Can we find the Christian God in the Tanakh?

[Pard]

The Jews believe that we worship the same God, but that we were given the wrong description of Him. So, can we find the Christian description of God, if you will, in the Tanakh (old testament)?

---

First, we should come up with a thorough description of God from the Christian view point.
Second, we need to find scripture in the Tanakh that actively supports our description of God.
Third, we ought to come to a conclusion on whether or not our description of God needs to be reevaluated.


I only ask this question as a mean of learning. We do not look to the Tanakh often enough. I fully believe that the God I know and pray to everyday is described the same in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

[jasoncran]

note to the anti-trinitarians keep this from a trinity thread as much as possible. if you dont agree with the trinitarians then bow out and vice versa. we dont need another trinity debate :crazy

 

[Pard]

note to the anti-trinitarians keep this from a trinity thread as much as possible. if you dont agree with the trinitarians then bow out and vice versa. we dont need another trinity debate :crazy

Very good point. I have shown the Trinity is in the Tanakh here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=48011

Perhaps if you have a problem with finding the Trinity in the Tanakh you should discuss it there.

 

[Drew]

note to the anti-trinitarians keep this from a trinity thread as much as possible. if you dont agree with the trinitarians then bow out and vice versa. we dont need another trinity debate :crazy

Probably the main thread that connects the Old Testament to the New Testament is that Jesus of Nazareth clearly "completes" a range of Old Testament story lines about what God will do.

That is, Jesus does the very things that a reader of the Old Testament would, perfectly reasonably, expect God to do.

Consequently, it seems hard to see how people like me can participate in this thread without being able to basically argue "Jesus of Nazareth steps into the 'God' role of the Old Testament and brings those stories to a kind of completion".

Am I "not allowed" to make such arguments because they are essentially "trinitarian" in that they predicate "God-ness" of Jesus?

 

[Pard]

Drew, he means do not turn this into an argument about the Trinity. Express the Trinity in so much as the OP requires it to be discussed.

 

[jasoncran]

hmm i just like one thread, but i'll let this pass as the op stated how does one see the christian god in the tanakh? that be nature is properly assumed to be the trinity. but if the opposition should be debate that in the other thread, as posted.

this imho is a thread stating what we beleive and see in the ot, and not neccesarily open to the anti-trinity view point since pard started the same type and some posted there.

i hope that make sense. to you drew.

 

[PouringRain]

I guess I come from a different .... approach.... than most people. For me, I have difficulty taking God from a Christian POV (point of view), and then looking through the OT and making him fit/ finding support. I believe God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and, along those lines, I believe we should start from the foundation of the OT (and Judaism) and then understand God from there. I believe Jesus was a Jew and taught as a Jew. If one studies his teachings from a Jewish standpoint, one would find there are things that are very different than when examined from a Christian standpoint. I once heard a chassidic Jewish convert to christianity say that he loves to preach the gospels for that reason-- and most christians have not heard them taught that way.

I have heard a lot of people say that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT, or that God "changed" (or different aspects of God changed). I think this is wrong, again, because I believe God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I do not see a difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT.

 

[jasoncran]

the judgments in revalation support that idea.

 

[Ahuli]

hmm i just like one thread, but i'll let this pass as the op stated how does one see the christian god in the tanakh? that be nature is properly assumed to be the trinity. but if the opposition should be debate that in the other thread, as posted.

this imho is a thread stating what we beleive and see in the ot, and not neccesarily open to the anti-trinity view point since pard started the same type and some posted there.

i hope that make sense. to you drew.

Who was present in the creation story? What did God mean when HE said in Gen 1:26 ... Let us make man in our image after our likeness…

Read it carefully and you'll see that our God, the Christian God, is not and never has been separate.

Were the Word and Spirit not present at creation and throughout the Old Testament? They are in mine.

 

[jasoncran]

i believe that the word for god is plural.(elohim) in genesis. i was stating that to the anti-trin guys and to drew that believes in the trinity why i posted that we should keep this op as the trinity is found in the ot.

 

[Pard]

Ahuli,

If you follow that link I posted above, you we see it leads you to one of my topics on the first three lines of Genesis. In it I show how there is a Triune nature to our Lord, Elohim.

I think one thing that strikes people when they go from reading the Tanakh to the Gospel is that God "seems" to get "nicer". This is a failed interpretation, however, as God is as "nice" in the Tanakh, we are just blinded by His punishment. It's kind of like a car. God was just getting Himself into gear during the Tanakh. In the Gospel He has shifted into a new gear and He is, like many cars, a "new beast". He is still very much the same, but events and circumstances have changed that changed His demeanor. He no longer was punishing His children, because salvation was at hand. I have no doubt that when End Times come around He will shift into an even higher gear, it's one I'd like to dub "takin' out the trash!"

