Judaic view of the "trinity"

[simchat_torah]

(part one)

It is difficult for me to call myself a "messianic jew" as I am finding myself estranged to their normative doctrine, but in actuality it is not "messianic" doctrine I have a problem with, but rather doctrine of those who are simply christians who call themselves messianics. I hardly know of any messianics who believe in the trinity. Those who do usually are christians in disguise.

Well, this argument can be saved for later. Allow me to share my perspective on the "trinity" or the nature of "j-sus" (Yeshua or Yehoshua).

I will first make mention of the word "G-d".
Theos, El, Elohim, and G-d all do not necessarily refer to the one true G-d of all. These words are symbolic of authority.
Money can be your g-d, we are called g-ds over this earth, and even Moshe was called a g-d over Pharoh. The word g-d itself does not mean the Most High. The usage of it however, has become just that, at least in modern english society. Three easy examples to prove this are found in scripture, and there are many more within.

1) "I said You are 'g-ds'; you are all sons of the Most High." Psalms 82:6
Here we are called g-ds, the sons of the Most High are g-ds.

2) "For even if there are so called g-ds, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many 'g-ds' and many 'l-rds', yet for us there is but one G-d, the Father, from whom all things came..." I Cor. 8:4&5

Here Shaul makes an observation that there are many g-ds and l-rds. He declares that the Father is the one G-d, and later on the verse, states that His son, Y'shua, is our l-rd.

3) "Then the YHVH said to Moses, 'See, I have made you the G-d to Pharoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet."
(before I state anything else it is good to note that there is a mis-translation here, it should read, "I have made you 'a' g-d to Pharoh, none the less, either way proves my point)
We can see that the term "G-d" is not always in reference to The Most High.

But as stated before it's meaning is that of authority.
I must lay out this foundation before I continue as well:
Y'shua IS a G-d to us. He has been given authority over us. He is our redeemer, and salvation can come through no other means but his blood. He has been given the name above all names in creation. Every knee will bow and every tounge confess, that he IS our l-rd. He is the only way to the Father, no other. He is means in which we receive all things from the Father... all things.

Now I will continue.

First, I will simply go through many scriptures, giving explanation along the way...

"Y'shua said "Do not hold onto me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my G-d and to your G-d.'" Yochanan 20:17

here Y'shua points out clearly that the same father we have, he has. The same G-d we have, he has.
Many christians argue that this is because he is here on the earth in his flesh. He is G-d in the flesh. (there is NO scripture for this idea by the way, as I will point out) But how about in heaven? He is no longer 'in the flesh' in heaven. What is the excuse now?

"I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my G-d. Never agin will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my G-d, and the name ofm the city of my G-d..." Rev. 3:11&12

Here Y'shua goes on to call the Father 'my G-d' FIVE times. There are even things in which Y'shua does not know, EVEN in heaven! He knows not the time of his own returning. He declares only the Father knows this. My main bone to pick with the "trinity" doctrine is the co-equality. If there is truly co-equality among the trinity, why is Yshua STILL praying for us???? Why does he STILL call the Father G-d??? Why are there things in which he STILL does not know???? With the "trinity" doctrine this makes no sense. Y'shua is no longer in the flesh. So what explaination can christians make up to replace these scriptures? Maybe it's because there is no such thing as the "trinity" doctrine in reality... just maybe, let us see....

"After Y'shua said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
'Father the time has now come. Glorify your son, that your son may glorify you. For yo granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this eternal life, that they may know You, the only true G-d"
Yochanan 17:1-3

The first thing is the obvious one. Y'shua declares to His Father that He is the ONLY TRUE G-D! There is none other. The L-rd our G-d, The Lord is one. And Y'shua declared the Father to be him!

The second thing to note is that Y'shua said the father "granted him authority". Question, did he have it before it was granted to him? This is foolish to think such. Obviously the Father has "given" him the authority he has. Does this then negate the authority he has? Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!! We must still acknowledge the authority of the Meshiachk.
This idea continues on through the rest of the chapter,

"I have given them the glory that you gave me..."
"and to see my glory, the glory you have given me, because you loved me before the creation of the world..."
John 17:22&24

This verse also dispels the idea that most non-trinitarians have, that Y'shua did not pre-exist. He quite certainly did, but before creation of the world.
So then, did he pre-exist everything, and co-exist with the Father, and had no point of origin?
Let's see....

