Is the Christian God the same as the Jewish God?

[Redemptionsong]

But that is not what he said. He wrote that Jews call God "Our Father, Our King" - both the Father of grace and the King of judgement. Two sides of the same coin. Together, it forms justice. Grace when needed, judgement when needed.

Whilst both Jews and Christians acknowledge the unchanging nature of God, the covenants under which people live determine the relationship on offer.

Can a Jew living under the Law genuinely call his God 'Father'? I don't think so.

The Apostle Paul wrote, 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.'

A Jew living under the Law is expected to do all that is written in the Law. Blessing and cursing are dependent on obedience. This is the life of a servant.

In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul writes, 'But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ'.

The special relationship of a son to his father is highlighted in John's Gospel. Given what is written below, it seems very unlikely that Jews would ever have referred to God as their 'Father'.

John 5:18. 'Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God'.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Well, as a monotheist one cannot really say its a different God because that would make it polytheism. Your post is really good and I appreciate your thought, which I recently raised in a post about the Marcion Heresy which arose simply because of the same question you asked. Marcion came to the same conclusion as you according to some church elders who wrote about him. He had the same question, and had the same conclusion based on the same premises.

Nevertheless, why should it be two God's but instead, why not the same God, the one and only God, yet two projections of sociological inference?

There is only one God, the singular, but people project their own needs into the picture of God, thus the pictures of the Tanakh and the Christian God are quite different. Its human projection, not that its two Gods.

 

[stvdv]

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

Is the Christian God the same as the Jewish God?

IF you believe there is only 1 God, then the Christian God must be the same as the Jewish God.
Both have not yet materialized in the twentieth century (to my knowledge), so it's a belief anyway.

 

[Kenny]

And this would mean implicitly (at least) that any Jews who don't see it like that don't understand their own texts.

No. Like other scriptures where Jews disagree and talk about it, for who can know the mind of YHWH, it remains a point of discussion. For, if you are saying you are right, are you saying that the other Jews don't understand their own texts?

#110

Acts 17:
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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?

Yes. God (Father) of Jesus is also God of mercy and justice.

 

[rosends]

No. Like other scriptures where Jews disagree and talk about it, for who can know the mind of YHWH, it remains a point of discussion. For, if you are saying you are right, are you saying that the other Jews don't understand their own texts?

#110

Acts 17:
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If a Jew were to come to me and say "The Book of Ruth" is about Babe Ruth, I would, indeed, say "You don't understand your own text." When a non-Jew comes to me and says "It is about Babe Ruth, because one Jew said so and therefore EVERY OTHER JEW in history is wrong" I would say "Sorry, you backed the wrong horse on that one."

 

[eik]

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.​

Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth...."

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."​

Nothing in Christianity to say that God's continuing love is unconditional.

2 Tim 2:12 "if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us;"​

God's gifts and redemption are unconditional, but only appropriated on condition of repentance.

Your Jewish teachers badly misread the New Testament.

​

 

[Scarecrow13]

No, because they describe God in ways that are mutually exclusive. God cannot be both trinitarian and non-tirinitarian.

 

[Kenny]

If a Jew were to come to me and say "The Book of Ruth" is about Babe Ruth, I would, indeed, say "You don't understand your own text." When a non-Jew comes to me and says "It is about Babe Ruth, because one Jew said so and therefore EVERY OTHER JEW in history is wrong" I would say "Sorry, you backed the wrong horse on that one."

I fail to see the analogy since basically, if applied, you are saying there is no Messiah - not to mention you are basically saying whatever you say must be true.

 

[rosends]

I fail to see the analogy since basically, if applied, you are saying there is no Messiah - not to mention you are basically saying whatever you say must be true.

I don't recall saying that there is no messiah. In fact, Jewish understanding of Jewish texts from before Jesus was born already had established the idea of many messiahs.

And what I'm basically saying is that Jewish tradition from before the advent of Christianity, during that time and since then is what is true and deciding that a divergent reading negates all of that is the problem.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, because they describe God in ways that are mutually exclusive. God cannot be both trinitarian and non-tirinitarian.

