Trinitarian Questions
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 ESV
In the name of – A few weeks ago we looked at the textual evidence for the trinitarian formula found in this verse (see May 30). What we discovered is that this part of Matthew’s gospel is based on texts dated after Constantine and on secondhand evidence from comments by the church fathers prior to Constantine. This is true of much of the ending of Matthew, not just this verse. But it does raise the question about the first century Jewish context of the verse. Some consideration must be given to Matthew’s rabbinic, Jewish, first century thought. Here’s what Rabbi Bob Gorelik notices (with my additions):
1. “The doctrine of the Trinity is a formulation of church counsels motivated by the threat of heresy.” But heresy is defined as what is contrary to accepted belief, and in this case, the trinitarian belief was already in place, but not yet formalized, according to the thinking of those who were involved in the counsel. The problem is that the men of the counsel already accepted Greek-based ideas about God and His attributes. So the doctrine of the Trinity already contained Greek categories when it was established. In other words, the doctrine was not the direct result of a Jewish orientation toward apostolic writings but rather a Greek orientation, and that Greek orientation altered some of the crucial ideas of the biblical text.
2. “The terms ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ are used in Judaism as evasive synonyms for God.” This means that in Jewish thought these terms are not used for separate “persons” but are rather ways of expressing the manifestation of the One True God without violating the implications of the second commandment (the misuse of His name). Just as Matthew uses “Kingdom of heaven” rather than “Kingdom of God” in order to appeal to a Jewish audience and not offend their sensitivities about using God’s name, so these terms are used in the same way.
3. “Greek is an analytic language. Greek thinking looks for neatly-fitted explanations about how things work. The use of multiple terms for God, a common procedure in Hebrew, implies separate entities (persons) in Greek. But Jewish thought about God denies that God has any ‘parts.’ God is One!” This is the fundamental claim of Judaism and would certainly have been the claim of Matthew. In Judaism, God may manifest Himself in many different forms, but this does not imply that He is essentially diverse. In Judaism, God has seventy names. Each name implies something new about His relationship to the world, but it does not imply that God is seventy different “persons.” The Greek category of “person” is entirely foreign to Jewish thought.
4. “From a Hebrew perspective, the idea of the trinity is a category mistake.” Trinitarian formulations force biblical language into categories that are not possible in Hebrew. In other words, there is no single Greek word that communicates the fullness of God as there is in Hebrew. God’s names capture aspects of God that cannot be reduced to Greek analysis. In this sense, trinitarian language is an attempt to translate the full expression of God manifesting Himself, but just like all translations, the receptor language puts boundaries around the concepts that are not found in the originating language. The real question about translations is reliability (emunah). If the translated categories do not reliably capture the thought of the originating language, then real translation has not occurred. What we have is paraphrase, not translation, and in this case, the paraphrase brings with it certain concepts that aren’t even found in the original language.
5. “The Trinity accounts for the humanity/divinity of Yeshua, but this is based on the Greek idea of substance,” the independent existence of objects occupying space and time.
The Hebrew idea is based on relationship. I AM depends on “thou” – the other. Hebrew does not have a concept of a person as an independent, space-time existence. Existence is always a matter of relationship. Therefore, the Greek idea of substance and its concomitant “person” has no equivalent in Hebrew thought.
6. “For Jewish thinking, to suggest that God is made up of parts that somehow become a whole is idolatry. It is also idolatry to suggest that any single part can become the whole.” Therefore, in Jewish thought, the idea of three “persons” independently existing as one “being” (whole) is idolatry. If Peter was so conscious of his heritage that he refused to eat unclean food (in his vision), can we reasonably imagine that Matthew would throw out the most fundamental tenet of his faith – that God is one?
7. “In Jewish thought, the notion of the Trinity is much more like a metaphor than a doctrine.”
Something to think about. Something to consider for the next few decades. I wonder what all this means. Do you wonder about this too?
Topical Index: trinity, Matthew 28:19
I wonder what all this means.
