-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where In The Bible Do The Jews Reject The Trinity?
- Thread starter Ratiocination
- Start date
- Status
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...Gen.1:26
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul...Gen 2:7
Man is three in one just as God...body, soul and spirit...We will take off this corruptible body and put on incorruptible body... when we die, we give up the ghost and the body rots but the soul is waiting for the resurrection to put on the incorruptible body and receive the breath of God again...
When Jesus died, so did the Father and the Holy Ghost...death is separation from God. Jesus gave up the ghost and laid in the grave till he was resurrected...
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one...1John 5:7 Just like us, body, soul and spirit.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:...Gen 3:22
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord God concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD,...Obadiah 1:1
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul...Gen 2:7
Man is three in one just as God...body, soul and spirit...We will take off this corruptible body and put on incorruptible body... when we die, we give up the ghost and the body rots but the soul is waiting for the resurrection to put on the incorruptible body and receive the breath of God again...
When Jesus died, so did the Father and the Holy Ghost...death is separation from God. Jesus gave up the ghost and laid in the grave till he was resurrected...
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one...1John 5:7 Just like us, body, soul and spirit.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:...Gen 3:22
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord God concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD,...Obadiah 1:1
Upvote
0
Godhead answers this similarity: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Please notice here, there is only One God the Father.
A preposterous thinking! The world did not come to a dead halt when Jesus died! God the Father and the Holy Spirit continued to rule the world.
This statement contradicts your previous statement. How can one separate from a dead god?
This doesn't alter the existence one and only God the Father being Supreme. In man, the supreme is the soul.
Upvote
0
The doctrine of Trinity was formulated over 200 years after the last of the New Testament was written. So, of course, there is no place in the Bible where Jews reject it!
Jews rejected claims that Jesus is the Son of God or the Messiah immediately. Why do you think the Sanhedrin tried him? In the Midrash and Talmud (Jewish writings dating back to the time of the gospels), Jews claim that they executed Jesus by stoning. The charge was apostasy: Jesus claiming to be God. You can see this in the gospel of John twice where Jesus has to flee a mob because they want to stone him, because Jesus used the traditional language ("I am") to denote himself as God.
So it is not Trinity per se that Jews rejected, but claims that Jesus was God. Of course, that is one leg of the Trinity.
The question I would have for you: does Jehovah's Witness reject Jesus as God? Or Son of God?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes. http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tool...-reference-to-the-trinity-added-in-1-john-5-7
However, the manuscripts that contain "in heaven,the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" date from the 14th and 15th centuries. Therefore the interpolation was never used by the Church Fathers who formulated the doctrine of Trinity. They did so based on other scriptural passages, as well as their reasoning.
Upvote
0
If we accept the stories about Yeshu are about Jesus, which is debatable, none of them have Yeshu claiming to be G-d. They call him an idolatry and someone who enticed the people to idolatry.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 38,799
- 28,137
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
This view, popular in some modern circles, is known as Trichotomism. I have some problems with it, especially when used in regard to the Trinity, here's why:
There's nothing in Scripture which offers a very clear "complex anthropology", man is largely described simply as being human. If we rely on Scripture rather intently to understand how the ancients who wrote the Bible viewed things we come out with a picture more like this: In Hebrew the usual word translated as "soul" is nephesh, it means breath. A fairly clear picture here is in Genesis 2 where God takes dirt from the earth and fashions Adam then breathes into the lifeless lump and Adam becomes a "living soul". The nephesh is the breath of life, it is that essential something that makes the difference between a living thing and a corpse. In some sense this makes sense observationally, living things breathe, corpses don't breathe. That's nephesh means, breath. God "breathed" and Adam became a living, breathing thing.
The Greek word psuche means the same, breath.
Both Hebrew and Greek also have other words, often translated as "spirit"/"ghost" and these are ruach and pneuma. The thing is that these also can mean "breath" or even "wind". So in Genesis 1 where it says the Spirit of God hovered over the waters it can just as well be translated as "God's breath" or "Divine wind" etc.
The language of "soul" and "spirit" in Scripture largely seem to be not terribly well defined, but are instead somewhat nebulous ideas intended to speak of life. It's important that we understand things, such as that when in John's Gospel we read "God is Spirit" we do not interpret this to mean that God is some sort of very prestigious phantom. But instead to understand the vastness of God in that true worship of God is to be in spirit and truth rather than "stuck" at either the Temple Mount or Mt. Gerizim. The obvious meaning here is, if I were to argue it, that the Spirit would be poured out on Pentecost upon all flesh and thus true worship--in the Christian Church--wouldn't be centered at any temple or specific locality but is universal as a theme in much of the New Testament is that the function and language of temple is rendered to Christ and the Church.
