Holy Trinity a Fake?

Jul 2019
592
New Jersey
That's a total misunderstanding of the Kabbalistic doctrine. The sephiroth are simply different processes through which God interacts with His creations - not at all reflections on His essence. From what I understand, "Christian Kabbalah" was a creation of the pre-reformation humanists (Johannes Reuchlin, Pico della Mirandola, et al) who so ught to co-opt Jewish writings into their Christian worldview. Suffice it to say, that is a major error, and @Dreamhunter is right when he says that such a position is considered heretical in normative Judaism (indeed, even the Kabbalists agree on that).
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,379
Australia
In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is considered heretical. It is even considered by some as polytheistic. According to Judaic belief, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy 6:4, as thus: 'Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.' That I consider as essentially identical in meaning to the Islamic 'La ilaha il allah' (i. e. 'There is no God but Allah).

That is how I understand it. AFAIK also, kabbala doctrine is not really considered a part of mainstream Judaism.
Yes but trinitarians affirm that God is really one as well . .... he just sorta exists 3 ways :D

I think you already know my views on 'theology' and religious 'reasonings' . ;)
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,379
Australia
That's a total misunderstanding of the Kabbalistic doctrine.
Nah . Its one 'understanding of many ' , it is a 'misunderstanding' or 'misrepresentation of Jewish doctrine .

The sephiroth are simply different processes through which God interacts with His creations - not at all reflections on His essence. From what I understand, "Christian Kabbalah" was a creation of the pre-reformation humanists (Johannes Reuchlin, Pico della Mirandola, et al) who so ught to co-opt Jewish writings into their Christian worldview. Suffice it to say, that is a major error, and @Dreamhunter is right when he says that such a position is considered heretical in normative Judaism (indeed, even the Kabbalists agree on that).

Okay. But I would not say an understanding of the concept of a sephiroth is 'simple' .

Some Christians say God is one ..... but he exists in 3 ways . But push the 3 aspect

Judaism says God is one , but its esoteric side says God has 10 emanations . But push the 1 aspect.


Emanation ; (in various mystical traditions) a being or force which is a manifestation of God .

Which sorta means everything is an emanation ..... which means Judaism is pantheistic



Damn ! I just stepped in some theology ... again !
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,963
Romania
Yes but trinitarians affirm that God is really one as well . .... he just sorta exists 3 ways :D
Christianity believes that God is one in nature and three in hypostases. Humanity is one in nature as well, but as St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote in On "Not Three Gods":

For this reason Scripture admits the naming of men in the plural, because no one is by such a figure of speech led astray in his conceptions to imagine a multitude of humanities, or supposes that many human natures are indicated by the fact that the name expressive of that nature is used in the plural. But the word God it employs studiously in the singular form only, guarding against introducing the idea of different natures in the Divine essence by the plural signification of Gods. This is the cause why it says, the Lord our God is one Lord [Deuteronomy 6:4], and also proclaims the Only-begotten God by the name of Godhead, without dividing the Unity into a dual signification, so as to call the Father and the Son two Gods, although each is proclaimed by the holy writers as God. The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead. For if (according to the idea of those who have been led astray) the nature of the Holy Trinity were diverse, the number would by consequence be extended to a plurality of Gods, being divided according to the diversity of essence in the subjects. But since the Divine, single, and unchanging nature, that it may be one, rejects all diversity in essence, it does not admit in its own case the signification of multitude; but as it is called one nature, so it is called in the singular by all its other names, God, Good, Holy, Saviour, Just, Judge, and every other Divine name conceivable: whether one says that the names refer to nature or to operation, we shall not dispute the point.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
567
United States
The Trinity (from an early Christian POV, I am less familiar with modern Christianity)
1. God the Father - is not directly knowable, and is beyond time and space, unchangeable.
2. God the Son - AKA The Word/Logos, is the incarnation of God within the physical world, and is the creating agent of that world. The "Let there be light!" is the beginning of the word. Think of The Son as (in a computer simulation metaphor) the hard code that builds it all; the prime mover. Jesus is said to be the incarnation of the Son, or the Word incarnate. As a result, the natural laws created by The Word are an objective fact, and the moral law of The Word Incarnate is objective morality because it comes from the mouth of the very force that created the universe.
3. The Holy Spirit - The breath of God. So while the Son is the word/design, the Holy Spirit is the active force in the universe that sees the design of the word carried out. I am not sure, but I believe the Holy Spirit is the element of God that is prayed to when people pray by their bedside (any really knowledgable Christians confirm?). But I struggled with this one for a bit since my background is Greek philosophy and theology and the whole Father/Son God is something that makes a lot of philosophical sense, but the Holy Spirit to me has always felt like a lesser element; or, an agent of the Word.