This is off topic.

In OP it was written: "Setting aside the question of whether or not the Christian deity has a triune nature or if Jesus is god."

 

[CG Didymus]

If there is a claim in Islam that Isaac wasn't offered but Ishmael was, then the claim is that the God character performed an action IN AN EARLER TEXT that the other culture says wasn't performed. This means that the two are talking about 2 different actors (ignoring claims that either text is not authoritative, as each is for its culture).

By the way, I've looked this up and it seems the Koran itself does NOT claim Ishmael was the son Abraham offered in sacrifice, though it is apparently true a lot of Muslim tradition has subsequently suggested this (Al Tabari disagrees).

Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia
@Rival @rosends too - it seems the Ishmael and Isaac switcheroo is in the Quran...

Look again.


Surah 39:

• 83. Of his kind was Abraham.
  84. When he came to his Lord with a sound heart.
  85. He said to his father and his people, “What are you worshiping?
  86. Is it falsified gods, instead of Allah, that you want?
  87. So what is your opinion about the Lord of the Worlds?”
  88. Then he took a glance at the stars.
  89. And said, “I am sick.”
  90. But they turned their backs on him, and went away.
  91. Then he turned to their gods, and said, “will you not eat?
  92. What is it with you, that you do not speak?”
  93. Then he turned on them, striking with his right hand.
  94. And they came running towards him.
  95. He said, “Do you worship what you carve?
  96. When Allah created you, and what you manufacture?”
  97. They said, “Build a pyre for him, and throw him into the furnace.”
  98. They wished him ill, but We made them the losers.
  99. He said, “I am going towards my Lord, and He will guide me.”
  100. “My Lord, give me one of the righteous.”
  101. So We gave him good news of a clement boy.
  102. Then, when he was old enough to accompany him, he said, “O My son, I see in a dream that I am sacrificing you; see what you think.” He said, “O my Father, do as you are commanded; you will find me, Allah willing, one of the steadfast.”
  103. Then, when they had submitted, and he put his forehead down.
  104. We called out to him, “O Abraham!
  105. You have fulfilled the vision.” Thus We re-ward the doers of good.
  106. This was certainly an evident test.
  107. And We redeemed him with a great sacrifice.
  108. And We left with him for later generations.
  109. Peace be upon Abraham.
  110. Thus We reward the doers of good.
  111. He was one of Our believing servants.
  112. And We gave him good news of Isaac, a prophet, one of the righteous.
  113. And We blessed him, and Isaac. But among their descendants are some who are righteous, and some who are clearly unjust to themselves.

(a) Verse 101. Birth of Ishmael
(b) Verses 102-108. Sacrifice of Ishmael, which does not name Ishmael.
(c) Verse 112. Birth of Isaac.

Baha'is support the idea that it was Ishmael also.

A particular story associated with Abraham is that of the near-sacrifice of His son. Abraham's first-born son was Ishmael, born of Hagar. His second son was Isaac, born of the lady who was actually His first wife, Sarah. The Jewish Scriptures record that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac, the son through which they trace their own line of descent. The Arabs believe that it was Ishmael, the first-born, who was to be sacrificed, and this is confirmed by both Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh.​

 

[Kenny]

I don't recall saying that there is no messiah. In fact, Jewish understanding of Jewish texts from before Jesus was born already had established the idea of many messiahs.

I was just applying your analogy. obviously a flawed analogy.

And what I'm basically saying is that Jewish tradition from before the advent of Christianity, during that time and since then is what is true and deciding that a divergent reading negates all of that is the problem.

And what I am saying is that Christianity wasn't started by Gentiles but by the Jewish people and it was shared in Synagogues throughout the known world. (Some accepted and some didn't).

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

The priests were Jewish.

In other words, there are different viewpoints within the Jewish nation. (Of course we know that since there are atheists, progressives, Hassidic, et all types of beliefs including Messianic jews within the Jewish populace)

You can't say that each one is telling the other "Are you telling me what my scriptures say?"

