Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I had no intention to weigh in on this thread....I still feel hesitant. What people believe or elect not to believe about their god(s) is so personal. But, here I am.

First, at no place in the Hebrew bible does it teach the G*d of the Jew has multiple parts or personalities. To us, there is only one G*d.

Consider this, the trinity doctrine depicts Jesus is not only the Son of G*d but He is also the G*d and therefore He is His own Son. And our Heavenly Father is not only our Father but He is also G*d and hence G*d is His own Father. It also means that G*d sent Himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to Himself, raised Himself from the dead, ascended to Himself in heaven, pleads before Himself in heaven to reconcile the world to Himself, and is the only mediator between man and Himself. And that also means that in the garden G*d prayed to Himself to let the cup pass from Himself.

However, having said that there is the foundation of the idea of the trinity. It is located in the story of Babel/Babylon. Ham, the grandson of Noah, had a son named Nimrod. In the Hebrew bible, Nimrod was the originator of sun worship and founder of Babylon. The Targum says, “Nimrod became a mighty man of sin, a murderer of innocent men, and a rebel before the Lord.” Nimrod married his own mother Semiramis. She was the first deified queen of Babylon and Nimrod was the first deified king. You may recall that Shem who was one of Noah's three sons and the great uncle of Nimrod, killed Nimrod and cut him up into small pieces as an example to others to not commit such abominable sins.

Shortly after the death of her husband and son, Semiramis became pregnant. She claimed that when Nimrod died he went up to the sun, and so the sun then became a symbol of Nimrod. She told the people that a ray of the sun had come to her and impregnated her with a child and that it was actually Nimrod coming back in a reincarnation of the sun god. The child was called Tammuz and these three were worshipped as the personification of the sun god. Semiramis proclaimed that her husband Nimrod was a god, and she as the wife of Nimrod was a goddess. She then declared herself to be “The Queen of Heaven” and demanded worship. She claimed that her spirit was the moon and that when she died she would dwell in the moon, even as Nimrod was already in the sun. The first trinity; Nimrod - Tammuz - and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” - The first divine incomprehensible trinity.

The worship of three was carried to all the different cultures. In Egypt, their trinity became Osiris, Horus and Isis. In Greece it was Zeus, Apollo and Athena. And in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. All these gods are depicted with a halo around their heads which represents the sun god. The system of Rome adopted the same symbol where you see saints with a halo around their head. Most Christians think that this means they are holy but it actually represents the sun god. And speaking of Rome, they had Jupiter, Mars and Venus.

What I presented is factual, not just an opinion of a Jewess. I offer it to you for consideration and not to sway you from your beliefs....keep in mind, you asked.

bahmer

I asked because I know that you and your father the rabbi that you call by the name Papa had a close relation and that he taught you many things and I was therefore curious as to what the Jewish doctrine is. I asked from that humble view only and I was not trying to prove anything one way or the other. Thanks so very much for weighing in on the topic Pennylynn and you are always welcome on here as well. Take care and stay healthy. Bruce

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I know that you asked with all good intentions and I appreciate your invitation. I do not feel put out, but I hope you understand that in the past my opinions have not been well received as "opinion" but that I was trying to persuade people from their Christian beliefs. That, my dear friend, is the furthest thing from my intent. So, although I read each and every thread and comment on religion and learn daily from you and others, I try to remain silent.

bahmer

One of the reasons that I ask you is that I am aware of your close relationship to your father and Rabbi as well as the bond that you two shared. The other reason for asking is that we state that we are a Judeo Christian nation and therefore our root if you will is the Jewish religion and that calls into play your beliefs as well as ours. For that reason I feel your opinions whether others accept them or not are most welcome. We may believe differently on certain points but the fact that we believe in God we are the same. One other question for my own curiosity if you it is OK with you is the following. Who is the Messiah and is he or is he not of the Godhead? I also realize that I am going off of a translation but in Genesis when God says let us make man in our image was that not a plural referring to more than one God or personage in the godhead?

Rose42

I also value your opinion and don't think you're trying to sway anyone. I always read your posts particularly in this section. Besides, if someone is offended and you weren't trying to be offensive that's on them not you. I don't understand why anyone would get offended on a forum that's mostly anonymous.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Within "Contemporary Christianity" we sometimes appear to be unprepared to articulate our belief in Almighty God as an indivisible Trinity, and of the inseparable implications of divine Trinitarian relations in everything that can legitimately be called “Christian.”

