Are the Hebrew scriptures (OT) compatible with the Greek scriptures (NT)?

[Scholar]

Another way to ask this question is, are practicing Jews justified in rejecting the Greek scriptures as being incompatible with the Hebrew scriptures? Or are the believers in the divine origin of the Greek scriptures (Christians), justified in saying that the two testaments are a consistent, coherent message from God?

Items to consider: The Greek scriptures are interpreted as describing God as a Trinity, whereas the Hebrew scriptures make it very clear that God is One without qualification.
God's purpose in the Hebrew scriptures is mainly to have His chosen people worship Him, whereas in the Greek scriptures God's purpose is to save every individual in the world, especially for the afterlife.
No consideration of rewards or punishments in the afterlife in the Hebrew scriptures. The afterlife and the dead are inconsequential in the Hebrew scriptures.
In the Hebrew scriptures, the Jews are to obey the Laws forever. In the Greek scriptures salvation is only obtained by faith in Jesus Christ for everyone. The Law has always been impossible to fulfill and was a lesson in futility.
God can forgive anyone in the Hebrew scriptures. God can only forgive those that accept Christ as their Savior in the Greek scriptures.
In the Hebrew scriptures, the Messiah is to appear once and be triumphant. In the Greek scriptures the Messiah must appear twice, and as it turns out, these appearances are separated by thousands of years.
What do the Hebrew scriptures say about the practice of human sacrifice?
Does the description of the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53 refer to the Messiah?

[Scholar]

God is the only person who can truly create something out of nothing and do it totally by himself.

That is exactly the point. The scriptures indicate Jehovah was neither literally alone when the universe was created and (as is the case with His human coworkers) , Jehovah (YHWH) does delegate and collaborate as is his good pleasure, but since only He can truly create (as in make something out of nothing) He ALONE can be said to be the creator.
In short no matter who else is present or works under his supervision, YHWH /Jehovah is "alone" in his capacity as CREATOR.

Well, I got some discussion going with that phrase, "out of nothing", didn't I? Of course, as everybody seems to agree, however fascinating the subject may be, it isn't relevant to the question of this thread.

The question being the incompatibility of the Hebrew scriptures with the Greek scriptures and JehovahsWitness' interpretation of the Word or Jesus being a god. In order to understand scripture, it's important to look at the context. Here we're looking at Isaiah 44 and 45. God is talking about several things but there are two points he's making repeatedly: (1) there is no other god but me, no one even like me and (2) I alone created the universe.

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;
besides me there is no god.
7 Who is like me? Let them proclaim it,
let them declare and set it forth before me...
8Is there any god besides me?
There is no other rock; I know not one....
24I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by myself spread out the earth.

Isaiah 45
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
besides me there is no god.
6 so that they may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is no one besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other...
21 There is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Saviour;
there is no one besides me.
22 Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.

How can anyone who reads that both claim that the Bible is consistent and that Jesus is a god?

On the question of whether God alone created the universe, you claim that God created the god Jesus, despite the verses here. Indeed, is there any passage anywhere in the Bible that has gods creating gods? This idea is also not in the New Testament, when speaking of the Word. It says, "In the beginning was the Word." Then all created things were created through Jesus despite the verses above. Is there anything in the entire Old Testament that supports the idea that everything created by God came through a god? Of course not. Would we expect anyone to interpret these verses that way? No! Would we expect to find any Jewish commentary to the effect that all of God's creation was created through a god? Once again, of course not! So what you seem to be saying is that with this scripture God misled the Jews.

Now i can already hear you say that this still allows Jesus or indeed a host of angels and indeed Shiva and Vishnu to have collaborated of the design and construction of the universe (which would explain a few things) and God could sill have just taken all the credit for himself. But doesn't that show a bit of dishonesty and arrogance on His part if Jesus (at least) had been involved?

Arrogance? Well, the Old and New Testaments may be consistent on that point, but dishonesty is a different problem. I agree with TRANSPONDER here.

As for the sidelight question on whether the idea, creatio ex nihilo, is a illogical absurdity, I'm not sure I agree. Yes, you can't make something out of nothing, but can God create something that didn't exist before without losing any part of himself? Well, we don't want to limit God's power, so it would seem that the answer would be yes. But that is essentially creatio ex nihilo, just starting from the idea of God's existence, not the idea of non-existence. The alternative is that God created the universe out of pre-existing material. At any rate, this was apparently not an interesting question to the ancient Hebrews.

[TRANSPONDER]

God is the only person who can truly create something out of nothing and do it totally by himself.

