The Trinity and the Incarnation

he did tell us, scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

No Reputation? it's the Greek term,
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain
Root(s): G2756

so, we have the scripture, now what about that question, "did the Son of God come from heaven, or came out of Mary?" your answer please.

101G.

I know what God told us in that passage. I was referring to your comment: "so how much 1/3 for the one person?" As I said, if God thought that was important, He would have told us. He did not tell us what percentage of God's privileges/power that Jesus emptied Himself of. That is not important.
 
I know what God told us in that passage. I was referring to your comment: "so how much 1/3 for the one person?" As I said, if God thought that was important, He would have told us. He did not tell us what percentage of God's privileges/power that Jesus emptied Himself of. That is not important.
this was the point to understanding that there is only one person in the Godhead..... thank you.

101G.
 
I've not checked into the issues of kenosis. The problem I see with the rejection of kenosis is that the rejection seems to be based on definitions of godhood such as omniscience and omnipotence. God is God apart from definitions we have for godhoodness. I shared an example of a person controlling a robot.
Well, Scripture teaches things such as God’s omniscience and omnipotence and…God’s immutability. The heresy of kenosis (so what I deny is this heresy) does indeed state that God is not immutable and does not need to omnipotent or omniscience to be God.

It seems you take issue with having a Biblical definition of God and God’s attributes…are you suggesting we have no definition, that the term “God” should have no objective meaning?
This is what I shared

Thus the incarnation of the Son of God is not some contradiction of godhood even if Jesus Christ was limited in someway of his divinity. I would no use an avatar as representative of Christ's incarnation. But I can use the example of a person controlling a robot while using the robot's eyes and hearing ability. The person can be doing activity through that robot -- perhaps as a soldier robot in the battlefield. He could look and listen for enemies around him. He may also enter a building and have some protection from enemies. Yet, if the enemy kills the robot, the person who controlled the robot is still living and seeing and hearing things. The robot did not limit who that person is. That person was no less his original self just because the robot did not have a smell/scent detection.
So unless I’m misunderstanding you the person controlling the robot never experienced any change in his nature, his attributes, his abilities. Is my understanding correct? If not, please explain.

Based on the assumption that I am understanding you, how does your example justify the heresy of kenotic Christology which teaches that God does in fact change. I confess I’m not understanding you…your example shows someone who does not change, and it appears you believe this represents kenotic Christology (which teaches that the person of the Son did change) and rejecting an objective definition of God?
I should add that my thought is that the Son of God can become incarnate because God created everything and knows how to work through creation to do what he needs to do. I'm happy to the degree that people accept the basic truth of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead without being too concerned how this is envisioned. I suppose someone may contribute a reason for me to be concerned, but I lack that concern thus far.
Well Paul and John were certainly concerned with the person and nature of the Son of God. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity and Chalcedonian Christology are taught in Scripture. Additionally, I try to be a member of the “Historic Christian Faith,” not some newly invented Christian faith.

TheLayman
 
Well, Scripture teaches things such as God’s omniscience and omnipotence and…God’s immutability. The heresy of kenosis (so what I deny is this heresy) does indeed state that God is not immutable and does not need to omnipotent or omniscience to be God.

It seems you take issue with having a Biblical definition of God and God’s attributes…are you suggesting we have no definition, that the term “God” should have no objective meaning?

So unless I’m misunderstanding you the person controlling the robot never experienced any change in his nature, his attributes, his abilities. Is my understanding correct? If not, please explain.

Based on the assumption that I am understanding you, how does your example justify the heresy of kenotic Christology which teaches that God does in fact change. I confess I’m not understanding you…your example shows someone who does not change, and it appears you believe this represents kenotic Christology (which teaches that the person of the Son did change) and rejecting an objective definition of God?

Well Paul and John were certainly concerned with the person and nature of the Son of God. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity and Chalcedonian Christology are taught in Scripture. Additionally, I try to be a member of the “Historic Christian Faith,” not some newly invented Christian faith.

TheLayman
I would be sort of curious about what characteristics of God are found in scripture that make God no more than a robot. Sometimes I would figure that details about immutability may reflect some aspect of the context a passage has given it rather than something that is beyond God's control. Sure there are times to resist ideas that are perhaps new but the old ideas are not always right. I've not explored this very far though. Also, i saw there were at least two concepts of knenosis. So I'm not sure how that enters into the discussion.
 
