Does Jesus say he is Lord in the Old Testament

[islam4life]

I wanted to know if in the Old Testament Jesus ever called himself "The Son Of God" or lord.

if he didnt use those exact words how did christians come to that conclusion.

is the New testament different from the Old, and why?

what was the relationship between Jesus and god in the old testament?
(how did he refer to god, when he was explaining to his followers?)




ps::;) :) it would realy help me if anyone could expain any of these points to me.

[blp]

Jesus isn't in the Old Testament.

[muhsin]

Jesus isn't in the Old Testament.

Surprised!

Why?

[blp]

Because it was written before he was born.

The Old Testament is Jewish scripture. I don't know it well, but I believe it predicts the coming of a messiah.

Christians read the Old Testament as the story of everything that happened before the coming of Jesus, which is related in the New Testament. For them, these books are, as it were, Bible I and II.

The Jews are still waiting for the messiah, so they don't recognise the New Testament.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Perhaps because "Islam4life" is a Muslim, he sees the "Old Testament" as everything written before the Quran. Ever think of that, guys?

[Sarasvati21]

The Old Testament is filled with hundreds of prophecies regarding the coming of Christ, all of which he fulfills when he comes to earth in the New Testament.
The stories of the people in the Old Testament are used as examples of God's attributes. They are also used to encourage believers. It helps looking at those who made it into the scripture's faults and knowing that they still experienced God's love.

Throughout the entirety of the Bible, God is of three parts, referred to as the Trinity. These parts are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Son is Jesus, the Hold Ghost allows him his omnipresence, and the Father is his role in our lives. These parts act as one, and are never separated. Even when Jesus was on earth, he was still a part of God. Think of these parts as your right and left brains. They do different things, but are never divided, and they never act independently.

[togre]

Christians who believe that Jesus is truly God generally support this belief with the following passages:

Passages that call Jesus "God" or other divine names: 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Matthew 1:23; Luke 2:11; 2 Peter 1:17; John 3:16; John 20:28; Matthew 16:16

Passages that describe Jesus with characteristics which only God has (divine attributes): John1:2; Hebrews 13:8; Matthew 28:20; Matthew 28:18; John 21:17

Passages that show Jesus doing things only God can do (divine works): John 1:3; Hebrews 1:3; John2:1-11; Luke 5:17-26; Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 5:1-20; John 11:38-44; Matthew 28:6,7; Romans 1:4; Matthew 9:6; John 5:22


Finally what was the charge brought against Jesus that brought about his execution? (Read Mark 14:53-65 especially v 61-64) Jesus enemies understood that he claimed to be God. They did not believe this to be true, hence it was blasphemy and worthy of death.

[El Viejo]

Perhaps because "Islam4life" is a Muslim, he sees the "Old Testament" as everything written before the Quran. Ever think of that, guys?

The Bible was pretty much wrapped up by 400 AD, 200 years before The Prophet's sojourn, so the entire Bible is everything written before the Quran, not just the OT.

[aabbcc]

VERY simplificated, because I'm no authority in the field, and VERY in-brief, because I don't have enough time now.


I wanted to know if in the Old Testament Jesus ever called himself "The Son Of God" or lord.
The books referred to as OT were all written before the supposed time of the supposed historical figure of Jesus Christ, which let us not forget, might have been rather different from the character portrayed within NT. But this is irrelevant at this point - the only books dealing with him are NT.
OT deals with the concept of messiah and with prophecies concerning messiah. It does not deal specifically with Jesus Christ as he was unknown at this point of time, it is more about prophecies and speculations, which are at times vague, at times rather elaborated.


if he didnt use those exact words how did christians come to that conclusion.
Well, he did, in Greek version.
The problematic thing is that pretty much same wording is in other places found for other people in general; so the syntagme itself is not something exclusively literally true for Jesus in a way fundamentally different from that for other people.


is the New testament different from the Old, and why?
You can view testament as a sort of "deal".
So the "old deal" was between G-d and Jews (chosen nation, national religion, messaiah to come, etc), and the "new deal" was supposedly between G-d via Jesus and all people, with alterated doctrine and 'contents' of that deal (Christianity itself came with the story of how they were fulfilling expectations found in OT and Jewish theology, but from Jewish perspective, they were something completely different, irrelevant and false).


what was the relationship between Jesus and god in the old testament?
(how did he refer to god, when he was explaining to his followers?)
None.
In NT he says a plethora of things, though. ;) Mainly it is sort of "Father and I are one" (hence, and not only from here, the doctrine of Trinity, but it all depends on how literally you take it) thing, yet he acts as if they were separated entities (for example, he prays).
The problematic thing, though, is that at one point he says he didn't come to alter a single word of the Law (=Torah), but to fulfill it. And that Law says that under no circumstances G-d can be 'divided', messiah can be 'half G-d half human' and such nonsense. And the entire NT is filled with such stuff. Funny stuff to study, if one is interested in it.

One thing I love and appreciate about islam is the concept of G-d's oneness. Trinity is laughable, from the point of view of OT and any serious OT theology; so if Christianity wants to play being the sequel of OT, then accept there is no Trinity. Or just admit they are not sequel of OT.