Beyond the plural aspect of the Christian God, I am trying to think of other attributes we see in Him.

 

[veteran]

The Tanakh is simply the Hebrew Bible right? It has the same Books as our Protestant Old Testament, but divided differently, and in Hebrew.

I don't see why any Christian would have a problem seeing the doctrines of Christianity in that. I very much agree with Pard on this point. A pastor worth his salt should be able to preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ from all Books of The Bible, including the Old Testament Books, especially the Book of Isaiah (means Yah is Salvation).

Greek Iesous = English Jesus
Hebrew Jehoshua = Greek Iesous

And Jehoshua means 'Yahaveh is Salvation'.

Joshua is the transliteration of Jehoshua to English, so everytime we read those names in the Old Testament Books in Hebrew, or in English, or in Greek, we are reading 'Yahaveh is Salvation'. Kind of hard to separate that. Who said our Lord Jesus' name isn't written in the Old Testament Books anyway?

In Ezekiel 9, the mark God tells the angel to seal His servants with is the Hebrew letter tao, which was written as a cross.

The first prophetic Scripture that Christ would be crucified is in Gen.3:15.

In Psalms 22, David was given to prophesy of the events of Christ's crucifixion 1,000 years before it happenned, even words our Lord Jesus would say upon the cross, and the soldiers casting lots upon His robes.

Smite The Shepherd in the Book of Zechariah.

The Prophet Moses said God would raise up from among their brethren, and unto Him they would harken, that written in Deuteronomy 18.

Shiloh's coming in Genesis 49:10.

Messiah as King riding upon an ass into Jerusalem per Zech.9

Messiah being cutoff after 69 weeks per Daniel 9.

Should I keep going?

 

[Ashua]

??????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ????? ?????????

In the beginning ('eth) God Created the heaven and the earth.

?? 'eth is not translated. It is in the Hebrew text. The word is assumed to have a denotation of "time"

The word is made of two Hebrew letters. Aleph and Tav. The first and the last of the Hebrew alphabet. The Alpha and Omega are the Greek counterparts as the first and last of their alphabet. The New Testament was either written in Greek originally, or the only surviving copies we have are Greek, so the translation makes sense. It is by translation that we have the name "Jesus" (Lesous) instead of Yeshua after all.


Isaiah 44:6

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

Isaiah 48:12

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.

Revelation 1:8

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the almighty.

Revelation 1:17-18

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


Revelation 2:8

And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

There are much more than this one example but for now that is enough.

A prophet like Moses:
Deuteronomy 18:15-19


YHVH thy ELOHIYM will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

According to all that thou desiredst of YHVH thy ELOHIYM in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of YHVH my ELOHIYM, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

And YHVH said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

 

[Ashua]

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Genesis 49:10

The sceptre in this verse is the Hebrew word 'shevet', the tribal staff which belonged to each tribe as an ensign of their authority. Thus the tribal identity of Judah would not pass away, as happened to other tribes, until Shiloh or Messiah comes. It was from the tribe of Judah that the line of kings descended from King David came. Even after the Babylonian captivity, Judah continued to have lawgivers (see Ezra 1.5 - 8).
In the early years of the Roman occupation of Judea, the Jewish people still had a king in their own land. Moreover they were to a large extent governed by their own laws, and the Sanhedrin exercised its authority. But in the span of a few years (during the year when Jesus was twelve years of age and appeared publicly in the Temple, Luke 2.41-52) Archelaus, the king of the Jews was dethroned and banished. Coponius was appointed Roman Procurator, and the kingdom of Judea, the last remnant of the former nation of Israel, was formally debased into a province of Syria (see Josephus' Antiquities 17, chapter 13.1-5).

At this time the Sanhedrin lost its power of passing the death sentence (see John 18.31). Rabbi Rachmon said, "When the members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a general consternation took hold of them; they covered their heads and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming, 'Woe unto us, for the sceptre has departed from Judah and the Messiah has not come.'"

2. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublesome times. And after sixty two seeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. Daniel 9.25-26.

According to this prophecy in Daniel, Messiah had to come 483 years after a specific date in Daniel's time (69 x 7 years - a 'week'=7 years - see Genesis 29.27). Sir Robert Anderson in his book 'The Coming Prince' works out that there were 483 years according to the Hebrew method of calculating dates from the decree of Artaxerxes granting permission to the Jewish people to return and rebuild Jerusalem to the date of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This date he believes was the official presentation of Messiah as 'Prince' to Israel (details of how he comes to this date are available on request).


