Defending Jesus OT Style

[Guest]

A family member posted this statement: "You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion." After getting the conversation turned towards our Creator, he had this to say to me (coming from a pseudo "reform" Jewish background that knows very little about Jewish history or the Old Testament):

"Do not worship any other god than the one true God. All other gods are false gods. [this is B.C. and means that we must not try and portray God as human] Do not make idols or images in the form of God. An idol can be anything (or anyone) you worship by giving it more importance than God. If something (or someone) has your time, attention and affections, it has your worship. It could be an idol in your life. no offence, but that sounds a lot like worshiping Jesus to me... I sure wouldn't believe any human being in modern times who claimed that they were actually God, because "I" understand that that is beside the point; God is omniscient and omnipresent...I mean, so before Christ there was no God??? Honestly I am asking?!"

What are some ways you would defend the Gospel from an Old Testament viewpoint? How would you respond to these comments if this was a friend or family member? I have already given an initial response, but it would be great to get some new ideas   

I would suggest Dr Micheal Brown. A Messianic Jew, which has debated Rabbis on these subjects. There are several videos of these debates. He also has books he has written. From having watched a few of these debates, going to the old testament itself does not avail anything. Rather, going to their own historical Rabbinic teachings does. In order to deal with Judaism, it is necessary to understand what Judaism's historic teachers, and their understandings based upon talmud.

 

Just one example of  what Dr Brown brings to the discussion.

 

It is commonly thought that Jesus did not fulfill the Jewish expectations of Messiah, him having died. But this is not necessarily true. The Rabbis did teach on TWO Messiahs. The one a suffering Messiah, which dies in battle, and another conquering Messiah, which establishes the throne of David, and resurrects Messiah ben Joseph ( aka Messiah Ben Ephraim).

The suffering Messiah often referred to as Messiah ben Joseph, the conqeuring Messiah referred to as Messiah ben David. Therefore Jesus is one Messiah, with two comings. Not two Messiahs as Talmudic speculations have it.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Joline

[Sanh]

What are some ways you would defend the Gospel from an Old Testament viewpoint? How would you respond to these comments if this was a friend or family member? I have already given an initial response, but it would be great to get some new ideas   

 

The NT vs. the OT, do we really have to defend the gospel of Jesus in the NT against the OT accounts? Is the Lord God of the OT not the same Lord God of the NT? Since the Lord God in the OT is the only Savior, does this contradict the NT gospel in saying Jesus is the Savior of the World? Did Jesus become a man at a point in time or did Jesus dwelt the fullness of HIs Godhood to a man (through incarnation) at one point in time, which is which?

 

What was born of Mary was a man, a flesh like us and that man is not the Lord God and same is not in contradiction with the OT accounts on the statement "God is not man," we must keep this in our mind. What many bible readers always missed is the fact that the names Jesus together with Immanuel, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Counselor, Prince of Peace were decreed by God to be called to that son/man born of Mary. If we will carefully look at those names, no wonder that those names are the names of the Lord God of the OT, like Jesus as the Savior of the World. There is really one God but HIs names are not specifically one. The belief of the Jews that there is one God is true but they do err in saying the Jesus is a man. The son that came out from the womb of Mary then was just a vessel used by the Lord God in manifesting Himself in the that flesh so that the Lord God can sup and live with mankind during that time and that flesh/man is not a part of the Godhood of the Lord God. The name Jesus which is one of God's names was just linked to that man through the decree of God himself.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Sanh

[FreeinChrist]

Isaiah 48:16-17

16)  Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there Am I: and now the Lord GOD, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.

17)  Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Here in the OT we see Jesus speaking and see a picture of the Godhead/Trinity.

 

We no longer have a Jewish Temple and there is much debate other rather we will have one again or not.  But God promise to visit His Temple.

Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 3:1

If Jesus is our Lord and God this have been fulfilled; for even Isaiah mention the coming of John the Baptist and our LORD God Jesus Christ.

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Isaiah 40:3

Job speaks of a Daysman  that had to be both Divine and Human, so that He could bring man in harmony with God, Job 9:32-33; and we see that Jesus is the Mediator who is Man (I Timothy 2:5).  And we know that Jesus is God by the following words of Paul:

Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of One, but God is One.  Galatians 3:20

[Sanh]

Isaiah 48:16-17

16)  Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there Am I: and now the Lord GOD, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.

17)  Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Here in the OT we see Jesus speaking and see a picture of the Godhead/Trinity.

 

 

All we have in verses 16 and 17 is one Lord God but not Trinity, how did you come up to that conclusion of Godhead/Trinity?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Sanh

[FreeinChrist]

 

Isaiah 48:16-17

16)  Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there Am I: and now the Lord GOD, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.

