Trinity Issues

[Valke2]

First, my disclaimer. I am assuming that this is the place to challegne Catholic beliefs. I mean you can’t have apologetics without someone criticizing the religion. If this is not the purpose of this board, I apologize.

As a Jew, the Trinity and the Incarnation are probably the two aspects of Christian faith that I disagree with most strongly. “Faith will not force intellect to believe something which leads to a contradiction.”(Hasdai Crescas).

The three-in-one aspect of the Trnity has been said to correspond to three divine attributes: power, wisdom and goodness. Kabbalistic Jews also viewed God as making Himself accessible to us through various stages, called sefirot (Crown, Wisdom, Understanding, etc…) These could easily be seen as attributes by those who had not studied kabbalah extensively.

Rambam had no patience for the many attirbutes, one God views. “Those who believe that God is One, and that He has many atributes, declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts. This is like the doctrine of the Christians, who say that He is one and He is three, and that the three are one.”

1. If the Trinity corresponds to God’s attributes, does it make sense to limite Him to only three? Nachmanides, in debating Pablo Christiani, argured that there must be a Quinternity, to include the attribute of Life, and the substance of the Being Himself who possesses these attributes.
2. If both Father and Son are God, then I assume that they share the same will. But this seems to be contrary to how Christians interpet Psalm 110. (The Lord [father] said unto my lord [the son], Sit at my right hand.)
   Additionally in the Gospe of John, Jesus says “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” Does this mean that the father and son have two wills, with one will wanting what the other will does not?

Thanks.

 

[JimG]

1. Classical Catholic theology does not equate God’s attributes with the idea of the Trinity. Because God is one, in fact, his attributes are essentially considered to be identical with his nature. (i.e. God is Love. But God is also eternity, omnipotence, justice, etc.) While Catholic theology may consider his attributes in isolation, purely as a human intellectual exercise, in reality His attributes are identified with his (one) nature, and with each other. God’s ercy is not essentially distinct from his justice.
2. Because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all possess (not share) the One divine nature, there is but one divine will. Catholics believe, however, that because the Son assumed a complete human nature, he also has a human will.

The Trinity of Persons is a distinction only of persons, not of attributes.

 

[DeFide]

In addition to Jim’s response, here is a link that offer further depth:

rosary-center.org/ll47n3.htm

And although I’d recommend reading Theology and Sanity in book form, it is available on the net:

katapi.org.uk/Index.htm

(look under the “Theology” header)

 

[Maranatha]

We believe in the Trinity because the Christ told us to. There are hints for the Trinity even in the Pentateuch.

When we say that God created the universe out of nothing, we can’t explain or understand how. This is what we call a mystery. In the same way, we describe the Trinity - it is a mystery.

Logically speaking, once it’s been revealed, we can see that there is some reasonable support for the Trinity. We believe that God is perfect and that God is Love. He does not need us to complete Himself. If He were merely to Love himself, it would hardly be perfect because you need two people. Perfect love is between two persons. God, the person, is infinite. The person He perfectly loves is infinite. The love perfectly returned is infinite. These are described in Christianity as the three Persons of the Trinity.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My understanding is - Man cannot understand these issues- thus we have faith. Our faith gives use the Trinity. In summary many issues (angels, giants, creation of earth & man, hell, judgment, etc) including the Trinity can not be understood correctly as we lack capacity. We share the same capacity as a Jew.

By the way this leads you to understanding divine revelation which is known by man only because God chose to reveal such. I love to watch the debates on the unknown issues, it tells you only about the debater

 

[Maranatha]

I suggest the book Salvation is from the Jews by Roy H. Schoeman

The purpose of the book is to give the Christian reader a deeper understanding of Judaism, both as a religion in itself and as a central component of Christian salvation, and to reveal to the Jewish reader the incomprehensible importance and glory which Jews and Judaism most truly have; a glory and importance which is only revealed in the light of the Catholic faith.

I also suggest research on St. Edith Stein

**

Edith Stein

, saintly Carmelite, profound philosopher and brilliant writer, had a great influence on the women of her time, and is having a growing influence in the intellectual and philosophical circles of today’s Germany and of the whole world. She is an inspiration to all Christians whose heritage is the Cross, and her life was offered for her own Jewish people in their sufferings and persecutions.
**

 

[teachccd]

First, my disclaimer. I am assuming that this is the place to challegne Catholic beliefs. I mean you can’t have apologetics without someone criticizing the religion. If this is not the purpose of this board, I apologize.

.

While I see the Jews as being misled, I still hold great respect for them as our entire Christian faith is a fulfillment of theirs. However, even while dumbfounded at their lack of seeing Jesus as the Messiah I would never consider “critizing” their faith.I would instead try to understand more as to how they remain where they are. In this way I expand my knowledge and feel that I would be better equipped in dialogue.

