accept any possibility that there is possible errors in the bible. Just what do you mean by "novel speculation"? All of the information that I have given you are directly from Professor Ehrman

That's why it's useless to demonstrate this:

Can you show where the import of any one book is not in agreement with the import of any other book, understood in the light of the whole Bible?

The question is a rhetorical one.

 

[smokydot]

So? (I'm not confident that you're familiar enough with the Reformers to make this kind of judgment.)

I have it in writing.

And what about my request that you show the import of any one book in the Bible to be in disagreement with the import of any other book in the Bible, in the light of the whole Bible?

 

[smokydot]

Actually, Luke 1:1-2 explicitly states that the information was spread through oral tradition.

It serves your purpose to confuse "oral" and "oral tradition."
One-to-one oral interviews are not "oral tradition."

And it never states the the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses.

Try Jn 1:14, 19:35, 21:24.
For corroboration, see 1 Jn 1:1-3, 4:14; Ac 2:32, 3:15, 4:20, 5:32, 10:39, 41, 13:31; 2 Pe 1:16, 1 Pe 5:1.

It states the opposite thing. That, Luke at least, was not an eye-witnesses, but depending on other sources, some written, some oral.

Yep, and an "oral" source is not the same as an "oral tradition" of multiple transmissions between the source and the writer.
It serves your purpose to confound the two.

Again, Luke 1:1-2 does not state he was an eye-witness, or even implies such a thing. He states exactly the opposite.

He doesn't indicate "oral tradition."

How do we know there were no followers of Jesus in Pilate's court? Because th"ey would have been killed as well. It is as simple as that. That is why the disciples ran away.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You don't know there were no secret followers of Jesus in Pilate's household, just as there were in the Sanhedrin (Lk 23:50; Jn 19:38).

And the disciples were not secret followers, they were known followers, and in danger which the secret followers were not. That's why they ran.

More so, again, we have information supposedly from Jesus, when he was completely alone. Thus, impossible to have eyewitnesses.

They would be first-person witnesses to what Jesus personally told them, which would not be "oral tradition."

The following has been addressed above.

[As for oral tradition, Luke specifically states that he relied on oral tradition. You've pointed out the verses already, Luke 1:1-2.
More so, there is no credible evidence that eye-witnesses wrote the accounts. Thus, oral tradition is a must.

It is as simple as that.

It's as simple as your unbelief.

 

[smokydot]

Then what you are basically saying is that no matter what is presented to you, you will not accept any possibility that there is possible errors in the bible.

You haven't shown any. Present your errors.

Just what do you mean by "novel speculation"? All of the information that I have given you are directly from Professor Ehrman

Yes, he has taken to trafficking in them also.

 

[smokydot]

That doesn't make sense. You don't prepare for Passover week on the day of Passover. Why? Because Passover is part of Passover week. You can't exclude Passover from Passover week. Thus, John is talking about something entirely different.
More so, we know from John that Passover had not yet come. Why? John 18:28 states specifically that Passover had not yet occurred.

Back to nomenclaure, where Passover can mean different dates.
Been there, done that. . .not doin' it again.

Oh, but it is.That's not what scripture states. Anyway, we are told that his aunt, and cousin, know who Jesus really is. Luke states this. More so, why would his family not know who he really is? If he was born of a virgin, from God, his family, meaning cousins and all, would have heard about it.
How? How did he hide the fact that his father was God, and not Joseph? I mean, we know from Luke that Elizabeth knew. John obviously knew. Do you think that Mary would have lied to all of her family? She wasn't married, and all of a sudden, she's pregnant. Obviously, she is going to say something.

Actually, the word "family' is not in the text. A "generic" word is used, like those or ones, which could mean friends, and would be consistent with other Sripture.
No NT disagreement with itself here.

Actually, NT testimony doesn't agree with itself all of the time. As in, it contradicts itself.
Second, it doesn't matter if Jesus made such a promise, as the people writing down the accounts weren't there in the first place. They were getting the accounts from second, third, or even more hand accounts. His disciples did not write a single word about Jesus, as far as we know.

According to the latter day novel speculations which cannot be proven.

More so, we are told that his followers, or at least some of them, were uneducated, and thus would not be able to write.

Gee, that would be an absolutely unsolvable problem.
I guess that settles it then.

