Do messianic jews believe in the trinity?

[yonah_mishael]

It's just confusing. I've used this analogy before (when I got called a modalist) but I'll try again. I'm a woman, in every other thing that I am, I am first and foremost a woman and everyone who knows me knows me as a woman. There are times that I am friend and most who know me are familiar with me as friend. Then are times that I am known as nourisher, mother and only some know me this way. But in all of these things I remain the same single woman, who is also a friend who is also a mother. I can be each of these persons individually, or two at a time, and even all three at the same time - but I'm one woman.
That's not exactly how I see the Trinity, but it's the closest I can come to putting it into words that can be understood. So if it's heresy, at least it's logical, I can understand it.

That is the very definition of Modalism, though. Essentially, it sees God as one being, one substance, one identity; yet that one identity takes on various rolls or functions in how it (He) deals with the creation (specifically, man). Thus, God is Father of all things, and in that role he is known as the Father. He is also the Savior, and in that role Christians call him the Son. He is also the one who invigorates and inspires, and in that role, he is called the Holy Spirit. This is Modalism -- the definition of the three as separate roles which God fulfills, but not separate persons or personalities within one being.

The accepted Christian doctrine is that God is one being that literally exists in three Persons, who have eternally been three. These are not just roles but actual Persons that exist in tandem, one with the other. They teach that the Word (which became and continues to be identified as Jesus of Nazareth) was eternally with God, having been begotten of him (they don't say how) within the expanse of eternity. They further teach that the Holy Spirit, yet another Person of the same basic essence [ὁμοουσία homoousia] with the Father and the Word, issues forth from both the Father and the Son. Granted the Person of the Holy Spirit is less defined than either other Person, but that's not a huge issue for the traditional Christian, who sees the Holy Spirit as a ever present power that infuses his daily live with the life of God.

This is clearly laid out in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

 

[TanteBelle]

Isn't that what the trinity is? The idea of there being 1 being but 3 'aspects'?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Isn't that what the trinity is? The idea of there being 1 being but 3 'aspects'?

No. It is not aspects of one person. It is three persons in one existent. Each person has a different personality and a distinct will.

 

[paul becke]

Because the term "Holy Spirit" is a title for the Father I see no reason to be a Trinitarian. Before the 3rd century there was no Trinitarin formula in scriptures.

It seems to have been extrapolated from Christ's teachings in the Gospels. There is quite an amusing passage in which the Lord is baffled that Philip and Thomas don't get that he and the Father are one!

And didn't he tell them that he wouldn't be able to send them the Holy
Ghost (his own Ghost which animates his Mystical Body, the True Vine), until he had ascended to his Father's side in Heaven? And since he and the Father are one, his Ghost is obviously integral with the nature of the Father. I believe that would be how it works.

I believe most mainstream Christians identify Abraham's three visitors with the Holy Trinity.

 

[yedida]

That is the very definition of Modalism, though. Essentially, it sees God as one being, one substance, one identity; yet that one identity takes on various rolls or functions in how it (He) deals with the creation (specifically, man). Thus, God is Father of all things, and in that role he is known as the Father. He is also the Savior, and in that role Christians call him the Son. He is also the one who invigorates and inspires, and in that role, he is called the Holy Spirit. This is Modalism -- the definition of the three as separate roles which God fulfills, but not separate persons or personalities within one being.

The accepted Christian doctrine is that God is one being that literally exists in three Persons, who have eternally been three. These are not just roles but actual Persons that exist in tandem, one with the other. They teach that the Word (which became and continues to be identified as Jesus of Nazareth) was eternally with God, having been begotten of him (they don't say how) within the expanse of eternity. They further teach that the Holy Spirit, yet another Person of the same basic essence [ὁμοουσία homoousia] with the Father and the Word, issues forth from both the Father and the Son. Granted the Person of the Holy Spirit is less defined than either other Person, but that's not a huge issue for the traditional Christian, who sees the Holy Spirit as a ever present power that infuses his daily live with the life of God.

This is clearly laid out in the Nicene Creed:

I just can't wrap my pea-brain around that. It doesn't compute. I guess one reason is that when I think of "person" I think of all the aspects of one singular person - there are a lot of them. Put 3 distinct persona within one and you got myriads of aspects, chaos in fact. I don't see Hashem as chaos. It's too big for me to try to figure out. I accept that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, just don't ask me to describe them - no can do.

 

[anisavta]

That's about it for me. Can a spirit (ruach) be a person? Don't know. It's a mystery and I'm satisfied to know it will all be unpacked for me by HaShem Himself.
I do know that Yeshua refered to G~d as His Father. He refered to Himself as the Son and He said when He left the earth the Ruach Hakodesh would come. How that all works - ani lo yoda'at.

 

[yedida]

That's about it for me. Can a spirit (ruach) be a person? Don't know. It's a mystery and I'm satisfied to know it will all be unpacked for me by HaShem Himself.
I do know that Yeshua refered to G~d as His Father. He refered to Himself as the Son and He said when He left the earth the Ruach Hakodesh would come. How that all works - ani lo yoda'at.

