The Judeo/Christian God is Truine

My colleague is attempting to convince us that the trinity is one being who consists of three parts but unified in nature. His explanation by defining "who" and "what" is an attempt to say who means God, what means trinity, but if human beings (what) are unitary (me) (what), the notion that the creator who according to the bible said let us create man in our likeness/image would also be deduction be unitary ; if man was made of three parts that is the heart which would also be independent with its own mind, the mind, and another component that make three then the verse would not be contradictory . However, since God said let us make man in our likeness, and since each human being is singular, as having multiple personalities does not make you multiple people, then in the likeness of God means that God is also singular and as such can not be part of a trinity. It is a logical impossibility for three distinct parts to be one , why, because when Jesus is on earth then God is incomplete and the same applies to the holy spirit. And if God is three in one or one in three, that would mean that no hierarchy exists as the same entity is represented by three different components, however Jesus prayed to God and as such the existence of a hierarchy shows the presence of different wills ,abilities and power and by that analogy the trinity can not be logical. The Trinity is not 1 being = 3 beings. . Or 1 person = 3 persons. . No its 1 being (what) = 3 persons (who's). . Not a logically impossibility at all He then states: Also God existed before creation ,does that mean that the holy spirit and Jesus existed with him or did he create them? For arguments sake, even if I took John 1;1 on face value, it is the only verse in thousands that makes such a claim and is contradicted by various other biblical verses. How can something of such dire importance i. e the word the existed in the beginning only be addressed in one verse and be exclusively ignored by the jews nor repeated by the prophets sent to them? Either we have a corrupted text or this is the correct verse and the rest are wrong. It says "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. " This does not mean the word is a separate entity, and my opponent clearly edited the verses to add that part, here is the reading of John without the son and father, more proof that my opponent is disingenuous They all existed as God in eternity past, lets look at what John 1:1 says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". " This is like saying, in the beginning there was God and God was the word , it does not mean Jesus is the word. My opponent is simply making analogies from other verses in an attempt to impose his will on God"s nature. The notion that he uses the new testament to validate his point in the old testament is fundamental proof that he is justifying an innovation, rather he should use the old testament to validate the new testament. Also the book of John was written by an unknown person, hence it is logical to suspect foul play as Jesus NEVER uttered these words. So how can it be true if Jesus did not utter it but the author of John did. Was he superior to Jesus? I doubt that. What does the spirit of God mean, does this mean that a separate entity was present? (as my colleague would try to make us think? ) rather it means that God"s presence was manifest as God can not be conceived by the minds but a spiritual description would attest to his holiness( a title erroneously given to the pope) hence by that analogy, one can never conclude that God the spirit was present. Rather God was present and moved in a manner befitting him, and in this case spiritual. Only someone intent on accusing God of being triune would dispute this. How can God the father, The Son , The Holy spirit be equally God( mind you 1=3) when one was crucified, one is subservient to another and another is worshipped and asked by the others? This is illogical, quoting verses can not negate this fundamental fact as most verses where written by unknown men who are subject to mistakes, a human quality. My opponent uses the unverifiable book of John as his prime proof of this theory, however isn"t it proof enough in itself that he can not point out ot and nt verses besides in John that categorically support the notion of God existing as father, son, holy spirit? What about those who say holy mother of God, does that mean that God has a mother too, and was born of a human womb that is subject to blood? Would a person really say this of his creator? Luke 1;31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus. Ample proof that Jesus did not exist prior to that point. So we know Jesus started to exist at birth, how then was he God again? "This is life eternal to know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" -- John 17:3. Did God sent himself, shouldn"t it have been "This is eternal life to know thee the ONE TRUE GOD who has come? ? This verse clearly shows Jesus was not the word , he was simply sent by God, a creation. My opponent is very liberal with his words. the Bible says that both Solomon (Proverbs 8:22) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) existed before their human births. So Jesus, Solomon and Jeremiah are also part of God? If progressive revelation exists, how come no new revelation has appeared since the NT? If it has, then you would be referring to the Quran which categorically rejects the notion that God is part of a trinity. "Father, you are the One who is good. The world does not know you, but I know you. And these people know that you sent me. I showed them what you are like. " (John 17: 24-25) YES, EXACTLY Jesus