Finally, if we stick to the tradition, Mark was based on oral tradition. It wasn't an eyewitnesses, it was someone who was copying what Peter said, long after the fact. Luke, by tradition, was a traveling partner of Paul, who was not even a disciple, and thus, was reliant on oral tradition.

None of which can be proven. It is all conjecture.

 

[smokydot]

That's why it's useless to demonstrate this:
The question is a rhetorical one.

I'll take that as a "no," and your assertion that the Bible is not a whole remains undemonstrated, and just an assertion.

 

[fallingblood]

It serves your purpose to confuse "oral" and "oral tradition."
One-to-one oral interviews are not "oral tradition."

Luke doesn't state anything about having interviews. Luke never stated that he had one on one interviews. He's saying that he's doing what others did before him, find the sources, both oral and written, and write them down. Clearly making him not an eye witness, and reliant on oral tradition.

Try Jn 1:14, 19:35, 21:24.
For corroboration, see 1 Jn 1:1-3, 4:14; Ac 2:32, 3:15, 4:20, 5:32, 10:39, 41, 13:31; 2 Pe 1:16, 1 Pe 5:1.

1 John and 1 and 2 Peter were written by people claiming to be the disciples. We know them to not have been the disciples, and thus lying about their identity. Not very good sources. Plus, I was speaking specifically about Luke. Meaning, you can't use another writer to state what Luke was meaning. It doesn't work. You need to show that Luke stated that in order to prove the Luke stated it.

Again, I was stating what Luke said. I was focusing on Luke, which was the focus of our discussion. To sum up, you stated that Luke said the they were eye witnesses (the Gospel writers). I said Luke never stated that. So using John, or anyone else, doesn't matter, and they are not speaking for Luke. Luke can speak for himself, and he does not state what you said he did.

Yep, and an "oral" source is not the same as an "oral tradition" of multiple transmissions between the source and the writer.
It serves your purpose to confound the two.

Even if it's not an oral tradition, which is suggested in Luke, as the implication is that the information has been handed down some time (especially considering that Luke is separated by around five decades from Jesus), it still shows that there is no reason to believe Luke was an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses don't have to investigate what happened the way Luke did. They don't have to rely on other sources. Why? Because they were there.

He doesn't indicate "oral tradition."

He does. And he shows that he wasn't an eyewitness. The oral tradition is indicated by the fact that he says the information has been handed down not to him in a one to one interview, but to a variety of people. Given the time between Jesus, and Luke, it is clear that it wasn't first hand accounts either, which is implied in what Luke is saying. Thus, we get an oral tradition.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Do you even know what that means? I don't think you do. It really isn't a good argument.

You don't know there were no secret followers of Jesus in Pilate's household, just as there were in the Sanhedrin (Lk 23:50; Jn 19:38).

The Sanhedrin would have been Jews. It would not be a complete surprise that a Jew was following Jesus though.

In Pilate's household, there is no reason to assume there were secret followers of Jesus. We are even told in John that Jews would not go into Herod's residence as to not be come unclean, and thus not able to participate in Passover. Jesus followers were Jews. The evidence shows that there were no followers of Jesus in Pilate's household.

And the disciples were not secret followers, they were known followers, and in danger which the secret followers were not. That's why they ran.

There were no followers of Jesus to be found, accept some women. The implication is that everyone abandoned him. And for good reason. Pilate would have no problem killing the followers of Jesus. So again, no reason to even assume there were some "secret" followers in Pilate's household. We certainly are not told about anyone, or even suggested that was the case. And really, that is something that would most likely be mentioned, as it would lend credibility.

They would be first-person witnesses to what Jesus personally told them, which would not be "oral tradition."

When did Jesus tell his followers? Let's look at the case in the garden, before his death. He went by himself, prayed to God, then came back to his disciples. There was no speech there. Instead, the Jewish authorities arrested him, and the disciples fled. There was no time for Jesus to tell his disciples anything. Thus, it had to be created at a later time.

It's as simple as your unbelief.

My unbelief in what? There are many Christians scholars, who would agree with me (or I agree with them). It has nothing to do with unbelief. It has to do with looking at the information in a critical fashion.

 

[EtuMalku]

Yeeesh . . . who cares when! As long as he was!!!

 

[fallingblood]

Back to nomenclaure, where Passover can mean different dates.
Been there, done that. . .not doin' it again.