That is exactly the point. The scriptures indicate Jehovah was neither literally alone when the universe was created and (as is the case with His human coworkers) , Jehovah (YHWH) does delegate and collaborate as is his good pleasure, but since only He can truly create (as in make something out of nothing) He ALONE can be said to be the creator.
In short no matter who else is present or works under his supervision, YHWH /Jehovah is "alone" in his capacity as CREATOR.

Well, I got some discussion going with that phrase, "out of nothing", didn't I? Of course, as everybody seems to agree, however fascinating the subject may be, it isn't relevant to the question of this thread.

The question being the incompatibility of the Hebrew scriptures with the Greek scriptures and JehovahsWitness' interpretation of the Word or Jesus being a god. In order to understand scripture, it's important to look at the context. Here we're looking at Isaiah 44 and 45. God is talking about several things but there are two points he's making repeatedly: (1) there is no other god but me, no one even like me and (2) I alone created the universe.

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;
besides me there is no god.
7 Who is like me? Let them proclaim it,
let them declare and set it forth before me...
8Is there any god besides me?
There is no other rock; I know not one....
24I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by myself spread out the earth.

Isaiah 45
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
besides me there is no god.
6 so that they may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is no one besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other...
21 There is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Saviour;
there is no one besides me.
22 Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.

How can anyone who reads that both claim that the Bible is consistent and that Jesus is a god?

On the question of whether God alone created the universe, you claim that God created the god Jesus, despite the verses here. Indeed, is there any passage anywhere in the Bible that has gods creating gods? This idea is also not in the New Testament, when speaking of the Word. It says, "In the beginning was the Word." Then all created things were created through Jesus despite the verses above. Is there anything in the entire Old Testament that supports the idea that everything created by God came through a god? Of course not. Would we expect anyone to interpret these verses that way? No! Would we expect to find any Jewish commentary to the effect that all of God's creation was created through a god? Once again, of course not! So what you seem to be saying is that with this scripture God misled the Jews.

Now i can already hear you say that this still allows Jesus or indeed a host of angels and indeed Shiva and Vishnu to have collaborated of the design and construction of the universe (which would explain a few things) and God could sill have just taken all the credit for himself. But doesn't that show a bit of dishonesty and arrogance on His part if Jesus (at least) had been involved?

Arrogance? Well, the Old and New Testaments may be consistent on that point, but dishonesty is a different problem. I agree with TRANSPONDER here.

As for the sidelight question on whether the idea, creatio ex nihilo, is a illogical absurdity, I'm not sure I agree. Yes, you can't make something out of nothing, but can God create something that didn't exist before without losing any part of himself? Well, we don't want to limit God's power, so it would seem that the answer would be yes. But that is essentially creatio ex nihilo, just starting from the idea of God's existence, not the idea of non-existence. The alternative is that God created the universe out of pre-existing material. At any rate, this was apparently not an interesting question to the ancient Hebrews.

Apparently not, just as it wasn't a question to them how there could be daylight before there was a sun to produce it - and for the same reason: there was a great deal they didn't know.

[JehovahsWitness]

How can anyone who reads that both claim that the Bible is consistent and that Jesus is a god?

I'm one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I don't believe Jesus is God; at least not Almighty God YHWH the creator.

I'm sorry, I should have made that clear.


JW (JEHOVAH’S WITNESS)





RELATED POSTS

Does the fact that Jehovah worked WITH Jesus in Creation make Jesus The Creator?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#p864015

What does the expression "firstborn of Creation" mean?
viewtopic.php?p=1111424#p1111424

How should John 1:1 properly be translated? [...and the word was God]
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

[TRANSPONDER]

It's not always understood that JW's though calling themselves Christian,differ in many ways from mainstream Christianity. It is a bit of a shock to find how much. In fact it might be a useful deviation from this thread, which was never going to do anything useful, beyond producing evidence that the gospel writers did not know or understand the OT as a Hebrew -speaking Jew would, but had to go to the Greek Septuagint mistranslation to read it.

Thus proving, pretty much, what was already known - Matthew was not a Jew, a Hebrew a follower of Jesus or an eyewitness. Thus this fundamental support of the substance of the Gospel is shown to understand nothing, know nothing and to be trusted in nothing.

So let us see what differences the JW have from Mainstream Christianity and whether it (as I suspect) makes them heretical.