says I KNOW you not I AM YOU OR PART OF YOU". . The triune nature of God is not in the old testament, rather using a play on translations and by the way the oldest bible manuscripts were already lost to time, meaning verification is almost impossible hence how can we use illegitimate documents to invalidate God"s oneness? The greatest commandment is proof because Jesus did not say worship me, or worship us, he said God, and by extension that commandment included him but not as part of God, my opponent simply puts a few verses from John then claims that in effect invalidate all monotheistic verses , this is what is absurd and does not account for why there is no mention of the word trinity, had it been tru, it would have been present. He then states: . But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. " (Mark 13:32) again another clear distinction, how can Jesus and God be one yet one is supreme and superior and more knowledgeable? Let me ask. .. Would you consider the president greater than yourself? No, I woud not, Nixon was a man of poor character, so why would I think he is greater than many other men of greater character. He performs a greater role in society. . Is he any more human than you? Does the performance of a greater role make one greater and any human being normally can perform that role, if Jesus limits his omniscience to be obedient to his father( a fact not established by biblical verses but by my opponent"s own words i. e. hearsay) then in that case Jesus can not be God because God by description can not be obedient to anyone, hence the spirit ,s on and father would have to share the same will and consciousness to be one, but they do not. No, ny opponent, trinity is impossible to grasp. Having a different level of importance does not make one less important we have judiciary, legislature, executive but they are equal yet have different purposes. So if trinity was true, then Jesus would have no need to be obedient to God as they are equal but of different functionality, again a notion that defeats logic and clear faith. "Also if Jesus is part of God and man killed Jesus then man killed and can kill God" No, If man can kill Jesus who is god or part of god, then when all men unite they can kill god. It is not abou my definition of death, god would not be able to talk or do anything but would be crucified and humiliated by his own creation? Does that seem possible to you? Jesus died in flesh but remained in spirit, if Jesus"s flesh is part of Jesus and Jesus is god or part of god then god died in flesh and as such since we humans are flesh we are guaranteed to be stronger than god"s flesh side. This is all very ridiculous and frankly belittles God"s omnipotence. "My opponent gives common misconceptions to biblical doctrine that really hold no weight. " Is it a misconception because I find your assertion illogical or because you need faith to accept the illogical? Lets move to my second contention: *note: I did not address these verses because a they have already been interpreted by rabbis and well explained yet as is the habit of Christians , they have been used out of context or mistranslated simple to make a point. But I shall briefly show my reasoning: Daniel 7:13. .,. son of man Using a Hebrew source, since the ot is in Hebrew and as such it is logical, Within the context of Daniel passages, the use of son of man is explained by Rashi to denote: "one like a man was coming" - that is the human Jewish King Messiah, not Jesus, the devine Christian Messiah godhead. Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet. " (Psalm 110:1 KJV) It appears from the KJV translation that the "Lord," which is God, said unto to "my Lord" " who missionaries would have you believe is Jesus (David"s "Lord") " "Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet. " Is the above verse speaking about the messiah? Not at all. Yet look at the first and second word "Lord" in the verse (they are side by side). Were you able to detect any difference between these two words in this fundamentalist Bible? In the "translation" they appear virtually identical because the Christian translator cleverly masked the text of the original Hebrew. Although the two English words in the KJV translation were deliberately made to appear virtually identical, in the original Hebrew text they are entirely different. Whereas the first word "Lord" in the Hebrew is a correct translation of יהוה, which is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the ineffable name of God, the second word "Lord" is a complete and deliberate mistranslation of the text. The second word "Lord" in the verse is an appalling translation of the Hebrew word לַאדֹנִי; (pronounced ladonee). The correct and only translation of ladonee is "to my master" or "to my lord. " The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is used only to address a person, never God. