Comparing O.T. verses with the New.

[placebofactor]

To prove positively who Jesus Christ is, I will compare Old Testament verses with New Testament verses. They give evidence that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament and that He is the one spoken of by the prophets.

Jesus said to his disciples, in Luke 24:44-45, "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning ME. Then opened He their understanding."

I will substitute the word "Jehovah" for "LORD" because it is acknowledged by scholars worldwide to be the correct rendering wherever the latter is printed in all upper-case.

Let’s begin with Isaiah 43:3, "For I am Jehovah thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior." Compare with,
2 Peter 3:18, "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This epithet descriptive of Christ in the N.T. is borrowed from the O.T. Peter states that Jesus is our Savior, and Isaiah states that Jehovah is the Savior.

Zechariah 12:10, "I (Jehovah) will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn." Compare with John 19:34, "The soldiers with a spear pierced His (Christ's) side."
John 19:38, "And again another Scripture saith, they shall look on Him (Christ) whom they have pierced." with
Revelation 1:7, "He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also (the Jews) which pierced Him."

Zechariah states that it is Jehovah who is pierced, and we know it was Jesus who had been pierced by the Roman soldier.
Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am Jehovah: and besides me there is no Savior." Compare with,
Acts 4:12, "For there is none other name (Jesus) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."
Isaiah said there is no other Savior but Jehovah. Acts states that Jesus is our Savior.

Psalms 16:8, "I have set Jehovah always before me; because He is always at my right hand, I shall not be moved." Compare with,
Acts 2:25. "For David speaks concerning Him (Jesus), I foresaw the LORD always before my face; He is on my right hand, that I should not be moved."
Peter applies his quotation from David directly to Christ as the one spoken of. David speaks of Jehovah; Peter applies it to Christ.

Isaiah 40:3, "The voice of him (John the Baptist) that cries in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Compare with,
Matthew 3:3, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, the voice of one (John) crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jesus,)" make His paths straight."
Isaiah said the person crying in the wilderness was preparing the way for Jehovah. Matthew is saying that John the Baptist was the voice in the wilderness who was preparing the way for Jesus.

Isaiah 6:9-10, "Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not, make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert and be healed." Compare with,
John 12:40 describes the works of Jesus and says the people believed not. Verse 40, quoting Isaiah, and what Isaiah saw, was the glory of Christ, and spoke of Christ when he said, Isaiah 6:5, "Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."
The conclusions are unavoidable. Jesus is the King, Jehovah of Hosts.

Exodus 17:2, "Moses said unto them, wherefore do ye tempt Jehovah. Compare with,
Psalms 28:56, "They tempted and provoked the Most High God."
1 Corinthians 10:9, "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.”
The same historical facts are being alluded to here. Both Moses and David said the Israelites tempted Jehovah. Paul stated that it was Christ they had tempted.

[1213]

...Yes, God could forgive sin, and he did, but before Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, no man could be saved from eternal damnation, neither could any man be raised from the dead to eternal life. Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection were necessary to fulfill,...

Sorry, I don't think there is any scripture that says death was necessary for that. Jesus said that the necessary thing is that one is righteous and born anew:

“Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Isra-el. After those days,” says the Lord; “I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know me, from their least to their greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.
Heb. 8:10-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

[placebofactor]

Why are you doing this, when Jesus says there is only one true God who is greater than Him and that without Father he could do nothing?

Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.
Mark 12:29-30
How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17
the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does like-wise.
John 5:19
For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.
John 12:49-50

1213, Thanks for your response. Every verse you quoted falls within the time frame when the Lord Jesus made Himself lower than the angels and became a man. Of course, he said all these things you quoted in John because he stepped down from heaven, left behind all his glory, his authority, and power to become a man so that he could communicate with us.

Philippians 2:7, "Jesus "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion (appearance) as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

What Jesus did for us was of his own free will. He emptied himself; he left behind his glory, and he took on the form of a servant. In doing this, he made himself lower than the angels and became a man. As the Son of God, in all his glory, he could not have shed his precious blood, and without the shedding of blood, there would have been no remission of sin for mankind, no salvation. the O.T. predicted the coming of a Savior, and the N.T. told us who that Savior was, Jesus Christ.

Because of his GREAT sacrifice, Verse 10, "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow," Every man, women and child will acknowledge Jesus Christ as the author of our salvation. And every tongue (will) confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." We will bow now before him, or those who do not will when they come before the Judgment seat of Christ.

