Three Gods

[ContraMundum]

Hi ContraMundum,

Thank you for your eloquent defence of our faith- I particularly liked these comments:

Thanks. It's hard, thankless and frustrating work but someone's gotta do it from time to time.

Humility is so important.

Matthew 23:

12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

and of course, the other good advice is from Proverbs 3:

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

We all need to remember that- because it's very easy to sound haughty in writing when we have firm beliefs and strong convictions about them.

The truth is, without God's grace, which is so awesome words cannot describe it, we would never have zeal to witness for His word.

[ContraMundum]

Humble? Like Martin Luther or John Calvin?

While I wouldn't defend either of those two here in this thread (and probably not elsewhere), they did on occasion show great humility. The fact is, if you spend decades of your life writing tirelessly every day and every word is preserved, people will find all kinds of things to make judgements on about you in your works.

[Colabomb]

Humble? Like Martin Luther or John Calvin?

Ooh, the old fashioned "you agree with a jerk, therefore you are a jerk, and are thus wrong" argument.

Internet debate at its finest.

[ContraMundum]

Here's a fun, informative film clip, done by a Messianic Jew explaining the Trinity.

Dr. Michael Brown, doctor of ancient near Eastern languages. (http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3b0204a2c0e1988aafe7) Enjoy.

[Servant of Jesus]

Ooh, the old fashioned "you agree with a jerk, therefore you are a jerk, and are thus wrong" argument.

Internet debate at its finest.
And, of course, the next step is to question someone's faith and, voila, Satan has won again!

[Steve Petersen]

Ooh, the old fashioned "you agree with a jerk, therefore you are a jerk, and are thus wrong" argument.

Internet debate at its finest.

So you think Luther and Calvin are jerks?:scratch:

[Servant of Jesus]

So you think Luther and Calvin are jerks?:scratch:
I don't- only human, and therefore imperfect.

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Better read up a bit- a number of Muslim and Jewish Scholars admit that the Trinity understood properly is monotheism- even if they disagree with it.
That is called appeasement. The trinity understood properly is G-d the father, G-d the son, and G-d the holy spirit, that does not make one G-d.


The HUGE problem you have is this: you have to admit you may be wrong, but won't.
I could say the same for yourself. (by the way, this discussion is not about me)

Here's a question for you: where is the foundation of Truth according to the Bible? In your personal convictions or elsewhere?
The foundation for truth is in the Torah, Torah=Emet. There is no trinity in the Torah.

This is getting ridiculous. The Shema proves that God is echad. The Trinity teaches that God is echad. Great Trinitarian proof text.
Echad means one and only one, not three. There is no G-d the father along with G-d the son. G-d is the Father.

Could you tell me what YOU think "The Trinity" means, because you're obviously terribly misinformed here.
I believe the trinity means whatever it means to the Christians or any other religion that has trinities. I did quote several Christian sources though, which you did not read.

but we do believe that the Torah teaches something obviously you don't believe- that HaShem has gradually revealed more and more to mankind over time. Moshe knew more about the Law than did Abraham, and so forth. HaShem did not command a Tabernacle to be built from the start, nor did He institute a system of priests and sacrifices until Moshe. Likewise, the Prophets taught us more and more about God, His will, His plan and His love for us over the centuries that followed Moshe. In other words, the Torah first, then the Tanach, and finally the New Testament all teach a progression of revelation (divine self-disclosure).
The progressive revelation which G-d gave to the Jewish people was not about the nature of G-d, but about G-d’s plan. That which has been revealed, doesn’t drastically change. Remember the former things of old...(or should I forget them, and accept a new thing called the trinity? A newly ‘revealed’ thing that will threaten Jewish existence?)
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: that I am G-d, and there is none else; I am G-d, and there is none like Me;

The final, and complete, revelation is the NT. The Torah is the basis of the doctrine of progressive revelation, and if you claim to believe the Torah, then you have to believe in progressive revelation.
How do you know that the NT is final? Won’t all things final come with the messiah’s second coming and the new world?

