Is the Christian God the same as the Jewish God?

[Harel13]

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is explicitly God. Jews may reject the idea of Trinity, but I don't think it matters much.

Nor is that what I'm asking.

The Muslims however are NOT worshipping the same god, so get that idea out of your head. They tell their followers not to associate with Jews and Christians (1), while ostensibly they name drop OT figures many of the details are wrong or miss the point of the original text (2), and while it is comforting to think that being People of the Book means the Muslims accept you, they extend this "award" to Hindus and Sikhs as well but it really involves tax payment (3).

Also not what I was asking...

But showing what isn't an example of the same God, shows us what is an example of the same God. The Jews, so far as I know, treat Christians mostly the same aside from seeing them as Gentile. They don't treat them as third-class citizens, they allow them to live and worship in their country.

Well...not really.... I'll quote myself from a different post: What is the driving factor of God in this world: is it grace or justice? If we throw the two options on your example, they don't contradict one another. Justice isn't evil, it's doing what's right. Grace is is a flow of kindness - but is different from justice in that the kindness given may be undeserved but still given. Either way, both can translate into being nice to one another - but what about our views of God? That's a different question.

 

[Windwalker]

So per the Gospels only, supposedly the teachings Jesus taught during his lifetime - as opposed to the later books of the NT, which include teachings of other Christians and revelations of ascended Jesus - would you say that Jesus spoke only of this "distributive justice"?

The gospels are actually later books, certainly later than Paul's authentic writings (excluding of course the pseudo-Pauline epistles written in the 2nd century). Looking at the gospels only, they too show these competing images. Crossan details how the different gospel authors changed what other said to make it more one way versus the other.

The thing about the gospels is that they are a patchwork of different traditions, coming from different regions of Israel under different tensions under Roman rule. So a more violent Jesus, or John the Baptist will be expressed, certainly rhetorically violent anyway. And the parts from other areas less under stress, you have the gentler kinder Jesus expressed.

I think to answer the question, was Jesus violent or non-violent, I think you'd have to try to see it from the historical perspective. Taking that Jesus was crucified, and none of his followers were rounded up and executed along with him, this demonstrates that Jesus lead a non-violent resistance movement against Rome. At least that is how the Romans saw him, as for violent resistance movements, they rounded up and killed the leader and all the followers. For non-violent movements, they only executed the leader, and the sheep would scatter - as what happened in the gospel narratives.

You can see that same sort of pattern in the OT books as well, in their own ways. Different voices appear, contradicting and challenging each other. All of these are the products of generations of humans trying to relate to God, through the filters of their own worldviews and experiences. It's human, yet inspired by the Divine. Inspired does not mean dictated, nor free of human biases.

 

[Harel13]

I think to answer the question, was Jesus violent or non-violent

That's not exactly my question. Whether Jesus was violent or not - that's another topic. What view Jesus had of God, or at least, what view he passed on to Christianity - that's the topic.

You can see that same sort of pattern in the OT books as well, in their own ways. Different voices appear, contradicting and challenging each other. All of these are the products of generations of humans trying to relate to God, through the filters of their own worldviews and experiences. It's human, yet inspired by the Divine. Inspired does not mean dictated, nor free of human biases.

Yet God's nature is knowable in your view?

 

[exchemist]

That that god incarnation is claimed to have done something that the god incarnation of Judaism simply didn't do. So while the underlying god-image is the same (shared characteristics) they can't be the same entity (different actions).

Interesting, but I don't know enough t be able to follow this without further explanation. I wasn't aware there was a god incarnation in either Judaism or Islam. Can you explain what this is?

 

[BilliardsBall]

While I was raised knowing that the spread of Christianity helped popularize the notion of Monotheism, more recently I've wondered whether the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. Setting aside the question of whether or not the Christian deity has a triune nature or if Jesus is god - if we only look at "God the Father" - is he the same as the Jewish God? I personally vote no, for one main reason, better stated than I could ever by Professor Joseph Klausner in his book Historia Yisraelit (Israelite History), Vol. 3 (with my rough translation into English):