17)  Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Here in the OT we see Jesus speaking and see a picture of the Godhead/Trinity.

 

 

All we have in verses 16 and 17 is one Lord God but not Trinity, how did you come up to that conclusion of Godhead/Trinity?

 

 

As I stated we see Jesus speaking in Verse 16 and 17; and He refers to The Father and the Holy Spirit in verse 16; them Himself in verse 17.  To say this is only God the Father speaking of Himself is really taking it out of contexts.

The NAS

16)  Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret.

From the time it took place, I was there.

And now the LORD GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.

17)  Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your G od, who teaches you to profit.

Who leads you in the way you should go.

Isaiah 48:16-17

 

We know it is Jesus speaking here for we see in John 8:58; He (Jesus) calls Himself the I Am.  Some version use other words but this can not be the case because the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for making Himself equal to God, John 8:59; 10:33.  The Father glorifies the Son in Psalms 2:7,12 and Proverbs 30:4.  

For we see at least two if not all three members in Genesis 18-19.

[Guest shiloh357]

A family member posted this statement: "You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion." After getting the conversation turned towards our Creator, he had this to say to me (coming from a pseudo "reform" Jewish background that knows very little about Jewish history or the Old Testament):

 

"Do not worship any other god than the one true God. All other gods are false gods. [this is B.C. and means that we must not try and portray God as human] Do not make idols or images in the form of God. An idol can be anything (or anyone) you worship by giving it more importance than God. If something (or someone) has your time, attention and affections, it has your worship. It could be an idol in your life. no offence, but that sounds a lot like worshiping Jesus to me... I sure wouldn't believe any human being in modern times who claimed that they were actually God, because "I" understand that that is beside the point; God is omniscient and omnipresent...I mean, so before Christ there was no God??? Honestly I am asking?!"

 

What are some ways you would defend the Gospel from an Old Testament viewpoint? How would you respond to these comments if this was a friend or family member? I have already given an initial response, but it would be great to get some new ideas   

If this person is a Reformed Jewish person, it is important to note that most Reformed Jewish people view the "Messiah" as a moral concept, not an actual person. So trying to defend Jesus as the Messiah from the OT is rather ineffective.

 

Modern Judaism doesn't really possess the concept of being a "sinner" per se.  Salvation for them, is corporate, not personal or individual.  The idea of needing to be saved from their sins is very foreign to the Jewish mind.  Modern Jewish thought stems more from the writings of the sages and less from the Bible itself.  In essence, the Bible means what the sages say it means.

 

What you need to do is keep on having a relationship with him and show him the love of God; be a living epistle, as Paul says and share Jesus with him as you are given opportunity. 

[Qnts2]

 

A family member posted this statement: "You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion." After getting the conversation turned towards our Creator, he had this to say to me (coming from a pseudo "reform" Jewish background that knows very little about Jewish history or the Old Testament):

"Do not worship any other god than the one true God. All other gods are false gods. [this is B.C. and means that we must not try and portray God as human] Do not make idols or images in the form of God. An idol can be anything (or anyone) you worship by giving it more importance than God. If something (or someone) has your time, attention and affections, it has your worship. It could be an idol in your life. no offence, but that sounds a lot like worshiping Jesus to me... I sure wouldn't believe any human being in modern times who claimed that they were actually God, because "I" understand that that is beside the point; God is omniscient and omnipresent...I mean, so before Christ there was no God??? Honestly I am asking?!"

What are some ways you would defend the Gospel from an Old Testament viewpoint? How would you respond to these comments if this was a friend or family member? I have already given an initial response, but it would be great to get some new ideas   

I would suggest Dr Micheal Brown. A Messianic Jew, which has debated Rabbis on these subjects. There are several videos of these debates. He also has books he has written. From having watched a few of these debates, going to the old testament itself does not avail anything. Rather, going to their own historical Rabbinic teachings does. In order to deal with Judaism, it is necessary to understand what Judaism's historic teachers, and their understandings based upon talmud.

 

Just one example of  what Dr Brown brings to the discussion.

 

It is commonly thought that Jesus did not fulfill the Jewish expectations of Messiah, him having died. But this is not necessarily true. The Rabbis did teach on TWO Messiahs. The one a suffering Messiah, which dies in battle, and another conquering Messiah, which establishes the throne of David, and resurrects Messiah ben Joseph ( aka Messiah Ben Ephraim).

The suffering Messiah often referred to as Messiah ben Joseph, the conqeuring Messiah referred to as Messiah ben David. Therefore Jesus is one Messiah, with two comings. Not two Messiahs as Talmudic speculations have it.