I would be sort of curious about what characteristics of God are found in scripture that make God no more than a robot.
I completely confused by your comment here. Your example used a robot. I didn't say anything remotely close to saying that Scripture makes God no more than a robot. Please explain where you got this out of my reply.
Sometimes I would figure that details about immutability may reflect some aspect of the context a passage has given it rather than something that is beyond God's control. Sure there are times to resist ideas that are perhaps new but the old ideas are not always right. I've not explored this very far though. Also, i saw there were at least two concepts of knenosis. So I'm not sure how that enters into the discussion.
I commented on all of that to a degree in my response that your originally responded to. Speaking of that response I briefly explained kenotic heresy, both ontological and functional. In doing so I pointed out that it is "heresy" because it is incompatible not only with Chalcedon but the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm not exactly sure where you want this conversation to go, i.e. what exactly you want to discuss.

TheLayman
 
I completely confused by your comment here. Your example used a robot. I didn't say anything remotely close to saying that Scripture makes God no more than a robot. Please explain where you got this out of my reply.

I commented on all of that to a degree in my response that your originally responded to. Speaking of that response I briefly explained kenotic heresy, both ontological and functional. In doing so I pointed out that it is "heresy" because it is incompatible not only with Chalcedon but the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm not exactly sure where you want this conversation to go, i.e. what exactly you want to discuss.

TheLayman
i basically was saying I would have to see what scriptural basis the attributes are said to make God who he is. I'm not sure therefore what God cannot do without stopping to be himself. I generally am comfortable that someone recognizes the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. I'm so far, at least, not likely push the issue very far about the way Christ is incarnate. I suspect that ideas of kenosis are thought to effect the idea of Christ as 100% man and %100 God. My situation is not such that I will be more effective if I get this doctrine worked out clearer.
 
this was the point to understanding that there is only one person in the Godhead..... thank you.

101G.
Who or what is the Holy Spirit.

Was he (how do we know it be a he?) merely a work person sent by God to impregnate Mary?

Whatever... if God is the only person in the Godhead.... (WHY WOULD A TERM LIKE GODHEAD ONLY HAVE 1 PERSON?) the case should be made that when Jesus came into being God wan not His Father.... because unless the Holy Spirit is also in the Godhead then an outside force made Jesus.

Similar to a surrogate birthing a baby for a couple... reverse that idea to a ??????? (stand in?) to get Mary to give birth to Jesus through the selection of her for that purpose.

NOW I KNOW NO ONE BELIEVES THIS.... NOR DO I...........

So the Holy Spirit and God are at minimum two within the Godhead....
 
The words "Trinity" and "incarnation" do not appear one time in scripture.
READ

There is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God.



It is an all-too-common assumption that the concept of the Trinity is a purely Christian idea. But the idea of a God being a three-in-one unity actually has its roots in foundational Judaism and in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the concept of the Holy Spirit, the Ruach Ha-kodesh, originates in the Hebrew Scriptures—as early as Genesis 1.

Yet, modern Judaism has reached an overwhelming consensus that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Rabbi Stanley Greenberg argues that “Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God.… Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.” He continues, “Under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness.

Many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity.​

But if we are to examine this line of thinking, it is best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it—the Hebrew Scriptures. We should be open to exploring and understanding the nuances of the Jewish roots of the Trinity because many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity! If we go back to the Scriptures, the case is clear, and this article will walk you through that case. Our understanding hinges on the Hebrew language, so to the Hebrew first we shall turn.

God is Plural: The Possibility of a Jewish Understanding of the Trinity Through Language​

The name Elohim​

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” Elohim is used to describe God in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It is also used in Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods [Elohim] before me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2: “Let us go after other gods [Elohim].” Elohim is the word that is used of the one true God as well as for the many false gods. While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead.

