To the only God our Savior

[Johann]

From the quote above, we can once again clearly see that the ancient Jewish Targums recognized that for men to see YHWH God and live was problematic. But rather than coming to the conclusion that Moses’ reached when he faced this same problem, the Targums came up with alternate explanations. As we saw earlier in Exodus 33-34, Moses reconciled the fact that men saw God with the axiom that seeing God would bring death by concluding that men were seeing God in a humbler form, not his fully glorified form, which would be lethal to them. But what do the Targums conclude instead?

The Targum Onkelos apparently altered the meaning of the text to suggest that Moses merely looked “beside” the glory of God rather than looking directly. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan adopted its own explanation, asserting instead that Moses didn’t look at YHWH God himself but at a being, emissary, or aspect of God designated by the title “the Shekhina.” However, it is worth noting that in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the term “Shekhina” is simply being used as an interchangeably title for the figure known as “the angel of YHWH.” But by identifying the figure that Moses saw as “the Shekhina,” this solution actually acknowledges that the text is identifying “the angel of YHWH” or “the Shekhina” by the name “YHWH God.” Rather than avoiding or providing an alternative to the Trinitarian conclusion, this solution ends up affirming it.

And ultimately, as we can see, the ancient Jews recognized the fact that according to the Old Testament, to see the angel of YHWH is to see YHWH God. Ancient Jewish sources recognized the issues raised by these facts. But their attempts to explain it either alter the text, don’t differentiate significantly in form from the Trinity, or raise the specter of sub-deities as the God of the Exodus.

Commenting still further, Dr. Brown cites additional examples and summarizes both the predicament and the attempted solution, which was simply to alter the wording.

“According to Exodus 33:20, no one can see God or his face and live. Yet the Hebrew Bible preserves numerous instances of people ‘seeing God.’…Exodus 24:9-11 states that Moses and a select group of Israelites saw God, who did not strike them down. The Targum says that they saw the glory of God…Jacob, who wrestled with the angel of the LORD, said that he had seen God face to face (Gen. 32:30). The Targum changed this to, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.” The exact same change is made in Judges 13:22. In Exodus 3:1-6, the angel of the Lord, equated with the Lord himself in the text, appeared to Moses in flaming fire in a bush, and Moses looked away because he was afraid to look at God. The Targum says that he was afraid to look near the glory of the LORD.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 29-30

Fourth, ancient Judaism recognizes that the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH is also regarded as being a distinct yet equal figure within the Godhead of YHWH in similar fashion to the angel of YHWH. This can be seen in the following two quotes. The first quote, which we have seen earlier, comes from Microsoft Encarta and in it Encarta describes how the Word and the Spirit of God were regarded as “secondary divine beings.” Specifically, Britannica uses the plural “beings,” indicating that the Word and the Spirit were regarded as distinct rather than being regarded as different titles for the same being or figure.

“God, I INTRODUCTION, II CONCEPTIONS OF GOD, III JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM, A The Jewish Idea of God – The Hebrew God was unique, and his command was, "You shall have no other gods beside me!" (although in some biblical passages the Spirit of the Lord and the angel of the Lord and, in later Jewish speculation, the divine wisdom appear to be almost secondary divine beings).” – "God," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The second quote also demonstrates that the ancient Jews regarded the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH is also regarded as being a distinct yet equal figure within the Godhead of YHWH in similar fashion to the angel of YHWH. This is indicated by the fact that ancient Jews recognized passages in which the Spirit of YHWH speaks with another figure known also as YHWH, as explained in the following quote.

“Lamentations Rabbah 3:60, 9 relates that after the Roman emperor Hadrian indiscriminately executed two Jews, the Holy Spirit kept crying out, “You have seen, O LORD, the wrong done to me. Uphold my cause! You have seen the depth of their vengeance, all their plots against me” (Lam. 3:59-60) This provides and example of the Spirit making intercession. 80 According to Leviticus Rabbah 6:1, the Holy Spirit is a defense counsel who speaks to Israel on behalf of the Lord and then speaks to the Lord on behalf of Israel. To Israel the Spirit says, “Do not testify against your neighbor without cause” (Prov. 24:28), and to the Lord the Spirit, “Do not say, ‘I’ll do to him as he has done to me’” (Prov. 24:29). 81 In all these citations, which can be easily multiplied (see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 84:11; Song of Songs Rabbah 8:16; Lamentations Rabbah 1:48), there can be no question that we are dealing with a “who” and not just with a “what,” with a personal dimension of God and not just with an impersonal power, with God himself and yet with a “separate” entity who can mediate between God and man. 82 And these citations closely parallel some of the New Testament descriptions of the Holy Spirit, although virtually all the Rabbinic texts cited were written many years later. 83” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 55-56