"Jesus came and changed, unknowingly, the God of absolute justice with the god of absolute grace. [One] must love the evil men and the good men, the righteous and the vile, in the same manner and quality, for "your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45). And so sinners and those that don't sin, evil men and good men, wicked ones and righteous ones are equal in their worth before the divinity - and where is the justice? Where is the God of judgment? And if God is merely the God of goodness and grace and love and is not the God of justice and judgment and honesty, then he is not the God of history also. Judaism, whose whole greatness and majesty is - which her God is the God of history ("I am the first and I am the last"), couldn't accept and won't accept this sort of worldview.​

The sinner, that does not repent (for if he does repent, once more he isn't a wicked one, but a completely righteous man and even more - Brachot 34b, Sanhedrin 99a), he confuses the world, he destroys the order of the moral world, and through that - also the order of the natural world. If "the earth is filled with lawlessness" - the "flood" shall come and wipe out the "entire universe" and will break the laws of earth and heaven. In the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, there are all sorts of good and moral attributes: "mighty in compassion, merciful and gracious; slow to anger and plenteous in kindness and truth; doing kindness unto thousands; forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" - but also "yet He does not remit all punishment". The Jew says to his God: "Our Father, our King" in the same breath: He - is not just "the Father of mercy" but also "King of judgement" - God of the society, God of the nationality, God of the history. Jesus' concept of divinity, his God of grace and unconditional love, is too exalted for the individual moral
consciousness. For the general consciousness, the social, national and universal, that which for her "the history of the world is the judgement-day of the world", this concept of divinity is destruction and ruin. Judaism, which is essentially socially-nationalistic, could not accept such a concept in any sort of fashion."
​

Klausner goes on and explains further how Jesus' concept of divinity was emphasized in his various moral teachings, but as it's long, I'll leave it at that for now.

Side reasons to doubt that the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God include discrepancies between the Torah and the NT, which ties into points made, among other times and places, yesterday on RF: how can one accept that a text was given by a supreme divine entity, yet is greatly flawed, with regards to its predecessor-text?

That's my opinion. I wanted to start this thread to hear what others have to say on the matter.

In both testaments, God is capable of anger but shows great mercy and compassion. It's the same God, thank God!

 

[Windwalker]

That's not exactly my question. Whether Jesus was violent or not - that's another topic. What view Jesus had of God, or at least, what view he passed on to Christianity - that's the topic.

I believe Jesus taught a non-violent, distributive justice view of God. The God of Love. I believe "Love works no ill", is the heart of his teachings. "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets".

Yet God's nature is knowable in your view?

Yes, very much so. "Consider the lilies of the field," for instance. "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament shows his handiwork, day unto day utters speak, night unto night shows knowledge".

But at a far more personal level, I believe any sort of contemplative work, meditation, mysticism, etc, reveals the nature of God quite directly. And that is Love, which casts out all fear. The experiential knowledge of God, is one of Unconditional Love, not violence or fear. It is one of Grace, not vengeance.

 

[Rival]

I have my doubts, considering the Christian god:

- Impregnates virgins.
- Accepts human sacrifice.
- Changes his own mind and somehow nullifies an everlasting covenant that he made.

...among another discrepancies. I simply cannot see the G-d of the Tanakh ever accepting a human sacrifice and making betrothed/married women pregnant. Nor would I ever see Him nullifying His Own Law, that He said is eternal. He said Israel are His people and He is their G-d, but apparently the Christian god reneges on this too. IMO they're not even the same in any way.

 

[Muffled]

I believe there is only one God.

 

[Muffled]

Surely they are just somewhat differing perceptions of the nature of God, aren't they? It seems to me that no religion can reasonably claim to offer a perfect and complete description.

I believe the most accurate is when He describes Himself.

 

[exchemist]

I believe the most accurate is when He describes Himself.

How and to whom?

 

[Muffled]

I took a neat class in college called "The Idea of God" and as I understand it, Christianity and Judaism share a God, but have different ideas of what God is.

Judaism and Islam share an idea of God but have different Gods.

In Judaism and Christianity, God has different characteristics but the character is supposedly consistent - what happens in the Jewish texts is folded in to the action in the gospels. Islam and Judaism agree on the characteristics, but the actions are not the same -- Islam says that what happened in the earlier texts did not happen.

True, this last point can be attributed not to a change in the God object but in the writing, but I'm talking from Judaism's standpoint regarding the accuracy of the written text of the Torah.