The Father and the Son from a philosophical standpoint allows an element of God to be unchangeable and perfect, which would preclude the existence of any activity. Having the son allows the father to remain unchanged at the same time as having an active agent within the physical world. Why the Son is equal to the Father is because in Christian theology all three parts of the Trinity are considered maximal in their value; although this part has been argued throughout the last 2000+ years of history (back to at least Hellenistic Judaism).
there are different levels of awareness. Everyone knows that they have a desire to have a relationship with God, but some people suppress it. Everyone knows that there is a meaning to life, more to life than just them, theres something out there. They don't fully realize it, but it's like princess Leia saying I know, somehow I've always known. If you are wondering about what is the meaning of life and what are the answers, it's to have a relationship with God. If you repent and give your life to God and make Him the Lord of your Life, He will give you a clean slate. When someone truly comes to Jesus, they don't just join a new religion; they become "born again"-gods spirit comes to live within them and they become a new person, with new desires. The Bible says, "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). The reason many people call Jesus their Lord, but don't follow Him, is that they're fakes. They're what are called "false converts." They've never actually been saved, yet they call themselves Christians. The word "convert" means change. It means more than just a change of religion; it's a complete change of heart and life, from you being number one to God as number one. False converts say yes to Jesus with their lips, but deny Him by their lifestyle. Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted? I once thought that the Gospels were merely religious propoganda, hopelessly tainted by overactive imaginations and evangelistic zeal. But Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, one of the country's foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus, built a convincing case that they reflect eyewitness testimony and bear the unmistakeable earmarks of accuracy. So early are these accounts of Jesus' life that they cannot be explained away as legendary inventions. "Within the first two years after his death," Blomberg said, "significant numbers of Jesus' followers seem to have formulated a doctrine of the atonement, were convinced that he had been raised from the dead in bodily form, associated Jesus with God, and believed they found support for all these convictions in the Old Testament." A study indicates that there was nowhere enough time for legend to have developed and wiped out a solid core of historical truth. Do Jesus' biographies stand up to scrutiny? Blomberg argued persuasively that the gospel writers intended to preserve reliable history, were able to do so, were honest and willing to include difficult-to-explain material, and didn't allow bias to unduly color their reporting. The harmony among the Gospels on essential facts, coupled with divergence on some incidental details, lends historical credibility to the accounts. What's more, the early church could not have taken root and flourished right there in Jerusalem if it had been teaching facts about Jesus that his own contemporaries could have exposed as exaggerated or false. In short, the Gospels were able to pass all eight evidential tests, demonstrating their basic trustworthiness as historical records. Were Jesus' biographies reliably preserved for us? World-class scholar Bruce Metzger, professor emertius at Princeton Theological Summary, said that compared to other ancient documents, there is an unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts and that they can be dated extremely close to the original writings. The modern New Testament is about 99 percent free of meaningful textual discrepancies, with no major Christian doctrine in doubt. The criteria used by the early church to determine which books should be considered authorotative have ensured that we possess the best records about Jesus. Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside his biographies? "We have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion," said Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University, a leading expert on ancient history. Sources from outside the Bible corroborate that many people believed Jesus preformed healings and was the Messiah, that he was crucified, and that despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed he was still alive, worshiped him as God. One expert documented thirty-nine ancient sources that corroborate more than one hundred facts concerning Jesus' life, teachings, crucifixtion, and resurrection. Seven secular sources and several early Christian creeds concern the deity of Jesus, a doctrine "definitely present in the earliest church," according to Dr. Gary Habermas, the scholar who wrote The Historical Jesus. Does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus' biographies? John McRay, a professor of archaeology for more than fifteen years and author of Archaeology and the New Testament, said there's no question that archaeological findings have enhanced the New Testament's credibility. No discovery has ever disproved a bibical reference. Further, archaeology has established that Luke, who wrote about one-quarter of the New Testament, was an especially careful historian. Concluded one expert: "If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting (of minor details), on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?" Like, for instance, the ressurection of Jesus-the event that authenticated his claim to being the unique Son of God. Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus as faith? Gregory Boyd, a Yale-and Princeton-educated scholar who wrote the award-winning Cynic Sage or Son of God, offered a devastating critique of the Jesus Seminar, a group that questions whether Jesus said or did most of what's attributed to him. He identified the Seminar as "an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing or New Testament thinking." The Seminar ruled out the possibility of miracles at the outset, employed questionable criteria, and some participants have touted myth-riddled documents of extremely dubious quality. Further, the idea that stories about Jesus emerged from mythology fails to withstand scrutiny. Said Boyd: "The evidence for Jesus being who the disciples said he was is just light years beyond my reasons for thinking that the left-wing scholarship of the Jesus Seminar is correct." In sum, the Jesus of faith is the same as the Jesus of history. Was Jesus really convinced He was the Son of God? By going bck to the very earliest traditions, which were unquestionably safe from legendary development, Ben Witherington the third, author of the Christology of Jesus, was able to show that Jesus had a supreme and transcendent self-understanding. Based on the evidence, Witherington said: "Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God, the annointed one of God? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the Son of Man? The answer is yes.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,103
Connecticut
Regarding the last four sentences above Ehrman, speaking for the scholarly mainstream, strongly disagrees.
 