The quotes above from Rabbinical sources establish that the ancient Jews recognized these specific four Trinitarian facts as present in the Old Testament. But it is also important to emphasize the extent to which ancient Judaism recognized these facts. Specifically, the ancient Jews very much understood the Word of YHWH to be both distinct from YHWH in some sense and also as the very YHWH who appeared to Abraham and Moses, etc. As Dr. Brown comments below, the ancient rabbis had already established the understanding that it was a figure known as the Word of YHWH that was at work in Genesis and Exodus. The Aramaic term for “the Word of YHWH” was “the Memra.”

“The rabbis took this one step further. Since God was often perceived as somehow “untouchable,” it was necessary to provide some kind of link between the Lord and his earthly creation. One of the important links in Rabbinic thought was “the Word,” called memra’ in Aramaic (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root, “to say” [‘mr], the root used throughout the creation account in Genesis 1, when God said and the material world came into existence). We find this memra’ concept hundreds of times in the Aramaic Targums, the translations, and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus. These Targums arose because, in some locations, many of the Jewish people no longer understood Hebrew. Instead, they grew up speaking and reading Aramaic, so they could follow the public reading of the Scriptures only with Aramaic translation. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19

To demonstrate the pervasiveness of the Targum’s references to the Word of YHWH, Dr. Brown provides the following chart.

 

[Johann]

Memra Chart (from Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20.)

Genesis 1:27

God created man.



The Word of the Lord created man. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

Genesis 6:6-7

And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth.

And it repented the Lord through his Word that he made man on the earth.

Genesis 9:12

And God said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between me and you.”

And the Lord said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between my Word and you.”

Genesis 15:6

And Abraham believed in the Lord.

And Abraham believed in the Word of the Lord.

Genesis 20:3

And God came to Abimelech.

And the Word from before the Lord came to Abimelech.

Genesis 31:49

May the Lord keep watch between you and me.

May the Word of the Lord keep watch between you and me.

Exodus 14:31

And they believed in the Lord.

And they believed in the Word of the Lord.

Exodux 20:1

And the Lord spoke all these words.

And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.

Exodux 25:22

And I will meet with you there.

And I will appoint my Word for you there. 31

Leviticus 26:9

And I will turn to you.

And I will turn through my Word to do good to you.

Numbers 10:35

Rise up, O Lord!

Rise up, O Word of the Lord!

Numbers 10:36

Return, O Lord!

Return, O Word of the Lord!

Numbers 11:23

Is the hand of the Lord shortened?

Is the Word of the Lord detained?

Numbers 14:35

I the Lord have spoken.

I the Lord decreed through my Word.

Deuteronomy 1:30

The Lord your God who goes before you, he himself will fight for you.

The Lord your God who leads before you, his Word will fight for you.

Deuteronomy 18:19

I myself will require it of him.

My Word will require it of him.

Deuteronomy 31:3

The Lord your God will pass before you.

The Lord your God, his Word will pass before you.

Joshua 1:5

As I was with Moses I will be with you.

As my Word was in support of Moses, so my Word will be in your support.

Judges 11:10

The Lord will be witness between us.

The Word of the Lord will be witness between us.

Isaiah 45:17

Israel will be saved by the Lord.

Israel will be saved by the Word of the Lord.

Commenting on this chart, Dr. Brown emphasizes the significance of the fact that the Targum so readily recognized the Word of YHWH as a distinct figure.

“Now, I want you to look carefully at the following verses. The translation of the Hebrew text is followed immediately by the translation of the Aramaic Targum. Keepin in mind when reading that these Targums were the official translations used in the synagogues. Therefore, the Targums took on great significance in the religious life of the people, just as English versions of the Bible take on great significance for English speakers today. Here are several examples:…” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20

Furthermore, Dr. Brown follows this chart with another prominent example in which the Jewish Targum identified the figure known as the Word of YHWH interchangeably with YHWH God.