What Scripture doesn't do is present man as a complex composition of parts made of body, soul, and spirit. Man is treated as a unified creature, man is a living, breathing, spiritual, physical animal or creature. I don't have parts, I'm just me. Now talking about me I can say things like I have a body and I have a mind, but I am all those various things I could say about me not as a piecemeal thing, but just as a thing. I'm not a soul in a body, I'm a body with soul--I breathe, I'm thinking, I'm feeling. The ideas of spirit and soul seem to be ways of expressing this fact that I'm here right now with a thinking mind aware of myself thinking--what we today call sapience. There's something seemingly missing when once a person was right here with me and, a lifetime or tragedy later, I can see them, see them physically and yet they seem fundamentally missing from the world. That quintessential difference between life and death is what we might call the soul, or the spirit.
Having said all this, even if for a moment we embrace a trichotomist view of man, this has nothing to do with the Trinity. God doesn't have parts, God is One: "Hear O Israel the Lord your God, the Lord is one." The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't a God in three parts, but the mystery of God's Essential Oneness and Hypostatic Threeness. God is the One-and-Three, or Trinity.
That heresy was already done and dealt with nearly 1800 years ago, known as Patripassionism the teaching that the Father suffered on the cross, it was associated with the heretical teachings of Modalistic Monarchians such as Sabellius and Praxeas. It is the Son who suffered, not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
As noted already, no. Further the Comma Johanneum is a known late (very, very late) interpolation into the text. Late medieval versions of the Vulgate contained it, and it is largely thought to have come about through scribal error, namely that it was originally a scribal note in the margins that through a scribal mistake entered into the text proper. It simply did not exist in any Greek texts, as such when in the 16th century Erasmus put together his critical edition of the Greek New Testament his first two editions did not contain the Comma, but some of his superiors put pressure on him to add it--he refused because he could not find any Greek manuscripts that contained it and unless he had a Greek manuscript to support it he could not in good conscious include it in his critical text. Eventually a Greek text was provided him, though it was either incredibly late (14th or 15th century) or possibly forged specifically in order to convince Erasmus to include it. Nevertheless in his third, fourth, and fifth editions it was included, and given that these were the editions of Erasmus critical text that later English translators used it was included in Tyndale's and Coverdale's translations, which were largely borrowed from by the translators of the King James Version, and they too relied on these editions of Erasmus critical text for their own work. Which is the entire reason why the KJV contained the Comma, and is also why revisions to the "standard text" such as the RSV, the ASV, the NRSV, and the ESV as well as unrelated and completely new translations such as the NIV do not include the Comma. It simply doesn't belong, it was an error to include it in the first place.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Hmmm. I'm confused about the idolatry charge.
Also, what are the earliest Jewish references to Christianity? I know that Josephus mentions the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, but he implies that the sentence was unjust. The gospels don't seem very clear about why Jesus was crucified. I get the impression that they were trying to prevent political unrest that could jeopardize relations with Rome, and they saw Jesus as a potential revolutionary.
Upvote
0
ChetSinger
Well-Known Member
From what I've read, the Jewish authorities had a couple of problems with Jesus. One of them was fear of the Romans, should Jesus make a claim to the Jewish throne (at least one time a crowd wanted to forcibly draft him).
At his trial, though, the final charge was truly religious in nature, and due to Jesus giving the council an answer that declared his divinity:
Jesus' curious reference to the "Son of Man" refers to a passage in Daniel which was regarded at that time to be an incarnation of YHWH (see "Two Powers in Heaven" by Segal). It was just too much for the council. His answer is, I think, one of the evidences that he was seeking death. He had know what their response would be to it, yet he said it anyway.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
How does the "Son of Man" in the Book of Enoch relate to the "Son of Man" in the Book of Daniel? Apparently at least portions of the Book of Enoch are older than the Book of Daniel, so did the Book of Daniel borrow the "Son of Man" from the Book of Enoch, or did both books borrow the name from something older? Are they the same character? (I have not read the Book of Enoch.)
Upvote
0
That is a good point about the Romans, because many historians believe that the Gospels originally placed the blame for the crucifixion on the Romans and later reassigned that blame to the Jewish authorities, because offending the Romans was more dangerous than offending the Jews. Maybe this was also a result of the later animosity between the increasingly Gentile Christians and the Rabbinical Jews?