My advice: do it now!

Everything you posted aligns with what 1213 posted. Jesus became obedient. To whom? If he was God he wouldn't have to be obedient to anyone else. He said he could do nothing of his own volition, and this would include anything he did before he came to the earth, and everything AFTER he was on the earth. He had obeyed the Father, God, who gave him more of a place than he had previously because he obeyed even to the point of death. (Phil. 2:9) It was after he returned to heaven that Paul said: "The head of the Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) Jesus was the same previously, on any given day, and from henceforth. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8, KJV) He didn't give up any power or authority while on the earth, and yet he relied on the Father, God, for everything, though he was God's Son.

Everyone I know has bended their knees to Jesus as King of God's Kingdom. We know him as our Savior and the obedient one to God throughout his life on earth (and before and after).

When the Scriptures were written, to bow down to anyone was to worship that person. You can change its meaning today, but back 2000 years ago, it meant to worship. One more thing. Because the Father calls his Son God, Jesus is God. To deny the Father's words concerning his beloved Son is blasphemy.

Read the following very carefully: The Father said of his Son, "Your throne, O God is for ever and ever." This is quoted directly from Psalms 45:6-7, "Thy throne, O God (Elohim) is for ever and ever:" The Father declares his Son as Elohim. Now, if you want to deny the Father's authority to declare his Son to be God manifest in the flesh, that's on you and those who teach against this truth. This one verse alone should convince you, but obviously, it doesn't.

There are accounts where a person bowed down to an army officer of high rank or a governor or a king. This was just to show respect. The man wasn't necessarily worshipping those high ranking people as God Almighty.
Hebrews 1:8 does not say, in the original verses in Psalm 45 (that the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly carefully copied) "Your throne O God." Nope. The verse in the Tanakh says something else. It says: "Your divine throne is everlasting." Then in the next verse it shows that the Messiah has a God. It says, "...Rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with the oil of gladness over all your peers." Nowhere in there does the Father refer to His Son as "God." Your twisting of those verses doesn't convince me or any thinking person that the Father called His Son "God." Did you read this carefully?

Here's the problem: whenever a disagreement comes along concerning Christ's deity, the first thing Universalist, Arianism and Socinianism claim, "The Bible has it wrong!"
No, the Bible from cover to cover has it right; people have it wrong. My appeal is always to reason: What most Universalists do not understand is that the Father sent His Son, (Elohim) to create the heavens and the earth. The Son's name is Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament. He is the God of all he created because all things were created by him and for him. Therefore, he is our God and our Savior. All this was done to and for the glory of the Father in heaven whom no man has seen.

Isaiah 48:16, Jehovah is speaking we know this because in verse 12:
"Come you near unto me, hear you this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God (the Father), and his Spirit (the Holy Spirit) have sent me. Thus said the LORD, thy Redeemer (Jesus), the Holy One of Israel:" Until this is understood, Arianism believers will never get it!

[Difflugia]

There are accounts where a person bowed down to an army officer of high rank or a governor or a king. This was just to show respect. The man wasn't necessarily worshipping those high ranking people as God Almighty.

First, what do you mean by "accounts?" Are you referring to the New Testament? After all, what you're ultimately trying to defend is the NWT's dubious translation of proskuneo as alternately worship or do obeisance depending on the target. There aren't that many occurrences of the word in the New Testament, so I just looked at them all. Of sixty total, all but one refer to people proskuneo-ing God the Father, Jesus, or Satan in some guise. The only one that refers to anyone else is Matthew 18:26, which is a parable of the unforgiving slave, in which the frightened slave proskuneo-s his owner. More about that momentarily.

Second, even if you're right about there being such accounts *somewhere*, I don't think that helps you. The whole idea of offering worship of God Almighty is that he is sovereign in exact analogy to an earthly king. Bowing "just to show respect," as you put it, is exactly what worship to a sovereign means. God the Father is lord and Jesus is lord. In the temptation narrative, Satan wanted to be lord. In Revelation, Satan was lord of the people rebelling against God. In the parable of the unforgiving slave, the slave's owner had unchallenged authority over the slave in a direct metaphor for the authority of God. Worship means worship. The attempt to separate different kinds of worship based on the target of worship is question-begging.

Hebrews 1:8 does not say, in the original verses in Psalm 45 (that the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly carefully copied) "Your throne O God." Nope.