"Ultimately, The Holy Trinity is a mystery to human flesh. This, of course, should hardly surprise us, for, in a similar manner, how much can a young child understand of the mature and loving relationship of his or her father and mother, including the interaction between the components of love, intellect, psyche and soul within their personalities? A small child would not be able to grasp such things, and is not God even higher above us than the parents of a small child are above that child? Therefore, the Trinity can never be fully comprehended by men and women while 'in the flesh.'

Some groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses) claim that the Holy Trinity comes from paganism; Is there really any truth, or hard evidence in this claim?

This claim is provably untrue nonsense because the Trinity is a very distinctively Christian belief. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are all revealed to be God. The Godhead Scriptures to quote in future defense of that truth are below.

So What is the Trinity?

It is the Christian belief that there are Three Persons in One God. These Three Persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - are distinct from one another yet they share the same Divine Nature. Thus they are not three distinct gods, but one God; so God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ALL (according to the Holy Bible) bear the character and attributes of God.

Some cults and sects claim that the early Christians copied the Holy Trinity from surrounding pagan religions. They are a mile from the truth. So just what is the truth? Why did the 'Church Fathers' find it necessary to set out this doctrine? Far from what the sects and cults teach (and they are often woefully ignorant of the facts of church history), the concept actually came from a very careful reading and inspired interpretation of the Bible, which refers to three distinct Persons as "God" yet insists that there is but one God.

The earliest Christian leaders were concerned that some early congregations were coming to an erroneous understanding of God which did not recognize ALL the Scriptures about God so they found it necessary to set these things out doctrinally in order to avoid error and heresy before or by the 4th century.

Much of this was in order to refute Arius who was guilty of perverting the Scriptures which refer to God. This man, gave his name to the well-recognized heresy of Arianism – very much alive among Jehovah's Witnesses today.

Evidence of an Egyptian "Trinity"?

Before Christianity, no religion ever professed or worshiped a single Deity consisting of three persons. Detractors sometimes say that the Osirus-Isis-Horus family of ancient Egyptian mythology was a "model" for the Christian Trinity. Yet this is clearly a triad of distinct pagan deities, not a trinity in the Christian sense. The Egyptians never considered them to be three persons in one God, but as two separate gods and a goddess - among numerous other divinities such as Hathor, Ptah, Neith, Set, Nut, Geb, and Basht, to name a few. The highest deity in their pantheon was the sun god Ra, so the Osirus-Isis-Horus triad was not supreme among their own gods!

A Triune Goddess Among the Celts?

Some point to "triple goddesses" worshipped by the pagan Celts as forerunners of the Christian Trinity. Yet these were either triads of mother goddesses or a single goddess with three "aspects" or "modes of being". The Holy Trinity isn't one Divine Person with three "aspects" or "modes", instead, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another. Thus the "triple goddess" is merely a threefold deity, not a true trinity in the Christian sense, and could not be the origin of the Holy Trinity.

The problem is that when people go looking for pagan 'divine triads' they find them, as as 'divine quartets', 'divine septets' on and on! We must realize that in India alone it is claimed that over 1,000,000 deities are worshipped (according to the region and the particular strain of religiosity one prefers). - If it could indeed be shown that there are many pagan divine triads, they would be three distinct deities, not Three in One who is God.

Is it not likely that Satan is futilely fashioning this from his prior knowledge of God, when he was the former Lucifer?

Hindu Trimurti = Trinity?

Other critics within the cults claim that the Hindu "trimurti" - Brahma, Vishnu and Siva - was another model for the Christian Trinity. Yet scholars tell us that this "trimurti" only appears in Hinduism during the 4th-7th centuries AD.

By that time the Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity was well-established! If the Holy Trinity concept predates the Hindu trimurti as appears to be the case, the former could not have been copied from the latter. In fact, given Hinduism's tendency to absorb concepts from other religions, and the fact that Christianity reached India in the first century, it is very likely that the Hindu teachers developed the trimurti along the lines of the Trinity-concept professed by Indian Christians!

Yet the former is not an exact copy of the latter. Hindus do not consider Brahma, Vishnu and Siva to be three persons in one God, but three distinct gods who each manifest part of Brahman, the impersonal Absolute. Some even add a fourth god, Ishvara, to this group, and claim that he is the first - antecedent to the other three! This demolishes the threeness which might seem to parallel the Trinity.

Moreover, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva each have a goddess consort - Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Sakti respectively. That would make not three but six. Add Ishvara and his consort, Maheshvari, and you now have eight primary manifestations of Brahman! Yet these are only eight among millions of divinities in the Hindu tradition, all of which are considered various manifestations of the Absolute.