Most Hebrew scholars recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. But they deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever, arguing that when “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by a plural verb:

But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of Genesis is “bara” which means “he created”—singular. One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly speaks of a singular God. (Greenberg)
The point made, of course, is true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God, and therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet is followed by a plural verb:

Genesis 20:13: “And when God [Elohim] caused me to wander [literally: “They” caused me to wander] from my father’s house.
Genesis 35:7: “There God [Elohim] had revealed himself to him.” [Literally: “They” appeared unto him.]
2 Samuel 7:23: “God [Elohim] went.”” [Literally: “They” went.]
Psalm 58:11: “Surely there is a God [Elohim] who judges.” [Literally: “They” judge.]
What does this mean for our understanding of the oneness of God?

The name Eloah​

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) appears elsewhere (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:15–17 and Habakkuk 3:3). This singular form could have easily been used consistently, yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead.

Plural pronouns for God​

When God speaks of Himself, He uses the plural pronoun. In Genesis 1:26: “Then God [Elohim] said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the weight of this passage:

Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, “And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness,” Moses said, “Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)?” God answered Moses, “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.”1
The Midrash Rabbah tries to avoid the problem and fails to adequately answer why God refers to Himself in the plural. The use of the plural pronoun appears frequently, and avoiding it or explaining it away is insufficient:

Genesis 3:22: “Then the LORD God [YHVH Elohim] said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us.’”
Genesis 11:7: “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language.”
Isaiah 6:8: “I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’” This would appear contradictory with the singular “I” and the plural “us” except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).
God seems to refer to Himself in the plural, so where does that leave us as we try to understand Him? The authors of Scripture have attempted to deal with His plurality, and their exploration is useful for our understanding.

Plural descriptions of God​

God not only speaks of Himself in the plural, but many authors of Scripture also refer to God’s plurality. Out of the Hebrew, we find that nouns and adjectives describing God are in the plural form:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember now your Creator.” [Literally: creators.]
Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: “holy God” [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband.” [Literally: makers, husbands.]
While Jewish tradition has commonly rejected the idea of the Trinity, there is no doubt that Judaism portrays a plurality of God’s existence. All the evidence so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on Scriptures alone, we have to say that they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity. There is room for plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema and God’s Plural Nature​

The resounding and profound words throughout all generations: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This has always been Israel’s great confession. This verse is used more than any other to affirm the fact that God is one and to deny the possibility of plurality in the Godhead.

The word echad does not mean an ‘absolute one’ but a ‘compound one.’​

On the one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an “absolute one” but a “compound one.”

For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one [echad] flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound unity and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is the word yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 with the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness instead of as a compound unity, yachid would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of “yachid” and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use “yachid” in reference to God.

There is sufficient evidence for the plurality of God. But can we come to a concrete understanding of the Jewish view of the Trinity?

A Dual God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Godhead​

Elohim and YHVH​

The case for God’s plurality becomes stronger when we encounter the term Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, such as in Psalm 45:6–7:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.
The first Elohim is being addressed, and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

And Hosea 1:7:

I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.
The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). YHVH number one is on earth raining sulfur and fire from a second YHVH who is in heaven.

Furthermore, Zechariah 2:8–9:

For thus says the LORD of Hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: “Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me.”
So, again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:

For thus says the LORD of Hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he that touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me.”
Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:

Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.4
The evidence for at least a dual God in the Hebrew Scriptures is clear, but what is Judaism’s response to a triune God?

A Triune God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit​

If the Hebrew Scriptures point to plurality, then how many personalities exist in the Godhead? As we saw above, the names of God are applied to at least two different personalities. Yet, a deeper examination of the Hebrew Scriptures shows three distinct personalities that are considered divine.

First, there are numerous references to the LORD YHVH. Second, there is a personality referred to as the Angel of YHVH who is considered distinct from the other angels. In passages where He is found, He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7, He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13, as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11, He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Exodus 23:20–23 presents an angel who has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows his divine status.

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.5 The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion, and will) and is considered divine.

There is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God.​

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, there is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the LORD YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Spirit of God.

The Intersection of God’s Three Personalities​

The Scriptures do present all three personalities of the Godhead together in some passages. Isaiah 48:12–16 reveals a speaker who refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth:

Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. “Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way. Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.
It is clear that the speaker is God Himself. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and distinguishes himself from the LORD YHVH and from the Spirit of God. The Tri-unity is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures with striking clarity.