Your nomenclature argument as been shown by me, as well as some Jewish members here, doesn't work. Passover day, the 15th, was included in the festival of Passover. It was included in the festival of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. You can't subtract the first day, and then call everything else something else. It doesn't work.

The terms Passover, or Feast of Unleavened Bread, include the entire festivals. You can't simply subtract days from it, and then claim you're right. Because that argument about nomenclature doesn't make sense. It rests on nothing more than you breaking up the festival into something it isn't.

Again, this has all been explained before, by myself, and some of the Jewish members here.

Actually, the word "family' is not in the text. A "generic" word is used, like those or ones, which could mean friends, and would be consistent with other Sripture.
No NT disagreement with itself here.

So you read Greek? Because I can find English texts that say family. Are you saying that their translations are wrong then? How do you come to the conclusion that it is a generic word.

And are you now contradicting your previous argument? I think you are. What changed?

Also, Jesus' mom and brothers are shown as to not believing him.

According to the latter day novel speculations which cannot be proven.

Sure it can. The topic of this thread has shown one contradiction. A better one, how did Judas die? Matthew 27:5 says he hung himself. Acts 1:18 fell in a field and burst open. Or even better yet, what happens after the resurrection of Jesus, when the women find the empty tomb? Mark says that they were scared and told no one. The other Gospels state differently.

So yes, it has been proven that there are contradictions in the Bible.

More so, I've already gone over why none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses, and specifically, shown that, without a doubt, Luke even says he wasn't an eyewitness. So it can be proven.

Gee, that would be an absolutely unsolvable problem.
I guess that settles it then.

Literacy in the ancient world was not as widespread as today. And it wasn't as easy to achieve, since it wasn't widespread.

None of which can be proven. It is all conjecture.

And everything you have said can be proven, and is not conjecture?

More so, I was just relating that the tradition of who wrote the Gospels even shows that some were not eyewitnesses. Which shows all that more that there is no reason at all to assume that they were eyewitnesses. Especially considering the vast amount of evidence that states otherwise.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeeesh . . . who cares when! As long as he was!!!

I care when. It's fine if you don't care, but saying so adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[outhouse]

Yeeesh . . . who cares when! As long as he was!!!

NO! thats not real history

people base their whole lives on fiction because they dont know the truth.

The truth is what matters not interpretations of fiction

This is a matter of education, and theres a good teacher here. Enjoy this rare opportunity to learn the non fiction

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'll take that as a "no," and your assertion that the Bible is not a whole remains undemonstrated, and just an assertion.

I don't need to demonstrate that the Bible is not a whole. It is a collection of disparate writings that have little inherent relationship with one another. The writings in the Bible are published together just for ease and cost.

 

[smokydot]

I don't need to demonstrate that the Bible is not a whole.

True, you don't need to do anything but die (and pay taxes). But if you challenge the claim that "the Bible is a whole,"
then you must show why your assertion, that it is not a whole, is true.
In the absence of that, your assertion is groundless.

It is a collection of disparate writings that have little inherent relationship with one another. The writings in the Bible are published together just for ease and cost.

Well, for starters, the Bible as a whole shows (is a type, symbol, picture of) who Jesus is. That's why the following are found in its individual books.