“As if these examples aren’t enough (and there are many more), just consider Genesis 28:20-21, Jacob’s vow. In Hebrew, it reads, ‘If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s house, then the Lord will be my God.’ The Targum says, ‘If the Word of the Lord will be with me…then the Word of the Lord will be my God.’ The Word of the Lord will be Jacob’s God! And this was read in the synagogues for decades, if not centuries. Week in and week out, the people heard about this walking, talking, creating, saving, delivering Word, this Word who was Jacob’s God.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 21

Consequently, it is very clear that the identification of a figure known as the Word of God, who is both distinct from and yet himself YHWH God, is not a unique or new idea of the New Testament or Christianity. This defining component of Trinitarianism is present within the Old Testament and ancient Judaism.

Adding a footnote to this chart, Dr. Brown explains that the ancient Jews understood the figure known as the Memra or Word of YHWH in terms of the concept that YHWH God was operating in a more personal or personified and interactive form.

“Footnote 31: CF. Yeyn HaTob, 1:351, which simply notes here (as it does elsewhere in similar contexts), “to remove personification [hagshamah],” i.e., of the Deity; cf. the discussion of Ezra Zion Melammed, Bible Commentators (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), cited below, n. 42.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 269

Given that Trinitarianism recognizes all three Persons of the Godhead as personal, this Jewish explanation is not identical to Trinitarianism. However, it comes very close. So close, in fact, that there remains little basis for rejecting the Trinitarian explanation. And more importantly, it acknowledges the basic fact of our assertion that the angel of YHWH was YHWH God in a humbler, visiting form. As we have said, the purpose of this humbler guise of an angel or man was because in this form YHWH could better interact with men, particularly since no man could see his fully glorified from and live.

As a result of these Jewish reflections, it is clear that ancient and modern non-Christian Jews recognize the that Old Testament identifies the angel of YHWH (or “the Word of YHWH”) not as an angel but as YHWH and at the same time as distinct from a simultaneously existing figure also known as YHWH. Consequently, these doctrines cannot be regarded as a New Testament or Christian invention. Neither is recognizing the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH as a similar, simultaneously existing figure of YHWH a Christian invention. The Old Testament and rabbinical Jews recognized these facts also.

In fact, there is only one of the five defining Trinitarian components that we have not seen affirmed in the Old Testament from non-Christian Jewish sources. Specifically, we have not seen affirmation for the claim that the angel (or Word) of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH are uncreated. Consequently, this fifth point is clearly seen to be the critical issue, which determines who whether the Trinitarian model or some alternate model is correct. However, we have already demonstrated in detail earlier that all of the proofs for God’s eternal, uncreated status are applied to the angel (or Word) of YHWH and to the Spirit as well. Those proofs are sufficient and we will not be repeating them here. But we can address this critical difference from another important angle.

 

[Johann]

Typically, alternatives to the Trinity are preferred because the Trinity is seen as polytheistic rather than monotheistic. The Trinity is perceived as affirming the existence of three different Gods rather than just one God. Consequently, one way to settle the debate is to determine whether or not the Trinity is actually polytheistic. And more specifically, are the suggested alternatives any less polytheistic? Or, do the alternatives themselves violate their own definition of polytheism as they apply it to the Trinity? And, as indicate earlier, the alternative Jewish attempts to explain these recognized Old Testament facts with Jewish monotheism are problematic.

Essentially, they fall into one of two categories, which might be generally called Modalism and Henotheism or Arianism. It is important to recognize that Modalism and Arianism are names that arise in the first few centuries AD. In other words, these terms and post-dates the Jewish understandings we’ve outlined above. Consequently, such categories as Modalism and Arianism are traditionally understood to refer to Christian heresies and are not applied Judaism. In part, however, the failure to at least broadly apply such categories to the Old Testament results from the common misperception that Old Testament Judaism is devoid of any hints of Trinitarian issues. But, as we have seen, both ancient and modern Jewish scholars have recognized the defining components of the Trinity as part of the Old Testament. And they have struggled to resolve those facts. Since Modalism and Arianism are really just alternate (and ultimately less successful) attempts to explain the same set of scriptural facts concerning differing figures associated with YHWH God, in that sense these terms can also be applied to Jewish explanations of these same facts.

