Why is the Trinity an essential to there even being a God?

[37818]

I do not agree biblically. Jesus did not preach it and denied it as well. For example, Jesus said in Rev 3:21 "I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne" showing that if Jesus were to be God, there would be two gods; the Father and Jesus, which is impossible.

No.
You have a number of things you do not understand.
God is only one God in the Trinity.
The man Jesus and God the Father are not the same persons.
First, one needs to understand who God is. *
Second, one needs to hear that there was finite and temppral means the Eternal God being the Creator used.
Third, that the Persons who are the three distinct Persons are not distinct in being the Uncaused God the Singular Uncaused REALITY. *

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I am of the persuasion that the Christian Trinity explanation is essential to there even being a God. The foundation to accept this is generally denied. The argument can be proposed that if the Trinity is not true that there could not even be a God.

Well the Jews had [and observant Jews still have] a functioning belief in ONE deity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I do not agree biblically.

You are right. Nothing in the Hebrew scriptures supports it. And even the author of John's gospel contradicts himself.

[Same Hakeem]

I am of the persuasion that the Christian Trinity explanation is essential to there even being a God. The foundation to accept this is generally denied. The argument can be proposed that if the Trinity is not true that there could not even be a God.

I do not agree biblically. Jesus did not preach it and denied it as well. For example, Jesus said in Rev 3:21 "I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne" showing that if Jesus were to be God, there would be two gods; the Father and Jesus, which is impossible.

[Rushing Jaws]

I am of the persuasion that the Christian Trinity explanation is essential to there even being a God. The foundation to accept this is generally denied. The argument can be proposed that if the Trinity is not true that there could not even be a God.

ISTM that the Mystery of the inner Life of the Most Blessed Trinity illustrates, beautifully, the Johannine words that "God is Love" - thus:

The Father Loves the Son
The Son Loves the Father

Both of Those Who are Love & and are Beloved, are Infinite Divine Persons.
And the Love Between Them, the Holy Spirit, is an Infinite Divine Person.

The Shema in Deuteronomy 6.5 - which Jesus made the first and greatest commandment - is as follows: "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." It seems extremely safe to infer that what is commended of men, is what is happening in God, eternally. It is what Jesus did while on earth, perfectly & unceasingly. It is what He does now- therefore, since there is not the least difference in purpose between Him & His Father, it is what the Father does; because "Like Father, like Son" is perfectly verified here: "He who has seen Me, has see the Father". The moral Identity between Them is Perfect, and Infinite. Likewise for the Holy Spirit, Who is the Author & Spirit of Love.

So if the question is "Why is God Tri-Une ?", one answer might be that this is unanswerable, and a second might be, "Because God is Love".

The Love of the Divine Persons for the Divine Persons cannot be less than the love in creatures. But if it is as excellent and wonderful as it must be - since it is Eternal, Limitless, Unfailing, Universal, Holy, & Divine - then the Giver, the Gift & the Recipient must be co-equally & co-eternally God. Only God can give this Love Infintely; only God can receive such Love Infinitely; only God can be this Infinite Love.

The Most Holy Trinity, because it is the supreme Mystery of the Christian Faith, cannot be proved by reason; words about It, are words, not It. It can be known to be Real only through Divine Revelation; though there are many hints and shadows of it in creation and history - "God has not left Himself without a witness" even in regard to this. That it is utterly mysterious, is a reminder that to know it is entirely and in all respects wholly gratuitous - to know it, depends entirely on the free and sovereign initiative of God; in no way is knowledge of the Most Holy Trinity owed to human nature, or to any creature whatever. Although such knowledge is not owed to human nature, this knowledge is not a violation of human nature, but is in accord with it. The proof of this is that Our Lord had a flawless human nature, and yet His entire Life, even on earth, was Trinitarian; as His Baptism shows.

[37818]

I do not believe that any trinitarian understanding of God could be arrived at apart from special or supernatural revelation. In other words, a trinitarian understanding of God cannot be arrived at by general or natural revelation alone. Based on Romans 1, the oneness of God may be known by creation and apart from supernatural revelation. However, knowledge of the unique relationship between the persons of the Trinity occurs in the context of the unfolding redemptive narrative of Scripture; it must be gained by supernatural revelation.

Just for starters. There is a difference between Uncaused Existence and Uncaused Cause. They being both Uncaused. But Existence and Cause are two different things. In order for there to be an Uncaused Cause there has to be an Uncaused Existence.

[The Remonstrant]

I am of the persuasion that the Christian Trinity explanation is essential to there even being a God. The foundation to accept this is generally denied. The argument can be proposed that if the Trinity is not true that there could not even be a God.