Hmmm
I think it means that if we are raised in the Greek worldview it is very difficult to think in the Hebrew
Because what we experience as validity in the Greek worldview is not available in the Hebrew
It’s like trying to explain a dream
Hi Skip.
I am thankful for what you see concerning the metaphor of the trinity.
In 1974, I was open to the truth as I had nothing in my head about GOD.
I was taught to believe first mention and to know that as a believing Gentile ,that there was only one GOD . I was also taught through the Word of God that this ONE TRUE GOD OF ISRAEL took on the form of a servant man for the redemption of man.
Still ONE GOD but now manifested in flesh .
I appreciate again what you have said this morning and yet I know that many will not. I have been in a local congregation since 1974 and because of moves from one city to another , I have had to let go what the trinity has caused as far as mass confusion to stay my ground within my inner man.
Even the trinitarians are not in unity over the mass confusion of trying to explain this metaphor.
I like that!
I like how you have explained it as far as ONE GOD= 3 synonyms and NOT THREE PERSONS.
This I am right at home with even though there is a lot Skip, that I can not either see or have done enough homework to share. BUT, I am here reading each day and loving the comments that are being shared from the different vessels.
May you continue on the ROAD that has been set before all of us who have been claimed and who are claiming HIS RIGHT upon their lives and making a difference. Do have a good day..
Your friend Carol in the wings.
Without the Trinity, we’re back to Sabellenianism and the debates of the early followers of Yeshua.
It is a rather fascinating proposition that the Trinity provides a transcendent “solution” to the question of unity and diversity, the one and the many. In the doctrine of the Trinity, both oneness and plurality are ultimate. The Greeks just never did come up with an answer to this.
It will also be a challenge, on the basis of Sabellianism, to develop a doctrine of “love” that is not reduced to narcissism. If God is not a tri-unity of persons, whom did he love before he brought everything else into existence?
On the other hand, Hebrew does not share the same understanding of “person” that we find in Greek thought, and the doctrine of the Trinity employs Greek categories that do not express the Hebraic view of dynamic personal (not person) expression. This is especially telling since, if the unity and plurality of God were evident from the beginning, why did it take Greek-based philosophy to uncover this, three hundred years after Yeshua? Why wasn’t it articulated within Jewish thought? Makes you wonder, just a bit, about where the real idea came from.
Perhaps they did not have sufficient incentive to develop their underlying principles. After all, according to Yeshua, their traditions were used to overturn Torah. Apparently Judaism was heading in the wrong direction until Yeshua redirected it. So it should not be surprising to see development after Yeshua.
I don’t think this is an accurate description to Judaism nor of the motivation behind a lack of Trinitarian thought, or for that matter, the corrective direction of Yeshua. And I still hold that in spite of “creating in our image,” linguistic reality IS reality and therefore descriptions of the divine depend in some sense on the language that describes them. In this regard, Greek “person” is radically different than Hebrew “manifestation”.
And human “person” stands where in this contrast of Hebrew/Greek ideas of person? 🙂
When you consider the Greeks had for centuries struggled with questions of essence, motion and being, it was not until Paul stood on Mars Hill that there was a direct confrontation with the Greek views when he declared, “In Him, we live, move and have our being.” Now maybe he was simply echoing Jewish theology/philosophy of the time, but we seem to be devoid of any recorded criticism of the Greeks before this. In which instance, we would again see “development” of theological issues.
BTW, Hebrew may not share the same understanding of “person” as the Greeks, but if man is made in God’s image, then he doesn’t need Greek thought, but rather a reflection about himself to find an analogical “person” to YHVH’s Person.
Without the Trinity, we’re back to Sabellenianism and the debates of the early followers of Yeshua.
Hi Ian,
The Trinity is a great example of the Greek worldview, because it is very “concrete”
You can almost “hang your hat on it”
Makes me think of my early childhood at 31 Flavors ice cream parlor
All 31 flavors were right there in front of me to pick the one I liked and they were all good
3 + 1 = 4 (YHVH)
But what, for example, are the Sons of God in Job? Or the Son of Man?
And how can Jesus be the Son of God when we know from Job there are many Sons of God?