Modalism, as defined earlier, refers to the idea that there aren’t really three eternally distinct consciousnesses within the Godhead but instead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simple different forms or modes that the single Person of YHWH switches between.

“Trinity – An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself…came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Some Jewish rabbinical explanations of Old Testament Trinitarian facts can be considered forms of proto-Modalism since they view figures such as the Word and the Spirit as temporary extensions of the Supreme God that can be retracted at some point when the original singular form of God returns. And the quote below reflects this perception that the Word and the Spirit were temporary extensions of a single divine Person and, as such, that one day they might even be reabsorbed into the singularity of God.

“The rabbis spoke much about the Shekhina, the Divine Presence, corresponding also the feminine, motherly aspects of God. 24 They taught that the Shekhina went into exile with the Jewish people…According to this concept, God cannot be “whole” again until his people return…The rabbis based this idea on verses that spoke of God being with his people (corporately or individually) in their trouble, distress, and exile (see Mekhilta deRabbi Yishmael, Massekhta dePishha, 14). In fact, Rabbi Akiva went as far as saying that, according to the Scriptures, when God redeemed his people, he had, as it were, redeemed himself (ibid.). Some Hasidic Jews, joining the concept of the Shekhina with the mystical concept of the Sefirot, took this one step further. They believed and still believe that ‘the purpose of the performance of the mitzvot [commandments] is to help the Shekhinah to unite with the Teferet [the Sefira of glory or beauty], the male principle. The sins of Israel hinder this union and prevent the “reunification of worlds” …The hasidim, in accordance with this belief, adopted the formula (much deplored by their opponents), “For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be he, and his Shekhinah.”’” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 12

So, as we can see, both ancient and modern rabbis have conceived of the figures of YHWH in terms of temporary extensions of a higher, singular Person, extensions that might one day cease to exist as they retract back into that single Person in a return to an absolute kind of “oneness.”

As a consequence of such Modalism or perhaps proto-Modalism, the three figures known as the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are temporary. In other words, since God is by nature only one, these three distinct figures were not always present within the Godhead and may eventually cease, returning to a state in which God manifests only as his original, singular form. Within this general scheme, the Father may even be regarded as the original, singular eternal Person and the Word and the Spirit regarded as mere modes that he has taken on throughout time. Overall, this explanation emphasizes the illusionary nature of the figures of YHWH. Ultimately, any “additional” figures besides the original Person do not really exist as entities any more than different disguises or costumes that someone might put on.

An alternative explanation is Henotheism or more specifically Arianism, both of which are defined below. Notice specifically that Britannica’s definition of “henotheism” is inclusive of certain forms of ancient Jewish views of YHWH.

“Polytheism, The nature of polytheism – The term henotheism is also used to cover this case, or more generally to mean belief in the supremacy of a single god without denying others. This seems to have been the situation for a period in ancient Israel in regard to the cult of Yahweh.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

“Semi-Arianism – Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate essences (ousiai) or substances (hypostaseis) and that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father, were created in time, and were inferior to the Godhead.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

As mentioned briefly above, Arianism was asserted by Arius, a fourth-century figure who post-dates Jewish understandings we’ve outlined above. However, Jewish explanations of Old Testament Trinitarian facts can be considered proto-Arianism in the simple sense that they viewed the Word and the Spirit as sub-deities created by the Supreme YHWH. This is reflected in the quote below.

“God, I INTRODUCTION, II CONCEPTIONS OF GOD, III JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM, A The Jewish Idea of God – To say the world is created means that it is not independent of God or an emanation of God, but external to him, a product of his will, so that he is Lord of all the earth. This explains the Jewish concern over idolatry – no creature can represent the Creator, so it is forbidden to make any material image of him….The Hebrew God was unique, and his command was, "You shall have no other gods beside me!" (although in some biblical passages the Spirit of the Lord and the angel of the Lord and, in later Jewish speculation, the divine wisdom appear to be almost secondary divine beings).” – "God," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Such proto-Arian concepts are also expressed in the writings of the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo. This is reflected in the two quotes below.

