The Real Trinity please stand up!

[Free]

I agree, God is not a human being. But the wording of the 'trininty' does identify God as 'a person'. Which by definition is 'a human being'.

The term "person" is an analogy only. It is meant to convey "personhood"--mind, will, etc., and so to keep the Father distinct from the Son and both distinct from the Holy Spirit.

Messiah was a human who put himself on the same level as God, no?

The Messiah was God incarnate, God in human flesh, truly God and truly man.

 

[Shimshon]

The term "person" is an analogy only. It is meant to convey "personhood"--mind, will, etc., and so to keep the Father distinct from the Son and both distinct from the Holy Spirit.

I can understand an anthropomorphism. But I see a conundrom here. You say the trinity is 'to keep the Father distinct from the Son and both distinct from the Spirit', but the doctrine is defined as 'God the Father-God the Son-God the Spirit'? I see someone (not you personally) wanting their cake and eat it too. All three distinct, but all three fully God. To me this is what happens when a doctrine is forced above scripture.

 

[Free]

Free, the issue is that we are both quoting the same scriptures. Zero places that tell us the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father or all the same person, or One God.

Incorrect. I have given a couple and it is implied in many more. Your continuing to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

In Fact, the Holy Spirit does not even speak of his own. Not very God like free, but by definition of Theos, is a god.

You misunderstand the Holy Spirit's purpose and that doesn't mean he is not also God.

Isa says there is but One Lord God, God knows of no other God. That is perfectly correct.

As I have asked address each passage I gave one at a time so we can see what each says. You are making the Bible say stuff it doesn't say, and that is a big no no.

So you admit you never said there are not two. Glad we have come that far, I know you can at least see two now.

Nothing has changed. I have not changed anything I have said by one iota. Perhaps you are getting clearer on what I have been saying.

You could have used the Modern expression the God the father the first Peson in the Godhead, and Jesus the 2nd person in the Godhead.

You see Two, but there is One God. That is what Your saying.

Yes.

I am saying the same exact thing Free, but I don't add the Cathloic mystery part at the end of that. I Count Two. that are still two, No mystery added.

Do you agree then that Jesus is YHWH, the Father is YHWH, and that there is only one YHWH?

 

[Free]

I can understand an anthropomorphism. But I see a conundrom here. You say the trinity is 'to keep the Father distinct from the Son and both distinct from the Spirit', but the doctrine is defined as 'God the Father-God the Son-God the Spirit'? I see someone (not you personally) wanting their cake and eat it too. All three distinct, but all three fully God. To me this is what happens when a doctrine is forced above scripture.

But this is what Scripture reveals to us--three coequal, coeternal "Persons," but yet there is only on God.

Judaism does affirm that there is only one true, living God, correct?

 

[Shimshon]

But this is what Scripture reveals to us--three coequal, coeternal "Persons," but yet there is only on God.

Judaism does affirm that there is only one true, living God, correct?

Yes it does. Which is why I have a huge time trying to fellowship with Christians. Scripture reveals 'one' savior, who is God. It's the doctrine of the trinity that reveals three coequal 'persons' who are God. As I've expressed earlier it doesn't make any common sense to a Jew to divide out God into three distinct 'persons'. I don't believe this doctrine was in existence in Messiah's time. If it was you wouldn't have John calling him 'the true God', nor Thomas calling him my lord and my God. I can see where the doctrine got it's idea from, but I disagree with the doctrine as a whole. God was revealed as a burning bush, a pilar of fire and a cloud too. He was revealed through angels and through many signs and wonders. I think Christianity has misapplied the texts in regards to what they see as 'the trinity'.

 

[jasonc]

in the Talmud there are a few sages that say the Heshem is a trinity.

 

[Kathi]

Please don't think I'm being difficult here. But a person is a human being. Would you define an extra terrastrial as a human being (person)? Beings not from this world are not persons. The very first and most definitive explaination for person is 'a human being'. So to me defining God as a person just doesn't equate or work.