Finally, if you believe in the NT, you have to believe that it reveals things (not contradictions to earlier revelations) that are going to be clearer than previous revelations.
I believe the things which were revealed with the coming of the messiah were about the application/interpretation of the Torah, the role of Messiah, not about the nature of G-d.

We can debate the claims of Yeshua to be God if you wish-
Yes, we can debate that, but I would like to discuss things in the order in which they came. This is logic.

but would you repent if proven wrong?
I don’t see why not?

News for you: Christians have been reading the Torah- guided by the Jewish Apostles and their charism of infallibility for centuries. We have the Torah too and were taught to read it by the authors who were infallible Jews called Apostles. They disagree with you. Why should others agree with you? What's your authority other than your own opinion based on the same Bible as mine?
I don’t have any opinions which are my own. I also base nothing on my opinion alone. The apostle never wrote any chumash, so I don’t see how it can be so. Not only that, but if it were true, why is it that every Christian bible translations have so many errors?

Actually, we explain it all the time. Don't blame us if you don't get it. We've been doing it for 2000 years.
Then why is it that some Christians believe in the Triune nature of G-d, and others believe in the trinity? Why do so many Christian authors write books for other Christians about the trinity? How can you explain what you yourself don’t understand?

I've never seen evidence of the Trinity being proven to be avodah zara either. What's more is this: who will make the ruling about this? You again?
This is common knowledge that trinities existed before the time of Yeshua. I don’t see a reason to debate that subject.

The Trinitarian position agrees.
The Trinitarian position has an odd understanding of math. 1+1+1 does not equal 1. G-d is indivisible.

God is not like a man that He should lie or change His mind- that's the correct meaning of the phrase. Let's not take it out of context, eh?
Actually it was in context, and that’s how many translations read it.

Trinitarians teach that there is no other God but the One God. How does this verse contradict that?
Why not? because it’s not the Hebraic or Jewish interpretation of that verse. http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm (http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm)

You're incredibly mistaken if for one second you think that we believe in more than One God. Whatever cult taught you that is wrong.
I am offended that you would accuse me of believing in any cult.

The Bible doesn't teach that. The Bible teaches that faith is a gift from God. It is not revealed by flesh and blood. Perhaps you should adopt a Biblical way of approaching the Bible for a start.
The Hebrew word for faith, is Emunah, which means faith through observance.

I didn't have time to read those.
I am sure you’ve had time to read them by now. If not, then you probably don’t have time to respond to this post too.

The Trinity is easy- One God. Three persons. Not three Gods.
How can G-d be a person? Let alone three people?

Seeing that you only listen to Jews
I don’t see how you got this idea, there are many people who are insightful regaurding the TaNaKh and writings who are not Jews.

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Servant: Thank you for your eloquent defence of our faith- I particularly liked these comments:
Care to describe what our faith means?

Humility is so important.
Perhaps you should eat your words. Oh, and was there a question, am I offended by this? Yes I am offended by your implications.

Matthew 23:12
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Perhaps before quoting such verses, you should look into what is the Jewish/Hebraic definition of humility. Since I don’t think you will, I will go ahead and tell you:
First, let's clarify what humility is not. Humility does not mean a meek reluctance to speak up or be assertive. Humility is not slouching your shoulders and having low self-esteem. The Torah (Numbers 12:3) refers to Moses as "the most humble person who ever lived" -- and yet he aggressively confronts Pharaoh, fights a war against Amalek, and stands up to castigate the Jewish people.
Judaism defines humility as "living with the reality that nothing matters except doing the right thing." That means the humble person is not dependent on the opinion of others. Because sometimes doing the right thing is popular (and consistent with one's ego needs), and sometimes it's not. But the humble person can set his ego aside, if need be, in order to consistently do the right thing.
Judaism says this is counterfeit charisma. The arrogant person is not concerned about right and wrong. If necessary, he'll embarrass someone, lie, and even steal to suit his own ego needs.