In Isaiah 63:7–14, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus, clearly demonstrating all three personalities as present and active. The LORD YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9, and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While God refers to Himself as the one responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Are Judaism and the Trinity Reconcilable?​

The Hebrew Scriptures show a plural Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity of God is not Jewish, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures.​

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:

Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out. (Exodus 23:20–23)

Is the Teaching of the New Testament Consistent with the Concept of the Trinity Presented in the Hebrew Scriptures?​

In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead. The first person is the Father, the second person is the Son, and the third person is the Holy Spirit.

What happened is that God became a man (not that man became God).​

The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!” His son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. He is related to the work of the second person—consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. Evidently, there is a consistent body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament related to the Tri-unity of God. The New Testament presents a truthful and consistent picture of who God is, making it a reliable Jewish source for understanding the plurality of the Godhead.
 
Whatever... if God is the only person in the Godhead.... (WHY WOULD A TERM LIKE GODHEAD ONLY HAVE 1 PERSON?) the case should be made that when Jesus came into being God wan not His Father.... because unless the Holy Spirit is also in the Godhead then an outside force made Jesus.
First thanks for the reply. second, the Lord Jesus NEVER CAME INTO BEING GOD, his is God, and always is.
wan not His Father.... because unless the Holy Spirit is also in the Godhead then an outside force made Jesus.
another ERROR on your part. the Lord Jesus is Father in the ECHAD of equal share of himself. do you really understand the plurality of the ECHAD?
So the Holy Spirit and God are at minimum two within the Godhead....
the HOLY SPIRIT is the ONLY PERSON in the Godhead in a ECHAD of himself. it's amazing how people just don't understand.

101G.
 
neither does unitarian :) or God is one person. :)
the first part is true, but the second half..... Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." the pronoun "ME" is a single person designation. so, there is no other person, or person(s) in the Godhead.

101G.
 
Most Hebrew scholars recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. But they deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever, arguing that when “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by a plural verb:
this is the problem and MISTAKE that Jews and Christians fatally make. the plural of noun "GOD" to the Jews is correct because of the Ordinal designation of "LORD" as God in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK from the OT point of view. but what they miss is the PLURILITY of this ONE God to come in flesh. which shows his PLURILITY in the ECHAD as said in designation as God in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK. if one can understand the ECHAD in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK, then one can understand this plurality in the Godhead as ONE PERSON in the EQUAL SHJARE of his OWNSELF. this is just too easy.

101G.
 
i basically was saying I would have to see what scriptural basis the attributes are said to make God who he is. I'm not sure therefore what God cannot do without stopping to be himself. I generally am comfortable that someone recognizes the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. I'm so far, at least, not likely push the issue very far about the way Christ is incarnate. I suspect that ideas of kenosis are thought to effect the idea of Christ as 100% man and %100 God. My situation is not such that I will be more effective if I get this doctrine worked out clearer.
Okay, so you do not believe God is immutable. I think civic has a thread on the attributes of God, or perhaps there is one on this specific attribute. My purpose in entering this thread were to simply point out what someone was teaching at a respected Christian site (Blueletterbible.com which I think is a great site) was heretical (something is heretical when it does not conform to an established doctrine and the Trinity and the incarnation are foundational truths of the historic Christian faith). I know that on discussion boards it is common place for someone to start a thread on the Trinity and on page two people are arguing about whether Ford or Chevy is better. However, once you get to know me you will discover I'm not like that...my brain just doesn't work that way. If I begin talking about a specific topic I will generally not deviate from it.

If you want to begin a thread specifically on the immutability of God we could continue this discussion there. Here is the thread civic began on the attributes of God: https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/gods-innate-attributes.435/

That thread is rather long and is discussing all God's attributes. As I said, perhaps you may want to begin one of the specific attribute of immutability. I am curious however, we you say things like "you don't have a problem with," "I'm comfortable with," and "no likely to push the issue very far," are you speaking as someone who teaches others or simply about yourself? On what basis do you determine "what is a problem" and "what issue" to push? Just very curious.

TheLayman
 
Okay, so you do not believe God is immutable. I think civic has a thread on the attributes of God, or perhaps there is one on this specific attribute. My purpose in entering this thread were to simply point out what someone was teaching at a respected Christian site (Blueletterbible.com which I think is a great site) was heretical (something is heretical when it does not conform to an established doctrine and the Trinity and the incarnation are foundational truths of the historic Christian faith). I know that on discussion boards it is common place for someone to start a thread on the Trinity and on page two people are arguing about whether Ford or Chevy is better. However, once you get to know me you will discover I'm not like that...my brain just doesn't work that way. If I begin talking about a specific topic I will generally not deviate from it.