I believe I am not familiar with any statements in the Qu'ran that say something didn't happen as the OT said it did. Of course Hadiths might but they are bogus anyway.

 

[Muffled]

How and to whom?

I believe that would be by word to prophets and apostles.

 

[exchemist]

I believe that would be by word to prophets and apostles.

As reported in scripture, presumably - we have no other way to learn what was, supposedly, conveyed.

But then you are back to the same problem: unreliable humanity making mistakes, or making things up.

 

[Muffled]

I agree.

• Admittedly, the myriad of different theologies of the strands of Christianity, IMO, challenges attempts to describe Christianity as a single "entity" with anything but the broadest of broad strokes, I personally think of three dominant strands: Trinitarian Christianity, and Non-trinitarian Christianity with the LDS (Mormons) and the JW divisions. The "God" of those three "strands", has/have far more differences to distinguish them from each other and from Islam's Allah than similarities to connect them to each other and to Islam's Allah.
• To wit:
  • IMO, one has to close one eye and cover the other to find Trinitarian Christianity's Holy Spirit in Islam.
  • The Trinitarian Jesus and Islam's Jesus are barely similar in anything more than "name" and far from close copies to all but the most obtuse of observers.
  • God the Father, in whom "we live, move, and have our being", might be said to have the closest correspondence to Allah, if we ignore the fact that Allah seems to have an aversion to being called "a Father".
  • LDS Christianity's "Gods", IMO, are the least similar to Allah.
  • Baiting JWs and Muslims into a compare-and-contrast discussion re: Jehovah God and Allah might be fun.

I don't believe it is that oblique. I believe there are those who close both eyes and say He isn't there.

I believe the Qu'ran is not meant to replace the NT but simply to elucidate on some things that are not well understood but then the Muslims and Christians didn't understand the Qu'ran either.

 

[Muffled]

As reported in scripture, presumably - we have no other way to learn what was, supposedly, conveyed.

But then you are back to the same problem: unreliable humanity making mistakes, or making things up.

I believe that is possible but the fact that the word of God is considered holy by men, mitigates against the idea that they would mess with it. I also think consistency lends credence to the word that God speaks.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know. He appears to have dedicated a lot of his research to Jesus. I only have a small portion. What exactly would a difference entail? In Judaism, both of those covenants are part of the whole of Judaism.

Yes... but did the Mosaic Law apply to the Gentiles?

Was it the greatest sin?

It's my view. Not saying I'm correct. God knows, I don't.

But man was judged, and punished accordingly. All who took part in the sin were.

Were they? Was Abraham punished for lying to King Abimelech?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That's my opinion. I wanted to start this thread to hear what others have to say on the matter.

I think maybe the new testament represents an interaction between ancient deities, and one of them is probably yours. Jesus on the other hand, might possibly be the old and wizened shapeshifter odin, who seems to be projecting qualities that seem unexpected. The manner of his death, the use of 3 and 9, and the conspicuous retention of the word 'god,' all are clues. The use of the father metaphor, and perhaps changing the religion to where matryology is a value, are clues as well. The two gods either were in competition, or cut some kind of a deal

 

[exchemist]

I believe that is possible but the fact that the word of God is considered holy by men, mitigates against the idea that they would mess with it. I also think consistency lends credence to the word that God speaks.

They say they consider it holy, but we only have their word for it. And, as we know, ancient stories tend to be like fisherman's tales: they grow with the telling.

I'm not by any means trying to rubbish scripture, but as someone with a science background and some experience of human nature after 66 years of life, I think we are naive if we take everything at face value without reservation, that's all. Human beings are very imperfect creatures.

 

[Kenny]

Well that's not true - and I think the mere fact that we disagree on what repentance was like prior, during and post Jesus's time, strengthens the argument that there are vast differences between the two entities. Justice means doing what is right, always. In some cases, that might be to allow repentance. In others, there's a need for a physical wiping-of-the-slate-doomsday-type-event. Any grace that is given comes because that is the right thing to do, not because God sees us as paralyzed hopeless creatures and he sighs and says: Okay, here's another chance, even though you don't deserve it. What is the driving factor in how God runs the world? Is it through grace or through justice? I argue that if God is driven by his graciousness, that's not the Jewish God.

