Trinity

[Mark]

For me, personally, the strongest argument supporting Yeshua as being Elohim is in Zechariah 12:10. Ha Shem speaking says, "I will pour upon the House of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced..." So, HaShem, Elohim, is pierced for the sake of Israel.

Probably the most startling evidence from the Messiah was his statement in John 8:58. "Before Abraham was 'I AM'." His statement was clearly understood to be declaring His divinity (evidenced by the response, also described in John 10:33).

The apostle Paul wrote quite boldly to this end in Philippians 2:6, that Yeshua "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God...".

I don't pretend to understand the relationship between Father and Son. I would suggest that to ignore and dismiss the Messiah's divinity is to leave gaping pockets of inconsistency in Scriptural teaching. No doubt, there are those who have explanations for these Scriptures that lessen the position of Messiah with respect to Elohim; but if they were honest with the text itself (rather than bent on defending their position) they must acknowledge that the text clearly establishes Yeshua as divine- since we know that there is only One God, we must therefore acknowledge that He is a multi-faceted God who has somehow chosen to represent Himself in human form, to die for our sins. No, it doesn't make sense... but who ever said God made sense to our finite minds? I think you'll find that Scripture teaches quite the opposite.

Mark

Mark

[Yitzchak]

mark said:

For me, personally, the strongest argument supporting Yeshua as being Elohim is in Zechariah 12:10. Ha Shem speaking says, "I will pour upon the House of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced..." So, HaShem, Elohim, is pierced for the sake of Israel.

Probably the most startling evidence from the Messiah was his statement in John 8:58. "Before Abraham was 'I AM'." His statement was clearly understood to be declaring His divinity (evidenced by the response, also described in John 10:33).

The apostle Paul wrote quite boldly to this end in Philippians 2:6, that Yeshua "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God...".

I don't pretend to understand the relationship between Father and Son. I would suggest that to ignore and dismiss the Messiah's divinity is to leave gaping pockets of inconsistency in Scriptural teaching. No doubt, there are those who have explanations for these Scriptures that lessen the position of Messiah with respect to Elohim; but if they were honest with the text itself (rather than bent on defending their position) they must acknowledge that the text clearly establishes Yeshua as divine- since we know that there is only One God, we must therefore acknowledge that He is a multi-faceted God who has somehow chosen to represent Himself in human form, to die for our sins. No, it doesn't make sense... but who ever said God made sense to our finite minds? I think you'll find that Scripture teaches quite the opposite.

Mark

Mark

Achi,

Very well said. Now I do not have to weigh in myself, as you have presented my position as well.

We must remember to put on our Yiddishe Kup (Jewish Head) when looking at many scriptures. We must remember that the people being spoken too were well aware what was being said, eventhough sometimes it seems unclear to us.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Chizuk Emunah]

As always we come back to Kabbalah...

I see it this way:
Like us, Moshiach was born into this world with 4 components:

What sets Moshiach apart is his N'shoma. Instead of being born with a n'shoma like you or I, he was born with the n'shoma of the Moshiach. This n'shoma being very special and unique was the very first to be created in the Mind of Eyn Sof. In fact, he has existed in this form since the foundation of the world. Having always existed, the soul of Moshiach did not come into this world until Y'hoshua was born.


Thus, Y'hoshua was indwelt by the very Essence of the Moshiach and enabled to fulfill all the prophecies concerning Moshiach ben-Yosef. Having fulfilled his role as Moshiach ben-Yosef, he will return to fulfill his role as Moshiach ben-David and reign from Yerushalayim.

[Yitzchak]

An interesting question is one I often ask Jewish people regarding Moshiach.

If they are praying for King Moshiach, and Kings are bowed down to, how will they bow down to a man? Afterall they and others do not believe that Moshiach is divine.

Any thoughts?

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

I think the best argument for it is Isaiah 63. Translation doesn't matter much, but the LITV has the most accurate that I've seen.

[Firestorm]

notzriyehudi said:

As always we come back to Kabbalah...

I see it this way:
Like us, Moshiach was born into this world with 4 components:

[Dogface Of Judah]

I like this illustration:

Ice, Water, Steam

All have the same nature; i.e water.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God at the same time.

We pray to the Father through Yeshua.

Yeshua created the heavens and the earth i.e John 1.

I don't exactly understand it myself, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I know some Christians think this:
Father(1) + Son(1) + Holy Spirit(1)= 3

I say this:

Father 1 x Son 1 x Holy Spirit 1 = 1


Ed

[Blake]

dogfaceofjudah said:

I like this illustration:

Ice, Water, Steam

All have the same nature; i.e water.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God at the same time.

We pray to the Father through Yeshua.

Yeshua created the heavens and the earth i.e John 1.

I don't exactly understand it myself, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I know some Christians think this:
Father(1) + Son(1) + Holy Spirit(1)= 3

I say this:

Father 1 x Son 1 x Holy Spirit 1 = 1


Ed

The problem is with this, you turn G-d into an impersonal force or essence that it manifests itself into three completely different deities.

[Blake]

"What's the scriptural basis for all this?
Shouldn't we always come back to Scripture rather than Kabbalah"

You'd be hard pressed to find scriptural proof of your idea of the T*r*i*n*i*t*y without having to rely on C*h*r*i*s*t*ian Creeds.

At least Natan'El's view maintains the absolute, undivisible Oneness of G-d in accordance with Tanakh and Rambam's 13 Principles. It's a Jewish way to look at Mashiakh, rather than one borrowed from C*h*r*i*s*i*t*ianity.