I realize you hold to a trinitary belief and am not trying to change your mind/faith. I'm merely expressing my inablity as a Jewish believer to understand the trinity doctrine as defined within orthodox Christianity.

I would not define an extraterrestrial as a human being would you?What do you think about extraterrestrials?

 

[Free]

Yes it does. Which is why I have a huge time trying to fellowship with Christians.

Okay. That is our point of agreement from where we can start. Trinitarians fully agree with the Shema and the other passages I gave in Isaiah, or at least they should in order to agree with Scripture.

Scripture reveals 'one' savior, who is God.

Again, I agree.

It's the doctrine of the trinity that reveals three coequal 'persons' who are God.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. The doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to reconcile all that Scripture reveals to us, in both the OT and NT. In other words, that God is triune is what Scripture shows, what God himself has revealed, and it is the doctrine of the Trinity that tries to show this as succinctly as possible.

As I've expressed earlier it doesn't make any common sense to a Jew to divide out God into three distinct 'persons'.

Would you agree that there is nothing in the Christian OT/Tanakh that prevents God from being triune?

I don't believe this doctrine was in existence in Messiah's time. If it was you wouldn't have John calling him 'the true God', nor Thomas calling him my lord and my God.

No, it wouldn't have been in existence in Messiah's time but it is precisely because of such things like what Thomas and John said that the doctrine came about. I think the early disciples started realize that Messiah was more than just a man, that he truly was the Son of God. As Jews, I believe that it took many years for them to fully comprehend this and the full ramifications of such an idea.

I can see where the doctrine got it's idea from, but I disagree with the doctrine as a whole. God was revealed as a burning bush, a pilar of fire and a cloud too. He was revealed through angels and through many signs and wonders. I think Christianity has misapplied the texts in regards to what they see as 'the trinity'.

Which texts do you see as being misapplied?

 

[Shimshon]

I would not define an extraterrestrial as a human being would you?What do you think about extraterrestrials?

Of course not! What do I think of ET's? Two things come to mind; fallen angels, and

John 8:23 ESV
He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
​

 

[Kathi]

Of course not! What do I think of ET's? Two things come to mind; fallen angels, and

John 8:23 ESV
He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
​

That is what I think about UFO's.Fallen angels.

 

[Shimshon]

in the Talmud there are a few sages that say the Heshem is a trinity.

Yes, the sages deliberated many things. Messiah included. But you can't get an orthodox Jew to recognize Yeshua as 'the' Messiah even though they have deliberated the function and status of the Messiah for centuries.

 

[jasonc]

Yes, the sages deliberated many things. Messiah included. But you can't get an orthodox Jew to recognize Yeshua as 'the' Messiah even though they have deliberated the function and status of the Messiah for centuries.

not honestly.

there is the metatron and the el-shaddai connection to Jesus.

 

[smaller]

Yes, the sages deliberated many things. Messiah included. But you can't get an orthodox Jew to recognize Yeshua as 'the' Messiah even though they have deliberated the function and status of the Messiah for centuries.

I would suggest this sight:

John 3:34
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

The O.T. prophets spoke by The Same Spirit, Gods Words.

Here is how the speaking of the O.T Prophets is viewed by Christians:

1 Peter 1:
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

 

[Shimshon]

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. The doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to reconcile all that Scripture reveals to us, in both the OT and NT. In other words, that God is triune is what Scripture shows, what God himself has revealed, and it is the doctrine of the Trinity that tries to show this as succinctly as possible.

I do not believe God desires to be related to as a 'triune' entity. I can see how you see him as such, I just believe this view is limiting and not the sole purpose of God's revealation to us. Meaning I don't believe God is a triune being who desires to reveal his triuness to us.

Would you agree that there is nothing in the Christian OT/Tanakh that prevents God from being triune?

Yes I agree that nothing prevents you from seeing a triune God. But would you also agree that there is nothing that prevents God from 'not' being triune. This is where our understanding differs I believe.