Thus any alleged Hindu parallel with the Trinity quickly dissolves into a modalistic polytheism and finally a monistic pantheism, in which all diversity in the universe merely manifests an underlying spiritual Unity (a concept which has no place at all in orthodox Christianity, although it certainly appears in New Ageism).

Finally:

It is clear that those cults and sects which reject the Trinity do not correctly understand it, so it should not surprise us that they seek the Trinity in polytheism or modalism although those concepts are absolutely anathema to the doctrine of The Holy Trinity. The Christian concept of the Trinity is quite unique to world religions, not copied from another faith but progressively revealed by God in Holy Scripture. Some Christians believe that various pagan triads and threefold deities originated in Satan's, a.k.a., Lucifer's primitive knowledge of the Triunity of the One True God from his former abode in Heaven. This is also quite possible.

These memories of mankind could have originated from our first parents, who walked with God at the dawn of humanity, or God revealed something of this truth about Divinity to "righteous pagans", in centuries past who genuinely sought the Most High God. Every false religion has an element of truth in it as all are founded by the former Archangel, Lucifer, now Satan who witnessed divine truth in heaven.

Locating pagan religious beliefs which bear a superficial resemblance to biblical truth, proves only that Satan, formerly Lucifer the Archangel, who was privy to heaven's Biblical divine truths, is the great imitator, lacking originality, and it most certainly does not prove that early Christians copied pagan concepts.

Why would the early Christians do such a thing when we have a record which shows how determined we have been in our fight against paganism? There is a very clear record from church history which tells us why the earliest Christian leaders were determined to outline the Trinity: It was a concern that biblical truth about God should be carefully preserved.

Apart from a Trinitarian foundation, there could be no Christological incarnation, redemption, resurrection, or Pentecostal outpouring. Apart from the Trinity, there can be no viable understanding of regeneration, sanctification, the church body, interactive prayer, Christian worship, baptism, Holy Communion, eschatology, etc.

We are able to clarify some of these difficult areas. Plainly, we are to affirm that there is Only One God, who has revealed Himself in a variety of ways. Among these are three which have the very special significance of standing in relationship not only to us as human beings, but in relationship to each other.

Apart from the Trinitarian understanding of God found in Scripture, Christianity disintegrates, and has nothing to offer mankind.

bahmer

Amen and Amen thanks for those bible verses Zemirah.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Hi bahmer,

Thank God!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The Mashiach ben David will be human and mortal.

To whom G*d was talking....that is a real good question. I think that G*d was conversing with heavenly beings that He created at the beginning of time. He created His messengers long before He created our world and humans; He talked with those messengers as He once did with humans (I think He still talks with us, but that is a discussion for another time). The messengers or angels were not gods, but that does not mean that our Father did not value what they said or disregarded their suggestions. He gave us minds and ability to learn, grow in intelligence, and free will. It is not a stretch to imagine He did this for His other creations, this world or others. Satin would be a good example, he was beautiful, intelligent, cunning, and talked with G*d (before and after his fall). I have often wondered if there were other gods, because our Father made it very clear that we are not to adopt the gods of other nations...were these gods those angels/messengers who were booted from heaven with Satin? Imagine their abilities honed over the many years of living and learning from G*d. This is just my thoughts because the Bible is not clear.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I too am grateful for your input here, Pennylynn...

And some interesting takes, especially at the end... I have often wondered about other gods as well... And I believe that the Lord once spoke directly with His children as well...

Thanks for joining us

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Pennylynn,

I’d like to thank you also for weighing in. I’d also love to have a respectful conversation with you about theology. I have many questions I’d like to get a Jewish perspective on.

I agree 100% with the Jewish view of G-d. (And I’ve been teaching that same history of the original trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz for over 30 years!) My position, like yours, is that the Jewish Messiah is completely human, the offspring of David. That G-d is one. He is not divisible, is immaterial and incorporeal. For this, Trinitarians deem me a blind and lost heretic.

The historical fact is, Christianity was a sect within Judaism until sometime after 70AD. One theory is that the Jews couldn’t accept Christians as Jews after they fled Jerusalem when the Romans laid siege to it. The Christians, on their part, claim to have been divinely warned to leave.

Of course there are other theories, but the point is, there is no way Christianity would have been still considered “as Jewish” by any Jews of the first century if Christianity from the beginning was claiming Christ to be an incarnation of the Etrnl One. (See how I’m trying to be respectful by not spelling out the name, which is a conviction I don’t share with Jews, but is for your sake).