The "original verses" in Psalm 45 were in Hebrew. The author of Hebrews copied a Greek translation. Both the Hebrew and Greek, however, are ambiguous in exactly the same way. Kind of like the picture that's either a duck or a rabbit, it both does and doesn't say, "Your throne, O God."

The verse in the Tanakh says something else. It says: "Your divine throne is everlasting."

What you're calling "the Tanakh" is a particular English translation. In general, "the Tanakh" refers to the Hebrew Old Testament. Any modern translation of the Old Testament is just as much "the Tanakh" as the one you keep quoting. If you're going to differentiate, then some old Catholic translations are derived from the Old Greek, but the irony is that the Old Greek is what the author of Hebrews quoted.

It doesn't matter, though. Both the Hebrew and Old Greek versions of that Psalm can either be a duck or rabbit depending on how you look at them.

Then in the next verse it shows that the Messiah has a God. It says, "...Rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with the oil of gladness over all your peers." Nowhere in there does the Father refer to His Son as "God."

Again, you're begging the question.

Something that I find funny about this is that Martin Luther was an early champion of the Hebrew Old Testament being authoritative over the Greek or Latin translations. When he translated the Bible himself, he translated the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic instead of Greek, Latin, or any other intermediary. Here's how he translated the Hebrew of Psalm 45:7:



In English, that means, "God, your chair stands always and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an authentic scepter."

Here's how he translated the Greek of Hebrews 1:8:



"But about the son: 'God, your throne is true from eternity to eternity,' and: 'the scepter of your righteousness is your kingdom's scepter.'"

This shows us two things. First, Martin Luther translated the Hebrew and Greek more-or-less independently. Second, he thought that both languages intended the statements to be vocatively addressed to "God."

[onewithhim]

There are accounts where a person bowed down to an army officer of high rank or a governor or a king. This was just to show respect. The man wasn't necessarily worshipping those high ranking people as God Almighty.

First, what do you mean by "accounts?" Are you referring to the New Testament? After all, what you're ultimately trying to defend is the NWT's dubious translation of proskuneo as alternately worship or do obeisance depending on the target. There aren't that many occurrences of the word in the New Testament, so I just looked at them all. Of sixty total, all but one refer to people proskuneo-ing God the Father, Jesus, or Satan in some guise. The only one that refers to anyone else is Matthew 18:26, which is a parable of the unforgiving slave, in which the frightened slave proskuneo-s his owner. More about that momentarily.

Second, even if you're right about there being such accounts *somewhere*, I don't think that helps you. The whole idea of offering worship of God Almighty is that he is sovereign in exact analogy to an earthly king. Bowing "just to show respect," as you put it, is exactly what worship to a sovereign means. God the Father is lord and Jesus is lord. In the temptation narrative, Satan wanted to be lord. In Revelation, Satan was lord of the people rebelling against God. In the parable of the unforgiving slave, the slave's owner had unchallenged authority over the slave in a direct metaphor for the authority of God. Worship means worship. The attempt to separate different kinds of worship based on the target of worship is question-begging.

Hebrews 1:8 does not say, in the original verses in Psalm 45 (that the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly carefully copied) "Your throne O God." Nope.

The "original verses" in Psalm 45 were in Hebrew. The author of Hebrews copied a Greek translation. Both the Hebrew and Greek, however, are ambiguous in exactly the same way. Kind of like the picture that's either a duck or a rabbit, it both does and doesn't say, "Your throne, O God."

The verse in the Tanakh says something else. It says: "Your divine throne is everlasting."

What you're calling "the Tanakh" is a particular English translation. In general, "the Tanakh" refers to the Hebrew Old Testament. Any modern translation of the Old Testament is just as much "the Tanakh" as the one you keep quoting. If you're going to differentiate, then some old Catholic translations are derived from the Old Greek, but the irony is that the Old Greek is what the author of Hebrews quoted.

It doesn't matter, though. Both the Hebrew and Old Greek versions of that Psalm can either be a duck or rabbit depending on how you look at them.

Then in the next verse it shows that the Messiah has a God. It says, "...Rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with the oil of gladness over all your peers." Nowhere in there does the Father refer to His Son as "God."

Again, you're begging the question.

Something that I find funny about this is that Martin Luther was an early champion of the Hebrew Old Testament being authoritative over the Greek or Latin translations. When he translated the Bible himself, he translated the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic instead of Greek, Latin, or any other intermediary. Here's how he translated the Hebrew of Psalm 45:7:



In English, that means, "God, your chair stands always and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an authentic scepter."

