Jews for Jesus

Issues Issues Volume 10 Number 8 A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

Artists who believe Jesus is Messiah share their thoughts on the Creator.

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for sending me ISSUES. I find it interesting to read other people's viewpoints. I would like to continue my free subscription as long as you realize that I have no intention of believing in Jesus.

I cannot understand how you claim to be Jews and yet your belief that Jesus is somehow God is just the opposite of what Judaism teaches.

I used to think that you believed that Jesus became so holy that he became a god. Now I understand that Christians teach that God became a man instead of a manbecoming a god, which is nevertheless inaccurate.

No matter how you slice it, the idea of a Trinity" doesn't make sense which you ought to know since the watchword of our faith is the sh'ma: "Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one."

One God or monotheism is the cornerstone of Judaism. That is why it irritates me to think that you are spreading the belief that a Jew can think that somehow God is more than one.

However, I am an open-minded person and I do find some points of interest in ISSUES. I will continue to read your articles as long as you respect my position and don't try to convert me.

Sincerely,

M.M.

We do not ordinarily print letters to the editor, but if enough people express interest in a particular issue, we try to address it. This is a composite letter of several we've received on the subject of the Trinity. - Editor

"Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."1

A Christian quote? Hardly. The above is taken from the Zohar, an ancient book of Jewish mysticism. The Zohar is somewhat esoteric and most contemporary Jews don't study it, but there are other Jewish books that refer to God's plurality as well.

Why then won't Jews discuss these things? Could it be that to do so might lead a person to consider Y'shua (Jesus) as who and what he claimed to be?2 Rabbis denounce the idea that God would come to us in human flesh as utterly pagan and contrary to what Judaism teaches.

What can we actually say that Judaism teaches? Some people see Judaism as a monolith of religion, with all its teachings resting upon the narrow foundation of the Sh'ma. The Sh'ma certainly is a point of unity that all Jews must affirm. But it does not state, imply or even support many of the interpretations and opinions that are labeled "what Judaism teaches." What Judaism teaches is neither static nor monolithic! Phrases such as "Judaism teaches" or "according to our tradition" are relative. They do not mean "this was, is and always will be the one and only Jewish viewpoint."

Ancient sages struggled with several portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and their implications vis-?-vis God's plurality. Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Sh'ma) is but one such passage. Isaiah 6:8 is another: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" However, the first "proof" passage on God as more than one appears in the first chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures: "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26).3

Rabbis who believed that each word of the Hebrew Scriptures, each letter, is God's revelation had to admit that God spoke to himself and referred to himself in the plural. How can that be, when we know there is only one God?

Much in Genesis 1:26 seems to confirm the idea that there is one God whose oneness is complex. The idea of God's nature being triune (three in one) is mind-boggling. Contemplation of the infinite is always confusing to finite beings. Nevertheless, certain illustrations can help people grapple with the issue of a complex unity. C. S. Lewis, a talented philologist, writer and debater put it this way:

We must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side, and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are of much the same kind.)4

Christians consider themselves monotheists, while Jewish tradition maintains that believers in a triunity of God reject monotheism. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures do imply some kind of plurality in the Divinity. Why else would Jewish sages offer various alternatives to explain those implications, particularly in Genesis 1:26? Evaluate the following methods our forebears used to deal with the text.

1. Change the text or translate it differently

According to Jewish tradition, scholars who worked on the Septuagint5 translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for King Ptolemy were embarrassed by the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. They took the liberty of changing the text from "let us" to "let me."6 Such "liberty" violates the sacredness of Scripture.

Other rabbinical commentators also took liberties with the text. The medieval rabbi Ibn Ezra described those commentators as "absurd" for attempting to translate the active "let us make" (na'a'seh) into a passive "there is made" (niphal). These commentators added that the phrase "in our image, after our likeness" was not said by God, but added as a postscript by Moses.7

2. The text describes God speaking to creation

Medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides accepted the talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi. Rabbi Levi explained that God was speaking to creation.

AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, ETC. With whom did He take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth, like a king who had two advisers without whose knowledge he did nothing whatsoever.8

Levi knew that the plural implied that God was speaking to someone and concluded that the Lord was seeking advice and approval from other beings.