Mike McClure

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
6,228
Indiana
The Trinity (from an early Christian POV, I am less familiar with modern Christianity)
1. God the Father - is not directly knowable, and is beyond time and space, unchangeable.
2. God the Son - AKA The Word/Logos, is the incarnation of God within the physical world, and is the creating agent of that world. The "Let there be light!" is the beginning of the word. Think of The Son as (in a computer simulation metaphor) the hard code that builds it all; the prime mover. Jesus is said to be the incarnation of the Son, or the Word incarnate. As a result, the natural laws created by The Word are an objective fact, and the moral law of The Word Incarnate is objective morality because it comes from the mouth of the very force that created the universe.
3. The Holy Spirit - The breath of God. So while the Son is the word/design, the Holy Spirit is the active force in the universe that sees the design of the word carried out. I am not sure, but I believe the Holy Spirit is the element of God that is prayed to when people pray by their bedside (any really knowledgable Christians confirm?). But I struggled with this one for a bit since my background is Greek philosophy and theology and the whole Father/Son God is something that makes a lot of philosophical sense, but the Holy Spirit to me has always felt like a lesser element; or, an agent of the Word.


The Father and the Son from a philosophical standpoint allows an element of God to be unchangeable and perfect, which would preclude the existence of any activity. Having the son allows the father to remain unchanged at the same time as having an active agent within the physical world. Why the Son is equal to the Father is because in Christian theology all three parts of the Trinity are considered maximal in their value; although this part has been argued throughout the last 2000+ years of history (back to at least Hellenistic Judaism).
It is more accurate to think of the Son as a projection of the Father's conscious mind. The Son can not be equal to the Father because Jesus said he was not.
 
Jan 2019
133
Finland
The concept of Trinity coming to be and changing over time can be said to have been developed and having evolved, but also it can be said to have been discovered, or the nature of God having been discovered, by logic and philosophy. It doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of Christianity if the writers of the New Testament hadn't conceptualised the trinity to the same extent as theologians centuries after, or at all.
 
Mar 2019
1,806
Kansas
The concept of Trinity coming to be and changing over time can be said to have been developed and having evolved, but also it can be said to have been discovered, or the nature of God having been discovered, by logic and philosophy. It doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of Christianity if the writers of the New Testament hadn't conceptualised the trinity to the same extent as theologians centuries after, or at all.
It is like any historical event - There is a view from those who were in the middle of it. There is a view from those looking on. There is a view from those looking back at the event.
 
Jan 2019
133
Finland
It is like any historical event - There is a view from those who were in the middle of it. There is a view from those looking on. There is a view from those looking back at the event.
For sure. Both those who maintain that the Trinity (or things equivalent to that) was "made up", and those who project a later, refined view of the Trinity on early Christians as if there never was any kind of process are wrong in my opinion.