 

 

While the Jewish writings do have Rabbinical debates concerning the Messiah where various views are posted, very few Jewish people have heard of Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. That actually comes from mystical Judaism which is not known by probably 80% of all Jewish people.

 

Also probably only about 70% of the Jewish people have read the Talmud, which is the first book outside of the OT which is studied.

 

While I respect Michael Brown and often recommend him, sometimes his views are geared more towards Rabbis and anti-missionaries, and his books provide a wide range of information, it is not necessarily useful in all witnessing situations. 

 

The NT is actually written by Jewish people from a Jewish view. Since the NT is a testimony of Who Jesus is and what He did, it must be used when witnessing, and then perhaps go back to the OT/Tenakh if there are questions as to the differences.  Generally, almost no Jewish people or extremely few have ever read the NT, so know extremely little about Jesus. 

[Qnts2]

 

What are some ways you would defend the Gospel from an Old Testament viewpoint? How would you respond to these comments if this was a friend or family member? I have already given an initial response, but it would be great to get some new ideas   

 

The NT vs. the OT, do we really have to defend the gospel of Jesus in the NT against the OT accounts? Is the Lord God of the OT not the same Lord God of the NT? Since the Lord God in the OT is the only Savior, does this contradict the NT gospel in saying Jesus is the Savior of the World? Did Jesus become a man at a point in time or did Jesus dwelt the fullness of HIs Godhood to a man (through incarnation) at one point in time, which is which?

 

What was born of Mary was a man, a flesh like us and that man is not the Lord God and same is not in contradiction with the OT accounts on the statement "God is not man," we must keep this in our mind. What many bible readers always missed is the fact that the names Jesus together with Immanuel, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Counselor, Prince of Peace were decreed by God to be called to that son/man born of Mary. If we will carefully look at those names, no wonder that those names are the names of the Lord God of the OT, like Jesus as the Savior of the World. There is really one God but HIs names are not specifically one. The belief of the Jews that there is one God is true but they do err in saying the Jesus is a man. The son that came out from the womb of Mary then was just a vessel used by the Lord God in manifesting Himself in the that flesh so that the Lord God can sup and live with mankind during that time and that flesh/man is not a part of the Godhood of the Lord God. The name Jesus which is one of God's names was just linked to that man through the decree of God himself.

 

 

Yes, you do have to defend the NT against the OT. If the OT is the words of God which came first, and the NT latter, then if the NT contradicts the OT, it is not the words of God. This is from the stand point of knowing the OT is from God, but not knowing about the NT.

 

The statement 'God is not man' is incomplete. It says God is not man that He should lie. To cut it short is to cut off the actual meaning and intent of the verse.     

[Sanh]

 

As I stated we see Jesus speaking in Verse 16 and 17; and He refers to The Father and the Holy Spirit in verse 16; them Himself in verse 17.  To say this is only God the Father speaking of Himself is really taking it out of contexts.

The NAS

16)  Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret.

From the time it took place, I was there.

And now the LORD GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.

17)  Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your G od, who teaches you to profit.

Who leads you in the way you should go.

Isaiah 48:16-17

 

We know it is Jesus speaking here for we see in John 8:58; He (Jesus) calls Himself the I Am.  Some version use other words but this can not be the case because the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for making Himself equal to God, John 8:59; 10:33.  The Father glorifies the Son in Psalms 2:7,12 and Proverbs 30:4.  

For we see at least two if not all three members in Genesis 18-19.

 

In verse 16, "Me" refers to the flesh born out of Mary, that son/man was the one sent to the world by the Lord God and to that same son/man dwelt the Spirit of the Lord God. The son which Mary brought forth is not a part of Godhood of the Lord God because it is just a flesh like us and same is through the power of the HS. That man said "the I Am" because the fullness of the Lord God dwelt in him during that time and "the I Am" refers to the Lord God whose Spirit is inside that son/man. There are only two beings involved in the incarnation of the Lord God, the man brought forth by Mary and the Lord God himself, the previous is not part of Godhood since God is only one.

 

On the other hand, the word Jesus is one of the names of the Lord God and same is just attached to the man brought forth by Mary upon God's decree to his prophets.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Sanh

[Sanh]

 

Yes, you do have to defend the NT against the OT. If the OT is the words of God which came first, and the NT latter, then if the NT contradicts the OT, it is not the words of God. This is from the stand point of knowing the OT is from God, but not knowing about the NT.

 

The statement 'God is not man' is incomplete. It says God is not man that He should lie. To cut it short is to cut off the actual meaning and intent of the verse.     

 

 

How can you defend the NT when you are not a witness to the things that transpired during those times? Kindly ignore the second one about God is not man since my only point there is the statement "God is spirit."