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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

I think the scriptures are compatible and there is no problem between them. The problem is in how some people interpret the scriptures by their own desires.

I have to agree. If we accept the "progressive" nature if scripture, all the books can be harmonized nicely.


JW

We have seen examples of this...very, very, often. It means making stuff up, coming up with all sorts of excuses, denial and fiddling (mainly to wish away contradictions) and, in the end, appeal to the Faith that God is downloading True Interpretation into your head, even if it does not comport with reality or even what the Bible says.

But I'm glad to see that you two have stopped bashing each other over the head with your Bibles. You know,you should be thankful;for we Bible - critics as we are ( I suspect) the only reason you Believers stop attacking each other and stand shoulder to shoulder against the Real threat to your faith.

[Scholar]

Well, just to be clear, that's not what's happening here. In my view, there isn't such a thing as "God's downloaded Truth." But I believe that the authors of the various scriptures were generally consistent within their own writings. But all these writings are compiled and assumed to be consistent, when there are actually many authors with many points of view. This is a problem rarely considered very seriously by conservative Christians. I think, in particular, that Christians can distort the meanings of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) by applying their theology to it. The Hebrew scriptures are more coherent and consistent than the Christian Bible because the Christians are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. For example, Christianity is a world religion, trying to "save" the whole world from hell and death in the afterlife, whereas Judaism is mainly concerned with just the Jews following the Torah, so they can be happy and prosperous in this life.

Well, fair point. But that Jesus came to revise the OT scriptures is undeniable, wouldn't you say? Replacing the Mosaic Laws with the beatitudes? Dismissing the Sabbath and Temple as less important than Jesus was?

Trouble is, there are lots of versions of Jesus. There's the historical Jesus, of whom there are no eyewitnesses. We have the synoptic gospels, which give a pretty consistent, with some differences, view of Jesus. Paul doesn't add much, the book of Revelation gives a different view of Jesus. There are reasons to believe that the historical Jesus would be appalled to find out that later followers would see him as co-equal with God. Most critical scholars believe that the historical Jesus did not want to replace the Mosaic Laws with the beatitudes. For one thing, the beatitudes are not laws but are more like prophecies. They seem to refer to the change of order at the end times. I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Jesus wanted to make himself more important than the Sabbath or the Temple. Rather, he wanted to orient Jews towards the core commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. If you have to choose between a core commandment and a lesser law, the Jew should break the lesser law. For example, Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

Don't you think you are falling into error in relying on the Jewish beliefs, traditions and readings rather than those teachings of the chosen apostles of Christianity?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm saying that the NT and OT are not compatible. I'm not taking a position on the priority of one or the other. If a Christian were to reply to me saying that the Old Testament is to be disregarded whenever it conflicts with the New, they would be agreeing with the only point I'm trying to make.

[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?

I think the scriptures are compatible and there is no problem between them. The problem is in how some people interpret the scriptures by their own desires.

I have to agree. If we accept the "progressive" nature if scripture, all the books can be harmonized nicely.
JW

Well, it's perhaps time to summarize our little discussion on the monotheism of Isaiah and the monolatry of the ancient Israelites and modern Jehovah's Witnesses. (Monolatry is the belief in the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.) The ancient Israelites were polytheistic. We have many preserved relics of their various gods. However, under King Josiah, they became monolatric, only worshipping Jehovah. Throughout the OT, the Israelites are discouraged from worshipping any gods except for Jehovah, but there are indications that they believed other gods exist.

The Israelites became strictly monotheistic by the late 6th century BC, and I have quoted unambiguous verses to that effect from Isaiah. They aren't the only verses that state that there are no other gods besides Jehovah. For example, Deuteronomy 4:35TTo you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. 36From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, while you heard his words coming out of the fire. 37And because he loved your ancestors, he chose their descendants after them. He brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power, 38driving out before you nations greater and mightier than yourselves, to bring you in, giving you their land for a possession, as it is still today. 39So acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

This, however, causes a problem for Jehovah's Witnesses, because they believe that at least one other god exists: Jesus Christ. Therefore the meaning of these verses must be modified. Take the verse in Isaiah 4 that I have quoted:
I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.

