Trinity

[Rick]

Again Reuel I am humbled by your eloquence. Well said, what more can be said?

Shalom Aleykchem B'Shem Yeshua
Rick

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Todah achi,

You also have spoken well!

Berachot b'Yeshua,

Reuel

[messimom]

SHalom Reuel,

I agree completely. You conveyed the truth so well.

Messimom

[q27]

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.' (YLTrans)

This seems pretty clear - a short pithy statement of authority by Yeshua.

The rest are just our words, imperfect and stumbling, in our attempts to understand the magnitude, or what we more often refer to as the 'truth', of G-d.

To limit G-d to one singular entity contradicts much Biblical writings, but to assign various 'attributes' as forms of G-d seems to lessen these 'attributes' as somehow 'lower' than G-d. Thus we are left with, and get stuck with, a description - the Trinity - in our attempt to understand. This is not perfect.

I can understand the different sides of the debate here and Reuel's summarisation seems to be rather definitive ... But ... there is a aura of rationalisation about those conclusions - it's too neat. And G-d is not necessarily neat.

I am left with the initial issue - how do I describe the various 'sides' of G-d? I don't know. The 'idea' of a trinity is yet another rationalistic attempt to describe something we can only glimpse - and words are an imperfect means of communicating.

As I indicated in my earlier post on this thread - we are scratching to make sense of that which is beyond us - yet to make as much sense as we can we do break down G-d into bite size chunks - when I'm hungry, I can relate better to roast beef on a plate than a beast running around in a paddock.

[Dim12trav]

For us to know G-d enough to say for sure, seems the height of pride. Since G-d is infinite in nature and we are finite, even the sum of the descriptions within all of the books is not the complete, G-d.

I grew up reciting the dogmas about the trinity and I never understood them (does anyone ever really understand them?
) For much of the church to eliminate fellowship over such an ill defined thing is presumptuous.

What we can know for sure is written down in the scriptures and even if it is not complete it is enough.

[Mark]

I don't argue "trinity"; but I have to ride on the skirt-tales of q27. If someone says that they don't believe in the Trinity because God is one or if someone is adamant about their definition of "the God-head", I don't argue with them. There is no debate. You can't teach a person who thinks He are she has a conclusive understanding of God.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Don't forget to read my previous posts. Besides the highly interesting information found therein ...
I also state....

As to the physiology of that supreme being, I don't think anybody here clearly understands how that works, nor do I think we have been given the capacity to truly understand it at this point.

So, I guess I concur with all of you in regards to our apparent lack of knowledge regarding much of our understanding...One thing is for sure, there is only one G'd.

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel

[Firestorm]

I know this is an oversimplification of a deep topic, but the nice thing about the internet is that people can't throw things at you when they get mad. So here's my take for what it's worth: Ice isn't water and water isn't steam, but they're all H20. This illustration just popped into my brain one day and it helped me a lot, I hope it does the same for some of you.

[Pioneer]

Well, here's my two cents. What is my reward for believing an extra biblical dogma? No one ever answers that question.
I'm done.
Shalom

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Xtra Biblical? I believe there have been a few scriptures shared on this subject...But, I agree that it is not a salvation issue. And, I don't look down on brothers that have a different view on this subject.

Shalom chaver,

Reuel

[The 614th Mitzvot]

Just to put in my two cents, read my post on the essence of Moshiach.
theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=messianic&action=display&n=1&thread=69&page=5

[Nachshon]

One thing that makes me very skiddish about the Trinity is that every major cult in history has believed in one. The Egyptians believed that Rah was a tri-une deity, and Wicca and its ancestors have a tri-une goddess. That is all I have personally read, but I've been told that the Babylonian mystery cults had one, aswell. That certainly does not refute the trinity, but it puts me on my guard. My other objection is, why only three? The sages talk about a multitude of facets of Father, and personally, I'm inclined to say there are two basic parts to YHWH as we know Him.
In the Elohim thread the issue of Scripture saying that the Word is sharper than any two edged sword, even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, but I do not see how that proves that man is endowed with both from the beginning. It is clear that men have spirits, but I do not know that that the spirit is inherintly his. Perhaps it is gotten from whom he follows? So if man really isn't a tri-une being, why must Father be?
Now, the main problem I have with the trinity is the church's doctrine that it is three independant persons that are unified. As long as it is three parts of a single person...well...hey, sometimes I seem to have multiple personalities, so why not? <G>

Shalom,
David

[Mark]

The pagan theology that represents trinity may just as easily be seen as evidence to support it. Satan is a subtle deceiver- using half-truths. In order to create plausible ideas gods for man to worship, would he not establish them as like God in definition as he could?

Never establish truth using error as the source for your argument. It will always miss the mark. Establish truth with truth- using the whole counsel of Scripture ( as the foundation, hafTorah and Brit Chadesha as supporting commentary).

As I've said earlier in this thread, I don't make a point of arguing the doctrine of Trinity. Either you accept it as something that is beyond our scope of reason or you dismiss it. I choose to accep that, as mortal flesh, I can't comprehend what is the nature and characteristic of God. I know that He is vastly beyond anything that I have any vocabulary to define. At the same time, I accept Yeshua as divine (God). Either there is a multi-faceted aspect of Elohim that goes beyond my scope of reason or He put the universe on auto-pilot for 33 years. The former seems to be more plausible.

Mark

[Blake]

To me accepting the T*r*i*n*i*t*y is not a matter of admitting you can't understand G-d's nature. It is in fact putting HaShem into a box emphasizing three aspects above all the others present in Scripture. If you really are humble you would stop with "Hear of Yisra'El, HaShem your G-d is, HaShem is One!" and leave it at that. In Scripture HaShem chose to emphasize His Oneness, if he wanted to emphasize this triuneness He would've said "Hear of Yisra'el, HaShem your G-d(s) is, HaShem is three!".
T*r*i*n*i*t*y is a manmade way to try understand G-d's nature, which cannot be comprehended by mortal minds such as ours.

I choose to follow the words of HaShem not ideas invented by misojudaic "Church Fathers" centuries after the Mashiakh lived.

[Nachshon]

mark said:

The pagan theology that represents trinity may just as easily be seen as evidence to support it. Satan is a subtle deceiver- using half-truths. In order to create plausible ideas gods for man to worship, would he not establish them as like God in definition as he could?

Never establish truth using error as the source for your argument. It will always miss the mark. Establish truth with truth- using the whole counsel of Scripture ( as the foundation, hafTorah and Brit Chadesha as supporting commentary).

As I've said earlier in this thread, I don't make a point of arguing the doctrine of Trinity. Either you accept it as something that is beyond our scope of reason or you dismiss it. I choose to accep that, as mortal flesh, I can't comprehend what is the nature and characteristic of God. I know that He is vastly beyond anything that I have any vocabulary to define. At the same time, I accept Yeshua as divine (God). Either there is a multi-faceted aspect of Elohim that goes beyond my scope of reason or He put the universe on auto-pilot for 33 years. The former seems to be more plausible.

Mark

I'm sorry, I did not base any argument on the fact that it was a pagan doctrine. I merely stated that it put me on my guard. That was not meant, by any means, to be an argument against the Trinity.
It looks like there is only one difference between your view of the nature of Father and mine. Neither of us pretends to understand it, you merely have a more definate view of how it works, in a tri-unity. I have absolutely no idea of how it works. lol.

Shalom,
David