"He is an image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation. For through him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible..." Col. 1:15

Here we see that he was the "fist born" of all creation. Then through him (some translations say 'by him') the rest of creation came into being. As we can see when it says "Let us create man in our image".
The idea of Y'shua being the ceator is expressed in many of Y'shua's healings. For example: Y'shua used mud to heal a blind man. Actually, in the greek it said he had no eyes. Man was made out of dirt. Dirt was used when Y'shua spit on the ground, and then formed eyes in the man's head. This is why the crowd had such a big reaction. His creative ability was on display, and not just healing.

But back to the topic at hand....

The word begotten. It does not simply mean "created", this is a misconception.
There are two very specific parts of the definition of the word 'begotten'.
One is that something from the first must come to make the second. And the second, is that the second must be of the same type as the first.
For example: If I make a molding out of clay of myself, it is not begotten. But if I have a son, he is begotten. He came from my sperm, and he is human, like myself... his DNA structure is the same.

So, we can also see clearly from scripture that Y'shua is the ONLY begotten son of the Father, and he was born first.
Before anything came into it's being, the Father took a part of himself and formed his Son, Y'shua. Y'shua is of the same nature or form as the Father.
So in this we can see that he pre-existed, has the same nature as the Father, and has quite a unique personhood to him, in that he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. (Ironically, this fits perfectly within ancient Kaballah thought, for those of you who have studied such things.)

[simchat_torah]

(Part two)

Now, let's examine John 1:1
If you read this passage in the greek, it reads quite differently than our english bibles tell us. Most (actually I haven't found any who oppose this) scholars agree that it is a mis-translation, but since it doesn't fit theology, there is no other way to translate it.
In the greek it states this:
"In a beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with the G-d, and the Word was a G-d. He was with the G-d in a beginning."
Yochanan1:1&2
There are 5 mistranslations in the english version in the first two verses alone!
What is quoted above has a few implications:
1) "a" beginning. Not "the" beginning. There are many beginnings. This is one of many. There is the beginning of creation, the beginning of the messianic kingdom, and the beginning of heaven to name a few.
2) "the" is dropped from off of the front of "G-d". This can be plainly seen in any greek-english NT.
3) "and the Word was 'a' G-d." Here in the greek, the word "the" does not exist in the texts. It is added by translators, as in many scriptures throughout.

My first observation of the above is this, it is interesting that most of the scriptures that are changed or added have to do with the "trinity".
Here are some more to show what I mean:

"and he will be called-
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
75% of the time when the Brit Chadasha writers quoted scripture it was from the Septuigant. The above quote is taken from the Masoratic texts. The septuigant says:
"and his name is called: the Messenger of great counsel; for I will bring Peace upon the princes and health to him." Is 9:6

Interesting to note that a text dated 1,300 years later says something quite different than what we use to translate the verse from. It is also interesting that most of the writings of the Brit Chadasha use the Septuigant (the oldest copy of scripture we have).
Well, you decide on this one.

Another example is I John 5:7
Most bibles put out since about the 50's or so, have admitted that this verse was changed, and have taken out the change. There is usually a note about this in most bibles, go ahead, check out your bible, it's probably there.
What originally said, and what all bibles publish now, is this:
"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
the added verse says:
"For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

Could it be that since there was no "proof" biblically for the "trinity" people had to change and add to scripture to justify their beliefs?

This again, you must decide, but what remains clear is that these scriptrues were changed and added to (and in John 1:1-2, taken away from).

Well, let us continue.....

John 4:23
"You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worhsip the Father in Spirit and truth"
Y'shua's entire ministry was based soley upon turning the hearts of people back to the Father. It was not to glorify himself. He says here that we will worship in Spirit and in Truth, THE FATHER!

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is an image of the G-d." I Cor. 4:4

Y'shua is an image of the invisible G-d, not the Father in the flesh, as the "trinity" teaches.

