G-d is One vs. Jesus' divinity

[RoseRose]

Now, I'm Jewish, but not Messianic. I have never been able to understand how people reconcile G-d as one with the Trinity.

I'd really appreciate if someone would explain it to me! Especially someone who was born Jewish and became Messianic later on, who can maybe understand why it's hard for me to "get".  

[Bezant]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So begins the Gospel of John. The "Word" is taken to mean Jesus. But if a person doesn't think the New Testament is valid, why would a person heed it?

The words

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God"

have confirmed the 3-in-1 for me - why specify that He is one, when if He was a single, solitary One, there would be no need to state his singleness? Only if He were somehow more than just one being, would that need to be confirmed.

But that's just me - I'll let others answer. =)  

[RoseRose]

Cherry Sodah

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So begins the Gospel of John. The "Word" is taken to mean Jesus. But if a person doesn't think the New Testament is valid, why would a person heed it?

The words

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God"

have confirmed the 3-in-1 for me - why specify that He is one, when if He was a single, solitary One, there would be no need to state his singleness? Only if He were somehow more than just one being, would that need to be confirmed.

But that's just me - I'll let others answer. =)

Hmmm.... that is an interesting point of view. I've always seen that line as a denial of polytheism (extremely common at the time of the Bible), and also as a possible DENIAL of the thing you see it as an affirmation of. That G-d is one being, not 3. It's amazing how different views can take the same line and interpret it differently.  

[grani4fam1]

I am not Jewish, so I can't answer your question from a Jewish point of view. However, I found a very good article at this webpage that is very in-depth and explains the trinity in a way you might find helpful since it's answering the same question you're asking:

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/theology/trinityqna  

[Bezant]

RoseRose

Cherry Sodah

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So begins the Gospel of John. The "Word" is taken to mean Jesus. But if a person doesn't think the New Testament is valid, why would a person heed it?

The words

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God"

have confirmed the 3-in-1 for me - why specify that He is one, when if He was a single, solitary One, there would be no need to state his singleness? Only if He were somehow more than just one being, would that need to be confirmed.

But that's just me - I'll let others answer. =)

Hmmm.... that is an interesting point of view. I've always seen that line as a denial of polytheism (extremely common at the time of the Bible), and also as a possible DENIAL of the thing you see it as an affirmation of. That G-d is one being, not 3. It's amazing how different views can take the same line and interpret it differently.

Yes...It sounds too strange, if there is no Trinity, to say to a people who already know Him that "he is One" rather than "there is no one else" (which is said elsewhere in the Bible, I believe.) But, interpretation generally follows beliefs...I guess.

What did you think of the link granifam1 sent?  

[RoseRose]

Cherry Sodah

RoseRose

Cherry Sodah

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So begins the Gospel of John. The "Word" is taken to mean Jesus. But if a person doesn't think the New Testament is valid, why would a person heed it?

The words

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God"

have confirmed the 3-in-1 for me - why specify that He is one, when if He was a single, solitary One, there would be no need to state his singleness? Only if He were somehow more than just one being, would that need to be confirmed.

But that's just me - I'll let others answer. =)

Hmmm.... that is an interesting point of view. I've always seen that line as a denial of polytheism (extremely common at the time of the Bible), and also as a possible DENIAL of the thing you see it as an affirmation of. That G-d is one being, not 3. It's amazing how different views can take the same line and interpret it differently.

Yes...It sounds too strange, if there is no Trinity, to say to a people who already know Him that "he is One" rather than "there is no one else" (which is said elsewhere in the Bible, I believe.) But, interpretation generally follows beliefs...I guess.

What did you think of the link granifam1 sent?

I don't know... it felt more like it was trying to confirm an already-existing belief than convert someone to a new one, and... well, I didn't find it too convincing.

I think this really is a place where either way makes sense... and one way makes more sense depending on what you started out believing.  

[grani4fam1]

I think you're right, RoseRose. And, believing in the trinity really does depend upon whether you believe Yeshua is God's Son or not. If you do, it's not a difficult step to believe Hashem is His Father, Yeshua left earth to go to the heavenly Temple, and the Father sent the Ruach in His place here on earth to live in the hearts of people instead of only in the earthly Temple or in the heart of a king like David. It's still uncomfortable to deal with this "formula" though. It's like taking an extremely complex concept and trying to put it in a nutshell - very unsatisfying and pat.  

[famusamu]

When we say the Shema, we actually confirm that Y'shua is G-d!

The Shema in Ivrit is 'Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad'... Which literally translated is Hear O Israel the LORD our G-ds the LORD is One. Eloheinu is a Plural Form for G-d like Elohim.

We see the Trinity in the very words 1st of Genisis:

'B'reshit bara Elohim et-hashamayim v'et h'aretz'

Literally In the begining G-ds created the heavens and the earth.
Now we don't worship many g-ds for we see in th Shema G-d is One. But if we look further into the word echad we see that it implies union throught the entire Tanach.

Along with B'reshit 1:1 we should look at Yochanan (John 1:1-3) of the Brit Hadasha:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d. He was with G-d in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made


When we look at the Tanach we see that the Hashilush ha Kodesh (Holy Trinity) is actually a Jewish concept! Plural pronouns like in Genisis 1:26 where G-d says let Us make man in Our Image after Our likeness show this.
G-d is revealed as Triune in Ecclesiastes 12:1... forget not thy Creators in the days of thy youth.
There is plurality within the G-dhead....Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 45:6-7

How do we know Y'shua is G-d? By fulfilling the Scriptures such as Jeremiah 23:5-6:

"The days are coming," says ADONAI when I will raise a Righteous Branch[{Natzer} where Nazerene or Notzori comes from] for David. He will reign as King and succeed, he will do what is just and right in the land. 6 In His days Y'hudah will be saved, Yisra'el will live in safety, and the Name given to Him will be YHWH Tzidkenu [The LORD Our Righteous]. "
According to Midrash Thillim 21:2 "G-d Nameth also the King Messiah with His very Own Name." This shows that the Messiah would be BOTH G-d and man.

Yochanan (John) 1:14 says of Y'shua ha Mashiach: The Word became a human being and lived with us, and we saw His Sh'khinah(Glory), the Sh'khinah (Glory) of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.  

[RoseRose]

The problem with the example of the plural (and I've taken Biblical Hebrew) is that "Elohim" is used as a G-d-title throughout the Tanach, often with much implying singularity. The only times I know of when it's used as a plural is when paired with the word "acherim", the plural form of other (referring to the false gods of the other peoples). When Elohim is used to refer to G-d, it is paired with singular adjectives and verbs (yes, in Hebrew, verbs have gender and number).

I don't recognize the example from Ecclesiastes, do you have the Hebrew for your citations? Also, the Genesis example is the ONLY one I know of where G-d uses a first person plural reference.

Also, I don't find the etymology of the word Nazerene very convincing, especially when tree imagery is often used for other purposes, for example the Tree of Life, hinting at the life in the World To Come that will be brought in by the Mashiach (be he Y'shua, or another).

Also, another reason I find it hard to believe the Y'shua as the literal son of G-d is that even if he WAS the Mashiach, he'd have to be descended (almost certainly through the male line) from David, and if Joseph was NOT his father, then, he could not be descended from David properly.

Now, I do understand how you can get the idea of the Trinity from the Tanach, but to me, none of it has been completely convincing. I doubt it will ever be... but I do understand it a LOT better now. Thank you.