So we need to look at the earliest layers of the Gospel for clues instead of the later layers.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 38,799
- 28,137
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
At a fundamental level the very language of Christian confession was in some sense de facto treasonous.
The most basic of Christian confession was that Jesus was King and Lord. From the position of Rome there already was a king of kings and lord of lords--Caesar who ruled over many kingdoms as topmost sovereign. Herod was a king, sure, but Caesar was the king of kings. In confessing Jesus as Lord (Christos kyrios) this stood in defiant opposition to the Roman confession: Kaiser kyrios, Caesar is lord. For Rome there was already a divine son, or the son of the divine. Augustus Caesar, son of the divine Julius Caesar, founder of the Roman Empire, and in the case of latter emperors such as Tiberius who was Caesar in the time of Christ and the earliest years of the Church we have coinage that reads things like:
TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS
"Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus"
There was therefore already a "divine son" and/both a "son of the divine", and it resides entirely in the imperial power seated at the eternal city of Rome.
For Jesus, and later Christians, to assert of Jesus that He is "Son of God" and divine was a full on frontal assault against Rome.
There are other things too. Very often people read the story where Jesus says "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" either interpreting it to mean that Jesus was saying "yes" pay your Roman taxes or "no" don't pay your Roman taxes. This seems to miss the entire point of what's going on in the story.
When the group came up to Jesus asking if they should pay taxes to Rome or not, it was set up as a trap, there was supposed to be no right answer, only two equally wrong answers: If Jesus said yes, pay your taxes then He would be shown to be a Roman corroborator and a traitor to His people, if Jesus said no, don't pay your taxes then He would be shown to be a treasonous dissident spreading dangerous anti-Roman propaganda. The question was intended to make Jesus either stand on the side of Rome and its oppressive regime, or on the side of the Zealots who called for active--even violent--opposition toward Roman oppression. The whole point in Jesus' response is that He doesn't answer their question as yes or no, in at least one form of the story He asks his interrogators to show them a Roman coin and asks them "Whose face is on that coin?" well obviously it was the face of Tiberius, and chances are written on the coin was something like the above. Such language, of course, was definitely idolatrous (and is a major reason why it was necessary for money-changers to exist in the Temple to convert idolatrous Roman currency into something that could be used in the sacred Temple grounds in Jerusalem). Jesus then says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." This instead puts the question back upon the interrogators: What is Caesar's? What is God's? "You figure it out." Possibly even, "Let Caesar have his face back. You don't need it."
Christians weren't looking to overthrow Rome, nevertheless their theology was adamantly in defiance of Roman state theology.
-CryptoLutheran
The most basic of Christian confession was that Jesus was King and Lord. From the position of Rome there already was a king of kings and lord of lords--Caesar who ruled over many kingdoms as topmost sovereign. Herod was a king, sure, but Caesar was the king of kings. In confessing Jesus as Lord (Christos kyrios) this stood in defiant opposition to the Roman confession: Kaiser kyrios, Caesar is lord. For Rome there was already a divine son, or the son of the divine. Augustus Caesar, son of the divine Julius Caesar, founder of the Roman Empire, and in the case of latter emperors such as Tiberius who was Caesar in the time of Christ and the earliest years of the Church we have coinage that reads things like:
TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS
"Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus"
There was therefore already a "divine son" and/both a "son of the divine", and it resides entirely in the imperial power seated at the eternal city of Rome.
For Jesus, and later Christians, to assert of Jesus that He is "Son of God" and divine was a full on frontal assault against Rome.
There are other things too. Very often people read the story where Jesus says "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" either interpreting it to mean that Jesus was saying "yes" pay your Roman taxes or "no" don't pay your Roman taxes. This seems to miss the entire point of what's going on in the story.
When the group came up to Jesus asking if they should pay taxes to Rome or not, it was set up as a trap, there was supposed to be no right answer, only two equally wrong answers: If Jesus said yes, pay your taxes then He would be shown to be a Roman corroborator and a traitor to His people, if Jesus said no, don't pay your taxes then He would be shown to be a treasonous dissident spreading dangerous anti-Roman propaganda. The question was intended to make Jesus either stand on the side of Rome and its oppressive regime, or on the side of the Zealots who called for active--even violent--opposition toward Roman oppression. The whole point in Jesus' response is that He doesn't answer their question as yes or no, in at least one form of the story He asks his interrogators to show them a Roman coin and asks them "Whose face is on that coin?" well obviously it was the face of Tiberius, and chances are written on the coin was something like the above. Such language, of course, was definitely idolatrous (and is a major reason why it was necessary for money-changers to exist in the Temple to convert idolatrous Roman currency into something that could be used in the sacred Temple grounds in Jerusalem). Jesus then says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." This instead puts the question back upon the interrogators: What is Caesar's? What is God's? "You figure it out." Possibly even, "Let Caesar have his face back. You don't need it."