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them. To illustrate this vital point, let"s examine other places in the Bible where the exact same Hebrew word appears and find out how the same New American Standard Bible translates it there. Bear in mind, in none of the following examples do the Christian Bibles have any incentive for mistranslating the word adonee. For example, we find the same Hebrew word, לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee), used in the following two verses which have been translated by the same King James Version where the identical word is used as in Psalm 110: And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master. (ladonee: לַאדֹנִי;) [Abraham]. " (Genesis 24:54, King James Version) Jacob instructed the angels to bring the following message to his wicked brother Esau: "And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee) "Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now. "" (Genesis 32:4, King James Version) The Hebrew word לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee) used in the above two verses is referring to Abraham and Esau, respectively. Notice that the Hebrew word used in both verses is identical to the Hebrew word in Psalm 110:1. Why did the King James Version translate לַאדֹנִי; correctly in Genesis 24:54 as "to my master," or in Genesis 32:4 as "to my lord," yet deliberately mistranslate Psalm 110:1 as "Lord"? Why do most Christian Bibles make not distinction between those two words, as they do in each and every other place they appear in the Tanach? The answer is obvious. Both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used by the Church to "prove" Jesus from the Jewish Scriptures and therefore they had no incentive to tamper with them. Psalm 110:1, on the other hand, is a passage flaunted by the New Testament and its missionaries as a verse that they argue "unquestionably points only to Jesus," and was deliberate mistranslated. Some Christian translations are more transparent in their rendering of Psalm 110 than the New American Standard Bible. For example, the King James Version and a few other Bibles still render the second "Lord" as if it were sacred; however, they translate the first "LORD" in upper case. This is a helpful hint to the keen observer that there is a distinction between them. Of course, it"s up to the curious Bible student to then look up the second "Lord" in a Hebrew Bible. Only a careful investigation of the original Hebrew text would reveal how this verse was doctored. It should be noted that while many Christian translators indulge in this manipulation of Psalm 110:1, some refrain from engaging in this practice. Numerous modern Christian Bibles have corrected Matthew"s mistranslation. For example, the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as " to my lord," in Psalm 110:1, clearly indicating that this word is not speaking of God. As mentioned above, this tampering with Psalm 110:1 began at the time the Christian Bible was written. The Christian translators, who would later also mistranslate this verse, simply followed in the footsteps of the author of the first Gospel. If we look at the original Greek of Matthew 22:44 we find the same doctoring of the text in later Christian translations of the Book of Psalms. When Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 110:1 to the Pharisees, the identical Greek word _4;a3;`1;_3;_9;`2;2 (kurios pronounced koo-re-os) is used both times the word "Lord" appears in Matthew 22:44. Finally, it is essential that we explore the meaning of Psalm 110:1. Of whom is this Psalm speaking? To whom are the words "my master" or "my lord" referring? The Psalm begins with the opening Hebrew words מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד(Mizmor l"David). " The word "Mizmor" means "a song," and thus the opening phrase of this Psalm is, "A Song of David. " In fact, the word Psalms comes from the Greek word `8;^5;_5;_6;a2;`2; (psalmos), which means "a song. " Bible students are often unaware of this. Why would King David be writing these songs? For whom was he writing them? Who did King David intend to sing these songs? With these questions in mind, we can begin to understand the meaning of Psalm 110. One of King David"s greatest disappointments was God"s refusal to allow him to build the first Temple in Jerusalem. Although David"s son Solomon undertook that task, and eventually constructed the first Temple, David"s umbilical connection to Solomon"s Temple was significant. For example, David founded the city of Jerusalem, the city where the Temple was built. In fact, both the city and the Temple were named after him, the City and Temple of David. Moreover, he made preparations for the building of the Temple, and even arranged for the Temple service (II Samuel 7; I Chronicles 14-17, 22-26). This is where the Book of Psalms played its central role. King David was a faithful servant of God who possessed extraordinary skills as a teacher, musician, and poet. In fact, King David authored most of the Book of Psalms. The central purpose of the composition of this sacred work for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. The Levites would stand on a platform and joyfully chant these spiritually exhilarating Psalms to an inspired audience. Accordingly, the Levites would sing allowed, The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] "Sit thou at my right hand"" (Psalm 110:1) For the Church, however, the Psalmist"s original intent was set aside because it was zealously committed to Christianizing this verse. Thus, the opening verse in Psalm 110 was altered in order to paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures. Here is some advice. The only way to recognize rampant Christian tampering of the Bible is to read the passage in the original Hebrew language, without the biased filter of the Christian translator. Therefore, give your children a good Jewish education. Remember, the success of groups like Jews for Jesus represents the unpaid bills of the Jewish people. Sincerely yours, Rabbi Tovia Singer I can do the same for all verses in the ot"should I really do this? even the verses he uses as proof are lacking So I ignored those fraudulent claims. Remember I gave those three Genesis verse's that show the plurality used in describing Gods nature? Here's what my opponent has to say for it. . "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26) Our to imply God's attributes ,those of mercy, love, will