Is God of the NT different than God of the OT?

Yup, and that includes some Christians.So far I have never seen ANY passage in the Old Testament that I felt refered to Jesus or to any events after about 200 AD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Funny, you just quoted me saying, "I am not taking a position here," and still you assume I am taking a position. Talking in your sleep?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

joshua smote the canaanites. jesus smote the devil. have you not read the bible yet? you should really get around to that.

---

possibly during the second coming, sure. but zechariah 9 refers to complete world peace (the verse after the donkey business). which just has not happened. christ rode into jerusalem on a donkey, sure, but he has not conquered the planet and forced everyone to lay down their bows.

---

Nope, Zech 12:10 is not talking about a 'pierced messiah' at all. While Jewish sources do think it is a messanic passage, the interpretion is that if even one person of Israel is killed in battle on that day, they will be astonished (see Sukkah 52A for the talmud explaintion.). The hebrew is ambious, but it should be read in context of the previous verses also. Christians seem to have problems doing that with the Tanakh.

Ringo,You speak in general terms about the Jews as if to suggest they all have one collective view of God in the Old Testament.But as far as I can tell, Jesus was a Jew. Paul, Peter, James, John, and the rest of them were Jews. You might want to associate these Jews with the New Testament; but remember they were all very much part of the OT until the time when Jesus arrived.The four gospels, for the most part represent a period of transition between the OT and the NT. Those who were “on board” got saved and made the transition. Those who were “not on board” likely stayed in “neutral” or participated in persecuting Jesus.But even if you go further back into the OT, you have to be fair and ask yourself if all the Jews saw things equally. For example, why did Moses hide his face with a veil in Exodus 34:33? Apparently it was because he saw the glory associated with his ministry, the ministry of condemnation, was going to be done away with (1 Cor. 3:13). At the time of this transition, which can still be considered OT times, many apposed the doing away of the ministry of condemnation. These were those without faith, who knowing the scriptures spoke of the coming Messiah, yet apposed that very Messiah’s ministry of grace when He arrived.So I wonder, did all the Jews during Moses’ time understand this? If they didn’t see things as Moses saw them, then why didn’t they? This is a relevant question because not only did the Jews persecute Jesus, who was challenging their established religion, Judaism; but their fathers persecuted and murdered the prophets.As Jesus said “woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build up the graves of the prophets and adorn the tombs of the righteous, and say, if we had been there in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. So then you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. And you, fill up the measure of your fathers.”The Lord seems to be quoting Daniel 8:23 which says, “And in the latter times of their kingdom, when the transgressors have filled up their transgressions, A king will arise, of fierce countenance and skilled ambiguities.” Wow! The OT speaks of a coming king.So why didn’t all the Jews understand this word spoken by Daniel? Why didn’t they recognize that Jesus was the King? Is it coincidence the descendents of those who persecuted and murdered the prophets also persecuted and murdered Jesus despite the fact that Daniel alluded not only to the coming of Jesus, but to the persecution and murder of Jesus as well?Why, when Herod asked the chief priests and scribes of the people “Where the Christ was to be born”, they were able to tell him “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written through the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, by no means are you the least among the princes of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a Ruler, One who will shepherd my people Israel.” (Matt. 2:4-6; Micah 5:2). Here the chief priests and scribes of Jesus times even knew precisely where the Ruler spoken about in Dan. 8:23 was going to be born. Yet when the Magi arrived seeking this king, why were they not interested in seeing him? Despite any reason justifying their disbelief, all questions or doubts are removed by his arrival being heralded by the Angels in Luke 2:10-11. So it is very possible that some Jews did know that Jesus was the Messiah. Even the priest in Luke chapter one knew that Mary's baby was going to be the Messiah. Magi from the East knew it, shepherds tending their sheep knew it, and even a priest knew it. There were plenty of Jews in the OT who knew Messiah was coming and many Jews during Jesus' time knew Jesus was the Messiah. Add to this the numerous miracles He performed and even those who did not see the angels or understand the scripture are without excuse. Peter saw the Lord transfigured on the mount of transfiguration speaking with both Moses and Elijah in Matt. 17:3. Surely Moses and Elijah knew he was the Christ of God. Even today, in the hundreds of years since the New Covenant was initiated, many Jews have recieved Christ as their Savior.So you can't say categorically that OT Jews saw a different God than Christians today, many of whom are Jews, see in the NT.If you simply desire to entertain the importance of those unbelieving Jews’ viewpoints, why should we do that? They didn’t have faith. They persecuted and murdered the prophets. So what can they say concerning God that will be true? What can they teach us knowing they searched the scripture because they thought that in the scriptures they could find life, but when the Messiah came they would not go to Him (John 5:39)?I don’t see the point of you asking this question about viewpoints when the real question seems more a matter related to faith than simply considering an alternate view. Anythig that does not originate from faith is rejected by God. Does the alternate view really matter, then, if the end of that view is the lake of fire? For the Jews who did believe their viewpoint was influenced by faith and God had mercy in that He revealed His Son to them at the appointed time. Those who did not believe, though the scriptures were clear, received nothing from God; otherwise, they would have sought the Lord and not murdered him.While the OT saints may not have called the coming Messiah by the name Jesus, they knew such a one was coming. They didn't call the coming Messiah Jesus. They called Him God. And when He did come, they knew Him not because they were exercised in their mind to know the scripture; but because they had faith. Those without faith, though they knew the scriptures, still could not receive the Lord who proved beyond doubt that He was the Messiah, even the very God Himself.So God in the OT is the same as the God in the NT. But of course, if you give credit to those who do not have faith, who also persecuted and murdered the prophets, who had descendents who persecuted and murdered Jesus, then of course you can say that God in the OT is different than God in the NT (if you consider the viewpoints of those who persecuted and murdered both the prophets and Jesus). But you would be entertaining the thoughts of those who are apposed to God, those who persecuted and murdered the prophets through whom God spoke concerning His coming to usher in the ministry of grace, which replaced the ministry of condemnation, which those without faith loved more (i.e. Moses) and tried so hard to keep that they were even willing to murder the very One, God Himself, who came to save them. But they would not believe and so they perished. And their viewpoint is perishing with them.I have to agree with those who like speaking about faith when discussing this issue. This issue is very relevant.

