The Trinity: First Considerations
Simon Peter answered, “You are the [Messiah], the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16 NIV
The Son – Perhaps the single distinguishing doctrine of Christianity is the Trinity. No other monotheistic religion embraces this claim, i.e. that God exists as three persons in one being. In fact, until the fourth century, those who claimed to be Christian (not necessarily followers of the Jewish Messiah) didn’t embrace this view. The doctrine arose through the Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine, but was not finally constructed until the Second Ecumenical Council convened by Theodosius in 381 CE. Since then it has been viewed as an essential theological proclamation of the Christian Church. The fact that Jewish sages and rabbis never came to this conclusion in spite of dedication to the same Hebraic Scriptures seems irrelevant, although obviously quite perplexing, since the justification of the doctrine is based primarily on New Testament implications and a re-reading of the Tanakh through the lens of a Trinitarian view of the apostolic writings.
But there are a few problems. In fact, there are some fairly significant problems since all admit that there is no definitive explicit Scriptural statement of the idea of the Trinity. The doctrine must be inferred from hints in the text, read according to a priori conclusions. Unlike other significant teachings of the Bible (e.g., God’s sovereignty, Yeshua’s role as Messiah and grace for forgiveness), this “fundamental” doctrine of the Church depends on theological inference.
Therefore, when we examine the idea of the Trinity, we are not examining clear and explicit verses in its support. We are examining verses that could be read as support if one already decides to read the verses according to the doctrine. And this brings up a serious exegetical issue.
“Evangelicals are conditioned by their denominational traditional teachings, just as much as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox. In theory, they appeal to Sola Scriptura, but in practice, Evangelicals often interpret Scripture in accordance with their traditional denominational teachings. If new Biblical research challenges traditional doctrines, in most cases, Evangelical churches will choose to stand for tradition rather than Sola Scriptura . . . To be an ‘Evangelical’ means to uphold certain fundamental traditional doctrines without questioning. Anyone who dares to question the Biblical validity of a traditional doctrine can become suspect as a ‘heretic.’ . . . Any attempt to modify or reject traditional doctrines is often interpreted as a betrayal of the faith and can cause division and fragmentation. This is a very high price that most churches are not willing to pay.”[1]
Before we examine a doctrine like the Trinity, we must be ready to follow Scripture no matter where it leads. We must be willing to seriously reconsider our previous assumptions and doctrines. There is only one standard—the text—not the teachings of the Church or the theological traditions of Christianity or Judaism. We can move forward in this investigation, but not without potential theological pain. It’s one thing to discover that baptism in Scripture isn’t quite what we thought it was. It’s quite another to investigate the claim that Yeshua is God in the flesh.
Are we willing to look no matter what we find?
I don’t mind telling you that I am extremely cautious about pursuing this course. I have deliberately avoided it for a long time because the Trinity is one of the doctrines that becomes the linch pin of a person’s faith. What I mean is that most Christians I know hold the idea of the Trinity as if it were Scripture itself and any questions raised about its formation or the history of its development is immediately met with extreme resistance. It is not my intention to cause theological dyspepsia, but I do want to know the truth and that means examining what the text actually says and how the doctrine was actually developed. So, if you’re ready, we can proceed.
If you’re not, just ignore that next few Today’s Word editions labelled: Trinity.
Topical Index: Trinity, Son of God, Matthew 16:16
[1] Immortality or Resurrection?: A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, pp. 28, 30 as cited in Divine Truth or Human Tradition by Patrick Navas, p. 112, fn. 52.
Thank you Skip,
I have been studying and questioning the theology behind the Trinity Doctrine. Your added insights are welcomed. You are not alone in treading these waters.
Yes, the analogy of “father, brother, son” (concerning myself) are all about the “roles” I play, but I remain (only) One! Bout the only thing we may do with the tri-unity of God, (or the “roles” He plays?) is to continue to marvel at what the scriptures reveal to us (all) about “who” God is. My goodness, we could spend some time going through the alphabet (Artist, Achitect.. etc.) but would still come up “lacking” a full description (is it humanly possible?) of the glory of God.
I can surely understand the “dividing line” (for lack of better vocabulary) between the Jewish and the Christian doctrine concerning (let’s spell it out) God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
All three are present. All three are revealed within the scriptures. Faith is our (right) response to what is written. I also can empathize with the Jews who were present when our LORD said, “I and the Father are One”. (making Himself equal with God!!). Herein lies the rub- He was not “equal” with God, He was (and is!) God Himself! As we delve into this study of the three-fold “nature” (or better yet,-revelation) of God, let us pay very close attention (if we will!) to just “who” this carpenter’s Son from Nazareth is! I too, along with many readers, am excited to “explore the Book!”