and the likes, our to imply his power" This is a very sad rebuttal and shows the weakness in my opponents argument. How is it weakness in my argument, is my argument weaker than the argument that Jesus, God and the Holyspirit are three yet one and some more important some less and some pray , some don"t? of course not , rather God is one, so if he uses a plural term, it means either it is out of respect for himself or referring to his attributes and since man can not be compared to God hence one can not say , "Isaacthemaniac said, We shall do ths," speaking in the singular, rather "I shall do this" but God can, because he has what no man has and possess what no man can imagine hence I chose that because I assumed it would be self evident. However let us consider this view point". . Three times in the book of Genesis (in its Primeval History, chaps. 1"11), God speaks in the first person plural. Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26) Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22) Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7) To whom is God speaking? The plural Hebrew verbs "make" [na'aseh], "go down" [nerdah], and "confuse" [novlah], and the implied plural pronoun "us" [mimmennu] are unambiguous. God is speaking to or about someone else. Note the study on the plural noun "God" [Elohim]. Historically, most Jewish commentators have said the Creator is here speaking to the angels of the heavenly assembly, his divine court. Most Christian interpreters have said the texts allude to interaction within the Triune Godhead. In the last century, there has been a marked opinion shift among Christian commentators toward the traditional Jewish interpretation. The reason for this shift has not been due to ecumenical feelings but to a different approach in reading the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament" in Christian terms). Most commentators now believe the Bible should be interpreted on its own terms, without imposing later theological beliefs or agendas, either Jewish or Christian. Thoughts? "That's the only logical conclusion. . The Jews did not know Jesus because He was not incarnate yet. . He is the Word (John 1:1) of God at this point. . The Jews would not have known the distinction. . Although they felt compelled to write the Words of God in the plural. . Interesting. ." What? Incarnate ! what sort of explanation is this, the jews simply understood rightfully so that God is and was one, and the notion that they did not know Jesus incarnate yet while amongst them was Moses who spoke to God directly is foolish and would imply that modern day Christians are more knowledgeable than Moses. Also wouldn"t Jesus in his spirit form )even though we have already seen that according to luke he didn"t exist prior to being in Mary"s womb,) have talked with Moses too since he was God or part of God hence they both choose Moses? But he did not because he is not god and did not exist as such the jews did not know him at that point in time. People can wrap their mind around trinity because it is false, it contradicts monotheism and is frankly a page out of hunduism , that"s why its hard to grasp the logic rejects it, the mind struggles with it and faith shuns it. For this simple fact, people are seldom sure about it, but it is easier to believe in the one true God because it does not evoke the same frustrations of triune paganism and that is clearer than day. Select readings from outside Christianity and within to perharps wash away some bias. Argument Ends". Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 21, 5, 1-2 [trans. Jacob Neusner] "Behold, the man has become like one of us" (Gen 3:22): R. Pappias interpreted the verse as follows: ""Behold, the man has become like one of us" means, like one of the ministering angels. " . . . [5, 2] R. Judah bar Simon said, "["Like One of us" means] like the One of the world: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut 6:4). " Rabbis say, "["Like One of us" means] like Gabriel: "And one man in the midst of them clothed in linen" (Ezek 9:2) . . . " Three times in the book of Genesis (in its Primeval History, chaps. 1"11), God speaks in the first person plural. Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26) Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22) Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7) To whom is God speaking? The plural Hebrew verbs "make" [na'aseh], "go down" [nerdah], and "confuse" [novlah], and the implied plural pronoun "us" [mimmennu] are unambiguous. God is speaking to or about someone else. Note the study on the plural noun "God" [Elohim]. Historically, most Jewish commentators have said the Creator is here speaking to the angels of the heavenly assembly, his divine court. Most Christian interpreters have said the texts allude to interaction within the Triune Godhead. In the last century, there has been a marked opinion shift among Christian commentators toward the traditional Jewish interpretation. The reason for this shift has not been due to ecumenical feelings but to a different approach in reading the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament" in Christian terms). Most commentators now believe the Bible should be interpreted on its own terms, without imposing later theological beliefs or agendas, either Jewish or Christian. In other words, these verses in Genesis (and passages like Isaiah 41:21-23 quoted above) need be viewed in light of their own contexts without biased interpretation. The desire is to understand what Moses or Isaiah, Jeremiah or the Chronicler understood by what they themselves wrote, in their own times. This doesn't mean the original meanings cannot have implications beyond their contexts. Later biblical writers often appropriate and extend earlier texts to their own time or into the future. But, in my view, those "implications" should not contradict or turn the original words upsidedown. Six Options Presently, commentators itemize six explanations for what I call "the Genesis Plurals. " They include: 1) God is speaking to members of his heavenly council. 