Secular source:
Josephus
"The Sanhedrin lost some of their political power 'after the disposition of Archelaus, who was the son and successor of Herod, 11 A.D.. Josephus, Ant., Book chapter 13. p 1-5 The procurators , who administered in Agustus name took the supreme power of the Sanhedrin away so they could exercise the jus glad themselves; that is the sovereign right over the life and death sentences. All the nations which were subdued by the Roman empire were deprived of their ability to pronounce capitol sentence. tactus says, "the Romans reserved to themselves the sword, and neglected all else." -Evidence that demands a verdict vol. 1, p.168

How did the Jews respond to this?

The Talmud (Bab., Sanhedrin, Chap 4, fol 51b)
"Since the Sanhedrin no longer had jurisdiction in capital offenses, there is no practical utility in this ruling, which can become effective only in the days of the Messiah." -Evidence demands a verdict, Vol. 1, p, 169

HISTORIANS DATE THIS LOSS OF THE SCEPTRE OF JUDAH IN A.D. 7, ABOUT 23 YEARS BEFORE JESUS' TRIAL.

The Talmud (Bab. Sanhedrin, Chap. 4 fol. 37, recto)

"WOE UNTO US, FOR THE SCEPTRE HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM JUDAH, AND THE MESSIAH HAS NO APPEARED!" -Evidence that demands a verdict, vol 1, page 169.

The sceptre (ruling authority of the Law of Moses) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh (messiah) come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be]. -Genesis 49:10

 

[Pard]

The Tanakh is simply the Hebrew Bible right? It has the same Books as our Protestant Old Testament, but divided differently, and in Hebrew.

Yes. The order is slightly different then our own. The Torah (Books of Moses) is ine the same order and book number. After that they more or less swap it so the Ketivum (writings) is at the end, while nevi'im (prophets) is in the middle. Besides that... the Tanakh has the typical division by chapter and line as the Christians started. The only real difference is that the Tanakh did not separate Kings, Chronicles, or Samuel into multiple books, that's a Christian thing. And of course it is in Biblical Hebrew, though the JPS edition is in English. If you look really, super hard you can find some copies that are in English and Hebrew AND have Strong's numbers, but those are out a print now...

Should I keep going?

Would you? I am so very interested! Keep copying scripture ref. into BibleGate to see what you are talking about!

Ashua,

Good stuff!

 

[francisdesales]

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Genesis 49:10

The sceptre in this verse is the Hebrew word 'shevet', the tribal staff which belonged to each tribe as an ensign of their authority. Thus the tribal identity of Judah would not pass away, as happened to other tribes, until Shiloh or Messiah comes. It was from the tribe of Judah that the line of kings descended from King David came. Even after the Babylonian captivity, Judah continued to have lawgivers (see Ezra 1.5 - 8).
In the early years of the Roman occupation of Judea, the Jewish people still had a king in their own land. Moreover they were to a large extent governed by their own laws, and the Sanhedrin exercised its authority. But in the span of a few years (during the year when Jesus was twelve years of age and appeared publicly in the Temple, Luke 2.41-52) Archelaus, the king of the Jews was dethroned and banished. Coponius was appointed Roman Procurator, and the kingdom of Judea, the last remnant of the former nation of Israel, was formally debased into a province of Syria (see Josephus' Antiquities 17, chapter 13.1-5).

At this time the Sanhedrin lost its power of passing the death sentence (see John 18.31). Rabbi Rachmon said, "When the members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a general consternation took hold of them; they covered their heads and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming, 'Woe unto us, for the sceptre has departed from Judah and the Messiah has not come.'"

2. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublesome times. And after sixty two seeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. Daniel 9.25-26.

According to this prophecy in Daniel, Messiah had to come 483 years after a specific date in Daniel's time (69 x 7 years - a 'week'=7 years - see Genesis 29.27). Sir Robert Anderson in his book 'The Coming Prince' works out that there were 483 years according to the Hebrew method of calculating dates from the decree of Artaxerxes granting permission to the Jewish people to return and rebuild Jerusalem to the date of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This date he believes was the official presentation of Messiah as 'Prince' to Israel (details of how he comes to this date are available on request).


Secular source:
Josephus
"The Sanhedrin lost some of their political power 'after the disposition of Archelaus, who was the son and successor of Herod, 11 A.D.. Josephus, Ant., Book chapter 13. p 1-5 The procurators , who administered in Agustus name took the supreme power of the Sanhedrin away so they could exercise the jus glad themselves; that is the sovereign right over the life and death sentences. All the nations which were subdued by the Roman empire were deprived of their ability to pronounce capitol sentence. tactus says, "the Romans reserved to themselves the sword, and neglected all else." -Evidence that demands a verdict vol. 1, p.168

How did the Jews respond to this?