What we will (hopefully) find out is the “centrality” of (the) Christ! (Who is this King of glory?)
~ And eternal life is this: to know You, the one true God, and Him whom You sent, Yeshua the Messiah! ~
And speaking of “roles,” what does a Savior do? He saves! What does a Redeemer do? He redeems! And what does a Deliver do? He delivers.. Oh.. yes, – shall we continue? What was the greatest Gift (ever) given to mankind?
Hi Skip,
I too have given a hard look @ the Trinity debate, and being a sold out TOBY have come to this conclusion: #1 : As Messy- anic believer it is forbidden to believe, ie, taboo to believe in the Trinity. To believe otherwise would in most groups be cause for great ridicule and in some cases even repulsion from that particular group. The same argument that you have used to implicate the Trinnies for having a preformed opinion and then finding Scripture to support it eg “inductiveness” is the same finger pointing back at the non- Trinnies. Why do many of the Messianic believers choose to ignore the dozens of references to the Trinity, although not by name, in the Apostolic Scriptures? I’ve heard all the excuses for ignoring them : from “didactions” to “it doesn’t mean that in the Hebrew. In all honesty, I believe that as Torah followers we have become numb to the fact that the Godhead, oops, is in the “OT concealed” and the “NEW revealed”. #2 The Trinity IS mentioned in the Didache written probably in the 1st century or earlier. Yes, I have heard the argument that the mention was another didaction, but again no proof of that. #3 The belief that the Trinity was invented by Constantine holds little water since he was an avowed sun worshiper who could care less about a Christian God. In addition, I have not seen a citation to support the Nicean theory as promoted by Constantine. Please enlighten me. Shalom
I want to know the truth as recorded in scripture even if it challenges what I think I know, so I’m ready to read what you have to say. 🙂
Really looking forward to the posts to come!
Thanks for a great conference and have a safe flight home!
@ Mr. Skip Moen
Scribal error should be corrected and i most certainly agree. And it is certainly plausible that a major consensus of early Israelites during Moshe’s time could not have seen what i presented in Genesis in Phoenician/ Paleo Hebrew .., but , i think that is also speculative. But i most certainly respect your perspective …, i do know that I am able to certainly see the Messianic overtone at this moment in time from the Aramaic script which has been around for sometime and i would think that there COULD be those that studied the Torah before and during Mashiyach’s time to see the very same thing as i have implied in that style of script at the ”Drash” and ”Sod” level….., although it would most likely be difficult to discern this from a plain Peshat level of the text . Again .., just my opinion. . And i base this on my research and the research of other men and i share it with all on this thread especially you Mr. Moen peacefully and with good intentions and certainly do not point fingers and any one group of people or individual . The problem to me is not with people or any one person so as to point fingers at them .. the problem is the doctrine that conflicts with my present belief . And it is far more complicated to reconcile false doctrine than reconciling with a human being .It is my pursuit to establish and distinguish which facts point to the truth and at the end of the day …, it only has to matter to me.
You asked : ” Am I to assume that the presence of the linguistic marker for a direct object (et) is to be considered as a symbol of the Messiah? And if that is the case (and I am inclined to think this might be what Yeshua meant), does that obligate me to also conclude that the Messiah IS YHVH (as Trinitarian doctrine asserts) or am I allowed to say that this points to the Messiah, the messenger of YHVH and His prefect representative in the execution of YHVH’s will? ”
My response : I tend to align myself currently with the view that – ” [ the (et) ] points to the Messiah, the messenger of YHVH and His prefect representative in the execution of YHVH’s will..(?).. ” I will try to propose my case without writing a novel … ha! good luck with that :p
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and pitched His tent among us, and we saw His esteem, esteem as of an only brought-forth of a father, complete in favour and truth. [ 1998 ISR – Textus Receptus ].