For the Jehovah's Witness, this verse must be altered to change its meaning:
I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god [worthy of being worshiped.]

Thus the switch back from monotheism to monolatry. Of course, the Jews accepted the meaning of the verses as written, and have been credited with having one of the first monotheistic religions. Christians, of course, also accepted the unaltered interpretation of these verses. Only the Jehovah's Witness monolatric movement, established in the 19th century, felt the need to interpret the verses differently. This is an excellent example of how I agree with 1213 and JehovahWitness's statement: "The problem is in how some people interpret the scriptures by their own desires." If you have a theological agenda you must uphold, you will alter the meaning of scripture to fit your theology.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, just to be clear, that's not what's happening here. In my view, there isn't such a thing as "God's downloaded Truth." But I believe that the authors of the various scriptures were generally consistent within their own writings. But all these writings are compiled and assumed to be consistent, when there are actually many authors with many points of view. This is a problem rarely considered very seriously by conservative Christians. I think, in particular, that Christians can distort the meanings of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) by applying their theology to it. The Hebrew scriptures are more coherent and consistent than the Christian Bible because the Christians are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. For example, Christianity is a world religion, trying to "save" the whole world from hell and death in the afterlife, whereas Judaism is mainly concerned with just the Jews following the Torah, so they can be happy and prosperous in this life.

Well, fair point. But that Jesus came to revise the OT scriptures is undeniable, wouldn't you say? Replacing the Mosaic Laws with the beatitudes? Dismissing the Sabbath and Temple as less important than Jesus was?

Trouble is, there are lots of versions of Jesus. There's the historical Jesus, of whom there are no eyewitnesses. We have the synoptic gospels, which give a pretty consistent, with some differences, view of Jesus. Paul doesn't add much, the book of Revelation gives a different view of Jesus. There are reasons to believe that the historical Jesus would be appalled to find out that later followers would see him as co-equal with God. Most critical scholars believe that the historical Jesus did not want to replace the Mosaic Laws with the beatitudes. For one thing, the beatitudes are not laws but are more like prophecies. They seem to refer to the change of order at the end times. I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Jesus wanted to make himself more important than the Sabbath or the Temple. Rather, he wanted to orient Jews towards the core commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. If you have to choose between a core commandment and a lesser law, the Jew should break the lesser law. For example, Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

In the context of course, I'm talking about the Gospels Jesus and the Christian take on whether he supersedes the OT or not. The answer being "When convenient" and that depends of the kind of Christians. There are a lot of versions of that, too. I fear we may get into another matter here, but I sure do see the Beatitudes as replacing the OT laws with a more vague 'play nice' (Golden Rule) view of moral codes.I do not see them in any way like to 'prophecies'. They are exhortations as to what people should do as an alternative to the Mosaic law. I agree that the original followers of Jesus (and Jesus, too) would be appalled to find modern Christianity seeing his as God or even inhabited in his life by the Spirit of God, but that a personal hypothesis. I do agree about the 'core commandment' (Play Nice) as replacing the Jewish Law. It's obviously something that has its' point - doing good rather than going to church. That was a thing that Rabbis addressed.The healing of the man on the Sabbath would lead to a fine old debate about whether Jesus could do the healing the next day or whether a withered arm beat the sabbath commandment. But there is no discussion. Because the gospels were written by Christians seeking to trash the Mosaic law. You can see in the David and Shewbread episode, it is not done because doing good beats the Commandments, but because Jesus is more important that Sabbath or Temple.

Don't you think you are falling into error in relying on the Jewish beliefs, traditions and readings rather than those teachings of the chosen apostles of Christianity?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm saying that the NT and OT are not compatible. I'm not taking a position on the priority of one or the other. If a Christian were to reply to me saying that the Old Testament is to be disregarded whenever it conflicts with the New, they would be agreeing with the only point I'm trying to make.