Well, I had a look at a few vids and personal preferences not aside I went back to the first one i looked at. And since I have NEVER found JW's to be very forthcoming about their divergent dogmas but stick to what they know Joe Public has been spoonfed and out pal here only occasionally puts out that they don'#t believe in a heaven (for humans, at least) or that Jesus was God pre-existing Adam, for instance, this talk which is dull compared to some of the clip and comment vids that are easier work, but it does seem to set out how JWs differ from what most people here think of as Chriostianity. One thing you can bet on, is science - denial. Like an astonishing number of the loudest and most evangelical street preachers (and I came across this in Muslim countries, too) they are Genesis - literalists.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]

Thank you for that video clip. Into the rubbish bin of history for the Jehovah's Witnesses as far as I'm concerned.

[JehovahsWitness]

IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ARROGANT ?

ARROGANCE

unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:

While pleasantness is very much in the eye of the beholder, logically an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot by definition be accused of "arrogance" . Arguably having infinite power and knowledge justifies behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than [others].

The scriptures describe the God of the bible as being humble as he condescend to lower himself to not only pay attention to human concerns and evens arranges his affairs to help them. Unlike many of the Greek and Roman gods that viewed humans at best as their playthings, the God of the bible is presented as deeming to accept faithful humans as his children, and has made the greatest personal sacrifice to ensure their eternal well being.



RELATED POSTS

Does God view humans as his pets?
viewtopic.php?p=1119394#p1119394

[Scholar]

How can anyone who reads that both claim that the Bible is consistent and that Jesus is a god?

I'm one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I don't believe Jesus is God; at least not Almighty God YHWH the creator.

I'm sorry, I should have made that clear.


JW (JEHOVAH’S WITNESS)

There has never been any question about the status of Jesus in your beliefs. It's been quite clear that you believe that Jehovah is Almighty God, the Creator of everything, and Jesus is a part of Jehovah's creation, evidently the first creation, because the rest of creation was created by Jehovah through Jesus. In this conversation, when we use the word "god" with a captial "G", we mean Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament and Jehovah's Witnesses. The word "god" with lower case "g", would apply to the gods of other religions and to Jesus. Am I correct?

And it has been my understanding that you accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament as the consistent word of God. You have addressed the question of how God could have created the universe by himself, as stated in Isaiah 44 and 45, by saying that God didn't really mean by himself, he meant that he was the principle architect, like an architect may say that he alone built a building, but he really meant that he designed it, and there were plenty of others involved to get the finished product. I'm not satisfied with that explanation, because an architect is obviously not the only one involved in making the building, and even he shouldn't say that he is solely responsible for the construction of the building. Much less does it seem that the God of Truth would say that he is solely responsible when he is not. God would end up being misleading for centuries, before he "corrects" himself in the first verse of John. No one, in the intervening centuries between Isaiah and John, would interpret Isaiah to mean that God had help in creating all things. So my question is, are you comfortable with the idea of God being misleading for several centuries? And then correcting himself in John without explanation? Most Christians are uncomfortable with that and is one reason they are Trinitarians.

The other problem which I don't believe you have addressed at all, is God's statements in Isaiah that there are no other gods but him. isn't this in direct contradiction to your belief? Do you have a response to that?

As far as God being arrogant, that does not seem to be relevant to this thread and I have no interest in discussing it.

Thanks for your reply, Gary

[Scholar]

In fact it might be a useful deviation from this thread, which was never going to do anything useful

I notice that you seem to complain about this thread but keep coming back to it. Thanks for your participation, but maybe you'd be happier elsewhere?

beyond producing evidence that the gospel writers did not know or understand the OT as a Hebrew -speaking Jew would, but had to go to the Greek Septuagint mistranslation to read it.

This is an oversimplification. There are many differences between the OT and NT that are not explained by poor translation of the OT. For example, in the OT, there is no mention of a heavenly afterlife for the righteous, no mention of a hellish afterlife for the wicked. It's just not there! Yet that was a major part of Jesus' message, to warn people about hell. He said it would be better to poke out your eye, if the eye was causing you to sin and putting you in danger of going to hell. That's because these ideas about the afterlife were developed after the OT was written, it has nothing to do with a poor translation of the Hebrew OT. I could go on with other examples, but you get the idea.

The Christians I'm addressing are not NT Greek scholars, but are conservative religiously, and say that not only are the OT and NT consistent, the OT points naturally to Christ. They believe that their English translation of the Bible shows this. What I'm trying to show is that that's not true. But at least most English translations (admittedly maybe mot the JW translation) are fairly consistent, and there we have a common starting point from which to discuss.

Thus proving, pretty much, what was already known - Matthew was not a Jew, a Hebrew a follower of Jesus or an eyewitness.