In Genesis-------------Jesus is the promised seed of the woman (Lk 1:34; Ro 16:20)
In Exodus--------------Jesus is the Passover Lamb, the Lawgiver, the Intercessor (1 Co 5:7; Mt 5:23-47; Heb 7:5)
In Leviticus-----------Jesus is the High Priest, the atoning sacrifice (Heb 7:23-28)
In Numbers------------Jesus is the smitten rock, the cloud, the pillar of fire (1 Co 10:1-4)
In Deuteronomy------Jesus is the prophet like Moses who is to come (Lk 7:19-20)
In Joshua--------------Jesus is the Captain of our Salvation (Heb 2:10)
In Judges--------------Jesus is the Judge, Lawgiver, deliverer (Jn 5:22; Mt 12:7-8; 2 Co 1:10; 1 Th 1:10)
In Ruth-----------------Jesus is the kinsman redeemer (Lk 1:68-69, 16:17, 24:21; Gal 4:4-5; Jn 3:16-18)
In Samuel--------------Jesus is the trusted prophet (Mt 12:41-42, 21:11, 46; Lk 1:76, 7:16; Jn 7:40)
In Kings----------------Jesus is the reigning king (1 Co 15:25)
In Ezra-----------------Jesus is the faithful scribe (Lk 16:17; Mt 5:18, 24:35)
In Nehemiah----------Jesus is the restorer, the builder of the broken wall (Ro 8:19-22; 2Co 5:17)
In Esther---------------Jesus is the advocate (Ro 8:24, Heb 7:25)
In Job------------------Jesus is the suffering righteous one (Ac 3:14, 7:52)
In Psalms---------------Jesus is the Lord, our Shepherd (Jn 10:14)
In Proverbs------------Jesus is the true wisdom of God (1 Co 1:24)
In Ecclesiastes--------Jesus is the meaningful goal (Mt 16:24-26)
In Song of Songs------Jesus is the lover and bridegroom (Jn 3:28-29; Rev 19:7-9)
In Isaiah----------------Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Lk 1:79; Ac 10:36; Ro 5:1; Eph 2:13-16; 2 Th 3:16; Heb 7:3, 11, 17)
In Jeremiah-----------Jesus is the weeping prophet (Lk 19:41-44)
In Ezekiel--------------Jesus is the wonderful four-faced man (Rev 4:6-8)
In Daniel---------------Jesus is fourth man in the fiery furnace
In Hosea---------------Jesus is eternal husband married to backslider (1 Co 1:1-3, 5:1-2, 11:17-22)
In Joel-----------------Jesus is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11)
In Amos----------------Jesus is the burden bearer (1 Pe 2:24)
In Obadiah------------Jesus is the Savior (Mt 1:21, Lk 2:11, Jn 3:17)
In Jonah---------------Jesus is the missionary (Mt 4:17, 23-25)
In Micah---------------Jesus is the messenger with beautiful feet (Ro 10:15)
In Nahum--------------Jesus is the avenger (Jn 5:22, 8:26, 12:31)
In Habakkuk-----------Jesus is the evangelist pleading for revival (Mt 23:37)
In Zephaniah----------Jesus is the Lord Mighty to Save (Heb 7:25)
In Haggai--------------Jesus is the restorer of the lost heritage (Jn 3:16, 18, 36)
In Zechariah----------Jesus is the fountain opened in the house of David for cleansing of sin (Heb 9:14)
Malachi----------------Jesus is the Son of Righteousness rising with healing in his wings (1 Jn 1:7)

These are some of the very tight links among the books of the OT and the NT, establishing that the Bible is, indeed, a whole.

 

[fallingblood]

True, you don't need to do anything but die (and pay taxes). But if you challenge the claim that "the Bible is a whole,"
then you must show why your assertion, that it is not a whole, is true.
In the absence of that, your assertion is groundless.
Well, for starters, the Bible as a whole shows who Jesus is. That's why the following are in the individual books.

That only works if you don't fully understand Jewish scripture. Really, very little, if any, of the OT refers to Jesus. True, it refers to a Messiah, but Jesus simply did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. So there is no reason to assume that any of the OT refers to Jesus. Especially since none of the verse you quoted (which I'm assuming is a copy and paste job) actually speaks of Jesus. The Torah definitely doesn't speak of Jesus as the Passover lamb (as the idea doesn't even make sense in the Jewish context) or the Lawgiver, who was Moses.

As for the Bible being a whole, if you knew the history of it, I don't think you would believe that. There were various other books considered to be scripture by other groups. Even today, different groups have different canons.

If the Bible is supposed to be a whole, then there should be no problem putting it together. But history shows otherwise.

More so, the Bible doesn't fit quite well together. Parts of it are duplicated, others contradict, etc. Some part of the Bible hardly made the cut.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

True, you don't need to do anything but die (and pay taxes). But if you challenge the claim that "the Bible is a whole,"
then you must show why your assertion, that it is not a whole, is true.
In the absence of that, your assertion is groundless.
Well, for starters, the Bible as a whole shows who Jesus is. That's why the following are in the individual books.