[Mr. Vandemar]

The Bible was pretty much wrapped up by 400 AD, 200 years before The Prophet's sojourn, so the entire Bible is everything written before the Quran, not just the OT.

Well, there you go!

[Drkshadow03]

Some of you might find this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=b36ff8422a4e87fe&ex=1215576000&oref=slogin) interesting.

This blog post (http://seldomwrong.blogspot.com/2008/07/gabriels-revelation-actual-news-in.html)has a good discussion on all the possible implications.

[harrol]

I have read several statements here and I would like to refeply to a couple of them. No where in the Bible Old or New testament does it claim the flesh is God or a part of God. Theflesh is thelamb i.e. the sacrifice. Sin came in the flesh and God defeated sin through the flesh. Jehovah roughly means self-exitent Jesus roughly means Jehovah saves. When God brought us the means of salvation the name He gave us to refer to Him by changed. Notice I did not say that God changed. Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. From this my understanding is that the Messiah is God on earth not a part of God or a sliver of God but the mighty God. Our saviour will not be some mere prophet that is polluted by his own sin that is not good enough.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

There it states the fulness of the Godhead bodily the body is a tabernacle not God Very important to recognize the difference. You can not prove the Trinity using either the Old or the New Testament but you can prove that their is only One God and no He is not partitioned. As far as Jesus praying

Psalms 65:1 Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed.

2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.


My understanding is that all flesh must pray and God showed us the way that pleased Him. No man, woman or prophet could do it right so God came to us and should us what he wanted.

[aabbcc]

Welcome to LitNet, Harrol.


Jehovah roughly means self-exitent Jesus roughly means Jehovah saves. When God brought us the means of salvation the name He gave us to refer to Him by changed. Notice I did not say that God changed.
G-d revealed Himself to Israel by the name of JHWH.

The exact pronunciation of that name is questionable, due to the nature of the language. Speaking concretely, the issue lies in the fact that Hebrew is written using consonants and omissing vowels (even though, if we want to be precise, it is not exactly 100% like that, but getting into it would require digressing from the topic, and it is quite irrelevant as the written language still functions as abjad).
However, as Hebrew historically was dying as a spoken language - especially after 70 AD and the beginning of Jewish diaspora - and surviving, rather, as the language of liturgy and religious education, there appeared a system of diacritical signs, called niqqud, to represent vowels, in order for it to be easier to learn Hebrew, which was less and less mother tongue (till it eventually died out for centuries) and more and more 'learnt' language.

The reason I am telling you all these is that G-d's name, JHWH, did not get niqqud in accordance with its pronunciation. From the Jewish perspective, G-d's name is holy and is not to be pronounced. The niqqud written with JHWH were of the kind that remind the reader on that fact - therefore, most often the niqqud for "Adonai" (as G-d is referred to in prayers, meaning literally "the Lord") were written. From this fact emerged the misinterpretation of G-d's name as "Jehovah", when read with those niqqud. Religious Jews never utter G-d's name, He is either "HaShem" ["The Name"], either the already mentioned "Adonai", for the most time; and even if somebody wanted to pronounced G-d's name, he could not, given that nobody knows how to pronounce it any longer. Even in the time of Hebrew as spoken language before the diaspora, its pronunciation was avoided and discouraged.

Regarding the meaning of G-d's name, the only thing which is certain is that it is a form of a verb. The most often interpretation is that it means "I who am".
If you ask me, I cannot refraim from thinking that G-d, in revealing Himself to Israel, showed a sense of humour. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh is a perfect example of the importance of verbal aspect - it is not exactly coincidental that G-d is of imperfective rather than perfective aspect. And then comes Fromm who out of that fact brings a theory that, if only a 'finite' thing can be of perfective aspect and named, G-d cannot, so He is, essentially, a Nameless G-d. This is furthermore encouraged by the fact that G-d manifesting and continuing Himself throughout the history cannot be represented by sound (!), name or picture, and that the lack of G-d's name is in accordance with one of the main principles of judaism, abandoning of idolatry.


You can not prove the Trinity using either the Old or the New Testament but you can prove that their is only One God and no He is not partitioned.
Right. The main 'arguments' for the ridiculous concept of Trinity are so-called ruah HaShem from Genesis ("the spirit of G-d"), and Jesus' claim that he and Father are "one" (hen).


My understanding is that all flesh must pray and God showed us the way that pleased Him. No man, woman or prophet could do it right so God came to us and should us what he wanted.
If you say so. But why did then G-d give to Israel pretty elaborate explanations on how to serve Him, which were taken and put into practice very seriously, and are in fact kept till the present day?

[harrol]

The reason i believe God gave those elaborate ways of worship was to point to The Messiah and these ways of worship require trust and faith which pleases God when we act on faith. I am in no way a scholar so please take my explanations with that in mind. Back to the point Abraham was called the friend of God due to his trust/faith in God. Yet still the action of a mere man, woman or prophet can not atone for all of mankind's sins. A question for you now if man could do it on his own then why did Melchizedek come to Abraham?