 

[Johann]

“Philo calls the Logos “the second god” (ton deuteron theon) and states that the “God” in whose image Adam was created in Gen 1:27 is actually the Logos, which the rational part of the soul resembles. It is impossible (according to Philo) to think of anything earthly being a direct image of God himself…[and] Philo also calls the Logos “mediator” (mesites). 34” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 22

“Philo also refers to the logos as “firstborn” (protogonon), “archangel,” “Name of God,” and “governor and administrator of all things,” stating that the “divine Word” (theios logos) is the “chief” of God’s powers. 35” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 22

In contrast to Modalism, this Arian or proto-Arian view recognizes the additional figures of YHWH as real and permanent entities, not just illusions or disguises dawned by a single Person of God. However, this view regards the angel (or Word) of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH as creations (although among all creations, they are the first created, the highest-ranking, and the most similar in ability or quality to the Creator). Effectively, the Word and the Spirit become sub-deities directly below the Supreme God and his aids in creating, guiding, and relating to the rest of the universe.

As we stated early on, although offered by some ancient Jewish sources, these types of explanations are problematic for Jewish monotheism. This becomes clear in light of the definitions of polytheism.

“Polytheism – Sometimes above the many gods a polytheistic religion will have a supreme creator and focus of devotion, as in certain phases of Hinduism (there is also the tendency to identify the many gods as so many aspects of the Supreme Being)…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

“Polytheism – There are three main gods in Hinduism and traditionally 33 million other deities as well. But most Hindus accept the idea that behind them all lies a single spiritual entity, often called Brahman.” – World Book, Contributor: Mark Juergensmeyer, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.

“Polytheism – The assumption of human forms and characteristics by divine beings (anthropomorphism), as in the emphatically human passions and behavior of the Greek and Roman gods, is virtually a universal feature of polytheism.” – "Polytheism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The above definitions of polytheism are very relevant to any Jewish form of proto-Modalism. Specifically, polytheistic religions such as Hinduism have the tendency to view all their gods as “aspects” of a single Supreme Being (such as Hindu’s Brahman) and the idea of divine beings assuming human or otherwise anthropomorphic forms is “virtually a universal feature of polytheism.” Consequently, Modalism’s assertion of the angel of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH as more anthropomorphized manifestations of a single Divine Personage is really no different than polytheism’s view that its many gods are more anthropomorphized manifestations of a single Divine Personage.

For comparison, in the quote below, Encyclopedia Britannica defines Modalism in terms of the doctrine that the Supreme God is the single Personage known as the Father and that the Son is merely the title for when the Father became human. This is virtually synonymous with the universal polytheistic feature in which divine beings assumed human form and the human form was merely a mode of that divine person.

“Monarchianism – Modalistic Monarchianism took exception to the “subordinationism” of some of the Church Fathers and maintained that the names Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject, the one God, who ‘with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to Hisappearance in humanity is called the Son.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

The only difference between polytheism and Modalism becomes the quantity of such manifestations. Jewish Modalism would limit the number of anthropomorphized manifestations to perhaps 2 or 3 while other forms of polytheism would perhaps have no limits on the number of such manifestations. But, is this the kind of distinction that is required from polytheism? Is it a mere matter of numbers? Is having only 2 manifestations of the Divine Personage sufficiently monotheistic while 4 or more becomes polytheistic? If so, then Trinitarianism would also escape the criticism of polytheism. After all, even if Trinitarianism’s three divine persons were deemed three gods, then Trinitarianism would fall under the same limits as proto-Modalism and would escape polytheism just as much as proto-Modalism does. In short, under such criteria, Modalism’s view of the Word and the Spirit as more anthropomorphized modes of a single Supreme Personage becomes just as much of a limited form of polytheism as Modalists would claim about Trinitarianism.

And we will see the same problem is true for proto-Arianism as well. For reference, here again is the definition of Arianism.

“Semi-Arianism – Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate essences (ousiai) or substances (hypostaseis) and that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father, were created in time, and were inferior to the Godhead.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

And for comparison to Arianism, here again is one of the definitions of polytheism.

“Polytheism – Sometimes above the many gods a polytheistic religion will have a supreme creator and focus of devotion, as in certain phases of Hinduism (there is also the tendency to identify the many gods as so many aspects of the Supreme Being)…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

From the very first line of the definition of polytheism, we notice that polytheistic religions often have a single Divine Being that they label as supreme and creator even over other divine beings. Consequently, Arianism’s assertion that the angel of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH are created, inferior divine beings is really no different than polytheism’s view that its many gods are really inferior created sub-deities under a single, supreme Creator. Several questions illuminate the problems that arise on this point.