I've lost track of the question, too. And your Point. I'll have a look. It was this:

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:56 pm
There's nothing more delicious than watching rival Christian doctrines stabbing over the barriers., each convinced that theirs is God's downloaded Truth.
(scholar) Well, just to be clear, that's not what's happening here. In my view, there isn't such a thing as "God's downloaded Truth." But I believe that the authors of the various scriptures were generally consistent within their own writings. But all these writings are compiled and assumed to be consistent, when there are actually many authors with many points of view. This is a problem rarely considered very seriously by conservative Christians. I think, in particular, that Christians can distort the meanings of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) by applying their theology to it. The Hebrew scriptures are more coherent and consistent than the Christian Bible because the Christians are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. For example, Christianity is a world religion, trying to "save" the whole world from hell and death in the afterlife, whereas Judaism is mainly concerned with just the Jews following the Torah, so they can be happy and prosperous in this life.
(Trans) Well, fair point. But that Jesus came to revise the OT scriptures is undeniable, wouldn't you say? Replacing the Mosaic Laws with the beatitudes? Dismissing the Sabbath and Temple as less important than Jesus was? Don't you think you are falling into error in relying on the Jewish beliefs, traditions and readings rather than those teachings of the chosen apostles of Christianity?

Yes I take your point about trying to fit Hebrew scripture into the Christian hole. And there are a whole lot of takes on that - mine for instance being that Paul misuses OT to underline (rather than validate) his own arguments, and Christian apologetics have done that ever since. Some of the worst being the Gospels themselves. I mentioned using the @Love your neighbour'rule as being an excuse to sideline a commandment. A complete nonsense about David (a known sinner) eating Shewbread (whcih a priest permitted him) as a reason to scrap the Sabbath,because they weren't even taking the sick and lame to hospital but strolling through the fields.

This is evidence to me that the intent of the NT is to debunk the Jewish Law and replace it with Paulinist 'Play Nice'. Which doesn't stop the Christians pushing the Commandments in our faces, but whoever said it had to make sense? The Real "Law" is whatever pops into their heads or what God reveals to them, so we see claimed so often, right here.

[JehovahsWitness]

WERE THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES MONOLATRIC?

(Monolatry is the belief in the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.)

The ancient Hebrews may indeed have worship various god's but the ancient ISRAELITES (dependents of Abraham) only did so during their frequent periods of Apostacy; the Hebrew law code as expressed in the written MOSAIC LAW, what could arguably be described as "monolatistic" (see below).




IS MONOLATRISM A 19TH CENTURY INVENTION ?

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA



SHOULD JEHOVAHS WITNESSES BE DESCRIBED AS MONOLATRISTS?

... the Jehovah's Witness monolatric movement, established in the 19th century...

If this is taken to simply mean there are other created beings that can legitimately be described as "gods" but only one Almighty God that must alone be worshipped, this seems to be a reasonable classification. However the Jewish Encyclopedia (see above) comments regarding such a classification that YHWH {quote} "... was not yet the God of all the nations and of the universe" , there can be no placing Jehovahs Witnesses in any classification that fails to recognize Jehovah as the eternal supreme ruler of the universe and only legitimate object if worship from all the intelligent beings that have ever existed.



RELATED POSTS

Did the Israelites believe other gods existed?
viewtopic.php?p=1121322#p1121322

[JehovahsWitness]

DID THE ISRAELITES BELIEVE OTHER GODS EXISTED?


The Hebrew view of god differs somewhat from the general modern view; scripturally any powerful human , spirit or angel is called a "god". So yes, they believed in multiple "gods" (as do bible believing Christians - 1 Cor 8:5 ). As an ALMIGHTY GOD, Creator and supreme ruler of the universe, that designation belonged only to YHWH. When the Israelites were faithful to their Prophets and their scripture, they worshipped only that One.

Exodus 23:24

You must not bow down to their gods or be persuaded to serve them ...

1 KINGS 18:20

Then Elijah approached all the people and said: “How long will you be limping between two different opinions? If Jehovah is the true God, follow him; but if Baʹal is, follow him!”

EXODUS 12:12

... I will execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah

DEUTERONOMY 10:17

For Jehovah your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God great, mighty, and awe-inspiring ...