Seemingly of the same ilk as Ha Satan
When Jesus refers to these characters, he is referring to sacred textual “referents”
These characters, in my view, have spiritual meaning, but the meaning is elusive
Quite unlike triple chocolate fudge brownie ice cream
Thinking in Hebrew, after all this is Jesus God or not? In Greek He is, in Hebrew he is not, which is it?
It’s more complicated than that.
Hi Benny. I am not an air head nor am I really all that versed as many are .. but in any LANGUAGE I have found the truth that GOD is GOD and that HE manifested HIMSELF or made Himself known in due time to come and plant HIS FEET on good old planet earth for the redemption of man.
God in the old and God in the new is the same GOD from the beginning.
JESUS is HIS NAME.
In understanding it this way, I am not leaving three but I am cleaving to ONE that was Spirit who put on a body for HIS OWN REQUIREMENT as there was no man sinless to do what needed to be done.
Confused a bit here –
“. . . in Jewish thought these terms are not used for separate “persons” but are rather ways of expressing the manifestation of the One True God . . .”
While I understand there are great differences in Hebrew vs Greek thought with regard to persons and relationship (I say I understand there are differences, not that I understand the differences!) I have trouble thinking of these “manifestations of the One True God.” To whom or what did Yeshua pray? Was this just internal thoughts and battling when he “prayed to the Father” in the garden? Whom did he thank when he broke bread? Was this just “show” in order to teach us? Yeshua told His disciples that is was good for them that He go away so that He could send the Comforter (or ask the Father to send another Comforter Jn 14:16). Maybe I just can’t get out of the Greek vault I am locked into, but I don’t get this.
Yeshua prayed for His disciples that they be one just as Yeshua and the Father are one. I take that to be one in purpose, thought, spirit, etc. and not that we all become part of some universal power or force. I do see that there is more “inter-connectedness” between us than we can understand or at least more than our actions show we believe – my sin affects the whole body, for example.
I have questioned the idea of the “Trinity” for some time now so I’m not locked into that specifically but looking for an opportunity to grasp a little more here regarding Hebrew vs Greek mindset.
Great points.
I don’t think I’d hang my hat on either model, because in a way, we are trying to “create an image” of God. I don’t think it’s an evil conversation, but that we are pushing the limits of human language and intelligence in trying to understand this topic.
I remember someone making fun of Christians, saying, “Oh, I’m sorry – did YOU do that, or was it God THROUGH you??!!”. He was making fun of the idea that God can work through people – and the difficulty of articulating what is then “You” vs. “God working through you”. I sometimes think about this when I think of the language Yeshua used – both to distinguish himself from the Father and in asserting their unity.
Count me in among the “stumpted’ today.
You say in point 5: “Hebrew does not have a concept of a person
as an independent, space-time existence. Existence is always a
matter of relationship. Therefore, the Greek idea of substance and
its concomitant “person” has no equivalent in Hebrew thought.”
What does “Hebrew thought” think about the “person” of Jesus?
Or us?
Oh my, is it complicated! I think we have to start with a pretty good understanding of the Greek idea of person. That means understanding Aristotle’s idea of instantiation and existence. And Plato’s idea of embodiment and duality. Then we have to think about how this changes the Hebrew idea of existence as purpose manifested. Then recognize how limited we are in the translations. All of this was of some debate when the Church tried to formulate the doctrine, but it went in the direction of substance rather than dynamic relationship.
Of course, there are many cases of God manifesting Himself in bodily form in the Tanakh. Would such a manifestation during the first century be any different, except its longevity? If God appears to Abraham in the form of a man, is that different than the form of Yeshua?
And, isn’t the rest metaphor – perhaps a REAL metaphor, but do we actually think we have the language capable of containing it?
It’s complicated.
So, we aren’t trying to SOLVE this problem, we are trying to just think about it.
” If God appears to Abraham in the form of a man, is that different than the form of Yeshua? ”
At this point in my understanding I would have to say yes it is different. Yeshua was born of a woman.