Which texts do you see as being misapplied?

Messiah's revelation of who he is in relation to the father and the given spirit.

 

[Shimshon]

That is what I think about UFO's.Fallen angels.

Right. So, would you define a fallen angel as 'a person'? They even have bodies, no? I mean they mated with the women, they must have had bodies.

So, if we wouldn't understand an ET as a person because they are not of this world, yet have some form of body, being able to eat, drink and be seen, and mate. How is it that some can define God as 'a person' when we know for sure that he does not have any body outside of the Messiah?

 

[Shimshon]

not honestly.

there is the metatron and the el-shaddai connection to Jesus.

Non believing Jews have the Messiah staring them in the face all day long, yet they do not see him.

 

[Kathi]

Right. So, would you define a fallen angel as 'a person'? They even have bodies, no? I mean they mated with the women, they must have had bodies.

So, if we wouldn't understand an ET as a person because they are not of this world, yet have some form of body, being able to eat, drink and be seen, and mate. How is it that some can define God as 'a person' when we know for sure that he does not have any body outside of the Messiah?

No they are fallen angels they are not human but spiritual beings.

 

[Free]

I do not believe God desires to be related to as a 'triune' entity. I can see how you see him as such, I just believe this view is limiting and not the sole purpose of God's revealation to us. Meaning I don't believe God is a triune being who desires to reveal his triuness to us.

Even if he is triune you don't think he would want us to know him for who he truly is?

Yes I agree that nothing prevents you from seeing a triune God. But would you also agree that there is nothing that prevents God from 'not' being triune. This is where our understanding differs I believe.

As far as the OT/Tanakh is concerned, I am not certain about there being "nothing that prevents God from 'not' being triune." Take this passage for instance:

Gen 1:26-27, 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

This doesn't show a triune God per se but does seem to suggest a plurality within God, at least if the English is correct. I would have to search for others but I don't have my resources with me at the moment.

Messiah's revelation of who he is in relation to the father and the given spirit.

Do you believe that the NT is inspired Scripture and continued revelation?

 

[jasonc]

Non believing Jews have the Messiah staring them in the face all day long, yet they do not see him.

the wording of the name of where they get that is called angel unto the Lord. jesus by saying I am the great shepherd is claiming he was that angel unto the Lord.

He also said He was God. now if he wasn't then he was a liar. does Jesus lie?

 

[Shimshon]

Even if he is triune you don't think he would want us to know him for who he truly is?

Begging the question, no? Yes, I believe God wants us to know him for who he truly is. I do not believe the God of Yisrael is a triune being who is revealing his triuness.

As far as the OT/Tanakh is concerned, I am not certain about there being "nothing that prevents God from 'not' being triune." Take this passage for instance:

Gen 1:26-27, 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

This doesn't show a triune God per se but does seem to suggest a plurality within God, at least if the English is correct. I would have to search for others but I don't have my resources with me at the moment.

Correct, it does not show a triune God. What it does refer to is the host of heaven who witnessed the creation of mankind. Messiah being there too, along with all his ministering angels.

Do you believe that the NT is inspired Scripture and continued revelation?

Scripture is 'thus says the lord', not historical letters. I believe the original witnesses were inspired by the Spirit and wrote what they saw. I also believe what the church has cannonized is not 'scripture' merely because the church says so. So, yes and no. I believe the original witnesses were inspired by the Spirit and we have testimony of their words in the NT. How do we know it's true? The same way we are told to judge all things, by the spirit of truth given the believers. In other words, while I do not reject the witness given in the NT, I realize it is to be discerned through the Spirit given me. Not just taken as 'holy' because of a Christian doctrine of 'holy bible'.

Again, these things are why I could never identify as a Christian, trinity, bible inerrancy........ and mostly supersessionism. However, I am a Jewish believer in the Messiah of Yisrael, namely Yeshua. I do believe the witness testified by those who believed and followed the Messiah. It was confirmed in my heart by the Spirit. No other way.