"Arrogance" = I'm all that counts.
"Humility" = What's greater than me is what counts.and of course, the other good advice is from Proverbs 3:

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
My son, forget not my teaching; but let thy heart keep my commandments;
For length of days, and years of life, and peace, will they add to thee.
Let not kindness and truth forsake thee; bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of thy heart;
So shalt thou find grace and good favour in the sight of G-d and man.
Trust in HaShem with all thy heart, and lean not upon thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths.
This proverb reminds me of the commandment for tefillin.

[visionary]

". . . no one can come to me, unless it is made possible for him by my Father. From that time on, many of his disciples went back, and no longer walked with him. Then Yeshua said to the twelve, "Will you go away also?" Shimon Kefa answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we believe and know that you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
John 6:65-69

Most think that you can not come to the Father except through Yeshua... Yet here Yeshua says that you can't come to Him unless the Father makes it possible.

[Servant of Jesus]

[B]
[COLOR=black] Won’t all things final come with the messiah’s second coming and the new world?

So who do you think the Messiah is? Is it not God on earth- that is, Jesus?

[Henaynei]

He is the Messiah of the Jews - if is he is not the Messiah of the Jews he is not Messiah at all.... in Hebrew, his mother tongue, he is called Yeshua

[Colabomb]

So you think Luther and Calvin are jerks?:scratch:

Indeed i do. Luther was a rabid antisemite, and calvin replaced the tyranny of the Roman Catholic State.... with the tyranny of the Calvinistic Protestant state.

But, i believe God uses jerks, especially Luther.

Just because i agree with some of Luther's doctrine, doesn't mean i think he was a good man lol. :P

[ContraMundum]

That is called appeasement. The trinity understood properly is G-d the father, G-d the son, and G-d the holy spirit, that does not make one G-d.

Again, you don't represent an orthodox undertsanding of the Trinity here.

It's like I'm dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses here- are you a JW or former JW?

The foundation for truth is in the Torah, Torah=Emet. There is no trinity in the Torah.

For a start, the Hebrew word emet does not mean Torah. The Torah is emet, but the emet comes not from the Torah but from HaShem.

As for the foundation of the truth, you are incorrect if you believe what the whole Bible teaches. The whole Bible teaches that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). The church is the custodian and guardian of emet, in other words. Likewise, emet, when recorded in writing, is not subject to the mere interpretations of men (2 Pet 1:16-20; 3:15-17). In other words, the emet written in scripture is not your personal, private plaything. It is to be understood corporately. Every Jew knows that. We read personally, apply personally, but surround ourselves with teachers. This is the same principle in the NT. The Christian must do likewise, and his teachers must come from the one church, founded by the Messiah and with a continuous, unbroken lineage of teaching and ministry.

However, I don't think you believe in the NT like a Christian, right? If you believe that the Torah is the only truth and it's final definition- you don't have a religion to represent you on this earth. Jews believe in the whole of the Tanach, with the addition of Rabbinic tradition, without which one cannot understand the Torah, so they say. That doesn't sound like you. Christians, on the other hand, believe in the additional books of the NT, especially the Gospels, which contain the infallible words of the Messiah, which finally and absolutely define for ever the Torah and is a far greater revelation. That doesn't sound like you either. Just what religion are you? Your icon says Messianic- a Christian denomination- but you don't believe in the NT. YOu should clear this up so we can get you the right icon to avoid problems later.

Echad means one and only one, not three. There is no G-d the father along with G-d the son. G-d is the Father.

I'm surprised at your somewhat shallow/narrow understanding of the word "echad". You seem to be mixing up yachid with echad. The singular word yachid "one", is never ever used in reference to God in the Torah. In fact, Elohim is also plural. Go, check your sources.


Could you tell me what YOU think "The Trinity" means, because you're obviously terribly misinformed here.
I believe the trinity means whatever it means to the Christians or any other religion that has trinities. I did quote several Christian sources though, which you did not read.

You quoted two sermons. Sermons use word pictures. You should quote dogmatic sources when trying to teach dogma.

I honestly think you've never been taught the Trinity.


The progressive revelation which G-d gave to the Jewish people was not about the nature of G-d, but about G-d’s plan.