After reading Daniel Boyarin’s “The Jewish Gospels” I’m much more comfortable entertaining trinitarianism albeit not necessarily in it’s Greek orthodox formulation.
This reminds me of something I heard some weeks back that you may be able to debunk for me or not. A preacher on the radio gave a translation of μετεμορφωθη in Matt.17:9 (normally being translated transfigured) as being literally pealing His skin back as in the metamorphosis of a caterpillar shedding his skin to reveal a Butterfly. Perhaps you can “shed” some light on that for me since my Greek is so bad I couldn’t even begin to search this out.
And BTW it is
REALLY COMPLICATED!!!
Yeshua seems to be the focus of the Trinity discussion. Hebrews 2:9: “…Jesus…was made a little lower than the angels…” Was God made “lower than the angels”?
And what about 1 Corinthians 15:27, where “all things are put under” Yeshua…all EXCEPT God. Why would all things need to be put under the Son if He was already God? (And, in fact, verse 28 indicates there is coming a time when “the Son Himself will also be subject to Him,” meaning God the Father.)
I see Yeshua as the Son of God, and surely there is no argument with this.
To say, “Jesus is God,” requires the aid of reasoning and discussions that seem to be almost painful!
Job 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Ha Satan also came among them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come ?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.”
Hmmm
As we can see in Job, the book that I believe is the key to understanding our job here on Planet Earth
Jesus identifies himself with the “sons of God” as part of the divine council in the Heavenly Court
Based on my reading of the text, it would seem that Jesus is other to us, and more like God
But Jesus is also, paradoxically, other to God, as is Ha Satan and the other Sons of God
The Greek worldview does not feel comfortable with these dynamic, contradictory, scenarios
It finds comfort in “semantic rectangles,” which untangle and clarify these contradictions
It likes to put things in “boxes:” to be exact, it is either good or bad or not good or not bad
But in which box do we put the great Hebrew King David?
2 Samuel 11
New International Version (NIV)
David and Bathsheba
2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”
My point was that the great Hebrew King David was famous
For his adulterous affair with Bathsheba (ADULTERY)
Which was facilitated by first having her husband Uriah killed (MURDER 2nd DEGREE)
Why would MATTHEW want to align Jesus with such a man?
“But in which box do we put the great Hebrew King David?”
That’s a great question Michael! Especially since 2Sa 8:18 calls His sons priests; And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief rulers (03548 ןהכ kohen ko-hane’)
active participle of 03547; n m; {See TWOT on 959 @@ “959a”}
AV-priest 744, own 2, chief ruler 2, officer 1, princes 1; 750
1) priest, principal officer or chief ruler
1a) priest-king (Melchizedek, Messiah)
1b) pagan priests
1c) priests of Jehovah
1d) Levitical priests
1e) Zadokite priests
1f) Aaronic priests
1g) the high priest .
Weird ha!
From one end to the other the Bible clearly (to me!) speaks of: God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. But emphasizes that there is only ONE God.
Jesus said: “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” John 14:9
“He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me.” John 12:45
If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Rom. 8:9
“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Matt. 1:20
And the angel answered Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35
Jesus tells His disciples: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.”
“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.” John 14:16-17, 23
There is one God. Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5.
The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun “Elohim” is used.
In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun “us” is used.
The word “Elohim” and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring to more than two.
In Isa. 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking.
Matt. 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son.
Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.
God the Son is distinguished from God the Father. Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9.
In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit.
John 14:16-17
This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit.
Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father.
Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.
Each member of the Trinity is God.
The Father is God John 6:27; Rom. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2.
The Son is God John 1:1, 14; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20.
The Holy Spirit is God Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 3:16.
* * * *
And yes, Benny de Brugal, JESUS IS GOD, in any language or thinking pattern –even to and including demonic ones. The devils do NOT DOUBT He is God!