According to Rabbi Nachmanides, the plural reference denotes God speaking to the earth because "man's body would come from the earth and his spirit (soul) from God."9 But the separation of a person into distinct parts owes more to the Greek influence of Aristotle's philosophy than to a careful and accurate reading of the text. The biblical view of humankind indicates that physical, spiritual and psychic aspects are held together in a composite and indivisible unity. Rabbi Abarbanel explained that God was capable of making all the lesser works of creation but needed assistance when it came to human beings. That position denies God's omnipotence.

3. God is addressing the angels around his throne

Rashi explains that God chose to demonstrate humility by consulting his inferiors:

The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they [the rabbis] learned from here: because man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore he took counsel with them.…Although they did not assist Him in forming him [the man] and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel [i.e., to argue in favor of their own views], yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, "I shall make man," we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself.10

According to Rashi, if God had used the singular ("I" and "my") we could not have known he was addressing the angels. True—we would never have guessed that God was addressing angels, since there is no mention of angels in the text. But even with the plural, there is still no mention of angels in the text!

The text does not support the concept of God consulting angels in creation, and Rashi's argument became a source of confusion and disagreement among various rabbis.

4. God was speaking to the souls of the righteous unborn

One Jewish tradition states that the souls of the righteous existed before God created the world (and were present at Mount Sinai for the receiving of the law). Those who believe this tradition link Genesis 1:26 with the phrase "there they dwelt with the king in his work" from 1 Chronicles 4:23.

R. Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi's name: "[W]ith the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before the creation of the world."12

A later commentator rebutted the suggestion that God had partners in creation. He insisted that since no other beings are mentioned in the passage, it is not valid to invent them; in fact, it is best to maintain the solitude of God in creation: "Why was man created last? So that the heretics might not say there was a companion [i.e., Jesus] with Him in the work."13

5. God was keeping his own counsel

Some Jewish scholars believe that the mystery of Genesis 1:26 can be solved grammatically. They suggest a "plural of deliberation," whereby the plural expresses God's pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision.

Rabbi Ammi said: "He took counsel with His own heart. It may be compared to a king who had a palace built by an architect, but when he saw it, it did not please him: with whom is he to be indignant? Surely with the architect! Similarly, 'And it grieved Him at His heart.'" (Genesis 6:6)13

Several passages in Scripture describe a person deliberating by "consulting" some part of himself. In Psalm 42:6, the psalmist addresses his soul: "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why moanest thou within me?" Yet unlike Genesis 1:26, the psalmist uses the words "O my soul," and it is clear that he is deliberating within himself.

6. The royal "we"—plural of majesty

Just as Queen Victoria referred to herself in the plural ("We are not amused"), some say that God, as a majestic being, referred to himself the same way. This is a popular contemporary explanation. It does not raise the question of other beings. It rules out the possibility of God having a plural nature. It seems to be based on good linguistic evidence and analysis.

The Hertz Commentary on Genesis sees this explanation as one of two possibilities and points out that the first person plural is used for royalty in the Book of Ezra.14 "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18) is the sole example of a "plural of majesty" construction in Scripture. It also happens to be one of the few portions of Scripture in Aramaic, a language similar to Hebrew.

It would be poor scholarship to build a case for a grammatical construction in Hebrew on the grounds of this Aramaic text. Even so, the Ezra passage does not necessarily contain a singular royal subject linked to a plural verb-form. If the plural of majesty were a regular Hebrew idiom, why is the singular "me" in the same line?

Rabbinical commentators and linguists recognize that the Hebrew language provides no real basis for such an explanation.15 Ibn Ezra quotes the Gaon,…who suggests that the plural of Genesis 1:26 is the plural of majesty. He refuted that view in favor of God having consulted the angels.16 However, we have already mentioned the difficulties of using angels to solve the mystery.

7. There are different aspects within God's being

Some rabbis acknowledge different aspects within God's nature. There is no consensus as to what these aspects are or how to distinguish one from another. For example, the Zohar describes God as being both male and female.17

8. The Word: wisdom or messenger of God

Another way to explain Genesis 1:26 is to use the Memra, or "Word" of God. The Targum Neofiti (an early Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew text) translates verse 27: "And the Memra of the Lord created the man in his (own) likeness."18

The Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 33:27 translates the Hebrew "underneath are the everlasting arms" as "And by His 'Memra' was the world created."

