Agrarian says that there are many OT references to Messiah as God. In most cases, when God is referred to as the "Savior" it relates to His brining Israel out of Egypt or physically saving Jewish people and cities from wrath. As a Redeemer, He is referred to in terms of having mercy on fickle Israel, but nothing even close to what Christ preached in the Gospels.
If there is a seamless connection between the two Testaments, showing one and the same faith, I leave it up to experts to demonstrate, which I have yet to see. We speak of Catholics having a different faith than the Orthodox, yet I would say our the Orthodox have more in common even with Calvinism than the New Testament has with the Old Testament.
Again, I hear over and over that the Judaism at the time when Christ walked on earth was "different" from the rabbinical post-Jamnia Judaism, yet I see no proof or specifics to defend such an assertion.
What we are asserting is that only those who followed Christ were real Jews, as we, followers of Christ, are "real" Israel. We also assert that all the Patriarchs believed exactly what we believe, yet their only problem with Israel was that the Jews kept reverting to worshiping idols.
If they had the same faith, why were the Patriarch and Prophets in Hell when Christ descended there? They were righteous, yet they were condemned!
Needless to say, there is an extraordinary amount of "stretching" that is required to make the two Testaments become "seamless."
"Agrarian says that there are many OT references to Messiah as God."
Actually, whast I wrote was: "There are few OT references to the Messiah as God, but they are there..."
Given the fact that I misinterpreted or quoted Kosta, this is only fair game! :-)
The most prominent example that spring to mind is the quotation that Christ himself used to silence the Pharisees: "... the Lord said unto my Lord..." And there are several references to the universality of the Messiah's work, encompassing the Gentiles, making the Messiah at the very least more than a glorified Jewish warlord.
"As for Moses and Elijah — on Mount Tabor, they had, shall we say, "inside information." All the people will recognize Christ after death."
Yes, they will recognize him after death, but how will they respond to him? That is the real question in the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife. If Moses and the Prophets lived and died utterly convinced that God could not become man, and held a faith that was as incompatible with Christianity as was the official Judaism of Christ's day and after, then one could only assume that they would reject Christ after death as surely as they would have rejected him had they encountered him during life.
"Again, I hear over and over that the Judaism at the time when Christ walked on earth was "different" from the rabbinical post-Jamnia Judaism, yet I see no proof or specifics to defend such an assertion."
I, for one, have never asserted this. I believe that the official Judaism of Christ's day was just as misguided as was later rabbinical Judaism. I do not believe that the words and actions of the Pharisees reflected the faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets. I am in good company, since Christ himself told the Pharisees the same thing! :-)
My only contention is that there *were* Jews (perhaps reflecting a particular strain of Judaism) who quickly and readily recognized and embraced Christ, and came to recognize him as God. I will leave off the argument from hades, and reduce it to this: had the Patriarchs and Prophets been able to encounter Christ in life, would they have rejected him as did the Pharisees, or would they have embraced him as Lord and God?
If there really is a radical discontinuity between the faith of the Patriarchs and prophets and the faith of the Jews who embraced Christ as Lord and God, then the only possible answer is that Moses and Elijah, had they been around in life, would have been part of the lynching party. That is a legitimate position to hold, but would be one that I would find takes at least as much stretching as does the Church's traditional understanding...
"yet their only problem with Israel was that the Jews kept reverting to worshiping idols."
Yes, while Moses and the Prophets themselves encountered God at the level of theosis, the reality they were dealing with "on the ground" was on an entirely different level. The primary decision that the people were having to make was whether to worship the demons in form of idols, or to worship the one true God. There are thus reasons why the Pentateuch is dealing with some pretty basic issues compared to the lofty writings of the Apostle John.
The process of bringing the people of Israel to the point where they would produce the Theotokos was a long and hard one. This would perhaps explain at least in part why the type of Savior alluded to in OT times was primarily one expressed in terms they could most readily relate to at the time.
But, as St. Gregory Palamas said, the OT Patriarchs and Prophets achieved theosis (albeit in a necessarily temporary fashion), and directly encountered God. They would therefore, have recognized that same God were he to have become man in their time. One who reads what they wrote had the opportunity to have the same encounter, and this is why Christ insisted that the Jewish leadership of his day did not understand their own Scriptures. If they did, they would have recognized him.
"If they had the same faith, why were the Patriarch and Prophets in Hell when Christ descended there? They were righteous, yet they were condemned!"
They were in Hades -- the place of the dead (Sheol in Hebrew), which does not at all necessarily mean a place of torment and punishment. They were subject to death because death had not yet been conquered by Christ's resurrection. Even St. John the Baptist was in Hades, and he recognized Christ for who he was.
I believe Hebrews 11 addresses this. I was going to post the entire chapter but thought better.