Trinity

[Mercedes]

www.christchurchpompton.org/windows/rose.gif

Thought I would include one of the hundreds of images of Christianity's Holy Pyramid Trinity. Or look at the many tattoo Icons of this symbol on Christian youths today.

Shalom,
Mercedes

[The 614th Mitzvot]

I am going to get a bit mystical so watch out, I believe that they exist as Father ('aleph dalet nun yud', and shalom), son (, 'yud he vav he', and chai), and the holy spirit (prophetic writings, HaKadosh Baruch hu, emet). All echad and holy.

[Mark]

Yehudi wrote:

"I follow Judaism's lead when it comes to such doctrines as the trinity.

Judaism teaches that HaShem defies all limits of time and space. In this concept he is known as Ein Sof, meaning "without boundries." Ein Sof has chosen three distinct characteristics in which to make himself known to us. These are the three pillars of the G-d - head."

I believe that this is the clearest way of representing this doctrine that I have ever seen. I once had an instructor say to me, "If you could just describe the trinity in a way that I could understand then I think I could become a Christian." I went to the chalk board (I know, they don't have chalk boards anymore), and drew a sideways "eight" on the board. I said, "Describe that in a way that I can understand." He said, "That's infinity." I said, "I know; but I can't get my intellectual hands on such a concept. Describe it a way that I can understand." He said, "That's impossible." I said, "If we can't gain a containable understanding of such a concept as this," I drew another loop in the eight, making it the symbol of the trinity, "what makes you think you'll be able to gain a grasp on this?" The truth is that we are intellectual garden slugs. I think the biggest defense fo the multifaceted character of God is that it is beyond our comprehension. Man's just not that bright. It's nothing that we could have possibly come up with on our own. I continued with this teacher, "Describe for me all the intricacies of nuclear fission. Not even the scientists who work with it every day feel they have a clear grasp on how it works. Yet, we all believe that it exists. To say, I will not believe in God until I understand Him is just as ludicrous as to say, I will not believe in nuclear fission until I can stand in the reaction chamber and experience it for myself. I warn you, friend, the result will be absolutely the same."

[Blake]

rej1s said:

Judaism teaches that HaShem defies all limits of time and space. In this concept he is known as Ein Sof, meaning "without boundries."

That is what I was alluding to here;

therefore independant,(or outside of) both time and space, since He created both, (this is taught in the Rabbinic comentarys

"what may be known of Elohim is manifest in them (mankind)
his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (or divine nature)." I have studied some on the "three pillars" I don't think they (and the triune) are necessarily exclusive of the other. The Zohar teaches that the two outer pillars are reconciled by the middle pillar. According to the Zohar the Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah, (seems obvious to me this is Yeshua).
I think we can find a broad base of agreement between "the three pillars" and "the trinity"
if not altogether reconcile the two. I'll wait for your follow up before I elaborate further.

shalom brother

Why do you people give mystic works like the Zohar such prestige as to believe the nonsense within them?
Kabballism is Babylonian Mysticism mixed with Judaism and a little Zororastrianism thrown in for good measure.
Kabballism and all the books written within its influence are abominations.
Kabbalism is a the paganization of Judaism just like Catholocism is.
Look only to the Scriptures for your doctrine, and you will find no evidence of a Trinity.

"There is one God; the father, and one mediator between God and man, Yehoshua HaMaschiach."

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Blake,

Why do you people give mystic works like the Zohar such prestige as to believe the nonsense within them?

Now, now...There is nothing wrong with agreeing with someone's thoughts. I don't think that the Zohar is being quoted here as holy script. I think that some of the thoughts found therein are simply being agreed with...that is all.

Look only to the Scriptures for your doctrine

There is nothing wrong with quoting a historical witness as long as we don't claim it to be holy scripture. We would be foolish not to look into extra-Biblical historical sources to see how others have viewed the scriptures. I don’t think anyone here is fully endorsing all the writings of the Zohar and other such texts. I would say that those whom are less learned should focus on the foundation (TeNaKh).

Shalom aleychem,

Reuel

[Eli Yeshua]

Agreed! Excellent points Reuel.

Eli Yeshua

[Chizuk Emunah]

Calm down Blake. There's no need to attack someone else's position.

Because of the level several books of the "New Testament" were written on, either the authors were out of their mind, or we can look at extra-Biblical texts and get an understanding of where they were coming from.

There is also a big difference between the "Trinity" and the three pillars of the G-d-head. There is much to be gained by looking at additional sources, so that we may learn and grow. As long as we test what we learn against Scripture, then we can know we are on the right path.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

As long as we test what we learn against Scripture, then we can know we are on the right path.

[Blake]

notzriyehudi said:

Calm down Blake. There's no need to attack someone else's position.

Because of the level several books of the "New Testament" were written on, either the authors were out of their mind, or we can look at extra-Biblical texts and get an understanding of where they were coming from.

There is also a big difference between the "Trinity" and the three pillars of the G-d-head. There is much to be gained by looking at additional sources, so that we may learn and grow. As long as we test what we learn against Scripture, then we can know we are on the right path.

Explain the differences? Both are human attempts to reflect human nature to to an unfathomable Deity.
God is clear he is One indivisible Being in the Tanakh and New Testament. The secret things belong to God.