But Dorothy, you provide all of the standard answers within the standard paradigm. Clearly the Scripture can be read in different ways, otherwise Judaism would be Trinitarian. So appeal to proof texts, especially those in the Tanakh, doesn’t help here. This is not a textual issue. It is a paradigm (theology if you like) issue and the question is simply, “How much of your understanding of the Trinity is the result of your Greek paradigm?” The question is not trivial since Christianity identifies itself by this doctrine. This is especially important since the doctrine was not formulated for nearly 250 years after the end of the apostolic period, and all of them were Jewish and seemed not to explicitly embrace a Trinitarian position. We could agree that they viewed Yeshua as divine, but the idea of three “persons” doesn’t seem to be represented explicitly in any of the biblical texts. It is the result of theological articulation concerning a problem with essential unity.
Rather than simply providing us with the texts that we all know, let’s try to grapple with the question. “If you were a Jew in the first century, committed to the tenets of the Shema, how would you understand the claim that Yeshua is divine and if you can articulate that, what implications does that have for the idea of a “person” of the Holy Spirit?”
“It is the result of theological articulation concerning a problem with essential unity.”
The advent of the Messiah is the watershed in history – Jewish and otherwise. Is he really the Messiah? How do we tell? The debates continued after Messiah’s ascension. Was he God, or merely man? Was he both? What’s the answer? Which naturally leads to questions such as, Is God a unity or a plurality?
If “by their fruits you shall know them” has any application here, then a historical survey of the impact of Trinitarian belief as opposed to unitarian belief would be an interesting study. 🙂
The Bible isn’t “just another book” with a lot of interesting information. It is a book which “comes alive,” in our hands, and He makes His way into my heart, and reveals Himself to all who search for Him with their whole heart.
God can speak to anyone, any age who is open, — but could not get thru to those who studied the Scriptures for years–they failed to recognize their Messiah when He came.
In short, Jesus did not fit their ‘paradigm’ and most of what Jesus did ran contrary to their view of a Messiah.
They thought He should think and behave more like themselves. But, rather than condemning the thieves and prostitutes, Jesus hung out with them. Rather than publicly giving honor to the religious leaders and their laws, Jesus spoke harshly against their hypocrisy.
Worse, Jesus blatantly told them that He came to give them eternal life, but unless they believed in Him, they would die in their sins. Hardly a way to win friends among them.
Many died in their sins. But, they held their paradigm!
I may not see much Skip, but what you have just said ..I understand although I may not be able to express it as such.
I have never SEEN GOD in three persons and I have never seen GOD THE SON in the word either.
Pat answers these days are just not cutting it.
It is simply simple to the ONE who has RECREATED US IN HIS SON for HIS honor but man has done such a miserable job at trying to explain the mystery of the Trinity when it is not a mystery , but a lie.
IT is the MYSTERY OF GODLINESS that GOD could become a man without ceasing to be GOD .
Again, many of you are over my head but many of you need to go back in order to go forward.
Dorothy: The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1)
Hi Dorothy,
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
As I’m sure you know, neither God, nor the heavens, nor the earth are persons.
Basically, God creates two things in the beginning, the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
From another view, we have the earth with the waters; and God was hovering over the waters
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
Then God creates light and separates the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.
Then God names the light and the dark
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”
7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
As I think you can see, it is all being done in a binary mode; making two things first, then two persons
But God is one
Two passages bring the 3 members of the Godhead together in providing for salvation.
“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the Living God!” (Heb. 9:14).
It was the offering of the Son to the Father by the power of the Spirit. Peter taught, furthermore, that God the Father chose us to salvation, God the Son paid for it by shedding His blood, and God the Spirit set us apart unto the obedience of faith (1 Peter 1:1-2).
Without each Person of the Godhead doing His part, we would remain in our sins
Dorothy,
I could, with some focused skill, prove, with proof texting with verses from Genesis to Revelation that what Adolf Hitler did in his lifetime is justified according to the Bible. I simply apply the meaning I WANT those verses to carry.
Then, if I followed your pattern of blogging in here, I would necessarily declare “That’s all I have to say on the subject and don’t want to discuss it further. Moving on…”
You’ve done that with me on several occasions. You pronounce the last word, and that’s IT.
You profess whatever the Baptist Faith and Message or whatever creed you folow is called and declareit as fact and then it’s end of discussion.