Like the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Word is often personified and assigned divine attributes, implying divine status.19 Memra is used to describe God Himself, especially when he is revealing himself to human beings. Rabbinical thought also links the Memra to the Messiah. The New Covenant portion of the Bible reveals a similar understanding of the role of the Word in creation.

The Book of Genesis records that God's dynamic act of creation was through his spoken word: "And God said, Let there be light…," etc.20 The New Covenant Gospel of John begins this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.21

Jewish believers in Jesus believe in the Word of creation in Genesis. Therefore he is not only the Messiah, but God in human form.

Why the Rabbis Won't Regard the Plurality of God with Credibility

Some rabbis agreed that the Genesis 1:26 passage gives weight to the case for God's plurality. Their position has not shaped the current position or practice of Jewish religious leaders:

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name: "When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'"22

Some rabbis believe that to take the Scriptures at face value is to err. And yes, some out of concern to protect those who are deemed susceptible to such error, have set aside normative interpretations of the Scriptures. Rashi provided a clear example of this with the "suffering servant" passages of Isaiah 52 and 53.

The contemporary interpretation of Israel as the suffering servant was held by few of the early Jewish authorities. Nearly all believed it pointed to an individual and personal Messiah who would suffer and die for Israel's sin. But Rashi popularized the "national view" in the Middle Ages to refute the obvious messianic interpretation. Neither grammar, context nor logic supports this view, yet it is considered superior to the previously held (Jewish) view.

Similarly, in discussion of the Genesis 1 passage, various cases are presented in order to refute Jewish belief in Y'shua. Rabbis understood that a passage wherein God speaks and acts in the plural is significant evidence of diversity within his nature. They also knew that the New Covenant describes Y'shua as the eternal Word of God, the instrument of creation and the fullness of God in human form. They realized that people might make a connection between the two and designed their interpretations for the sake of countering "the heretics."23

Rabbi Simlai said: "Wherever you find a point supporting the heretics, you find the refutation at its side. They [the heretics] asked him again: 'What is meant by, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN?' 'Read what follows,' replied he: 'not, "And gods created [Hebrew: wa-yibre'u—the plural of the verb] man" is written here, but "And God created [Hebrew: wa-yibra—in the singular]"' (Genesis 1:27). When they [the heretics] went out his disciples said to him: 'Them you have dismissed with a mere makeshift, but how will you answer us?"24

Rabbi Simlai dealt with Jewish believers in Jesus by sidestepping the question. His own disciples recognized that he had done so and expressed the need for a more satisfying reply.

Some of the ancients admitted that certain Scriptures seemed to pose a threat to their understanding of God. They sought ways to direct others away from disturbing conclusions, and, in the case of Rashi, they openly explained that they made choices based on the need to refute Christians.

A Warning and a Challenge

Reverence for the text prevented the ancient rabbis from ignoring or altering the text. Nevertheless, for all their creative solutions to the mystery of this passage, they could not agree on an answer that would satisfy them all.

Today, however, Jewish thinkers are in danger of simply excising from Scripture and from history clues that the rabbis were hard pressed to explain. Such clues point to ideas most Jewish people wish to avoid.

How many contemporary rabbis will say that some of their interpretations and translations are strongly weighted to help people avoid "unacceptable" beliefs? How many would admit that their answers to these complex issues might direct people away from the Bible?

Sherlock Holmes once observed that when you have eliminated all possible explanations, the only remaining solution is the truth, no matter how impossible it seems.