If you want to begin a thread specifically on the immutability of God we could continue this discussion there. Here is the thread civic began on the attributes of God: https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/gods-innate-attributes.435/

That thread is rather long and is discussing all God's attributes. As I said, perhaps you may want to begin one of the specific attribute of immutability. I am curious however, we you say things like "you don't have a problem with," "I'm comfortable with," and "no likely to push the issue very far," are you speaking as someone who teaches others or simply about yourself? On what basis do you determine "what is a problem" and "what issue" to push? Just very curious.

TheLayman
i'm saying I do not run into this discussion much. But I do see a big caution flag with people who deny the triune nature of the Godhead since that denies the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Such denials go against scripture. I'm not fully equipped for apologetics and not too often needing to use that. My focus is on exegesis of the letters more than the theology of God.
I have written on Gal 3:19-20 that shows Christ Jesus in the Godhead if you want to look at that:

The issue on the attributes is related to what Logikos shares
I'm not going to go deep into that investigation, but I've had passive curiosity about God's attributes as to which are being derived from Greek philosophy and which are found in scripture (plus the context)
 
READ

There is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God.


It is an all-too-common assumption that the concept of the Trinity is a purely Christian idea. But the idea of a God being a three-in-one unity actually has its roots in foundational Judaism and in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the concept of the Holy Spirit, the Ruach Ha-kodesh, originates in the Hebrew Scriptures—as early as Genesis 1.

Yet, modern Judaism has reached an overwhelming consensus that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Rabbi Stanley Greenberg argues that “Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God.… Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.” He continues, “Under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness.

Many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity.​

Many Jewish people don't believe in the Trinity. I can probably find more that don't than you could that do. Trinitarianism is incompatible with monotheistic Judaism.
But if we are to examine this line of thinking, it is best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it—the Hebrew Scriptures. We should be open to exploring and understanding the nuances of the Jewish roots of the Trinity because many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity! If we go back to the Scriptures, the case is clear, and this article will walk you through that case. Our understanding hinges on the Hebrew language, so to the Hebrew first we shall turn.

God is Plural: The Possibility of a Jewish Understanding of the Trinity Through Language​

The name Elohim​

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” Elohim is used to describe God in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It is also used in Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods [Elohim] before me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2: “Let us go after other gods [Elohim].” Elohim is the word that is used of the one true God as well as for the many false gods. While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead.

Most Hebrew scholars recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. But they deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever, arguing that when “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by a plural verb:


The point made, of course, is true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God, and therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet is followed by a plural verb:


What does this mean for our understanding of the oneness of God?

The name Eloah​

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) appears elsewhere (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:15–17 and Habakkuk 3:3). This singular form could have easily been used consistently, yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead.

Plural pronouns for God​

When God speaks of Himself, He uses the plural pronoun. In Genesis 1:26: “Then God [Elohim] said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the weight of this passage:


The Midrash Rabbah tries to avoid the problem and fails to adequately answer why God refers to Himself in the plural. The use of the plural pronoun appears frequently, and avoiding it or explaining it away is insufficient:


God seems to refer to Himself in the plural, so where does that leave us as we try to understand Him? The authors of Scripture have attempted to deal with His plurality, and their exploration is useful for our understanding.

Plural descriptions of God​

God not only speaks of Himself in the plural, but many authors of Scripture also refer to God’s plurality. Out of the Hebrew, we find that nouns and adjectives describing God are in the plural form:


While Jewish tradition has commonly rejected the idea of the Trinity, there is no doubt that Judaism portrays a plurality of God’s existence. All the evidence so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on Scriptures alone, we have to say that they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity. There is room for plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema and God’s Plural Nature​

The resounding and profound words throughout all generations: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This has always been Israel’s great confession. This verse is used more than any other to affirm the fact that God is one and to deny the possibility of plurality in the Godhead.

The word echad does not mean an ‘absolute one’ but a ‘compound one.’​

On the one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an “absolute one” but a “compound one.”