Is it possible to genuinely debate issues without a statement being doctrinally locked up – no need for further digging?
Just asking.
My late father, a pastor of Jewish descent, explained ‘trinity’ in a very simple terms starting when I was 7 years old, right up to my adulthood. He used the analogy of himself saying: ‘I am your father, I am also a uni professor and I am a minister. One person, 3 different functions.’ That is the most ‘peaceful’ and ‘clearest’ explanation for my soul in regards to ‘HaShem Echad’ in the Shema. Prior to reading your writing here, I have begun to ‘regurgitate’ the issue of ‘Trinity’ again, and I keep arriving at the same explanation my father offered me. Your writing is the icing on the cake.
Thank you, Skip
Amein to yerusha’s post.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Anyhow, the above verse states ‘baptizing in the name of’…. makes no sense.
FATHER has a Name -YHWH, regardless of pronunciation, is there clearly in all the Hebrew texts of the Tanakh, where it is translated/changed to LORD, LORD GOD….
The Son also has a Name- Yeshua, Yahshua, Yahushua, Y’shua..
The Holy Spirit, is the Ruach/Breath/Wind, has NO name!
You cannot write a cheque in the “Name of Father, Son and …….”. That will not be accepted, as there is no such account allowed.
Again, FATHER is Spirit, Son manifested in human form is physical; Holy Spirit obviously is Spirit!
How then can these be addressed as three “PERSONs”? This is more confusing!
I believe in ABBA, Son and Spirit of ABBA.
IT IS IN THE NAME OF JESUS that we believe in , believe on, pray in, speak in, are baptized in .. the NAME that is higher than higher than any other NAME.
In the book of Acts, they were baptized IN THAT NAME. PRAISE THE LORD.
I have the same question as Ric. To whom did Yeshua pray? To Himself?
And, in the context of this discussion, what does it mean that the Spirit of God descended on Yeshua like a dove after His baptism?
I am not sure we will come up with “definitive” answers to any of these questions and the related ones, but I know that we must ask. Why? Because we want to be in alignment with the teaching and beliefs of those men who were with Him, not matter what it does to our well-honed theology.
Ingela… when we are reading the word and we see JESUS praying as the SON OF GOD.. we SEE the example of a true SON OF GOD that is giving direction and instruction to those who are seeking to follow GOD.
In other places, He takes the authority of GOD HIMSELF over the storms and yes, even the resurrection of HIMSELF after the death, burial of Himself.
Just read and ask yourself.. Is Jesus speaking as THE SON of GOD or is HE speaking as the FATHER ?
That I believe has helped me to see that although you may see TWO DIFFERENT forms: SPIRIT and FLESH.. there is and always will be only ONE GOD from the beginning of time to eternity. DOES THAT HELP at all ?
Not really…since I believe Yeshua is God and therefore has the same attributes and authority as the Father.
Jesus said He is the way TO the Father. He is also now seated at the right hand of the Father. Are we dealing with faulty translations here, Hebrew idioms we don’t undertand, or what?
I don’t understand why Yeshua would have prayed the way He did in John 17 or talked about the Spirit in John 14 if He was actually ¨only¨referring to Himself.
It’s a scarry thought that God would have, at one time, been just a baby…and not had the Father watching and being in control…Did He warn Joseph in a dream because somehow, even though He was a baby, He spiritually, had all the attributes of God. I thought He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Luke 2:52
I am not arguing this…just trying to understand…it Is complicated…
I leave it with you as this *key really helped me to see,
that the SEED was in the FATHER from the very beginning and that SEED which is CHRIST was promised in GENESIS and was planted within MARY in due time as Galatians speaks .. it truly is a mystery.. but GOD said HE would open the mysteries to those of the KINGDOM OF GOD..
The mystery is mentioned in scripture that GOD became a man without ceasing to be GOD.
I have no problem accepting it. When we accept it or receive it.. GOD MAKES it clearer to us in due time. It is trying to understand before we accept it that seems to hold the truth at bay.