  1. Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134 in the Soncino Press edition).
  2. John 10:30.
  3. Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia, 1917). All quotations from Hebrew Scriptures are from this translation, unless otherwise stated.
  4. Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The Quotable Lewis (Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL, 1989), p. 587.
  5. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures written some two hundred years before Y'shua.
  6. As stated in "The Image of God in Man," D.J.A. Clines, Tyndale Bulletin (1968), p. 62, referring to J. Jervell, "Imago Dei…," Gottingen (1960), p. 75.
  7. Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereshit), H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver, trans. (New York: Menorah Publishing Co., 1988), p. 43.
  8. Genesis Rabbah VIII.3 (Soncino Midrash Rabbah, p. 56).
  9. Referred to in Soncino Chumash (Soncino Press: London, 1956), p. 6.
  10. Pentateuch with the commentary of Rashi, Silberman edition, Jerusalem 5733, pp. 6-7.
  11. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.7, p. 59.
  12. Tosephta on Sanhedrin 8:7.
  13. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.3, p. 57.
  14. J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1940), p. 11.
  15. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (A. E. Cowley, ed., Oxford, 1976) says on the "plural of majesty": "Jewish grammarians call such plurals…plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc.10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, and 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way.…It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew," p. 398.
  16. Ibid., Soncino Chumash, p. 6.
  17. Zohar 22a-b (vol. 1, pp. 91-93 in the Soncino Press edition).
  18. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Martin McNamara, tr. (The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 55.
  19. Compare Colossians 1:5, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 3:14 with Proverbs 30:2-6. By His Memra was the world created corresponds to John 1:10.
  20. Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26.
  21. John 1:1-4.
  22. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.8, p. 59.
  23. Hebrew minim literally "sectarians" but generally assumed to be a reference to Jewish Christians. See R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1903), p. 361ff.
  24. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.9, p. 60.

Glossary of Names

Ibn Ezra
12th c. Spanish poet and biblical scholar.
David Kimchi
12th-13th c. Hebrew grammarian and Bible commentator.
Maimonides
Moses ben Maimon, 12th c. Spanish-born philosopher and codifier of Jewish law.
R. Joshua b. Levi
a 3rd c. amora.* Known as a peacemaker, he refused to attack Christian teaching.
Nachmanides
Moses ben Nachman, 13th c. Spanish biblical commentator and leader of Spanish Jewry in his day.
Abarbanel
15th-16th c. Spanish biblical commentator and philosopher.
Rashi
Rabbi Solomon b. Yitzchak, an 11th. c. French biblical and Talmudic scholar; his commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures remains standard to tis day.
Joshua of Siknin
a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel.
Ammi
Ammi bar Nathan. A 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, closely associated with R. Assi.
Jonathan
Jonathan b. Eleazer, a 3rd. c. amora* born in Babylonia but who lived in Eretz Israel.
Simlai
a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, the first to reduce 613 commandments to one (Habakkuk 2:4).

Share this post:

Submit to FacebookSubmit to TwitterShare on Google+

Add comment

  • If your comment does not pertain to this specific article/blog please click here to send us a message. Comments not related to this article will not be posted.
  • We reserve the right to delete vulgar, racist, or hateful content, as well as inappropriate and off-topic posts.
  • For extended discussions, use our forums.
  • Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
0 # norman bissell 2014-04-10 20:29
I am a christian and I believe absolutely in the oneness of God.
Not all christians believe in a trinity.
God can and does manifest himself in various ways and some interpret this as a trinity. Gods greatest manifestation is
joining the human race in the person of Jesus to redeem us from sin-check isaiah9;6-prophecy that a son would also be the Mighty God and Everlasting Father.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # onefut 2014-07-29 03:49
I came to the conclusion sometime ago that God has placed in nature a perfect example of how it works with the "Trinity ". The holy spirit showed me Ice, Water and steam. all 3 are seperate but all belong to the same single H2O all 3 can exist Quoting norman bissell:
I am a christian and I believe absolutely in the oneness of God.
Not all christians believe in a trinity.
God can and does manifest himself in various ways and some interpret this as a trinity. Gods greatest manifestation is
joining the human race in the person of Jesus to redeem us from sin-check isaiah9;6-prophecy that a son would also be the Mighty God and Everlasting Father.