itore,You can reply to a specific post/poster by clicking the little green reply button in the lower right-hand corner of the post (instead of the general reply button at the top). Not at all. I speak in general terms because I am not qualified to speak in specific terms. We have at least two contributors to this very thread who know far more about the Jewish position(s) than I do.I also speak in general terms because the point I am trying to make is that the "Jewish position" in general is different from the "Christian position" in general. Timing is irrelevant. Those Jews are "associated" with the New Testament because they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. That puts them outside the general "Jewish position". I have never said that they did.Think of a Venn diagram: every Jew is a circle and every Christian is a circle. All of the Jews overlap with some other Jews and all of the Christians overlap with some other Christians. The Jewish "mass" overlaps somewhat with the Christian "mass".I have never said that all Jews are one circle. You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking, "Why didn't all the Jews understand it in the same way?You're making the same mistake that jaywill and mjfloresta make: assuming that your understanding/viewpoint is "correct" and that anybody who doesn't agree is "not on board", or "in neutral".All I have been trying to do in this thread is to point out that your viewpoint is not the carved-in-stone absolute truth. By insisting that it is, you are emphasizing the difference between the New Testament view and the Old Testament view. And of course I have never said that.The question of this topic would seem to be: Do the obvious differences in VIEWS of the NT and OT God reflect real differences in those Gods?By banging on about your viewpoint and your viewpoint only, you have done nothing to address that question.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's what the topic seems to be to YOU; I happen to have the same view of the NT and OT God - so therefore I have no real differences to reflect upon.Edited by mjfloresta, : wrong quote