Now other posters can move on with our central doctrine of the nature of our God as I just completed dialogue with a Jehovah’s Witness and I’m anti-Trinitarianed out.

May God Bless You…

 

[teachccd]

As a Jew, the Trinity and the Incarnation are probably the two aspects of Christian faith that I disagree with most strongly. .

As a final point, I’d have to disagree with your above statement. The aspect of Jesus Christ as being the Messiah is the biggest disagreement that you have with Christianity. Until you believe that He truly is then all that He reveals would not be relevant to you.While shadowed in the Hebrew Scriptures, He fully revealed the Trinity. No words on the forum can bring you to this understanding if you reject the Person who fully reveals them. O.K. I’m done now…

 

[Valke2]

While I see the Jews as being misled, I still hold great respect for them as our entire Christian faith is a fulfillment of theirs. However, even while dumbfounded at their lack of seeing Jesus as the Messiah I would never consider “critizing” their faith.I would instead try to understand more as to how they remain where they are. In this way I expand my knowledge and feel that I would be better equipped in dialogue.

Now other posters can move on with our central doctrine of the nature of our God as I just completed dialogue with a Jehovah’s Witness and I’m anti-Trinitarianed out.

May God Bless You…

This is an apologitics board. IN order to defend you have to have something to defend against. You may not ever consider criticizing our faith, but when you say your religion fullfills ours and that you are dumbfounded at our lack of seeing Jesus as the Messiah, you come pretty close.
I’m not sure where you were going with this post. If it helps, I’m equally dumbfounded as to how you can worship a man as God. If this were a Jewish apologitics board, I’d be happy to address your criticisms and questions.

 

[Valke2]

As a final point, I’d have to disagree with your above statement. The aspect of Jesus Christ as being the Messiah is the biggest disagreement that you have with Christianity. Until you believe that He truly is then all that He reveals would not be relevant to you.While shadowed in the Hebrew Scriptures, He fully revealed the Trinity. No words on the forum can bring you to this understanding if you reject the Person who fully reveals them. O.K. I’m done now…

No. I don’t think so. One can argue that a person is the Messiah and still not run afoul of Judaism. A Jew can make a mistake in beliving someone is the Messiah and still be a Jew. It is the belief that Jesus is God which is a huge sticking point. NOt that he was the Messiah.

 

[Valke2]

If in fact, this is an issue that we are incapable of understanding, as a few posters have stated, then I guess it isn’ta debatable point. I can’t argue logic or reason if the answer is “we don’t know, we can’t know, and it is just a matter of faith”. So I guess that aspect of the dialoug is complete.

 

[Sixtus]

As a Jew, the Trinity and the Incarnation are probably the two aspects of Christian faith that I disagree with most strongly. .

The three-in-one aspect of the Trnity has been said to correspond to three divine attributes: power, wisdom and goodness.

This is like the doctrine of the Christians, who say that He is one and He is three, and that the three are one."

1. If the Trinity corresponds to God’s attributes, does it make sense to limite Him to only three? .

My understanding is that there is three, there can only be three. There cannot be one, that would be a contradiction.

God we know from Scripture 'begot His Son.Jn 17: 20 & 23; Jn 16:14,He is therefore of the same nature as the Father.

The Holy Spirit being ‘the personified love between them’.

 

[Atreyu]

First, my disclaimer. I am assuming that this is the place to challegne Catholic beliefs. I mean you can’t have apologetics without someone criticizing the religion. If this is not the purpose of this board, I apologize.

As a Jew, the Trinity and the Incarnation are probably the two aspects of Christian faith that I disagree with most strongly. “Faith will not force intellect to believe something which leads to a contradiction.”(Hasdai Crescas).

The three-in-one aspect of the Trnity has been said to correspond to three divine attributes: power, wisdom and goodness. Kabbalistic Jews also viewed God as making Himself accessible to us through various stages, called sefirot (Crown, Wisdom, Understanding, etc…) These could easily be seen as attributes by those who had not studied kabbalah extensively.

Rambam had no patience for the many attirbutes, one God views. “Those who believe that God is One, and that He has many atributes, declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts. This is like the doctrine of the Christians, who say that He is one and He is three, and that the three are one.”

1. If the Trinity corresponds to God’s attributes, does it make sense to limite Him to only three? Nachmanides, in debating Pablo Christiani, argured that there must be a Quinternity, to include the attribute of Life, and the substance of the Being Himself who possesses these attributes.
2. If both Father and Son are God, then I assume that they share the same will. But this seems to be contrary to how Christians interpet Psalm 110. (The Lord [father] said unto my lord [the son], Sit at my right hand.)
   Additionally in the Gospe of John, Jesus says “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” Does this mean that the father and son have two wills, with one will wanting what the other will does not?