” BRESHIT AYTOHI HWA MILTHA ” ܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܀
The ” Miltha ” as seen in Yochanan has no direct English equivalent. It can mean ” Word , Manifestation , Instance or Substance. Some scholars believe it should be left untranslated because no one word can define it completely. This word Miltha refers to the Manifestation of the Ruach haKodesh WITHIN Mashiyach in vs Jn 1;14. The physical body of Mashiyach IS NOT ( my opinion ) the Word of YHWH. But his words and actions demonstrate the Will and Word of YHWH, which upheld the observance of Torah. Why do i believe this ? Because Mashiyach was given a human office to work in…. this office is made of flesh and blood and certainly cannot contain the full manifestation of Elohim and still exist in the heavens and be the life force within every thing living … but that Yeshua is a perfect representation of YHWH that flesh and blood will and can allow. This is why it is crucial for one to discern when the Divine element ( MILTHA ) is speaking through Yeshua and when the human ( NEFESH )side is communicating on its behalf from Yeshua ( again my opinion ).
Isa 66:1 Thus said יהוה, “The heavens are My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where is this house that you build for Me? And where is this place of My rest?
1Ki 8:27 “For is it true: Elohim dwells on the earth? See, the heavens and the heavens of the heavens are unable to contain You, how much less this House which I have built! [ 2 Chron. 6:18 ]
Jer 23:24 “If anyone is hidden in secret places, would I not see him?” declares יהוה. “Do I not fill the heavens and earth?” declares יהוה.
While the context of the Scriptures above may be talking about a temple of man made house … it does reveal how vast YHWH really is….so then how can YHWH be on earth as a man and be God .., and then be in the Heavens at the same time yet we see Mashiyach praying to the Father and not to himself?
YHWH is a singular and indivisible Uncreated being called YHWH who brought the entire actual and potential Kosmos’s into being by the force of His MILTHA ( Manifestation / Word ) emanating from His Mind and into spoken force and power. I as well as many others believe that the other name for this Emanation / Manifestation of the Divine MILTHA – also known in Hebrew as DAVAR דבר and MEMRA ממרא – is in fact the Son of YHWH Himself , known to the world as Yeshua of Nazareth
Psa 33:6 By the Word [ MILTHA ] of יהוה the heavens were made, And all their host by the Spirit of His mouth, “The Word” and “the Spirit” are unanimous, with one accord. ( see John 1:1-5 )
YHWH is all seeing , all – knowing and all -powerful ; there is no part of potential or actual creation that escapes His attention or is not under His direct control. YHWH reveals himself in Exodus 3: 15-16 as ” Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh ” , which affirms His status as the Eternal One without end , existing simultaneously in all realities that are , was and will be.
Mashiyach is given the power and validity as a human office with divine aspects and ramifications attached. In talking about the human side of Mashiyach , i affirm that he was literally and completely a human being , not the appearance of flesh only. Mashiyach was fully human in order to suffer , bleed and die for our benefit ( Isa. 53: 8-12 , Zech. 12:10 , ) , and he did nothing in terms of either miracles or teachings that his Father YHWH had not previously commanded or revealed to the sages of blessed memory that have arisen in Israel ( John 6:32 ; 10:18 ; 12:49 ; 14:21; 24 , 31; 15:10 ). YHWH Himself did NOT die on the execution stake , for then all the KOSMOS would have ceased. Instead , it was Yeshua’s human nefesh ( life force ) that retracted thus ( Mark 14:34 ) causing him to die , this life force was then again implanted into Yeshua so that he could be resurrected having victory and overcoming death by the power of His Father YHWH three days later ( John 19:22, Acts 9:21, Rom. 4:24 , 7:4, 8:11; 2 Corinth. 5:15; Gal. 1:1 ; Col. 2:12 ; 1 Peter 1:21 ) thus becoming a New Creation and the First Fruits of many. The spirit of YHWH according to Tanakh says the Ruach will dwell inside that man Yeshua, side-by-side, but separate from Messiah’s humanity. The Scriptures, “Old and New” , clearly testify to this (Isaiah 11:1-2, 53:1-12; Zechariah 12:10).
The Divine Side of Mashiyach or Qnoma in Aramaic [ The essential nature of identity ]
This Divine side of Yeshua haMashiyach is a matter of Tanakh prophecy ( Isa. 11: 1- 2 , Zec. 9:14 ) and that his divinity is wholly separate from his human life-force and personality and yet this same divine occurrence is identical as a REFLECTION / Image of the exact representation of the divine nature of YHWH.; this image is not a separate nature but a branch / occurrence / QNOMA of the One Tree . Joh 5:26 “For as the Father possesses life in Himself, so He gave also to the Son to possess life in Himself,
My faith at this time rejects the notion of a trinity or the term Tri -Unity that proposes three separate divine ” persons ” , for to posit separated divine natures – even while suggesting they agree one hundred percent of the time – is idolatry and a direct violation of the first and Second commandment given at Sinai ( ex. 20:1-6 ; Duet. 5: 6-10 ) . Yeshua is one with the father YHWH because his sharing of the one divine nature of YHWH keeps his divine side in constant communication with his separated humanity , or ” will.”