[Blake]

nachshon said:

I think the best argument for it is Isaiah 63. Translation doesn't matter much, but the LITV has the most accurate that I've seen.

I don't see this as a Messianic prophecy. Remember, even when Moshe lifted his staff over the Sea of Reeds and the water parted, it was G-d not Moshe who did the parting and Moshe was not G-d. Neither must Mashiakh be G-d.

[Blake]

mark said:

For me, personally, the strongest argument supporting Yeshua as being Elohim is in Zechariah 12:10. Ha Shem speaking says, "I will pour upon the House of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced..." So, HaShem, Elohim, is pierced for the sake of Israel.

Probably the most startling evidence from the Messiah was his statement in John 8:58. "Before Abraham was 'I AM'." His statement was clearly understood to be declaring His divinity (evidenced by the response, also described in John 10:33).

For Zecheriah 12:10, I think it's people who come in with a pre-understood notion that Mashiakh is divine who distort the text, or are willing to rely on a biased (IE C*h*r*i*s*t*ian) translation of the scriptures. Even John himself did not under stand the verse to be a reference to G-d but instead quoted it "They will look unto whom they pierced" not the rendering "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced".

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. Zecheriah 12:10 JPS

This is a more accurate rendering, that it is one of Beta Dawid (IE Mashiakh) that is thrust-through or pierced rather than G-d.... I mean how could G-d who is without form, without physicality, without the limits of material, incomperable to anything in creation be pierced? Even *if* G-d inhabited a mortal body its only the flesh that could be harmed or pierced, not the G-d that inhabited it. Think about it. I would also point out that this verse maintains those who pierced him would mourn for him as their only Son.
Does that really fit with what happened at the crucifixion of Y'hoshua Ben-Yoseif? Did those who killed him mourn for him bitterly?

[Mark]

No, Blake. The Hebrew word "ayth" translated "me" is not simply a personal pronoun which can be interchanged with "him"(which is easily done in the Greek) It denotes personal identification as ones' self. I believe that, rather, the translation you speaking of dismisses the incomprehensibility of our subject and avoids it by a slip of the translation.

In John there is no personal pronoun at all (in the Greek) which allows the translator to insert whatever would fit according to context. Translating the short phrase that John is quoting without refering to its Old Testament context would naturally presume "him"; but interpretting Zechariah based upon John is poor hermaneutics.

For me, the staggering incomprehensibility is more supportive of the Trinity than cause for dismissal.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts," says the Lord in Isaiah 55:9.

[Blake]

Even if what you say is true (and many Hebrew scholars will disagree) when did those who pierced J*e*s*u*s mourn for him like their own son? Still doesn't fit.

[Yitzchak]

At least Natan'El's view maintains the absolute, undivisible Oneness of G-d in accordance with Tanakh and Rambam's 13 Principles. It's a Jewish way to look at Mashiakh, rather than one borrowed from C*h*r*i*s*i*t*ianity.

Using the Chazal as an example is not often wise, as you will find that like us, they rarely agree on a particular subject.

When did this become the Jewish way of looking at Moshiach? Was this the way that Jews looked at Moshiach prior to, and during Yeshua's time on earth? Or, perhaps is this simply the way Jews decided to look at Moshiach in order to discount that Yeshua was in fact the one that had been spoken of throughout the scriptures.

I think you place too much weight on the the Rabbinic Judaism that was formed after Yavneh.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Chizuk Emunah]

What's the scriptural basis for all this?
Shouldn't we always come back to Scripture rather than Kabbalah

Sorry Firestorm, but we can't find everything within the Scriptures. Sometimes we need to look at additional sources to get the entire picture.

An interesting question is one I often ask Jewish people regarding Moshiach.

If they are praying for King Moshiach, and Kings are bowed down to, how will they bow down to a man? Afterall they and others do not believe that Moshiach is divine.

Any thoughts?

Shalom,

Yitzchak

An interesting question, to be sure. I think it is different when there is a righteous King who reigns over Israel. Surely people bowed to David and Shlomo during their reign. So the same would be true with King Moshiach. Would you not pay proper respect to the King and bow before him? The day will come when Moshiach reigns that,"Every knee will bow and tongue confess that Y'hoshua ben-Yosef HaMoshiach is our Adon." (lord, ie... King). And surely the Moshiach as King of Israel is truly HaShem's representative on Earth and deserving of our respect.

~snip
Was this the way that Jews looked at Moshiach prior to, and during Yeshua's time on earth? Or, perhaps is this simply the way Jews decided to look at Moshiach in order to discount that Yeshua was in fact the one that had been spoken of throughout the scriptures.

Yes, I believe that this is how Y'hoshua was viewed by his Talmidim and other Jews of the time. For us today it's pretty plain to see that Y'hoshua ben-Yosef is indeed the promised Moshiach spoken of in the TaNaK.

During Y'hoshua's time the Essenes (and probably the P'rushim as well) held that there would be 2 Moshiach's. These were Moshiach ben-Yosef (the Suffering Servant), and Moshiach ben-David (the King). Moshiach ben-Yosef would come first, suffer and die, then Moshiach ben-David would come and conquer Israel's enemies and reign from Yerushalayim. Even Y'hoshua's cousin, Yochanan, sent his talmidim to enquire whether Y'hoshua was indeed Moshiach ben-David (he already believed he was Moshiach ben-Yosef).

So now the problem we have today, is that by and large, Rabbinc Judaism has said that there is only one Moshiach and that is Moshiach ben-David. By eliminating the element of Moshiach ben-Yosef they have disqualified Y'hoshua as the Moshiach (in their minds). This is a large part of the mindset that we have to set out to correct.