Christians weren't looking to overthrow Rome, nevertheless their theology was adamantly in defiance of Roman state theology.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
There is no evidence that the earlier gospels did that and I don't know of any historians who have argued this way. Keep in mind that except for Luke, all the Gospel writers were Jews. In someways they were saying, "We did this" which was perhaps appropriate given their understanding of the Gospel message. The problem arises only when Rome becomes Christian and then it is suddenly a case of "They [the Jews] did this" which totally defeats the Gospel message, IMV.
Upvote
0
I will never remember where I read this (maybe Bart Ehrman?), but apparently when comparing the earliest gospels with the later gospels, there is a progressive shifting of the blame from Pilate to the Jewish authorities. Eventually Christians even imagined Pilate to be a convert to Christianity.
Here is one quote that touches on this idea (see the part I highlighted at the end):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
Upvote
0
As in marriage, it is an agreement, to be faithful to eachother,
If the man goes chasing other women or if the woman is open to all sorts of advances,
it would not be faithful to the agreement.
The giving of Torah can be likened to a marriage, from generation to generation,
So the agreement is valid for all future.
"We will hear and we will do."
It is not often someone knows the person they are going to marry, they only think they do.
In a marriage one should reject all attempts to be enticed away and be unfaithful.
1+1+1=3
God is One, God,s Oneness, there is no where He is not.
It cannot be possible to be outside of God, for then we would simply not exist.
No one can see God and live, to be able to see God, one would have be outside of Him,
which is not possible if there is no where He is not.
Upvote
0
He may be comparing John's Gospel to the earlier ones. But the shift isn't from Romans to Jews. It is from "scribes and Pharisees" to Jews in general. At the time John Gospel was written Christians were being tossed out of the synagogues hence, the hostility towards Jews in general.
Upvote
0
The trinity doctrine was created by the Vatican.. and enforced by publishing edited (bogus) Bibles that "prove" that the trinity is true. Yet if you read the KJV Bible it says, 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Before it is said that "these three are one" proves the trinity, consider these facts...
So how and why did the trinity come about? The answer can be read here...
http://www.remnantofgod.org/onegod.htm
(Note: the link I just posted will be reported as flaming catholics when in reality its a wake up call for catholics and all believers of trinity so please pass this info on for the sake of those truly striving to be true Christians)
- Jesus said in Matthew 12:31 that blasphemy against Him are forgiven but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. If the trinity is true doctrine, then what Jesus said will be self-contradictory, because if you blaspheme Jesus you also blaspheme the Holy Ghost since "they are one being".
- Read this verse, John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Does this mean that all the disciples will be one big ball of arms and legs and heads because they are one? No, it simply means they are all one in AGREEMENT, one in FAITH. Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"
- Consider what the Bible says about marriage... Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Look at married couples today... are they one being? 2 pairs of arms, legs, and 2 heads sticking out? Nope. They are one in agreement.
- Jesus was crucified on the cross for our sins. If trinity is true doctrine, this means God Father and the Holy Ghost was also crucified on the cross in Jesus. Common sense (after reading the Bible), declares this is heresy.
- Or how about Christ's baptism? Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." This is speaking of THREE separate Persons of the Godhead in THREE different locations at the same time! The Father in heaven, the Holy Ghost descending like a dove, and Jesus in water. This proves the trinity doctrine that God is one being and not three separate Persons, is false doctrine.
- How about these verses? Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." Acts 2:46 "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," Romans 5:15 "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:" There are many more verses regarding of being in one accord. But you get the idea. Whenever the Bible speaks of people/disciples being one, it means being in agreement, like minded, one accord, albeit still are separate beings unlike what the trinity speaks of God.
So how and why did the trinity come about? The answer can be read here...
http://www.remnantofgod.org/onegod.htm
(Note: the link I just posted will be reported as flaming catholics when in reality its a wake up call for catholics and all believers of trinity so please pass this info on for the sake of those truly striving to be true Christians)
Upvote
0
Not so. The Trinity was first articulated by Tertulian in the second century. It was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea. Nicaea was nine hundred miles away from the Vatican. The Council was called by the Emperor Constantine and the Pope didn't even attend.
So if the Bibles published by the early church are 'bogus' which Bible is the real one and how do you know that?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