Because by this same argument a pagan could believe in separate deities controlling for example the sea , the earth and the sky while under the command of the Ruler-god. These deities in myth are all created at the same time out of the same substance; whereas the son of YHWH , while eternal as a thought in his father’s mind , nevertheless was actualized at a later time to do His father’s work. YHWH , however , in His thought which later became the MILTHA – WORD of His Son , stands alone as the One Uncreated being , out of Whom everything else descends and unfolds. This puts the true understanding in my mind of YHWH as enshrined in Holy Writ in a wholly different category from the pagans of this ntrinity that we see in most all religions dating back to Babylon evolving its way into Christianity This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of “God the Son” is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping “God the Son” is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that [ here is your proof ] —>”Jesus Christ is God,” the council of Constantinople 381 said that —-> “the Holy Spirit is God,” the council of Ephesus 431 said that —-> “human beings are totally depraved,” the council of Chalcedon 451 said that —->”Jesus Christ is both man and God.” Look at them for yourselves.
Although Constantine might not be the brain-child of the Trinity doctrine … he definetely had the power to wield the institution of it through the early Christian Church. Constantine insisted that the term homoousias be used in a creedal formula from the council that would definitively state the universal position of the Church. Some have stated that Constantine pushed for this term being influenced by the pro-Origenists. It must be remembered that homoousias had been used some 70 years prior by Dionysius of Alexandria in his trinitarian debate against Dionysius of Rome. It was NOT a new term. The use of the term had been marginalized because it was not found in the NT scriptures. Lietzmann calls this “amateurish theology” on the part of the Emperor, but admits that the term had previously been employed not only by Dionysius, but by Paul of Samosata as well.
YAH-head
The nature of ” Yah-head ” is revealed in Tanakh , specifically Isa. 53:1 as the ” ARM of YHWH. ” Mashiyach as YHWH’s saving and forgiving arm comes from YHWH’s own Name ( Ex. 6:6 ; 23: 20-22; John 17:11 ) and is directly representative of his relationship to His Father. An arm has no separated will from the body but moves under the direct command , as does the rest of the limbs by Way of the mind. In the very same way , it is an error ( my opinion ) to posit that the divine side of Yeshua is a separate entity from the divine Mind of His Father YHWH , although Yeshua clearly also had his own human will , as well. Mat 26:39 And going forward a little, He fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I desire, but as You desire.”
The Shema does NOT prove that YHWH exists in “three persons” and Yeshua was NOT Elohim.
First of all, when the Shema was received, it was understood as if Elohim is only one. It was also given, in contradiction to all the heathen religions which said there were many gods. Now it was revealed that there is only one God, one Elohim.
Furthermore, when words in Hebrew are stated in plural, it doesn’t necessarily mean plural, it can also be used to really underline the meaning of the word. Example, Elohim is plural, and is used to underline His majesty and sovereignty. Elohim is also used to refer to other gods mentioned in the bible. Philistine god Dagon for example is referred to as the elohim of the philistees. He was without a doubt considered as one god.
About Yeshua’s nature, and the trinity, this was not from Yeshua, nor the Apostles, nor from the Yehudi believers, nor even among the Messianic “Gentile” synagogues which Sha’ul planted. It came from Gentiles who were formed by Greek philosophy. This happened around the time of Nicea and the times which led there. “Trinity” simply Gentile thinking.
How Gentiles and Yehudim reacted when Elohim made miracles through men:
When Yeshua invoked miracles the people praised Elohim, praising the awesome power Elohim had given to man.
When Sha’ul and Barnaba invoked miracles, the people thought that the gods had taken physical form, and wanted to give blood-sacrifices to Sha’ul and Barnaba.
It is a heathen thought that Elohim would take the shape of a man. Just consider what YHWH says through Navi S’muel: I am not a man so I could lie, not a son of man…
This means that Elohim can’t be a man, therefore, it is impossible that Elohim was a man; therefore, it is impossible that Yeshua is/was Elohim.
Elohim needed a man to save mankind, not another Elohim.