Wrong. Compare the image of God in the Torah with that in the Psalms. One is clearly more advanced in detail. This continues through to the NT.

That which has been revealed, doesn’t drastically change.

No kidding. We agree.

Remember the former things of old...(or should I forget them, and accept a new thing called the trinity? A newly ‘revealed’ thing that will threaten Jewish existence?)

There's an exaggeration if I've ever heard one. I'm Jewish, I believe the Trinity, and I haven't ceased to exist.

Goodness gracious.


How do you know that the NT is final? Won’t all things final come with the messiah’s second coming and the new world?

Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Easy one.


I believe the things which were revealed with the coming of the messiah were about the application/interpretation of the Torah, the role of Messiah, not about the nature of G-d.

We've demonstrated that wrong already. The Trinity does not do violence to the Hebrew words for God. It clarifies them.


Yes, we can debate that, but I would like to discuss things in the order in which they came. This is logic.

Let's debate the Deity of Yeshua in another thread sometime.

I don’t have any opinions which are my own. I also base nothing on my opinion alone. The apostle never wrote any chumash, so I don’t see how it can be so. Not only that, but if it were true, why is it that every Christian bible translations have so many errors?

The chumash cannot be equated with the scriptures- you should know that. Chumash is traditional interpretations of the scriptures. Moses never wrote a Chumash, by the way.

BUT- as Christians we have tons of writings from those who knew the Apostles or those trained by them. If you accept Rabbinic chumash, why not Apostolic??????

.
Then why is it that some Christians believe in the Triune nature of G-d, and others believe in the trinity? Why do so many Christian authors write books for other Christians about the trinity? How can you explain what you yourself don’t understand?

What? You have no idea how dull that sounds. Ever been to a Jewish bookshop? Thousands of books about the Torah, the nature of God, the sefirot, etc etc etc. Are you saying that the teachers of the Torah don't understand God so they need to write books about it? Try being equal with your arguments.

The Trinitarian position has an odd understanding of math. 1+1+1 does not equal 1. G-d is indivisible.

We agree, God is indivisible. How does your comment reflect on an orthodox understanding o fthe Trinity?

Actually it was in context, and that’s how many translations read it.

It's not the translation that we're about about- it's the reader. ;)


Why not? because it’s not the Hebraic or Jewish interpretation of that verse. http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm (http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm)

Why would you go there to get an interpretation if you're a Christian? Don't you know how much Rabbinic Judaism has shifted the sands?

You make the very shaky assumption that anything "Jewish" is right. You do realise that they use the very same Bible as us to deny the Messiahship of Yeshua, right?

I am offended that you would accuse me of believing in any cult.

Denial of the Trinity, the church and the deity of Yeshua are all cultic teachings that have infiltrated and influenced some in the Messianic movement. Do the paper trail, you'll see it for yourself.

The Hebrew word for faith, is Emunah, which means faith through observance.

What's that got to do with anything?

The Trinity is easy- One God. Three persons. Not three Gods.
How can G-d be a person? Let alone three people?

You don't think of the persons properly if you are confused about that.

Seeing that you only listen to Jews
I don’t see how you got this idea, there are many people who are insightful regaurding the TaNaKh and writings who are not Jews.

Name one you respect.

[Henaynei]

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in G-d's household, which is the [assembly] of the living G-d, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

"church" is not what the root writings say, the say ekklesia (a term of which you are obviously quite familiar as you used it repeatedly to denote *your* "church" in another thread)

here is the definition of ekklesia:

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
the term "church" came from the german translations of the latin ekklesia - meaning gathering of people for worship - in germany the form often associated with such a gathering was a kirch, meaning circle - from the german kirch, when transliterated into the early english translations one was given "church" by the translators

the term is never used to identify a governing body but of the corporate Body, which at the time of 1Timothy had already started splitting into some groups but were all still the Assembly/Body of Messiah .... not a governing Church - a term with the meaning now ascribed to the term Church (at least in the governance meaning invested when the term is used as you used it) is not to be found in scripture ...