seperatly but also together....makes sense to me and seems to me to agree with all sides of the arguement
:)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Matt Sieger 2013-03-06 15:57
Dear Mr. O'Flaherty,
I appreciate your suggestion about our name and your sensitivity to the feelings of our Jewish people. You might be interested to know that in the earliest days of our ministry, it was the people on the street and in the media who kept saying, "There go those 'Jews for Jesus,'" and after a while, we adopted the name they were already calling us. I see your point about Jesus for Jews expressing God's love for His chosen people. Over the years, we have from time to time used the phrase Jesus for Jews in our evangelistic literature and outreaches. As to inclusiveness, it is not uncommon to hear of groups with names like Democrats for Life (pro-life group). But I think that most people understand that this is a minority among the Democratic party. Similarly, I think most people also understand that Jews for Jesus is a minority among the greater Jewish population.
Shalom,
Matt Sieger
editor, ISSUES
Jews for Jesus
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Patrick OFlaherty 2013-03-06 08:46
The only thing I feel wrong with your name is that it could be construed as an insult to the Jewish people. Just as in talking to a friend when we end the conversation with “Talk to you later.”, saying “Talk with you later” is much better semantics as the first connotation can be construed as being talked down to rather than being on the level. “Jews for Jesus” could be interpreted as all inclusive. A 180 degree name change to “Jesus for Jews” would be a clearer message and would reflect His love for His people. The parable of the prodigal son, where he represents the Gentiles and his elder brother represents the Jews, is His affirmed feelings for His people. What did the father say to the elder son? “You are with me always; everything I have is yours (meaning his half of the inheritance is all that remains).” In my view, to call one’s self a Christian is to recognize that the Jews are still God’s chosen people.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Mathematical Person 2012-12-28 19:34
PART 2 of 2

c) God commands us to worship him with our minds, & d) He referes to himself in the plural (which is not a mistake b/c this is God's Word we're talking about), then the conclusion is: you must explain how ONE God can refer to himself (correctly) as more than one.

There are several ways to resolve this:
1. Even in a LITERALLY perfect world, with ALL PERFECT people (all 1 of them, LOL), people still need people (Gen.2:18). Hence community is important, and in this (as in everything) God excels and we are merely a copy (God exists in community). Compare this to the idea that 2 people are 1 in marriage (Gen.2:24).
2. Think about the Sun. It's rays emanate from it, made of exactly the same stuff, yet are distinct (consider 2, one each emanating from polar opposite sides of the Sun).
3. Triple point of water (gas, liquid, solid ALL AT ONCE!)
4. A person able to percieve 2 dimensions could never see a cube (6 squares making 1 shape!).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # rgt 2013-06-04 15:54
Another way to look at this and get a glimpse of the Trinity (it IS after all a Mystery)... is looking at a woman, who is one person but can be a mom, a daughter and a grand-daugher or grand-mother all the same time... she is still one, and in each "role" she is completely herself...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Mathematical Person 2012-12-28 19:08
PART 1 OF 2

I am a 28 year old Christian who came to faith in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit working in my heart AND REASON. I will only reference OLD testament Scripture proofs (considering the audience intended). PLEASE have the integrity to read the quoted Scriptures for yourself & consider them impartially (logic apart from prejudices, good and bad!). I am quoting the Scriptures in shorthand (ch. & vs.) b/c it is your responsibility to look into it.

Now back to REASON. God made our brains and we are to use them in our worship of him (Deut.10:12, "soul" includes "mind", if you know your Strong's Concordance: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nephesh.html); it's quite important. Secondly, God refers to himself multiple times in the plural (Gen.1:26, Gen.11:7, who is he conversing with in Gen.18:17?, Is.6:8, Ps.110:1, etc.)

If a) God's word is infallible (it cannot err), b) the Hebrew Old Testament is God's Word,
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Marco 2012-12-25 09:30
It's funny that you refer to the Zohar for your confirmantion that jesus is part of a G-dhead...i.e that jesus is G-d.You don't even recognize the authoritiy of the Rabbis or any of their writings.Anyway,the intention of your article is to prove that jesus IS G-d.The question is this : IF jesus is G-d (of one substance with G-d) then how could he die?G-d,the Eternal One, CANNOT die...it is IMPOSSIBLE.If you purport that G-d "became flesh" in the form of jesus then jesus,when he died,was flesh and bone,just like you and me,and not worthy of worship...unless you believe that worshiping a human being is OK.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # rgt 2013-06-04 15:50
Quoting Marco:
It's funny that you refer to the Zohar for your confirmantion that jesus is part of a G-dhead...i.e that jesus is G-d.You don't even recognize the authoritiy of the Rabbis or any of their writings.Anyway,the intention of your article is to prove that jesus IS G-d.The question is this : IF jesus is G-d (of one substance with G-d) then how could he die?G-d,the Eternal One, CANNOT die...it is IMPOSSIBLE.If you purport that G-d "became flesh" in the form of jesus then jesus,when he died,was flesh and bone,just like you and me,and not worthy of worship...unless you believe that worshiping a human being is OK.