The Zohar is undeniably pagan-influenced and wasn't written until the middle ages.... Why would any heed be given to it? If a copy of the Zohar was in my home I would burn it just as I would burn the Satanic Bible of Mein Kompf.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Blake,

I understand your zeal for the truth and I hope you know that we love you.
I don’t think any real weight is being given to the Zohar here. I think it was simply quoted as a thought perhaps conveying an accurate interpretation of the matter. But, I believe this subject can be rightly interpreted differently.

"Hear, Yisra'el: YHVH is our G'd; YHVH is one"
- Devarim (Deut.) 6:4

The Hebrew word for "one" in the above passage is “Echad” and is translated into English as “one”. But, we have to understand that the Hebrew word Echad is used as a plural form of one.

For the sake of time, here is some information that I pulled off of another site that I believe is accurate:

Some examples would be Genesis 1:5 where the “first” in first day is echad. The one-day, which God created, consisted of both light and darkness - evening and day. A day, which is ONE, consists of 2 PARTS but it’s still ONE day. In Genesis 2:24, the “one” in one flesh is echad. God joined man and woman in perfect harmony as a unit. Two become one (Not the Spice Girls’ song but it’s the same theme) flesh in marriage. So 2 PEOPLE (Male & Female) come together and join as ONE. In Numbers 13:23, a cluster of grapes is echad. ONE cluster of grapes consisted of more than one grape. ONE cluster, many grapes. In Ezra 2:64, the “whole congregation” is derived from echad. ONE congregation consisted of more than one individual (42,360 Israelites in fact). In Jeremiah 32:38,39, the “one heart” and “one way” is echad. “One heart” & “one way” represents the entire nation of Israel.

There is a Hebrew word that describes one and only one. That Hebrew word is “yachid”. If G’d wanted to describe Himself as “one and only one” He would have used this word. A few examples of this use of the word “yachid” can be found in the following references: Genesis 22:2,12,16; Proverbs 4:3; Psalm 22:20; Judges 11:34, Jeremiah 6:26, Amos 8:10, & Zechariah 12:10.

I believe we serve one G'd that manifests Himself in several forms...but, not three seperate and equal elohim.

Shalom aleychem,

Reuel

[Blake]

I understand how some could see God as perhaps manifesting Himself in different forms, because God very has taken many forms such as the Burning Bush to Moses, the Pillar of Fire to the Freed Israelites, a Dove etc.
But I don't see Him having three favorote forms like the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I understand the idea of the word echad, but it doesn't neccesarily imply plurality of God's forms but His majesty.
God is so great, immense, and powerful plural words like Elohim and echad are applied to Him.

A problem I have with the Zohar's "Pillars of Godhead" is that the is Father, Mother, (Femine and Masculine aspects of Deity often found in pagan religions) and Son of Yah (who is supposedly Yehoshua HaMoschiach).
If Son of Yah is Yehoshua then it would have to be a seperate Being because the Messiah prayed to God his Father and said his Father was greater then he making at least two gods.

I think its futile (and perhaps unimportant) to attempt to understand God's glory and structure.
Do not take my words harshly either friends, sometimes zeal overtakes me and I say offensive things without meaning too.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Do not take my words harshly either friends, sometimes zeal overtakes me and I say offensive things without meaning too.

Ah yes, I have been guilty of this on more than one occasion.
You can join my overzealous offensive club

Shalom aleychem achi,

Reuel

[Chizuk Emunah]

If Son of Yah is Yehoshua then it would have to be a seperate Being because the Messiah prayed to God his Father and said his Father was greater then he making at least two gods.

Not necessarily. Do you believe that Yeshua was man or deity, or both?

[Blake]

notzriyehudi said:

Not necessarily. Do you believe that Yeshua was man or deity, or both?

I belive in one God, the Father and one mediator between God and men, Yehoshua the Messiah.

I believe Messiah was the Captain of YHVH's armies, Mika'El (He who is like God) and the vehicle an unfathomable God used to create the universe and mediate between creation and Himself because a Creator cannot occupy His Creation (the universe) because this would limit an unlimited Entity by existing within the bounds of what He has made.

I believe this Mika'El gave up the glory and power of being the Archangel and became a man to save us all.

So do I believe Yehoshua is God? No, not really but simply the vehicle God used for our salvation. So God was within him, but he himself is not God.

I hope I'm getting my point accross... Its hard to convey such a complicated idea.

[q27]

Shalom

I think that the issue of the 'Trinity' is important - if for no other reason than Christianity makes the Trinity an important issue - sometime I think it is the singular most important issue.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the discussion - that G-d is beyond our understanding, expressed as the Ein Sof, or as a Buddhist mystic said, The Supreme Unifying Principle of the Universe. For me, I conceive G-d as the Creative Potential - a positive expression out of which every else flows.

For me, the problem is not what we might call attributes, or pillars, or whatever - the issue is about worship. The danger has always been that the attributes, or pillars, become the focus of worship - and I think in that there is an inherent danger - we become dangerously close to worshiping 'another' god. In other words, there is a danger that the 'objectives', which are designed to achieve the 'goal', instead become the 'goal' - it is a form of dumbing down.

The clearly says that there is to be no other G-d - that I am a jealous G-d ...

Again, I only re-raise the thread in an attempt to clarify my own thinking. Please feel free to comment.