~ I and my Father are one ~ (John 10.30)
May we leave behind for a moment the Greek/Hebrew distinctions about thoughts and words, our deeds and actions and focus upon one Man?
May we, for a moment- look unto Jesus, the Author and Perfecter/Completer of our faith?
~ For God is One, and The Mediator of God and the sons of men is One: The Son of Man, Yeshua The Messiah..~
Therefore, I beg of you that before all things, you will offer supplications to God, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving, for the sake of ALL people,For the sake of kings and rulers, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil way of life in complete reverence to God and purity. For this is pleasing and acceptable before God Our Lifegiver, – Who wants ALL people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully. For Elohim is One, and The Mediator of God and the sons of men is One: The son of man, (and God the Son!),Yeshua The Messiah, (Jesus who is the Christ).
If we are to spend days or even decades deciding the difference between Jewish thought and Greek thinking- where is Christ in all of this debacle, er.. debate?
Where is salvation in this division?
Where is sanctification?
Where is wisdom?
Where is righteousness?
Where is the Way,the Truth and the Life?
It is all (all of the above) – *in Christ* All in the Anointed (One). All in the (only) Righteous One, Yeshua haMashiach, Jesus Christ the Righteous.
Not only can we not see the forest for the trees,- we can’t even see the tree for the leaves!
~ Who (Himself) bore our sins in His body on the tree, (the tree of life!) that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed ~ (Hallelujah!)
Search the scriptures.. (we all have been invited to do so!)- Now listen…listen intently for just a moment. “Hear” what is said right here and right now.. Hear His words:
~ For these are they that testify of Me ~
All scripture- (all scripture) points to one Man. If “any man” – anywhere, can read this Book, God’s book, written by men, yes..but inspired men and women whom God used to accomplish His will. Did these ALL have a relationship with God? Each one of them “different” and yet each AND every one of these had a (for lack of better vocabulary, pardon my shallowness..)- a “God-story.” The story of Adam and Eve. The story of Noah. The story (and song!) of Moses. A more complete list is found in Hebrews chapter 11, including “and others..”
Stop. Were these (ALL of them)- “real” people? Are these living, breathing, walking around, thinking and doing human beings? And do each of them (and all of them) have a story, a history to share?
What is the common denominator in each of these lives? Yes, it is God, (Himself).
There is a marked division and distinction between the O.T. and the N.T. A “more gooder” (my English professor would cringe) word for “Testament” is “Covenant.”
There is a New (newer) Covenant, one that has been established by The Messiah (Himself), by the shedding of His own blood, the blood of the Lamb on the tslav, a criminal’s cross, the execution stake of Calvary. ~ Why? – what evil has He done? ~ Well spoken.. None. ~ For I (too), – neither do I ~ find no fault in Him ~
Remember His words? ~ for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins ~ (Matthew 26.28)
~ He came unto His own and His own received Him not.. ~ It’s easy to see why,especially looking back upon this with our 20/20 hindsight. If I or any other man, no matter “who” were to go about claiming ourselves to be on equal footing with YHWH, receiving the worship of men and of angels, people would say we are blasphemers or crazy or both. Liar, lunatic or… LORD. Christ leaves us with only these three choices. And if He is not LORD of all, He is not LORD at all..
Christ was well pleased with Peter’s “profession of faith” (Let the redeemed of the LORD say so..)- “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God..” Do we agree with this also? Is this also our confession?
Is He “Who” He said He was? Say, ~ isn’t this the carpenter’s son? ~ or ~ can anything good come out of Nazareth? ~
LORD, – You are good and Your mercies endure forever!
~ But…(or yet) as many as received HIM – to those who believed in His Name, He gave the right (the power-the authority) to become the children of God ~ (John 1.12)
Christ (the liar) whipped-rejected-crucified
or
Christ our LORD, welcomed-received-crowned.
Liar, lunatic or LORD? Where is the neutral ground? – There is none.
Are we attracted to the execution stake of the Messiah or are we repulsed by it?