I don't know how it works with Messianic Judaism, but in Catholicism we sustain that as G-d incarnated he BECAME man... than is, he retained both natures, a physical nature (whichs dies) and His own G-d nature which lives (thus the Ressurrection...)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Anthony 2014-04-05 15:23
The Zohar is not authentic or inspired by God and is possibly written in Christian era so I agree that Zohar should not be quoted but for entirely different reasons.

However, Jesus raised Himself from the grave as such His God nature did not and, you are right, could not die. However Jesus died in the flesh. Jesus was 100% man yet 100% God. Strange but true evidently.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # yohanna 2012-11-22 08:32
to john 3 you said that the light in the first day is not the sun or moon and that's right, do you mean the spirit is light as you said "the soul is a form of light", but you know that God said Let there be light but the spirit of God was existed before look at Genesis 1: 2 - 3

thank you.... God bless you
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # yohanna 2012-11-22 07:57
Reply to John 2: Isaiah 40: 13, we find that the Spirit of the Lord's greatest mentor and this is proof that it is not power, that if the spirit is a force.. so God must guide this spirit, in Zacarias 4: 6 that the spirit of the Lord is not the strength nor the ability, in the New Testament in Acts 5: 3 - 4 The Holy Spirit is God and Jesus said in John 4:24 God is spirit, if you Jehovah's Witnesses: who is Christ for you, God non God, so you are a heathen worship more than one god while trinity means one God in 3 Properties of Self: existence, knowledge and life as I said earlier.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # yohanna 2012-11-22 07:56
Mr. John during a your talk that the spirit of God is a force or influence, I imagine that you are from the Jehovah's Witnesses, I will give you some evidences of the identity of the spirit of God in the Old and New Testaments, God created Adam’s spirit, Is this spirit a force or effect in Adam? Of course not. It is life to Adam, if the spirit of Adam is not power so how the Spirit of God is power, Psalm 139: 7 we find here that the spirit of God is unlimited in place or time, but power or influence is limited, it’s appear in place and a particular time, the spirit of God here is the essence or nature of God: that God, Psalm 104: 30 and Job 33: 4 Spirit of God the Creator, so he is God, Is God creates the spirit..then this spirit creates Instead of God?!!!, this is impossible so the Spirit of God is God.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # john 2012-11-21 07:41
trinity = idolatry.
I came across Numbers 23:19.

the light in day 1 is not the sun, the moon, the stars. It is the radiant refecting on Elohim's garment. The soul is the garment of the spirit. The body is the garment of the soul. The spirit is always refered as wind, but the soul is a form of light and the soul of man was created on day 1.
Elohim fashioned and filled the earth with living things.

When Elohim bara (fatten) filled the A & T (Aleph and Tov), the heaven and the earth. [skip] Elohims wind sweep over the waters
2nd sentence is still corelated to the first.
Elohim said, let there be light. (Jewish-Aramaic) light = manifestation

Elohim sweep and filled the earth with water and filled the light through His spirit (wind)