In Genesis------------Jesus is the promised seed of the woman
In Exodus-------------Jesus is the Passover Lamb, the Lawgiver, the Intercessor (1 Co 5:7; Mt 5:23-47; Heb 7:5)
In Leviticus-----------Jesus is the High Priest, the atoning sacrifice (Heb 7:23-28)
In Numbers------------Jesus is the smitten rock, the cloud, the pillar of fire (1 Co 10:1-4)
In Deuteronomy------Jesus is the prophet like Moses who is to come (Lk 7:19-20)
In Joshua--------------Jesus is the Captain of our Salvation (Heb 2:10)
In Judges--------------Jesus is the Judge, Lawgiver, deliverer (Jn 5:22; Mt 12:7-8; 2 Co 1:10; 1 Th 1:10)
In Ruth-----------------Jesus is the kinsman redeemer
In Samuel--------------Jesus is the trusted prophet (Mt 12:41-41)
In Kings----------------Jesus is the reigning king (1 Co 15:25)
In Ezra-----------------Jesus is the faithful scribe (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17)
In Nehemiah----------Jesus is the restorer, the builder of the broken wall (Ro 8:19-22; 2Co 5:17)
In Esther---------------Jesus is the advocate (Ro 8:24, Heb 7:25)
In Job------------------Jesus is the suffering righteous one (Ac 3:14, 7:52)
In Psalms---------------Jesus is the Lord, our Shepherd (Jn 10:14)
In Proverbs------------Jesus is the true wisdom of God (1 Co 1:24)
In Ecclesiastes---------Jesus is the meaningful goal (Mt 16:24-26)
In Song of Songs-------Jesus is the lover and bridegroom (Jn 3:28-29; Rev 19:7-9)
In Isaiah-----------------Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Lk 1:79; Ac 10:36; Ro 5:1; Eph 2:13-16; 2 Th 3:16; Heb 7:3, 11, 17)
In Jeremiah------------Jesus is the weeping prophet (Lk 19:41-44)
In Ezekiel---------------Jesus is the wonderful four-faced man
In Daniel----------------Jesus is fourth man in fiery furnace
In Hosea-----------------Jesus is eternal husband married to backslider (1 Co 1:1-3, 5:1-2, 11:17-22)
In Joel-------------------Jesus is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11)
In Amos-----------------Jesus is the burden bearer (1 Pe 2:24)
In Obadiah--------------Jesus is the Savior (Mt 1:21, Lk 2:11, Jn 3:17)
In Jonah-----------------Jesus is the missionary (Mt 4:17, 23-25)
In Micah-----------------Jesus is the messenger with beautiful feet (Ro 10:15)
In Nahum----------------Jesus is the avenger (Jn 5:22, 8:26, 12:31)
In Habakkuk-------------Jesus is the evangelist pleading for revival (Mt 23:37)
In Zephaniah------------Jesus is the Lord Mighty to Save (Heb 7:25)
In Haggai-----------------Jesus is the restorer of the lost heritage (Jn 3:16, 18, 36)
In Zechariah-------------Jesus is the fountain opened in the house of David for cleansing of sin (Heb 9:14)
Malachi------------------Jesus is the Son of Righteousness rising with healing in his wings (1 Jn 1:7)

YouTube - '80s Anti-Drug Commercial - Your Brain On Drugs

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, for starters, the Bible as a whole shows who Jesus is. That's why the following are found in its individual books.