One of many reasons I know of that Jews would have utterly rejected a “Messiah” who claimed to be “G-d in the flesh” is because that was a title claimed by Antiochus Epiphanies, one of Israel’s big foes. Is that not right? (Note: there is a verse in the Christian Scriptures that originally said “he was manifested in the flesh” but was later corrupted, by one sole manuscript copy, to read “God was manifest in the flesh”, thereby misleading a lot of “ Christians” to believe that a title that originated with a pagan emperor and enemy of the Jews, somehow became a description of Jesus. This would have been highly detestable to Jews, (right?) but on the flip side, highly “reasonable” to the pagan mindset.)

But I digress a bit, but only a bit. The point is, it’s all about interpreting from a perspective, that is, a preconception.

In the Christian scriptures, Jesus said, “I can of my own self do nothing” John 5:30, and, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.” John 5:19

Tell me, Pennylynn, in Jewish estimation, could the Etrnl say that? No, right? Thus Jesus, in that manner, denied being “self-existent” which is an inherent attribute of the G-d of the Jews, right?

Jesus also said, “all authority was given to me...” Matthew 28:19. Could the Etrnl say that? Again, no.

Furthermore, when Jesus was accused of making himself into a god, he replied “isn’t it written in your law, I said you are gods? {ie Psalm 82:6} 35If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), 36do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme’ because I said I am the son of God?” John 10:34-36

Now, wasn’t Jesus denying to be “the One” and instead merely claiming to be the son of David here, based on 2 Samuel 7:12-14? Certainly that is what I believe Jesus meant.

Finally, Jesus didn’t only commend the Jewish scriptures, but also the Jewish understanding, when he said, “We know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews” John 4:24

Thus there was no way Jesus was claiming to be anything other than what would be acceptable from the Jewish understanding. In fact, his claim to being Messiah was something many other Jews have claimed, even during Jesus’ time, and they weren’t crucified for it. Rather, the end results were the determining factor, correct?

What Trinitarians don’t understand or don’t want to accept, because of their preconceptions (as evidenced by some of the latest posts I might add), is that the Trinity is the product of attempting to marry the pagan belief in three gods with the one true One of the Bible. The way they did that, was in claiming what is “One” about their god is the “substance” that their three persons share, and by assigning distinct and literal “personhood” within that “one substance” to what were otherwise attributes (wisdom, foreknowledge, interactions, etc) of the Etrnl One.

This is, in point of historical fact, not opinion, something their own fathers of their own belief system explained and “confessed” about what they had accomplished, and Trinitarians STILL won’t believe it:

The [Trinitarian] Church Fathers’ conception of the Trinity was a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination.. In fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His words are repeated by John of Damascus —the last of the Church Fathers. The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews, and consequently it must be true. “For the Truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality” (Oration Catechetica, 3) Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, pp 361-363

The fallacy in Gregory’s statement is in his claim they got “the unity of the nature” from the Jews. What he is actually ascribing to the Jews, was an idea from Aristotleian metaphysics: that their god exists in some type of “fiery substance.”

It was that concept of “one substance”, homoousious in the Greek, that allowed Trinitarians to “sneak in” the ancient doctrine of three gods (Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz), and claim them as the proper expression of Jewish and Christian monotheism. And it is that formulation, founded on the idea of “substance metaphysics” which allows them to fool themselves into thinking that their trinity isn’t merely a derivative of the ancient triads.

But that is agreeable; what isn’t agreeable is that IS it’s problem: it is a whole new development and creation than that which the Bible describes in either testament, and it admittedly makes Jewish monotheism into a heresy, and that is precisely the heresy they claim I am guilty of today: Jewish monotheism!

Notwithstanding our differences of opinion about Jesus himself, would you agree with my assessment of the development of the trinity and it’s departure FROM Scripture and embracing of pagan polytheism?

I believe you would. Right?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Pennylynn,

If you would indulge me in another question:

Could you please address, from a Jewish perspective, how it feels to have one of the official contributing architects of the Trinity, namely Gregory of Nyssa, calling “Jewish monotheism” a “heresy” that the formulation of the Trinity “destroyed” on one hand, and on the other hand, have present-day proponents of that same Trinity doctrine claim that Jews believed in a Trinity?

bahmer

Many of our questions shall be answered after we have departed this earthly existence and go home ot be with the Lord. I read something on OPP previously and I think that it was from Peewee about other gods and from my recollection as to what had posted that yes there were other gods and these were the ones worshiped by the pagans. I can't recall all of it but it does go back to the Nephilims who were demonic beings that had bread with the humans and which God removed from the earth during the flood.