And the Word (Miltha) stretched out from YHWH’s mouth and created the heavens (Ps 33:6). I think some get confused by the human Yeshua in the office of Messiah and the Spirit of YHWH that Tanakh said would rest on him.( my opinion )
YHWH is Elohim and He can do anything He wants. He Himself can’t be born or die, but who’s to say He couldn’t choose a human vessel to put His Qnoma (Nature) into – someone to reveal YHWH and His Torah to the world who, in the end, would martyr Himself as our FINAL SIN SACRIFICE? If YHWH can manifest Himself in the form of a burning bush, pillars of cloud and fire, three men at the Oaks of Mamre, and speak through a donkey – not to mention that He created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE and human beings – then WHY can’t He manifest Himself [ MILTHA ] in the form of a man called Yeshua?
Qnoma is a very important term that has been greatly diluted and misunderstood over the centuries. Through an exceedingly complex linguistic chain of events this word, meaning “an occurrence of a nature” got morphed and perverted into “person” in Greek. As a result, the One Elohim (YHWH) is represented in a pagan manner in the Greek New Testament as a “person” distinct and equal with “Elohim the Son” and “Elohim the Ruach haKodesh.” Instead, it is the oneness of YHWH that manifests in Mashiyach, not that Mashiyach’s divinity is separate from his Father’s. However, in this case we are talking about humanity and not YHWH, and both of them have “natures” that cannot be seen, and yet are a root part of their being.
Or, to put it another way, a “nature” is like a body hidden behind a curtain. For those in the audience, nothing of that nature can be seen. Then, all of a sudden, a hand and part of an arm appears through the veil. While we know there is a body attached to that limb, the limb is all we see. Furthermore, that arm moves with full force, will and agreement of the mind that controls the body. For the viewers, the arm appearing out of the curtain is the qnoma (occurrence) and the hidden mind behind that limb’s movement is its kyanna (nature).
As the centuries moved along, the ancient meaning of qnoma as “occurrence of a nature” devolved by Aramaic assemblies who compromised with the Byzantine Empire. Gradually, “core substance” became the common definition; at first it closely paralleled its Greek counterpart, hypostasis. More time passed and Greek redactors changed the meaning of hypostasi, taking it further from the original definition of qnoma. Qnoma/hypostasis became equivalent to “person” to line up with Greek passages that used this meaning in the form of the word prospon.
In Greek, “person” implies a physical presence as opposed to Aramaic where body metaphors like “I will set my face towards” are very common. The revision began at the beginning of the Third Century when these same “westernized” Aramaic Christians began to proffer up readings in their “Peshitt-o” versions of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 that were meant to align with the Byzantine majority Greek. However, the original eastern “Peshitt-a” escaped these revisions as it was in the rival Persian Empire. Aramaic, as in this verse, retains the original meaning of qnoma. It is NOT the external “person” that teaches someone about Elohim, but the Ruach working through their “inner being.” The idea of “person” in Greek, unfortunately, does not address the neshama (spirit) of a person as the likeness or “image of Elohim.”
I hope this discussion includes the Virgin birth. ♡
Isnt there a Todays Word for today, June 1?
I am sure all are wondering the same thing, Mamie. Nothing yet from what I know.
I’m just praying for Skip that everything is OK. I’m sure he will post it when it needs posting. He has been faithful for these many, many years
so I’m sure there is a significant reason we haven’t received anything yet.
On that matter, I feel a void not being able to read a TW first thing this morning!
Thx Michael C, I hope all is ok with Skip, will pray too!
All is well with Skip. It was just a over-site on the post date, which affected the way the TW mailing list works. Skip is currently in Missouri and I’m just now able to see the problem myself.
Mark, if you don’r mind me saying so, I think that you mean “an oversight” not “a over-site”?
I deplore the degradation of our beloved English language that I see all around us!.
Shalom
@John Walsh – The purpose of using any language is to communicate. In this case I was merely relaying, communicating, a message to let people know what had happened. I’m sorry if I offended your sense of proper english language usage.
At times ones technical education and use of proper spelling or sentence structure can be hampered or limited by ones actual education. I think I handle the english language fairly well considering I haven’t had a real english language class past the age of 8. In fact, I actually have more Hebrew languages classes then I do english.
But, thanks anyway John. That was totally necessary.
My husband said he must have been run out of town on a rail for what started yesterday. 😀
Feed me Seymour!!!
Please!!!!
That’s funny — all the way to Missouri. 🙂 Glad it’s just a technical glitch.
@Simon… Lol!
Thx Mark Randall for Skip update!