Here's how he translated the Greek of Hebrews 1:8:



"But about the son: 'God, your throne is true from eternity to eternity,' and: 'the scepter of your righteousness is your kingdom's scepter.'"

This shows us two things. First, Martin Luther translated the Hebrew and Greek more-or-less independently. Second, he thought that both languages intended the statements to be vocatively addressed to "God."

I render it this way: "To the Son: God is your throne forever and ever." Luther unfortunately twisted the verse and added punctuation where there needn't be any. That comma after "God" causes one to think the verse is referring to the Son as being God, but take the comma away and there is an entirely different explanation. (He actually was departing from pure Christian truth toward the end of his life. I have read other things he wrote and he was wrong in the light of true Bible doctrine.)

[1213]

...the Bible from cover to cover has it right....

I agree with that.

...the Father sent His Son, (Elohim) to create the heavens and the earth. The Son's name is Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament...

If Jesus is Jehovah, who is the second Lord in this:

“How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord [Jehovah] said to my Lord [Adonai], sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
Matt. 22:41-45 (Ps. 110:1)

...He is the God of all he created because all things were created by him and for him....

I think it would be more honest to say, was created through him.

For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col. 1:14-16

[Difflugia]

I render it this way: "To the Son: God is your throne forever and ever." Luther unfortunately twisted the verse and added punctuation where there needn't be any. That comma after "God" causes one to think the verse is referring to the Son as being God, but take the comma away and there is an entirely different explanation. (He actually was departing from pure Christian truth toward the end of his life. I have read other things he wrote and he was wrong in the light of true Bible doctrine.)

This doesn't address anything in my response to you. You just repeated your claim and added that Martin Luther's theology wasn't Christian enough for you.

[placebofactor]

...the Bible from cover to cover has it right....

I agree with that.

...the Father sent His Son, (Elohim) to create the heavens and the earth. The Son's name is Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament...

If Jesus is Jehovah, who is the second Lord in this:

“How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord [Jehovah] said to my Lord [Adonai], sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
Matt. 22:41-45 (Ps. 110:1)

...He is the God of all he created because all things were created by him and for him....

I think it would be more honest to say, was created through him.

For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col. 1:14-16

You wrote two things I don't understand.

1. All things were created in him." What the heck does "in him" mean?

Then you wrote, "was created through him." Please explain what you mean by through him. I can run through a field, but the field has nothing to do with my running. I can throw a spear through a target; the target has nothing to do with me throwing the spear. So, how do you create through someone else? It makes no sense.

If I owned a piece of property, and my name was Sam, and I financed the building of the house, then I contract the whole project out to a builder named Joe. Joe draws the blueprints, goes to the property, lays the foundation, builds the walls, the roof, insulates the home, drywalls it, puts in the electrical and plumbing, finishes the baths, the kitchen, and the cabinets, etc. Then, some stranger comes to you and asks, "Who BUILT this lovely home?" Note, I said BUILT: Would you respond, "Sam built the house," or would you say, "Joe built the house." Or would you say, "Sam built the house through Joe?"

[1213]

...
For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col. 1:14-16

You wrote two things I don't understand.

1. All things were created in him." What the heck does "in him" mean?

Then you wrote, "was created through him."....

I believe created through means, God created by using Jesus in that.

But, the words "created in Him". I believe it is possible it means, everything is created in God, because:

For in Him we live and move and exist...
Acts 17:28

And actually, it may be that the Col. 1:16 is speaking about God, not about Jesus.

[onewithhim]

...the Bible from cover to cover has it right....

I agree with that.

...the Father sent His Son, (Elohim) to create the heavens and the earth. The Son's name is Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament...

If Jesus is Jehovah, who is the second Lord in this:

“How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord [Jehovah] said to my Lord [Adonai], sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
Matt. 22:41-45 (Ps. 110:1)

...He is the God of all he created because all things were created by him and for him....

I think it would be more honest to say, was created through him.

For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col. 1:14-16

Placebofactor didn't answer 1213's question: If Jesus is Jehovah, who is the second Lord in this (Psalm 110:1)?

[Difflugia]

Placebofactor didn't answer 1213's question: If Jesus is Jehovah, who is the second Lord in this (Psalm 110:1)?

And onewithhim didn't answer Difflugia's question. What Greek "accounts" treat proskuneo as meaning different things depending on the target?