Ramoss, I will be interested in what you, Ramoss, believe, though it is interesting that you point out some other reader's interpretation.It seems certain that Zech 12:10 is talking about a pierced God. The speaker is God. The chapter opens with "The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel, Thus declares Jehovah, ..." (12:1)The looking upon God the Speaker Whom they have pierced is assiociated with God the Speaker pouring out on the house of David a Spirit of grace for their repentence and supplication. The looking upon God Whom they have pierced is associated with mourning and regret."And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced; and they will wail over Him with wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son"If you want to talk about context, the closest sentences are not related to doing battle but with the gracious Spirit of supplication and the bitter regret and wailing over the pierced God.Granted, verse 9 does talk about God destroying the nations who come against Jerusalem. But then one must ask "Why then is there wailing and regret rather than great rejoicing in relief?"The military aspect in verse 9, I agree is close by. But closer is the Spirit induced supplications and wailings of the Jews over the matter of the pierced Speaker God. Him they wail bitterly over as over a only son.Some additional observations:1.) Since God cannot die by being pierced why should they mourn? God cannot be killed. The Speaker is God. It is not likely that the passage means that God has been pierced to death and they are mourning and wailing over their dead God.2.) The wailing and mourning is something not altogether of themselves. They need the Spirit of grace from God to be poured out upon them. The implication is that without God's intervention they never might be sorry for what has happened. Would divine intervention be needed to cause the Jews to mourn their national soldiers? That they should mourn that thier kinsmen are fallen in battle should be quite a normal reaction.3.) If the people are astonished that thier own soldiers have been wounded or died in battle, why is there the need for the pouring out of God's gracious Spirit to cause them to realize this? Such astonishment at the casualties of warfare should be quite a normal reaction. I don't see why there would be the need for God to induce regret by pouring out the Spirit of grace and supplication.4.) Verse 8 says that God will impower even the most feeble of the house of David - "In that day Jehovah will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of Jehovah"If the pierced God in verse 10 somehow represents the soldiers of the Jews then this would amount to the Jews turning against their own soldiers - "... and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced". Are you saying that the Jews will grab the soldiers of the house of David and wound them? Why will they attack their own soldiers who are there to defend the city?5.) If there is a great deliverance of the city of Jerusalem then why instead of great rejoicing would their be great wailing?"In that day there will be great wailing in Jerusalem, like the wailing of Hadad-rimmom in the valley of Megeddon" (v.11)There should be great rejoicing and exaltation that the city has been delivered. There should be joy. But God says that there will be great wailing.So the question I have is what could be worst than having Jerusalem and its inhabitants wiped out by thier enemies? What could cause such wailing in the midst of such national deliverance?I would submit that in spite of the deliverance of Jerusalem there is some realization of something which causes the victory to be bitter sweet. Something in spite of the deliverance has ironically caused the inhabitants to weep. The previous verses says that they look upon thier God Whom they have pierced and weep for Him as for an only son.Now, God won't die. And even if that was the case it would be somewhat innappropriate to refer to God as their only son. If the pierced God is God it would make more sense to say they wept for Him as a slain father. But as it is the pierced one is like a son to them. He is like a firstborn son. That means a preeminent son. That means a son occupying a place of highest honor.He is a kinsman. He must be a Jew, a son of Israel. God may be Father to Israel. I don't think He is ever refered to as the son to Israel. Except He is the given Son and Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.Context argues strongly for God incarnate as a Jew. Context argues for God pierced as a man. And context argues that in spite of great national victory the irony of centries of rejection of the pierced Savior as thier real national son and "firstborn" leads to encredible mourning and repentence even in the face of national deliverance.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Then I guess you've told us everything you know on the subject. Your answer is, "No. There is no difference." Fine. We get that.Do you mind if the rest of us continue the discussion?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What discussion? I present my "viewpoint", and present the textual evidence for it, and all you say is "there are other viewpoints"...Great!! we've even heard one or two, now let's examine them and see what they're worth...except you won't present them for examination...they're just "there"...so what kind of discussion do you want to continue?

Ringo,Using my words, are you? It seems to me you're the only one that hasn't gotten started yet. You've been spending a whole lot of energy in trying to set ground rules.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

As I've been trying to say, it isn't about seeing what the different viewpoints are "worth". It isn't about deciding which flavour of ice cream is the "correct" one.It's about comparing them and trying to understand whether or not the differences are important.For example, Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God - Jews do not. That is a significant difference in viewpoint.The point of this discussion is not to determine which viewpoint is "right" and which one is "wrong". It's to determine whether or not it makes any difference.Suppose for a moment that Jesus was not the Son of God. What difference would that make in your understanding of God?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sorry, I didn't realize you owned the English language. Where do I send the royalty cheques? I'm not trying to set any rules. I'm trying to explain to you what the topic is.I'll ask you the same question I asked mjfloresta: If Jesus was not the Son of God - i.e. if the Jews are "right" and Christians are "wrong" - how would that effect your understanding of God?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Royalty Cheques, my dear fellow, is NOT the topic here.