JOHN 10: 34, 35

Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—

ISAIAH 9

For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace

CONCLUSION The bible calls various spirit beings (as well as powerful humans) "gods" but presents one unique Almighty Creator who alone is worthy of worship. Whether one calls such a belief system monothestic, monolatristic or any other classification is less important than understanding that divine law mandates the worship of only the One Almighty Creator Jehovah (YHWH).



NOTE The Mosaic Law predates the rule of King Josiah by many centuries so it is arguably inaccurate to say "The Israelites became strictly monotheistic by the late 6th century BC". Since they had periods were they obeyed their law and since their scripture recognises the existence of many "gods", it might arguably be more accurate to say : The Israelites finally (after centuries of deviations and reorientatikn, returned to pure worship (in line with their scripture) after their Babylonian exile that excluded the worship of any god but YHWH (Jehovah).





RELATED POSTS

In what sense was Jehovah(YHWH) "alone" during creation? [Isaiah 44]
viewtopic.php?p=1118798#p1118798

How was Jesus, God's "Masterworker" in Creation?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p864013

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

Who is the speaker if Revelation 22:12 "FIRST AND LAST"?

Onewithim
viewtopic.php?p=864572#p864572
tigger2
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 58#p993258

Who is the first and the last?
viewtopic.php?p=1112353#p111235

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[Scholar]

Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #94]
First of all, we need to get our nomenclature straight. You refer to the Beatitudes as replacing Mosaic law, but I don't see them as commandments at all but more like prophecies. Are we talking about the same set of verses? The Beatitudes are Matthew 5:3-13 and Luke 6:20-22. Luke also has four "woes" at 6:24-26. The Beatitudes are generally in the form:

Blessed are the x,
For they shall be y,

where "x" is a group of people and "y" is the happy condition they will enjoy in the future. For example,

Matthew 5:4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

The Beatitudes (and the "woes") refer to the end of days when God takes over and lifts up the downtrodden, and puts down the powerful. Matthew 23:11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.

So I'm guessing you are referring to a different set of verses, such as Matthew 5:21-48. These verses might be seen as replacing Mosaic laws. They have the form:

You have heard [a law is cited],
But I say to you [Jesus tightens the law, makes it even more strict than before]. For example,

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus takes the commandment not to commit adultery, and points out that even to feel lust is in some sense as bad as adultery. So the law is not replaced, you still aren't supposed to commit adultery, but you aren't even supposed to get ideas in looking at an attractive person. Jesus' "fulfillment" of the law is pretty difficult to achieve! (But Jesus has a "solution"! Verse 29: If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Very helpful, no?)

So I would actually agree with the Christians here, who say that while Jesus was not replacing the law, but Jesus' "fulfillment" of the law sometimes makes them practically impossible to obey. Still, it's not a contraction to the OT, it's an extension.

Dismissing the Sabbath and Temple as less important than Jesus was?

Now here I know the verses that you are referring to. In all three synoptic gospels, Jesus refers to himself as "Lord of the Sabbath." Mark 2:27Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”A discussion of the points you refer to is in Matthew 12:1-13. Jesus is making the point that there are practical things that must be taken care of, even on the sabbath. 11He said to them, “Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”

Jesus does say, "Matthew 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But that doesn't mean that the temple is not important to Jesus. Remember how he turned over the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. My point here is that even while Jesus is going beyond what the OT says the messiah is supposed to say, Jesus doesn't seem to be contradicting the OT, such as saying that the OT laws must be replaced. He is emphasizing priority. This is what the story of David eating the showbread (KJV "shewbread") is supposed to demonstrate. David was hungry and in need, so it was OK for him to break the law by eating the showbread . Just so, the disciples were hungry and needed to pluck corn on the Sabbath. Once again, an extension of the OT laws not a replacement.

But what about all the importance Jesus places on himself, as if to eclipse the Mosaic laws and the Temple? Jesus places a greater importance on himself as messiah than the OT does, especially in the Gospel of John, where he makes all the "I am" statements. John 14:6 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." And other statements, such as: "Before Abraham was, I am". "I am the light of the world". And in John, of course, it is stated that in the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God (apologies to the unitarians among us). So in the Gospel of John, Jesus clearly steps outside the prophetic boundaries of what the messiah was supposed to be, and I would agree that the Jesus of the gospel of John is incompatible with the description of the messiah in the OT.