it is also worth noting that the same word "ekklesia" was used by the Jewish translators of the Septuigant (Hebrew scriptures into Greek [what Greek speakers call "Jewish Greek" because the translators had to use strange grammatical constructs and appropriate some Greek words to convey Jewish meanings for which there were no words or concepts in Greek - non-Greek speakers call it koine Greek, or common Greek, but koine Greeks don't recognize it as such] 300 years before Messiah) through out the T'NaKah when they spoke of any gathering of folk - the hebrew is kahal (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06951&version=kjv) - it simply means assembly of people... it does NOT specially mean Church

[Ivy]

In other words, the emet written in scripture is not your personal, private plaything. It is to be understood corporately. Every Jew knows that. We read personally, apply personally, but surround ourselves with teachers. This is the same principle in the NT. The Christian must do likewise, and his teachers must come from the one church, founded by the Messiah and with a continuous, unbroken lineage of teaching and ministry.

Jews believe in the whole of the Tanach, with the addition of Rabbinic tradition, without which one cannot understand the Torah, so they say. That doesn't sound like you. Christians, on the other hand, believe in the additional books of the NT, especially the Gospels, which contain the infallible words of the Messiah, which finally and absolutely define for ever the Torah and is a far greater revelation.

I have heard this principle discussed many times, that when studying, there is safety in numbers, so to speak.

Each person may interpret what they are reading a little differently; sometimes this different-ness represents a nutty idea, and sometimes it represents a valuable insight.

When we study together, it functions as a protection against error, because if we're in error, someone else will likely pick up on it. Or sometimes we hear an old truth expressed in a fresh way, and that is a blessing, too.

I wouldn't think cults operate in this way at all. There's more of an interest in enforcing *one person's private interpretation, solely, rather than many people contributing to the process of discovering the truth.

[ContraMundum]

the term is never used to identify a governing body

See Matt 18.

Governing is a word that requires a lot more qualification and I don't think you can write it off that easily.

but of the corporate Body, which at the time of 1Timothy had already started splitting into some groups but were all still the Assembly/Body of Messiah .... not a governing Church - a term with the meaning now ascribed to the term Church (at least in the governance meaning invested when the term is used as you used it) is not to be found in scripture ...

I couldn't agree less with this. Just because there was division doesn't mean that Yeshua founded a church without authority where everyone did as they saw fit- it just means people, in their rebellion against authority, resisted His church. This is a common sin.

it is also worth noting that the same word "ekklesia" was used by the Jewish translators of the Septuigant (Hebrew scriptures into Greek [what Greek speakers call "Jewish Greek" because the translators had to use strange grammatical constructs and appropriate some Greek words to convey Jewish meanings for which there were no words or concepts in Greek - non-Greek speakers call it koine Greek, or common Greek, but koine Greeks don't recognize it as such] 300 years before Messiah) through out the T'NaKah when they spoke of any gathering of folk - the hebrew is kahal (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06951&version=kjv) - it simply means assembly of people... it does NOT specially mean Church

That's a pretty base level word study. When you study a word you need to study the local usage of it. It's as obvious as the nose on a face that "ekklesia" means "called out ones", but "called out" in various languages is pronounced differently, so how we say it in English is not really an issue. Why you would forget to mention this when you take to teaching us is beyond me.

All this is based on a truncated ecclesiology. An "assembly of people" doesn't do justice to the usage of the word in the NT- the church is so much more than that. It is something Christ founded - "my Church" (my called-out ones", if you please) Matt 16, something that has authority - "tell it to the Church" Matt 18, and something that is easy to find. It's a lot like the Kingdom of God. (read Isa. 22 and compare it with Matt 16 & 18, etc. etc)

It's more than a local gathering of people, that's for sure. If you wish, I'm happy to discuss this further on another thread.

[visionary]

The first called out are the disciples and I am sure that they were small incomparison to the governing body of Judaism of which they were a sect of.

[ContraMundum]

The first called out are the disciples and I am sure that they were small incomparison to the governing body of Judaism of which they were a sect of.

The church got much bigger- rather quickly. :)