Thanks.

Valke how do you interpret the beginning of Psalm 110? What about the parts of the OT (I know there are some in Genesis - do you need me to look them up?) where God refers to Himself as “us”? What does this mean? Also, what does the verse “he shall be called Emmanuel” mean (Isaiah 7:14)?

Sorry for the naive questions - pretty much my entire knowledge of Judaism comes from your posts on this board!!!

 

[Valke2]

Valke how do you interpret the beginning of Psalm 110? What about the parts of the OT (I know there are some in Genesis - do you need me to look them up?) where God refers to Himself as “us”? What does this mean? Also, what does the verse “he shall be called Emmanuel” mean (Isaiah 7:14)?

Sorry for the naive questions - pretty much my entire knowledge of Judaism comes from your posts on this board!!!

I’ve addressed this in other threads. I did post something about Psalm 110 in my original post here. I’ll find what I had said elsewhere and post it here.

 

[Valke2]

Sorry for the naive questions - pretty much my entire knowledge of Judaism comes from your posts on this board!!!

Just keep in mind that by and large, since I’m in a Catholic chat room debating various issues, I’m concentrating on those portions of Judaism which address or oppose Christian teachings. In a sense, I’m posting as an apologetic for Judaism. So the view I’m expressing here is for a specific purpose and the emphasis that I place here is not necessirily the emphasis I place on Judaism as it applies to my life.

Hope that makes sense. Now, regarding Psalm 110, (see below).

 

[Valke2]

In answer to your question, a Jew’s view of Psalm 110:

The Lord said unto my Lord, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet.”

In the original Hebrew text the first word “Lord” in the Hebrew is a correct translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). But the second “Lord” is a mistranslation of the text. The second word “Lord” in the verse is a bad translation of the Hebrew word “ladonee”, which actually means “to my master” or “to my lord.” Adonee never refers to God. God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. And that’s saying something, because there are a whole lot of words for God in the bible. But adonee, isn’t one of them.

The word is used, however, to refer to Abraham and Esau in other parts of the Torah. For some reason, the word is translated correctly in those verses but not in Psalm 110:1

A cynic might say this is because both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used to prove Jesus from the Jewish scriptures.

The translation issue of the second “Lord” has been corrected in some Christian Bibles. the RSV and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as " to my lord," in Psalm 110:1. In these translations, it is clear that God is not speaking to God (and therefore Psalm 110:1 is not being used to prove Trinity).

As a Jew, I would call the whole story of Jesus talking the the Pharsees about Psalm 110 (in Matthew?) into question. I can’t see how the Pharasees would remain silent when faced with a question that any learned Jew would be able to answer. Even without the internet, they would surely know the correct translation of Pslam 110:1

As to what Psalm 110 is referring to, its opening words are “A Song of David.”

So who was King David writing this (and other) song for?

The original purpose for which King David composed the Book of Psalms was for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. David’s way of contributing to the Temple since he couldn’t be the guy to build it. King David composed Psalm 110 for recitation by the Levites in the Temple years after his death.

This explains the opening line. The Levites would read: "The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] “Sit thou at my right hand . . . .”

 

[Atreyu]

Thanks Valke! That makes sense.

 

[Maranatha]

As a Jew, I would call the whole story of Jesus talking the the Pharsees about Psalm 110 (in Matthew?) into question. I can’t see how the Pharasees would remain silent when faced with a question that any learned Jew would be able to answer. Even without the internet, they would surely know the correct translation of Pslam 110:1

Would still have spoken up if Jesus had just finished a dozen or so miracles, perhaps including raising a girl from the dead. If he had just done that and then claimed to know the proper interpretation of Psalm 110:1 (because He inspired the writing of it) I’d be speechless.

 

[Valke2]

Would still have spoken up if Jesus had just finished a dozen or so miracles, perhaps including raising a girl from the dead. If he had just done that and then claimed to know the proper interpretation of Psalm 110:1 (because He inspired the writing of it) I’d be speechless.

Is that how Matthew says it happened? you make it sound like Jesus put on quite a show and his interpetation of Psalm 110 was the climax of his act. In any event, I think we can agree that the Pharasees did not believe Jesus inspried any of the Psalms or that he was divine.

 

[water]

If both Father and Son are God, then I assume that they share the same will. But this seems to be contrary to how Christians interpet Psalm 110. (The Lord [father] said unto my lord [the son], Sit at my right hand.)

John 10: 30 - The Father and I are one.
John 10: 38 - even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

Additionally in the Gospe of John, Jesus says “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” Does this mean that the father and son have two wills, with one will wanting what the other will does not?

Mark 9: 6 - “This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him”.
Mark 1: 11 - “And a voice came from the heavens, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”