 

[Scarecrow13]

This is off topic.

In OP it was written: "Setting aside the question of whether or not the Christian deity has a triune nature or if Jesus is god."

You can't set aside that question because it is fundamental to the nature of God. You can't say "I know bob he has long brown hair" and yo say "yea I know Bob, he is bald". Clearly we are talking about different Bobs.

 

[Harel13]

To all RFers who replied recently: I've been very busy with the start of the semester and will get to your replies hopefully over the next few days.

A general statement to all who pointed out that there is an aspect of judgement and divine vengeance in Christianity: True, very true. I don't have a fully-formed answer yet. I feel, however, that regardless, the main driving force of Christianity is the belief in an all-encompassing loving god, i.e. love is nevertheless the main concept, with regards to the judgmental aspect.

 

[Harel13]

Well, as a monotheist one cannot really say its a different God because that would make it polytheism. Your post is really good and I appreciate your thought, which I recently raised in a post about the Marcion Heresy which arose simply because of the same question you asked. Marcion came to the same conclusion as you according to some church elders who wrote about him. He had the same question, and had the same conclusion based on the same premises.

Nevertheless, why should it be two God's but instead, why not the same God, the one and only God, yet two projections of sociological inference?

There is only one God, the singular, but people project their own needs into the picture of God, thus the pictures of the Tanakh and the Christian God are quite different. Its human projection, not that its two Gods.

I see this is something that a number of people misunderstood about my OP. Let me try to explain differently. It was not my intention to suggest that there are literally two different deities. Rather, that there are two different images of God, or at least, of how God runs the world and appears to mankind - and only one can be a correct, considering the two images have inherent contradictions between the two. My belief is that the Christian view is sociological and doesn't truly reflect how God runs the world. But prior to that, I'm attempting to separate the Christian view from the Jewish view, hence my OP. Hopefully that makes more sense.

BTW, yes, I saw your thread on Marcion. It tied in well with something I had read recently about the Gnostics in an old book I found, in that Gnosticism is a combination of Persian dualism and the Greek god and demiurge concepts.

 

[Harel13]

Your Jewish teachers

Heh. Professor Klausner died several decades ago. He's far from being "my" "Jewish teacher". I recently found some of his books and that section on Jesusian belief impressed me. According to the internet, he wrote extensively on Jesus. I have a feeling he would have known to explain his own position better than I. As for my own attempt to defend the position, I'll do my best when I'll be able to formulate a proper answer.

 

[metis]

Rather, that there are two different images of God, or at least, of how God runs the world and appears to mankind - and only one can be a correct, considering the two images have inherent contradictions between the two.

If either of them is correct, right? Even within Judaism there have been and still are differences of opinion on such matters.

IMO, any of us who may claim to have some sort of lock on the exact nature of God (or Gods) and His/Their "ways" are pretty much "out to lunch". And also imo, it's not a sign of ignorance to admit "I don't know".

Now I'm outta here for the rest of the weekend as the posse is forming.

 

[Harel13]

Even within Judaism there have been and still are differences of opinion on such matters.

Not really...Avinu Malkeinu is a pretty consistent view.

IMO, any of us who may claim to have some sort of lock on the exact nature of God (or Gods) and His/Their "ways" are pretty much "out to lunch". And also imo, it's not a sign of ignorance to admit "I don't know".

Is this another extension of your skepticism?

Anywho, people greater than I have spoken about and taught of God's nature and God's ways. Of course, it's clear that man will never grasp His nature completely - but it's possible to understand a general sense of His ways in the world.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I feel, however, that regardless, the main driving force of Christianity is the belief in an all-encompassing loving god, i.e. love is nevertheless the main concept, with regards to the judgmental aspect.

You may be right. But isn't the Jewish view essentially the same? Chesed is the right hand (stronger) and gevurah is the left hand:

"The main purpose of God's deeds is kindness. Thus chesed is the stronger and more dominant of the two sefirot."

Kabbala #12: Chesed and Gevurah: The Two Sided Approach