~For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God ~ (1 Corinthians 1.18)
Is there life after death? Ask the Savior. Ask the One who conquered Death and has risen from the grave. But an even better question than this might be – Is there death before life? Ask the small seed or the single grain of wheat. One who has fallen into the ground and died.
~ Timeless truth I speak to you: unless a grain of wheat (a single seed) falls and dies in the ground, it remains alone, but if it dies, it yields much fruit ~ (John 12.24)
One seed. Unnamed-unknown-unnoticed.
~ I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me ~
(Galatians 2.20)
How many apples are in a single seed?
~ A sower went forth to sow..~
What about these words of Jesus?
Responding to His disciples’ question about the works of God,
Jesus said in JN 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe
in Him whom He sent.”
Are any of us doubting our believing in Him ( the person of Jesus),
and in He (the Father) who sent Him?
And where is our “faith” in all of this?
1 JN 5:4 directly states: “For whatever is born of God overcomes
the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world —
our faith.”
When we say that Jesus in on the right hand of the FATHER…how can this be anything but a Hebrewism.
Has anyone tried to be on the RIGHT HAND of SOMEONE WHO IS EVERYWHERE ?
Please explain from the HEBREW..
This is from A Bullet from Heaven by Clifford Fearnley, page 86-
“So who is Christianity’s Jesus?
Well, we know who he isn’t.
He isn’t the messiah who appeared on the earth 200 years ago, and is spoken of in YHWH’s Scriptures, that’s certain-
*the messiah who appeared 200 years ago wasn’t born in december
*Scripture tells us the Messiah died and resurrected at the time of Pesach (Passover).
Jesus on the other hand died and rose at Easter.
*The Messiah instructed that not one jot nor tittle of His Father’s Torah (Law) will fade and He
honored all of His Father’s Feast Days in Lev 23.
Whereas Jesus ended the Law and his followers honour different festivals.
*Jesus Christ has to be a different messiah to the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua.
Clearly the Messiah Who walked the earth 200 years ago, and the Christianity’s Jesus
are not one and the same.
They each were born, died and resurrected at different times of the year.
One kept the Torah (Law), the other violated YHWH’s Torah (laws).
Obviously there cannot be TWO true Messiahs.
The truth is- one is false, the head of a false scripture. There is a counterfeit spiritual power
Matt 7:21-23”
May the Ruach guide us into ALL truth. May YHWH open our spiritual eyes and ears to a better understanding of His Word, leading to a better relationship, restoring us to who HE created us to be, in His image and likeness, turning us away from our beastly degenerated natures. Amein!
Blessings to all!
I think it was supposed to say “2000 years ago,” not “200”
Right, Skip, sorry, typo error! Serious typo error LOL.
Todah!!!
Shalom!
Sorry for my english (it’s not my native language) 🙂 but I would like to share my thoughts on this too.
Never before was I thinking on this issue. Ended up here by searching original text of Matthew 28:19 (“to make disciples” or “to teach”).
However, trinitarian questions got my attention and I’ve red almost all comments on this topic.
And I will use The Bible (as a book) to explain my understanding of it.
Bible is a book. Right? It is in every bookstore. But as we know it is actually “a set” of books (Torah, Psalms, Gospels, Letters etc.).
All of these makes The Bible a whole book. Anyway, you can buy some of it as separate book (lets say, Gospel of John or Psalms only). Are those books The Bible? They’re part of Bible, but you would say “I bought Psalms” rather than “I bought Bible”. Right? The same way if you would not find book of Genesis in your Bible, you would think – it’s incomplete, I need Genesis to!
My point is – Father, Son and Spirit is God, but They/He is complete only as One. The Son (Jesus) is unimaginable to exist separate without Father. They all were together/ONE always and forever.
So like for ones the Bible is simply one book and for others (with deeper understanding) it’s a set of books, so for “jewish-minded” God is ONE “person” with different manifestations, and for “greek-minded” (also would add – christians) God is in 3 “persons” as One.
Anyway, I totally agree on comments, that there a things we don’t know yet and will be revealed later. Until then we should live in peace an love according what we know.