HallauYAH!! 🙂
Yeah, he was in Missouri and it was awesome!!!
Yikes! Good luck with the Fuller seminarian. I was friends with someone who graduated from there with his master’s in divinity. Based on conversation with him, it seemed like his education consisted of something like:
1. The Bible didn’t fall from heaven. (higher criticism)
2. Our understanding of God is dynamic (theological evolution)
3. The bible is a good tool to advance ‘social justice’ causes.
I was fairly skeptical of Skip for a while BECAUSE he was so well educated. Now, I’m just a little skeptical 😉
Oops, this was supposed to go under Dennis Wenrick’s comment.
A little skepticism is a good thing 🙂
It is reassuring to know that I have been labeled as a “heretic” by many!
While I may not always agree with you 100% of the time, I do like the fact that your writings make me think. Not thinking leaves you open to believing what others tell you is “truth” and I made a conscious decision years ago to do my own thinking whenever possible.
Thanks,
Tom
I was just thinking a couple days ago, “I wonder what Skip Moen believes on the trinity.”! Great timing! I have been studying this topic for several months now and keep coming back to a few verses I hope can be addressed here.
1) In Revelation 5, the Lamb (having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God), came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sits on the throne. Two separate beings here.
2) In Revelation 4:10 they fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever.
3)In Rev 5:8 the elders fell down before the Lamb. In worship or reverence as a King?
4) Is it accurate to say that the many instances where Y’shua is worshipped (proskuneo 4352), it is a mistranslation and that worship would have been sebomai 4576? Ex: Matt 28:9,18
5)Mark 10:18 Y’shua rebukes someone for calling him good when it is only God who should be called good.
6)Mark 1:11 – Then a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” – 2 separate beings again.
7) Finally, Isaiah 9:6-7 – A child born called Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace…
I cannot make these verses jive with my limited knowledge, frustrating. Thank you, I appreciate your courage in addressing this topic and am looking forward to hearing your take!
Yes – go for it!!!! I’m glad to hear it. It needs to be dealt with.
“… justification of the doctrine is based primarily on New Testament implications and a re-reading of the Tanakh through the lens of a Trinitarian view of the apostolic writings.”
Pardon me Skip, but I have read the Christian apology of trinitarian doctrine. They always cite the baptism of Yeshua as the definitive revelation of trinity. The dove, the voice and Yeshua are held to be the 3 persons. The issue that I argue is that Hashem is Covenant Act not created being and therefore no contrast exists between 3 persons (the covenant act of Hashem) and the shema – Hahsem is one – v. (covenant). In fact, they have to be the same, or man is not created in the image and likeness of Hashem. Rabbincal thought hasn’t grasped the implication of Torah as the Word – which it accepts but doesn’t apply. Torah as “the eternal spoken Name of Hashem” is identical based process to trinitarian belief when both are evaluated as Hebraic expression.
The argument strikes me as unnecessary. I do not deny its existence, but I consider the division to be based on competition not doctrine.
“7) Finally, Isaiah 9:6-7 – A child born called Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace…”
To me this looks like it’s saying what he will be called but doesn’t necessarily mean that is who he actually is. Everlasting Father could also mean Adam as he is the father of all just as Eve was the mother of all, and it’s said that Yeshua is the 2nd Adam. He’s also called “The Prince” in Ezekiel 44-46. (Another reference to 2 separate beings.)
I have spent much my career as prof in a Bible college on this subject. To suggest that Jesus or Paul believed in the Trinity is to suggest that Paul may have had computer. It is a well known fact of history that first century Jews were absolute unitarians! Mark in ch 12:28ff. wanted us to be sure of this, and so he records a Jew asking Jesus about the greatest of all the non-negotiable commands. “Listen Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” Jesus went on to cite the famous Ps. 110:1 (more often quoted by far than any other verse from the OT): “YHVH speaks in oracle to my lord.” The second lord in the Hebrew there is adoni, which in all of its 195 occurrences never means Deity. It expressly and definitively means non-Deity. Jesus is the Son of God, and Luke 1:35 defines precisely what this means. No Jews (nor should anyone else) imagine that God can be born! And God cannot die. In John 17:3 Jesus defined God as “the only one who is true God.” Churchmembers (some) are so impressed with their traditions that they turn a blind eye to this! I have written two full books on all this as shown at our site restorationfellowship.org, or a free booklet there: Jesus is still a Jew.
Welcome, Sir Anthony. I am glad to have you as a contributor. Thank you.