I'm not sure - why not both?

Isaiah 5:1 Now will I sing to my well beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. 3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. 4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

I think God was full of graces for Israel.

Ps 365 Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.
Psalm 103:10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

Not that there isn't judgment but simply mercy rejoices over judgment as Jewish James said and is demonstrated again and again in the TaNaKh

Yet, at the end, there is a judgment - so God hasn't thrown out the judgment as well as judgment as many of this world attack Israel at Armageddon

 

[Redemptionsong]

While I was raised knowing that the spread of Christianity helped popularize the notion of Monotheism, more recently I've wondered whether the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. Setting aside the question of whether or not the Christian deity has a triune nature or if Jesus is god - if we only look at "God the Father" - is he the same as the Jewish God? I personally vote no, for one main reason, better stated than I could ever by Professor Joseph Klausner in his book Historia Yisraelit (Israelite History), Vol. 3 (with my rough translation into English):

"Jesus came and changed, unknowingly, the God of absolute justice with the god of absolute grace. [One] must love the evil men and the good men, the righteous and the vile, in the same manner and quality, for "your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45). And so sinners and those that don't sin, evil men and good men, wicked ones and righteous ones are equal in their worth before the divinity - and where is the justice? Where is the God of judgment? And if God is merely the God of goodness and grace and love and is not the God of justice and judgment and honesty, then he is not the God of history also. Judaism, whose whole greatness and majesty is - which her God is the God of history ("I am the first and I am the last"), couldn't accept and won't accept this sort of worldview.​

The sinner, that does not repent (for if he does repent, once more he isn't a wicked one, but a completely righteous man and even more - Brachot 34b, Sanhedrin 99a), he confuses the world, he destroys the order of the moral world, and through that - also the order of the natural world. If "the earth is filled with lawlessness" - the "flood" shall come and wipe out the "entire universe" and will break the laws of earth and heaven. In the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, there are all sorts of good and moral attributes: "mighty in compassion, merciful and gracious; slow to anger and plenteous in kindness and truth; doing kindness unto thousands; forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" - but also "yet He does not remit all punishment". The Jew says to his God: "Our Father, our King" in the same breath: He - is not just "the Father of mercy" but also "King of judgement" - God of the society, God of the nationality, God of the history. Jesus' concept of divinity, his God of grace and unconditional love, is too exalted for the individual moral
consciousness. For the general consciousness, the social, national and universal, that which for her "the history of the world is the judgement-day of the world", this concept of divinity is destruction and ruin. Judaism, which is essentially socially-nationalistic, could not accept such a concept in any sort of fashion."
​

Klausner goes on and explains further how Jesus' concept of divinity was emphasized in his various moral teachings, but as it's long, I'll leave it at that for now.

Side reasons to doubt that the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God include discrepancies between the Torah and the NT, which ties into points made, among other times and places, yesterday on RF: how can one accept that a text was given by a supreme divine entity, yet is greatly flawed, with regards to its predecessor-text?

That's my opinion. I wanted to start this thread to hear what others have to say on the matter.

The scriptures not only provide an intellectual foundation for belief in God; they also provide a spiritual 'embrace'.

The God known to Jewry may have developed through a lifetime of conditioning under the Law, but the inspired Hebrew scriptures, when broadened to include the Prophets and Writings, provide us with a much richer tapestry than the one Klausner outlines above. In the Writings, such as the Song of Songs and the Psalms, we have a far more intimate and personal portrayal of the loving nature of God.

'A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.' [Song o S 1:13]

'As a hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.' [Psalm 42:1]

If the Law were the end of the matter, then we could all hold up our hands and say that vengeance was to be the end of us all. Both the Hebrew scriptures and Greek scriptures agree that all men are sinners, and all men are deserving of death. In fact, death is already our end; we all look for the intervention of a Saviour, God.

The point I'm making is that the Law, our self-righteous work of obedience, was never intended as an ideal for the individual. The Law was instituted to deal with sin and disobedience. God would like each one of us, like Abraham, to live by faith, in communion with Himself. But this is only possible if we share His Spirit; the Holy Spirit withdrawn from Adam and absent to the generations of Adam.

The Law does not save a person from death, it prepares them for life.