In conclusion, in my humble opinion, Jesus in the synoptic gospels places a lot of importance on himself, more than expected from the OT prophesies, but stays within the prophetic expectations of the OT messiah. He interprets the Mosaic laws in such a way as to make them more strict and difficult (as well as making them easier in times of need), but his intent is not to replace the laws, they are still in force. However, the gospel of John clearly is incompatible with the OT in regard to the stature of the messiah.

[Scholar]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #95]
Curiously, in this email you simply confirm what I've been saying. Early on, the Hebrews were monolatrous and later on strictly monotheistic. You quote the Jewish Encyclopedia to make the point that they were initially monolatrous. But you fail to quote the Encyclopedia when it points out that later they became strictly monotheistic.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... monotheism:

****
The doctrine of absolute monotheism is preached in the most emphatic manner by Jeremiah (x. 10; xiv. 22; xxiii. 36; xxxii. 18, 27) and the Deuteronomist(iv. 35, 39), but the Biblical teaching on the subject may be said to have culminated in Isaiah of Babylon. Yhwh, though in a peculiar sense the God of Israel, is still the God of all the world. This prophet's standpoint is uncompromising: "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior" (xliii. 11); "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" (xliv. 6, xlviii. 12); "that they may know from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof that there is none besides me; I am God and there is none else" (xlv. 6, Hebr.).
****

Do these verses sound familiar? I've quoted the ones in Isaiah many times as an obvious declaration of monotheism, and the Jewish Encyclopedia agrees. Everyone, not just the Jews, understood the meaning of those unambiguous sentences. Jewish writings after this time repeat the strict monotheism. It's only centuries later, that the Jehovah's Witnesses come up with a different meaning to support their theology.

NOTE The Mosaic Law predates the rule of King Josiah by many centuries so it is arguably inaccurate to say "The Israelites became strictly monotheistic by the late 6th century BC". Since they had periods were they obeyed their law and since their scripture recognises the existence of many "gods", it might arguably be more accurate to say : The Israelites finally (after centuries of deviations and reorientatikn, returned to pure worship (in line with their scripture) after their Babylonian exile that excluded the worship of any god but YHWH (Jehovah).

Just because the Hebrews had scriptures that mentioned other gods does not mean that after the monotheistic verses were included that they interpreted the former scriptures as meaning that those other gods existed. They did not and do not consider their scriptures inconsistent! Most of the earlier scriptures are admonitions not to worship those gods, which they could do even if the god(s) didn't exist: They are not to practice idolatry. But the main point is that after the inclusion of the monotheistic scriptures, the official doctrine of the Jews did not and does not include the existence of other gods besides YHWH. Also there are no Hebrew scriptures in which a god other than YHWH is said to exist or even does anything. It is accurate to say that the Hebrews became strictly monotheistic by the late 6th century and still are today, except for those that depart from official doctrine.

The Jews are proud of their strict monotheism. To quote from the same link in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

****
...in such liturgical poems as the "Adon 'Olam" ("He is One and there is no second, to compare to Him or associate with Him") and the "Yigdal" ("He is One and there is no unity like His unity. . . . His unity is unending").

The profession of the unity is the climax of the devotion of the greatest of the holy days, the Day of Atonement. At death it is the last word to fall from the Jew's lips and from the lips of the bystanders. This has been Judaism's great contribution to the religious thought of mankind...
****

However the Jehovah's Witnesses want to deny "Judaism's great contribution to the religious thought of mankind".

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus, nor Paul are against the law. They only set it in right context.

I have to agree, in fact Jesus came to fulfill the law. The thing is the Jews had strayed from the spirit of the law... Jesus helped the people see the true purpose of the law.


JW

[MatijaSever]

Both parts of the Scriptures are coherent, since the Christ was the Messiah predicted to Moses, and first followers of Christ were Jews.

The promises to the Christians came from the same God of the Jews, and Jesus was/is His Son.

Welcome to the forum! It's great to see new members joining us. It sounds like you have a good understanding of the relationship between the Scriptures and the Messiah. I'm sure the other members of this forum would be excited to learn more about your insights.