For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one [echad] flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound unity and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is the word yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 with the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness instead of as a compound unity, yachid would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of “yachid” and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use “yachid” in reference to God.

There is sufficient evidence for the plurality of God. But can we come to a concrete understanding of the Jewish view of the Trinity?
You are using a false equivalency. You are attempting to make the argument that because the word elohim is plural that it refers being numerically greater than one, but God is never described as three. God is only ever described as one such as in Deuteronomy 6:4. In that case, elohim would translate to Gods (plural) but it never does because elohim doesn't necessarily refer to numerical quantity, but rather amplification or intensity.

There are also many examples of where elohim is used regarding people and it has nothing to do with being greater than one person. See Exodus 7:1 where Moses was as elohim. See Psalm 82:6 (quoted by Jesus in John 10) where the sons of the Most High are all elohim.

There are also examples of false and/or foreign gods being referred to as elohim in Scripture. See Genesis 35:2, Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, Psalm 8:5. Is it your stance that because you believe elohim refers to a trinity that other people and gods are also a trinity?

On the subject, Wilhelm Gesenius, a Hebrew grammar expert, wrote the following:

“That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

A simple word study of elohim in its context proves what you are suggesting is a Biblical impossibility.

A Dual God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Godhead​

Elohim and YHVH​

The case for God’s plurality becomes stronger when we encounter the term Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, such as in Psalm 45:6–7:


The first Elohim is being addressed, and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

And Hosea 1:7:


The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). YHVH number one is on earth raining sulfur and fire from a second YHVH who is in heaven.

Furthermore, Zechariah 2:8–9:


So, again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:


Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:


The evidence for at least a dual God in the Hebrew Scriptures is clear, but what is Judaism’s response to a triune God?

A Triune God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit​

If the Hebrew Scriptures point to plurality, then how many personalities exist in the Godhead? As we saw above, the names of God are applied to at least two different personalities. Yet, a deeper examination of the Hebrew Scriptures shows three distinct personalities that are considered divine.

First, there are numerous references to the LORD YHVH. Second, there is a personality referred to as the Angel of YHVH who is considered distinct from the other angels. In passages where He is found, He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7, He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13, as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11, He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Exodus 23:20–23 presents an angel who has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows his divine status.

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.5 The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion, and will) and is considered divine.

There is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God.​

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, there is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the LORD YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Spirit of God.

The Intersection of God’s Three Personalities​

The Scriptures do present all three personalities of the Godhead together in some passages. Isaiah 48:12–16 reveals a speaker who refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth:


It is clear that the speaker is God Himself. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and distinguishes himself from the LORD YHVH and from the Spirit of God. The Tri-unity is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures with striking clarity.

In Isaiah 63:7–14, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus, clearly demonstrating all three personalities as present and active. The LORD YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9, and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While God refers to Himself as the one responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Are Judaism and the Trinity Reconcilable?​

The Hebrew Scriptures show a plural Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity of God is not Jewish, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures.​

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:


Is the Teaching of the New Testament Consistent with the Concept of the Trinity Presented in the Hebrew Scriptures?​

In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead. The first person is the Father, the second person is the Son, and the third person is the Holy Spirit.
Thank you, but this is all theology and not really Scripture. None of the premises are explained in Scripture and you seem to be trying to bolster your position by pointing out that some ethically Jewish people believe in Trinitarianism. While that may be the case, it's unrelated to actual Scripture.

What happened is that God became a man (not that man became God).​

The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!” His son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. He is related to the work of the second person—consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. Evidently, there is a consistent body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament related to the Tri-unity of God. The New Testament presents a truthful and consistent picture of who God is, making it a reliable Jewish source for understanding the plurality of the Godhead.
Proverbs 30:4 isn't specific about which son of God it's talking about. In the Old Testament, there are many sons of God and none of them are God. There wouldn't suddenly be an exception for an unnamed son of God in Proverbs without explanation or precedent. I believe what you are using here essentially amounts to propaganda; namely the non sequitur. The conclusion only begs the question of where did you get your answers? The answers you are presenting aren't actually there in Scripture. What you should know about God is He is simply one God named the Father. Read John 17:3.
 
Back
Top Bottom