2) God is speaking to himself, in self-deliberation ("Let us do this" = "I've decided I will do this"). 3) God is using the "royal we," as ancient monarchs did when issuing divine decrees. We find older scholars often use "we" instead of "I" to express their opinions. In the Qur'an, Allah speaks as "we": "To Jesus, son of Mary, We gave clear evidence of the truth" [2:87]. 4) The plural pronouns match the plural noun Elohim (God) in what some call a "plural of majesty" or "plenitude of might. " Human monarchs have long done this. Since they are great, they use amplified pronouns for themselves. 5) The plurals are a vestige of polytheistic belief that the Israelites borrowed from their pagan neighbors. God is speaking to a pantheon of fellow deities: his wives and children. 6) God the Father is speaking to other members of the Trinity: either to God the Spirit or to God the (preincarnate) Son, or to both. Jewish Interpreters Ancient Targum Targum of Palestine (Jonathan ben Uzziel) on Gen 1:26 The Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image. Targum of Palestine (Jonathan ben Uzziel) on Gen 3:22 The Lord God said to the angels who ministered before Him, Behold, Adam is sole [yechidai"unicus, unigenitus] on the earth, as I am sole in the heavens above. Targum of Palestine (Jonathan ben Uzziel) on Gen 11:7 The Lord said to the seventy angels which stand before Him, Come, we will descend . .. Midrash Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 8, 3, 1 [trans. Jacob Neusner] "And God said, "Let us make man" " (Gen 1:26). And with whom did he take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said, "With the works of heaven and earth he took counsel. . . . " R. Ammi said, "He took counsel with his own heart. " Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 21, 5, 1-2 [trans. Jacob Neusner] "Behold, the man has become like one of us" (Gen 3:22): R. Pappias interpreted the verse as follows: ""Behold, the man has become like one of us" means, like one of the ministering angels. " . . . [5, 2] R. Judah bar Simon said, "["Like One of us" means] like the One of the world: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut 6:4). " Rabbis say, "["Like One of us" means] like Gabriel: "And one man in the midst of them clothed in linen" (Ezek 9:2) . . . " [Top] Talmud Talmud Bavli/Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b (trans. Jacob Shachter) Rab Judah said in Rab"s name: When the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to create man, He [first] created a company of ministering angels and said to them: Is it your desire that we make a man in our image? [Gen 1:26] R. Johanan said: In all the passages which the Minim* have taken [as grounds] for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand. Thus: Let us make man in our image [Gen 1:26], " (refutation) And God created [sing. ] man in His own image [Gen 1:27]; Come, let us go down and there confound their language [Gen 11:7], " (refutation) And the Lord came down [sing. ] to see the city and the tower [Gen 11:5] * "Minim" is used in Talmudic literature to designate heretics of various kinds, including the Jewish disciples of Yeshua. The word literally means "believers. " Jewish Commentators The best explanation, although rejected by the majority of contemporary commentators, is that we have here the plural of exhortation. When a person exhorts himself to do a given task he uses the plural: "Let us go! " "Let us rise up! " "Let us sit! " and the like. Thus we find in ii Sam. xxiv 14: Let us fall [nippela] into the hand of the Lord . .. but into the hand of man let me not fall [eppolah]" [p. 55] [Gen 3:22] Like one of us " like one of my entourage, like one of the Divine entities, which are of a higher order than man, for example, the cherubim and their kind. We have already seen . . . that the idea prevailed among the Israelites that the knowledge of good and evil, that is, of everything in the world, was one of the specific attributes of the angels (ii Sam. xiv 17: for my lord the king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil; ibid. , v. 20: But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the Angel of God to know all things that are on the earth). [p. 172] Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) Gen 1:26. The extraordinary use of the first person plural evokes the image of a heavenly court in which God is surrounded by His angelic host. [Footnote 353: For the celestial court, cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. 6:8; Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89:6-7; Job 1:6; 2:1. In Job 38:7, divine beings are present at creation. The present interpretation is found in Midrash, Genesis Rabbah 8.3; Rashi. ] Such a celestial scene is depicted in several biblical passages. This is the Israelite version of the polytheistic assemblies of the pantheon"monotheized and depaganized. It is noteworthy that this plural form of divine address is employed in Genesis on two other occasions, both involving the fate of humanity: in 3:22, in connection with the expulsion from Eden; and in 11:7, in reference to the dispersal of the human race after the building of the Tower of Babel. [p. 12] . http://outreachjudaism.org... . http://www.hebrew-streams.org...