Judeo Aramaic:
In the beginning was the manif, the manif. was with Alah/Aloh and the manif. was of Alah/Aloh Manifestation represents Elohim.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # yohanna 2012-11-19 18:39
Properties of God:
1- Properties of acts and capacity of God:Most High, Guide, Holy, Appointed, Mighty..etc..2- Self properties of God:
God Is : Exists, Sensible, Alive, Exists = Father: Because father of the idea is the source of an idea, father of the profession is the source of a profession and God is called Father because he is the existing and the source of the existence of the universe, Sensible = Son: In oriental languages ​​say the son of the desert, the son of Egypt, the son of the Nile, the son of 6 years, these descriptions do not mean sexual birth, but it means that the expression and equality, and Christ is the Word of God (Logos) mind and intellect, Alive = Holy Spirit: Spirit is life because God is live
God is one and has a one self, this self is Exists the same self is Sensible Mind, and the same self is a Spirit, Look at Genesis 1: 1 - 3: We find here the existence of God, Spirit of God, Mind of God (And God said), however there is one God.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Bryce 2012-11-05 20:52
The Bible says Hear O Isreal the Lord Our God is One Lord. God dones not want us to give our praise to another. I am a Christian and I do no believe in the trinity but I believe in the Oneness of God. God was manifest in the flesh. God is Jesus there is no doubt. My Church teaches alot of the smae teachings that the Jewish people teach and we teach Hear O Istreal the Lord Our God is One Lord. Hesham is One. He is the Creator and God of all living things. He is our Saviour and our Lord. I believe the Shema and repeat it every day as God has instructed. I believe Hesham to us to repeat the Shema everyday because He knew that the trinity would be taught and believed by so many people. God wanted us to know that Hesham is one Lord. He is the God of all, He is Jesus Christ and he is the Holy Ghost. I love the Shema and will always hold true to what Hesham has told us to do. He is the only Lord and God of all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # doug 2012-09-16 02:48
In light of the Bible being the word of GOD, whether of the Jewish or the Christian faith, we humans are the created not the creator. If we serve a GOD we can understand, then He ( GOD ) is in a human box and needs to be released into the MYSTERY of who He is,Omnipresent Omniscient.GOD has no problem being anything He wants to be whether three personalities, the voice of a donkey, the forth man in a furnace, or we, us, our,or them. We must let GOD be who He is in us in spite of our understanding of Him!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Sheldon 2012-10-01 02:45
Amen Brother Doug. With GOD all things are possible he does not need our approval or understanding to exhibit his will.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Teshome Woreti 2012-07-27 16:23
Quoting Alvin Krieger:
I am from the Jewish faith. In 1972 i received Jesus into my heart. In 1988 i received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In that same year the spirit lead me to do some research and bible study into the belief the Christians hold dearly; The trinity doctrine. If ! your interested in what i found on this subject write to me.

I am a christian. Please let me know what you found on the the doctrine of the trinity. God bless!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-3 # Anitchka 2012-11-13 00:16
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU FOUND OUT,IT MIGHT BE LATE CAUSE YOU WROTE THIS MANY YEARS AGO BUT CURRENTLY I AM FOR THE IDEA THAT THE TRINITY IS A FALSE DOCTRINE AND WE NEED TO FIGHT IT!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Sarah Noll 2012-07-09 19:29
Remember, "God is Spirit!" He can hover over the waters, speak, create, overshadow a virgin, beget a son, speak from Heaven while alighting upon Jesus in the form of dove, and being in Him all at once. He can pour out His Spirit on all flesh, indwell them, speak through them, walk alongside them, go forth into all the earth and still be One God! Confess all that Scripture says; Say the same thing as God. Don't add or subtract from it. If you come upon a part you are uncomfortable with ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you, to teach you, and to help you understand, but don't alter Scripture, or try to find a way around it. Embrace it as part that you have not seen yet but that one day you will. Oh the joy! Shalom!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Alvin Krieger 2011-07-11 14:20
I am from the Jewish faith. In 1972 i received Jesus into my heart. In 1988 i received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In that same year the spirit lead me to do some research and bible study into the belief the Christians hold dearly; The trinity doctrine. If your interested in what i found on this subject write to me.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Greg 2013-04-10 13:26
#@Alvin Krieger...I am interested..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deborah 2013-07-23 04:06
I too am interested n the beliefs of the early Christians, and also the Jewish beliefs that formed them. Please send me the information you found on this subject! Thank you so much!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Michael Kenna 2008-10-20 07:16
In section "1. Change the text or translate it differently" you say that the scholars change the text in the Septuagint. I looked at that translation and did not see the use of the singular noun. Would you please clarify what you were trying to say. Did they attempt to change but didn't? Did they change it but then chnges it back? Thanks
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Val 2008-08-17 19:26
I was a little concerned with the use of the Zohar since I understand Jewish mysticism is considered "another gospel". And while you show the different opinions of Jewish rabbis, I would like to know basically what is the original text and what would it mean in English considering the cultural backdrop. If God being ONE is God, Son and Holy Ghost, then is it due to the Name of God itself or the context of these scriptures or both? Thank you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Thomas 2008-05-08 20:42
Very impressed with your answer. Thank you for your research.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
Jews for Jesus | 60 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 | Phone: 415-864-2600 | Contact Us
Copyright © 2014 Jews for Jesus. All Rights Reserved.

Social Networks

Jews for Jesus Social Networks
Jews for Jesus on Facebook Jews for Jesus on Facebook Jews for Jesus on Twitter Jews for Jesus on Youtube