In Genesis------------Jesus is the promised seed of the woman (Lk 1:34; Ro 16:20)
In Exodus-------------Jesus is the Passover Lamb, the Lawgiver, the Intercessor (1 Co 5:7; Mt 5:23-47; Heb 7:5)
In Leviticus-----------Jesus is the High Priest, the atoning sacrifice (Heb 7:23-28)
In Numbers------------Jesus is the smitten rock, the cloud, the pillar of fire (1 Co 10:1-4)
In Deuteronomy------Jesus is the prophet like Moses who is to come (Lk 7:19-20)
In Joshua--------------Jesus is the Captain of our Salvation (Heb 2:10)
In Judges--------------Jesus is the Judge, Lawgiver, deliverer (Jn 5:22; Mt 12:7-8; 2 Co 1:10; 1 Th 1:10)
In Ruth-----------------Jesus is the kinsman redeemer (Lk 1:68-69, 16:17, 24:21; Gal 4:4-5; Jn 3:16-18)
In Samuel--------------Jesus is the trusted prophet (Mt 12:41-42, 21:11; Lk 1:76, 7:16)
In Kings----------------Jesus is the reigning king (1 Co 15:25)
In Ezra-----------------Jesus is the faithful scribe (Lk 16:17; Mt 5:18, 24:35)
In Nehemiah----------Jesus is the restorer, the builder of the broken wall (Ro 8:19-22; 2Co 5:17)
In Esther---------------Jesus is the advocate (Ro 8:24, Heb 7:25)
In Job------------------Jesus is the suffering righteous one (Ac 3:14, 7:52)
In Psalms---------------Jesus is the Lord, our Shepherd (Jn 10:14)
In Proverbs------------Jesus is the true wisdom of God (1 Co 1:24)
In Ecclesiastes---------Jesus is the meaningful goal (Mt 16:24-26)
In Song of Songs-------Jesus is the lover and bridegroom (Jn 3:28-29; Rev 19:7-9)
In Isaiah-----------------Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Lk 1:79; Ac 10:36; Ro 5:1; Eph 2:13-16; 2 Th 3:16; Heb 7:3, 11, 17)
In Jeremiah------------Jesus is the weeping prophet (Lk 19:41-44)
In Ezekiel---------------Jesus is the wonderful four-faced man (Rev 4:6-8)
In Daniel----------------Jesus is fourth man in the fiery furnace
In Hosea-----------------Jesus is eternal husband married to backslider (1 Co 1:1-3, 5:1-2, 11:17-22)
In Joel-------------------Jesus is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11)
In Amos-----------------Jesus is the burden bearer (1 Pe 2:24)
In Obadiah--------------Jesus is the Savior (Mt 1:21, Lk 2:11, Jn 3:17)
In Jonah-----------------Jesus is the missionary (Mt 4:17, 23-25)
In Micah-----------------Jesus is the messenger with beautiful feet (Ro 10:15)
In Nahum----------------Jesus is the avenger (Jn 5:22, 8:26, 12:31)
In Habakkuk-------------Jesus is the evangelist pleading for revival (Mt 23:37)
In Zephaniah------------Jesus is the Lord Mighty to Save (Heb 7:25)
In Haggai-----------------Jesus is the restorer of the lost heritage (Jn 3:16, 18, 36)
In Zechariah-------------Jesus is the fountain opened in the house of David for cleansing of sin (Heb 9:14)
Malachi------------------Jesus is the Son of Righteousness rising with healing in his wings (1 Jn 1:7)

These are some of the very tight links among the books both of the OT and the NT, establishing that the Bible is, indeed, a whole.

First, note that you're saying Jesus is in an OT book, yet you provide only NT references.

 

[smokydot]

First, note that you're saying Jesus is in an OT book, yet you provide only NT references.

Evidently you don't know what a type is. . .as illustrated in the following?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole remains groundless.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Evidently you don't know what a type is. . .as illustrated in the following?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

That does nothing to establish whatever it was that you were trying to do with your list.

You didn't even have "type" listed in the post when I replied to it. And it doesn't change the fact that you provide no OT references.

 

[esmith]

First, note that you're saying Jesus is in an OT book, yet you provide only NT references.

There-in lies the problem. Those that believe in something can take any statement and see within it something that proves their belief. Religious and political beliefs are the most common application of this.

 

[smokydot]

That only works if you don't fully understand Jewish scripture. Really, very little, if any, of the OT refers to Jesus. True, it refers to a Messiah, but Jesus simply did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies.

That's your opinion. Many, many do not share it.

So there is no reason to assume that any of the OT refers to Jesus. Especially since none of the verse you quoted (which I'm assuming is a copy and paste job)

Does it look like a copy and paste job?

actually speaks of Jesus. The Torah definitely doesn't speak of Jesus as the Passover lamb (as the idea doesn't even make sense in the Jewish context) or the Lawgiver, who was Moses.
As for the Bible being a whole, if you knew the history of it, I don't think you would believe that. There were various other books considered to be scripture by other groups. Even today, different groups have different canons.
If the Bible is supposed to be a whole, then there should be no problem putting it together. But history shows otherwise.
More so, the Bible doesn't fit quite well together. Parts of it are duplicated, others contradict, etc. Some part of the Bible hardly made the cut.

Assuming you even know what a type is, the evidence speaks for itself in the following link and requires no further defense. Each can judge for himself.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html