The Talmud (Bab., Sanhedrin, Chap 4, fol 51b)
"Since the Sanhedrin no longer had jurisdiction in capital offenses, there is no practical utility in this ruling, which can become effective only in the days of the Messiah." -Evidence demands a verdict, Vol. 1, p, 169

HISTORIANS DATE THIS LOSS OF THE SCEPTRE OF JUDAH IN A.D. 7, ABOUT 23 YEARS BEFORE JESUS' TRIAL.

The Talmud (Bab. Sanhedrin, Chap. 4 fol. 37, recto)

"WOE UNTO US, FOR THE SCEPTRE HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM JUDAH, AND THE MESSIAH HAS NO APPEARED!" -Evidence that demands a verdict, vol 1, page 169.

The sceptre (ruling authority of the Law of Moses) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh (messiah) come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be]. -Genesis 49:10

Yes, I agree with Pard, good stuff.

Regards

 

[Mysteryman]

The Jews believe that we worship the same God, but that we were given the wrong description of Him. So, can we find the Christian description of God, if you will, in the Tanakh (old testament)?

---

First, we should come up with a thorough description of God from the Christian view point.
Second, we need to find scripture in the Tanakh that actively supports our description of God.
Third, we ought to come to a conclusion on whether or not our description of God needs to be reevaluated.


I only ask this question as a mean of learning. We do not look to the Tanakh often enough. I fully believe that the God I know and pray to everyday is described the same in both the Old and New Testaments.

Well, we know that God changes not. So he is the same God in the OT, as he is within the NT. However, God revealed more unto the body of christ than he did unto Israel. Certian knowledge was not revealed unto Israel, but has been revealed unto the body of Christ. More knowledge does not mean that you can find the Christian God in the OT. This is because Christian knowledge is not within the OT. Prophecy was given, but not revealed unto them, until the time of the prophecy being fulfilled.

For instance, you do not find anyone in the OT speaking in tongues. Although you will find prophecy that pertains to the future of those who shall prophesy (sons and daughters). You do not find anyone in the OT that understood that which God kept hidden from them, but is now revealed unto us who are in the body of Christ. Now let me clarify something first. Just being in the body of Christ does not mean that certain members now know or possess spiritual understanding. This is something that God still needs to reveal unto them.

The same God , but different dispensations.

 

[francisdesales]

The Jews believe that we worship the same God, but that we were given the wrong description of Him. So, can we find the Christian description of God, if you will, in the Tanakh (old testament)?

The first Christians must have thought so, because when Marcion invented a canon that excluded the entire Old Testament, the Church opposed him and kept the Tanakh as part of their sacred writings. Perhaps some readings of "Against Marcion" (Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin and others) will bring up some specific reasoning for you.

The Five Books Against Marcion (Tertullian). Note, CCEL has a bar on the left side of the page that allows you to jump to chapter-titled pages, so you can get to the reasoning why quicker.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.i.html

Against Heresies (Irenaeus). Book IV, generally, the entire book.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.html

Dialogue with Trypho (Justin the Martyr)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.html

Again, the sidebars will describe the chapter topic, so you can go there and look at the explanations they give and shed some light on why the Church refused to contemplate Marcion's idea of what was Scripture.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I would like to add something that you guys may want to take into account when discussing this.

As a MUslim, I can take many aspects of the tanakh and interpret them directly to refer to Muhamed(SAW), and the jews interpret it in very Judaic manner.

I dont wnat this turn into a christianity vs. Islam debate, but I think its important to view the scripture as it is with as little biased interpretation as possible. Its understandable that you will maintain your current beliefs and stand by them, but what will you gain from a study like this if you force every word of the tanakh to conform with your current views and biases. If you atempt to gain a better understanding of a text, theres no point in fighting the text to agree with your current understanding.

If by chance you do with to make a different thread on the so called texts of the tanakh that refer to Muhamed, feel free. If I see it, I am guessing I would be happy to demonstrate that Islam does not read the text correctly, but they pick and choose certain phrases and avoid others. Feel free to start another thread.

 

[Drew]

The first Christians must have thought so, because when Marcion invented a canon that excluded the entire Old Testament, the Church opposed him and kept the Tanakh as part of their sacred writings.

Agree. There is a lot of evidence that early Christians saw the work of Jesus as "completing" or at least "advancing" the story line that is there in the Old Testament.