Oh, I thought "ani lo mevinah" meant I don't understand. Guess it's back to the books for me!!

Yeah, and I got myself a Deut. 29:29 box chock full of questions to be answered one day.

 

[anisavta]

It does. I said I don't know.

 

[yedida]

It does. I said I don't know.

I realized that yada'at probably means either know or knowledge after the fact but left it open cos I wasn't sure. I'm glad to know I can still go to Israel and let everyone know that I don't understand a thing!! And now I can tell them that I don't know anything as well!! Gosh, I'm doing good!

 

[visionary]

I think that as Yeshua showed us that there is more to Him than the ordinary human, there is more to God that what our finite minds can comprehend, so to try and come up with finite definitions to describe both His power, His abilities, and His attributes to finite terms is foolishness. I personal go for one God ( mind [Father], body [Yeshua] and spirit [holy]) far more capable of being in more places than one, doing a wide variety of things in various forms at the same time but still be just one.

 

[yedida]

I think that as Yeshua showed us that there is more to Him than the ordinary human, there is more to God that what our finite minds can comprehend, so to try and come up with finite definitions to describe both His power, His abilities, and His attributes to finite terms is foolishness. I personal go for one God ( mind [Father], body [Yeshua] and spirit [holy]) far more capable of being in more places than one, doing a wide variety of things in various forms at the same time but still be just one.

I'm with you on that one!

 

[Heber]

Perhaps viewing the Trinity as a three legged stool will help.

If you remove any one leg the stool is no longer a stool. The seat represents creation to which all three are connected - Yeshua being the Creator (John 1), the Father seeing that the Son's work was good, or very good, and the Spirit hovering over the void as it is filled.

This is only an analogy to help - not a theological equation!

 

[yonah_mishael]

Perhaps viewing the Trinity as a three legged stool will help.

If you remove any one leg the stool is no longer a stool. The seat represents creation to which all three are connected - Yeshua being the Creator (John 1), the Father seeing that the Son's work was good, or very good, and the Spirit hovering over the void as it is filled.

This is only an analogy to help - not a theological equation!

So, the three legs are all of one substance, but they are separate. Then again, the seat itself is of the same substance, and the legs would have no function if the seat didn't exist. It's not a very complete analogy, really.

 

[Heber]

So, the three legs are all of one substance, but they are separate. Then again, the seat itself is of the same substance, and the legs would have no function if the seat didn't exist. It's not a very complete analogy, really.

Analogies rarely stand up to minute scrutiny - as I said it is just to help people visualise the connections. It is a picture often used in Christianity to explain the Trinity. Not everyone would see a stool as necessarily being made of just one type of wood which, of itself, can cause problems with the analogy!

It makes the point that they are all one and you cannot remove one without rendering the whole, useless. The explanation of the 'seat' was added following responses that said the 3 legged stool was clearly incomplete if the seat had no meaning! (You can't win, can you?).

As I said, it is not a theological equation or statement - purely a visual aid to help 'see' the Trinity in Christian terms.

 

[TanteBelle]

No. It is not aspects of one person. It is three persons in one existent. Each person has a different personality and a distinct will.

Okay, so there are some who say that there is simply one being but 3 aspects while other say that 3 beings live in the one being? I'm not sure I'm following here. I don't agree with either view, but anyways. :/

 

[Heber]

Okay, so there are some who say that there is simply one being but 3 aspects while other say that 3 beings live in the one being? I'm not sure I'm following here. I don't agree with either view, but anyways. :/

1=3 or 3=1 Decisions! Decisions! Financially, I'd go for the former. If it was income then every £1 earned could equal £3 in spending power. Heaven!

 

[Study The Manual]

Okay, so there are some who say that there is simply one being but 3 aspects while other say that 3 beings live in the one being? I'm not sure I'm following here. I don't agree with either view, but anyways. :/

Same here.

Has anyone actually studied where the idea of the Trinity originated from? Google: First Council of Nicaea.

 

[TanteBelle]

Same here.

Has anyone actually studied where the idea of the Trinity originated from? Google: First Council of Nicaea.

I haven't studied, no. I have heard things. But for myself, none of the views out there seem to make any sense and I can't seem to justify them with scripture. I guess that's where I stand. I read somewhere that Isaac Newton and Thomas Jefferson were just two folks who were non-trinitarian as well?! There were other famous names; I just don't remember them! LOL!

 

[yonah_mishael]

I haven't studied, no. I have heard things. But for myself, none of the views out there seem to make any sense and I can't seem to justify them with scripture. I guess that's where I stand. I read somewhere that Isaac Newton and Thomas Jefferson were just two folks who were non-trinitarian as well?! There were other famous names; I just don't remember them! LOL!

Jefferson was a deist. Deists don't believe in trinity.

 

[TanteBelle]

Jefferson was a deist. Deists don't believe in trinity.

What do you mean by a deist? I thought he was Christian.