"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." Yochanan 14:28

Do we want to believe Y'shua, or make him a liar and believe the trinity which teaches the co-equality of Y'shua and the Father?

I Cor. 15:27&28
"For he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include G-d himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

Here we see a few things.
1) The Father put everything under Y'shua.
2) We are a part of everything, so Y'shua is our 'g-d' (our authority) since the Father placed us under Y'shua.
3) The son is subject to the Father, thus the trinity contradicts scripture.

Shaul opens many of his letters this way:
"Praise be to the God and Father of our l-rd Yshua HaMashiach." Eph. 1:3
"We always thank G-d, the Father of our L-rd Y'shua HaMashiach" Col. 1:3

Why would Shaul open many of his letters declaring that Y'shua has a G-d, the Father? Maybe because he didn't believe in the trinity either.

Would Y'shua have been more fitted to say, "My G-d, my G-d, why have I forsaken myself" if he believed in the trinity? But rather in Matt. 27:46
"My G-d, my G-d, why have you forsaken me?"
(there is more depth in Jewish thought to this scripture, but I have become windy enough, lol!)

"In the past G-d spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. The son is a radiance of G-d's glory, and an exact representation of his being..." Hebrews 1:1-3

Here once again we see fluency of scripture (Col. 1:15, John 3:16, and so on). Yeshua is the vehicle through which the Father created the universe. We also see AGAIN that he is an image of the father, actually, the exact representation. Is a picture me? Is my shadow me? No, but they do express who I am. Y'shua is the perfect expression of the Father. The only true exact expression of the Father.

"Who being in very nature (or form in greek) G-d, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" Phil. 2:6

Y'shua=the only BEGOTTEN son, he is in the form or nature God. Just as my son is human, Y'shua in form is God.

"christ is seated at the right hand of G-d." Col. 3:1
This idea is found in many places. Y'shua is at the right hand of G-d. Not the same being, yet is "given" the highest place in ALL creation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A logical picture I like to paint at times is this:
The Father can NOT sin. The Father can NOT tell a lie. If Y'shua was the Father in the flesh, then what is the glory in temptation? What was overcome? But, Y'shua was tempted!!! He overcame temptaion!!! Glory to God, I now have a higher view of Y'shua with this insight. Where as before, so what if he was tempted? He overcame!

Finally I bring to you two more teahcings in coordination with one another. I have used these in other postings before, but not in this sense. I hope to draw fresh light upon them, in a way useful to showing the nature of Y'shua. That light is normative Jewish interpretation...
Y'shua is the way, truth, and the life. None can come unto the Father but through him.
In the temple there was an outer court, a holy place, and the holy of holies. There was a gate that led to the outer court, a door that led to the holy place, and a curtain that led into the Holy of Holies. In Judaic thought the gate was nicknamed the "Way", the door the "Truth", and the curtain the "Life".
Y'shua is the Way, Truth, and Life. I ask then, who is the Holy of Holies? The Father;
None can come into the Holy of Holies without passing through Y'shua!!!!!
Glory to G-d, he came!!!!! We can now enter the Holy of Holies.
The other teaching is this:
Y'shua was called the bread of life, and none can come unto the Father except through him. At a Jewish supper table, there was no silverware. There was a bowl of a goolash substance (with meat) in the center, and everyone was given a loaf of bread. You then tore a peice off of the bread and dipped it in the middle.
If a child was bad, his punishment was that the Father took away his bread, thus the child received no dinner. We as disobedient children of the Father have had our bread taken away. But Y'shua came as our bread that we may have life, the Fahter!
With the Jewish perspective on these passages, we can clearly see that the "trinity" doctrine has no feet upon which to stand. Without the Jewish perspective we have lost almost all of our understanding of the Brit Chadasha.

Not only have I covered the "trinity" but what truly is the nature of Y'shua. For an even better, and deeper understanding, take a look at the most ancient Kabbalah teachings. They shed a lot of light upon the nature of creation, the tabernacle, shekinah, and the Father and His son.

Well, Shalom for now, and I hope to hear from everyone soon. HaShem Bless!!!!

Japheth