I do not believe that any trinitarian understanding of God could be arrived at apart from special or supernatural revelation. In other words, a trinitarian understanding of God cannot be arrived at by general or natural revelation alone. Based on Romans 1, the oneness of God may be known by creation and apart from supernatural revelation. However, knowledge of the unique relationship between the persons of the Trinity occurs in the context of the unfolding redemptive narrative of Scripture; it must be gained by supernatural revelation.

[shunyadragon]

Well you said liberal... not much to be expected there.

I also know some Orthodox where I perform Mime and Stand Up Comedy at No Shame Theater. You apparently missed my previous reference.

Actually I find Jews happier, better adjusted, and more comfortable with believers of other religions like mine, the Baha'i Faith, than in Christianity. My preference for the more liberal Jewish Synagogue is the light side of Judaism is more friendlier. There is more there and in both that your apparently missing.

[flowers92]

Well you said liberal... not much to be expected there.

[shunyadragon]

Wait til you meet the Jews i met :)

I guess, yes, different Jews believe differently. I attend a local liberal synagogue on occasion, make friends, and actually make an effort to study the Jewish perspective of the Torah, and religion in general. The Jews I know range from hard atheist, to devoted orthodox theists, to messianic Jews that believe some form of Christianity. My references reflect the dominant belief from the orthodox to mainline liberal Judaism. I cannot form an opinion from the perspective of individual Jews, like any religion, they can believe anything. If you have any particular views of Jews that are meaningful to the discussion, please post them.

[37818]

My point is "this is Adding to the text"
may be wishful thinking on your behalf. But the text does not support that. This is a messianic text David is not calling another King lord.

No. Giving the meaning of the text is not adding to it. Unless the alleged presented meaning is false. So am I to understand that the LORD is not God? Or that a lord is always referring to God?

There are two ways to misread a text. Reading into the text what does not say. Or to deny what says and means.

Who spoke to David's "lord?" And who was that "lord" in the text? ". . . The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' . . ." Psalm 110:1

Questions: Was Jesus a human descendant of David? Is Jesus still a human (1 Timothy 2:5)?

[flowers92]

The Psalm Jesus cited referred to God saying to a lord (Psalm 110:1). Not as the deity.

My point is "this is Adding to the text"
may be wishful thinking on your behalf. But the text does not support that. This is a messianic text David is not calling another King lord.

[flowers92]

Jews do not share your enthusiasm for this as prophesy.

The translation in original Hebrew is present tense, not future tense as a prophesy.

Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727190327AAy52rx

כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה, עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד, שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם

יֻלַּד (Yulad)= is born- present tense
נִתַּן(Nitan)= given present tense
וַתְּהִי(Vatehi) = and is - present tense
וַיִּקְרָא(Vayikra)= called past tense

Unlie the claim of messie, it is in the present tense when it states "rests on his shoulder"- future tense would not be "Vatehi" but "Vayehi"

There is no reference to the future, it is discussing something that has already happened and is currently in the process of happening. To turn this into a messianic translation, it has been deliberately mistranslated into the future tense!

Additionally, the end phrase is incorrectly translated as a single individual- an accurate translation is:
5. ... and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
Source(s):
Orthodox Jew; acting Rabbi; knowledge of Hebrew.

© Copyright Original Source

See Also: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Med...led/yeled.html

Wait til you meet the Jews i met :)

[shunyadragon]

So who are these scriptures referring to? And how does one determine from a Jewish perspective what is Messianic prophecy vs. present tense?

Source: http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf

Isaiah 9:5-6 is not a messianic prophecy according to the Jewish perspective.
The correct context of this passage is that it describes events that had already
taken place in Jewish history, namely, the birth and naming of this particular child
(believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz), and a prophecy concerning his
future mission (which was fulfilled). Hezekiah's role was to lift Judah from the
degenerate conditions into which it had sunk, and to lead the indestructible
faithful "Remnant of Israel". According to one interpretation, this passage speaks
of the wonders performed by God for Hezekiah as King of Judah, and in it, the
Prophet expresses his praise of God for sparing Hezekiah and his kingdom from
demise at the hands of Sanheriv and his army, who besieged Jerusalem.

© Copyright Original Source

Do the Jews have scriptural references tied to a future Messiah?

Yes the Torah has prophesies for future messiahs, plural, not singular, as descendants of the House of David. I may go into them next if you are not aware of them.

[Super Cow]

Likewise, this is indeed the fault of faulty translation and interpretation of Christians as prophecy.

So who are these scriptures referring to? And how does one determine from a Jewish perspective what is Messianic prophecy vs. present tense? Do the Jews have scriptural references tied to a future Messiah?