Already known? By whom? There are many secular NT Greek scholars who believe that the author of Matthew was a Jew. Here's what Wikipedia says in the entry on the Gospel of Matthew:
****
Traditionally, the gospel has been attributed to the Apostle Matthew, who is described as a tax collector within the text, but the current scholarly view is that it was written anonymously by a male Jew familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture in the last quarter of the first century.
****
Wikipedia quotes a couple of sources. My favorite NT scholar is Bart Ehrman, who says, " I too tend to think that [the author of Matthew] was probably a Jew by birth and upbringing, who had converted to be a follower of Jesus. But not everyone agrees." This is a controversy even among critical scholars. But I don't want to debate with Christians issues that scholars do not agree on. All I need to work with them is their own Bibles.

Scholar

[William]

[Replying to Scholar in post #78]

That's because these ideas about the afterlife were developed after the OT was written, it has nothing to do with a poor translation of the Hebrew OT. I could go on with other examples, but you get the idea.

I doubt that this was the case. Every culture had its place where non-conforming souls went/were sent as punishments.

An example of cultural beliefs outside of the Bible -
Azazel, Dudael, Tehom, Tophet, Tzoah Rotachat, Mashchit, Dumah, Neshiyyah, Bor Shaon, Eretz Tachtit, Haguel, Ikisat
Islam: Jahannam
Greek: Hades, Tartarus
Buddhism: Avīci
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism: Naraka
Chinese: Diyu
Zoroastrianism: “House of the Lie″
Sumerian: Kur
Aztec: Mictlan
Inuit: Adlivun
Mayan: Xibalba
Breton: Anaon
Celtic: Uffern
Slavic: Peklo
Finnish: Tuonela
Bagobo: Gimokodan
Indian: Kalichi, Naraka
Daoism: Diyu
Swahili: Kuzimu
Yanomami: Shobari Waka {SOURCE}

[TRANSPONDER]

In fact it might be a useful deviation from this thread, which was never going to do anything useful

I notice that you seem to complain about this thread but keep coming back to it. Thanks for your participation, but maybe you'd be happier elsewhere?

beyond producing evidence that the gospel writers did not know or understand the OT as a Hebrew -speaking Jew would, but had to go to the Greek Septuagint mistranslation to read it.

This is an oversimplification. There are many differences between the OT and NT that are not explained by poor translation of the OT. For example, in the OT, there is no mention of a heavenly afterlife for the righteous, no mention of a hellish afterlife for the wicked. It's just not there! Yet that was a major part of Jesus' message, to warn people about hell. He said it would be better to poke out your eye, if the eye was causing you to sin and putting you in danger of going to hell. That's because these ideas about the afterlife were developed after the OT was written, it has nothing to do with a poor translation of the Hebrew OT. I could go on with other examples, but you get the idea.

The Christians I'm addressing are not NT Greek scholars, but are conservative religiously, and say that not only are the OT and NT consistent, the OT points naturally to Christ. They believe that their English translation of the Bible shows this. What I'm trying to show is that that's not true. But at least most English translations (admittedly maybe mot the JW translation) are fairly consistent, and there we have a common starting point from which to discuss.

Thus proving, pretty much, what was already known - Matthew was not a Jew, a Hebrew a follower of Jesus or an eyewitness.

Already known? By whom? There are many secular NT Greek scholars who believe that the author of Matthew was a Jew. Here's what Wikipedia says in the entry on the Gospel of Matthew:
****
Traditionally, the gospel has been attributed to the Apostle Matthew, who is described as a tax collector within the text, but the current scholarly view is that it was written anonymously by a male Jew familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture in the last quarter of the first century.
****
Wikipedia quotes a couple of sources. My favorite NT scholar is Bart Ehrman, who says, " I too tend to think that [the author of Matthew] was probably a Jew by birth and upbringing, who had converted to be a follower of Jesus. But not everyone agrees." This is a controversy even among critical scholars. But I don't want to debate with Christians issues that scholars do not agree on. All I need to work with them is their own Bibles.

Scholar

I thank you for the suggestion that I shut up and go away, but I'm lovin' it here. And you are missing my point, though you are explaining Your point clearly enough. I agree that ideas of a (heavenly) afterlife appeared later and John comes to mind as suggesting heavenly condomiums. But the NT itself suggests the Pharisees believed in an afterlife, because it contrasts that with the Sadducees who do not believe in a resurrection.

And never mind Bart Erhmann, but before I even noted that Matthew (alone of the gospels) has Jesus misquote Psalms, it was known that he misunderstood the two donkeys and the virgin birth passage and it was suggested then that it was because he only read the OT in the Greek. I say that the babes and sucklings misread proves it and Prof. Ehrmann might give some thought to that.