First, since the ancient Jews recognized that the name “YHWH” was applied to the figure known as the angel of YHWH, what proof is there that the God of the Old Testament isn’t merely this allegedly created sub-deity who calls himself “YHWH”? And additionally, what proof would there be that this supposed secondary divine being represents the true Supreme being at all rather than perhaps just his own finite purposes? (This is certainly how some of the Gnostic cults of the late post-New Testament era erroneously viewed the God of the Old Testament.) In effect, this explanation removes any links that necessarily connect the being who spoke to Abraham and Moses to the Supreme God. And subsequently, Jewish monotheism literally melts away. Monotheism might be maintained on as a mere matter of preference, but once the angel of YHWH is regarded as a created sub-deity, the scriptural evidence for Jewish monotheism no longer exists.

Once again, the only difference between the two views becomes a matter of mere numbers. Proto-Arianism would limit the number of created sub-deities to two, while polytheism would place no limitation on the number of sub-deities. And again we must ask if this is the kind of distinction that monotheism requires a mere matter of limited numbers? After all, even if Trinitarianism’s three divine persons were deemed three gods, then Trinitarianism would fall under the same limits as proto-Arianism and would escape polytheism just as much as proto-Arianism does. In short, under such criteria, Arianism’s view of the Word and the Spirit as created sub-deities becomes just as much of a limited form of polytheism as Arians would claim about Trinitarianism.

Lastly, the problems for both Jewish proto-Modalist and Jewish proto-Arian interpretations can be seen in light of the Shema. On this note, we return to a topic that we discussed very early in this study. As we stated, the Shema is the common name for Deuteronomy 6:4.

“Trinity – Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

As can be seen in the quotes above, in Deuteronomy 6:4, YHWH God declares to his people, “Hear, O Israel: The YHWH our God is one YHWH.” It is this passage and this statement which form the basis of modern Jewish criticism that Trinitarianism is polytheistic. According to the basic argument, to assert that YHWH God is three persons and yet one YHWH, violates the meaning of the Shema’s essential statement “YHWH is one YHWH.” But how can Jewish proto-Modalist or Jewish proto-Arianism excape the same criticism?

The Modalists have YHWH taking multiple forms and even more than one form at the same time. How is a YHWH with multiple forms and even multiple forms simultaneously still “one” in the way that this interpretation of the Shema demands? It would have to be argued that the Shema doesn’t speak to YHWH’s ability to take different forms or YHWH’s ability to be different figures simultaneously. But once such a delineation is suggested, how can anyone object to Trinitarianism’s delineation that the Shema doesn’t speak to YHWH’s existence as three Persons simultaneously for all time or to his internal nature in any fashion, only to his uniqueness outwardly in contrast to so-called other gods or idols?

 

[Matthias]

Finally, back to Fortman and his historical study of the doctrine of the Trinity. “Trinitarianism for trinitarians.” But it isn’t just for trinitarians. It is written, by a trinitarian, which I will document, for the benefit of everyone. It is something which the trinitarian clergy should do. As a Jewish monotheist, I don’t have any objection to it being presented. In the absence of trinitarians who will, I will present it on their behalf. The history of the post-biblical formulation of the doctrine is preserved, indisputable, and easily confirmed.

“Is Fortman really a trinitarian?“ a student of mine asked one day. The student followed up with a disturbing question: “Did he write against belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, as some non-trinitarians say that he does?”

Fortman, as told by Fortman.

“The aim of this book is simple - to trace the historical development of trinitarian doctrine from its written beginnings to its contemporary status among Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic theologians. As a Catholic and a firm believer in the Triune God my belief will inevitably affect to some extent my selection, interpretation and presentation of the documents and writings that manifest the historical development of this doctrine. This is not an exhaustive and definitive study but it is meant to be more than a superficial survey, and it is hoped it may stimulate other fuller studies.

The doctrine of the Triune God has an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine, I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the zold and New Testaments.”

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, p. xv.)

Fortman was really a trinitarian.

He doesn’t write against the doctrine of the Trinity. Any non-trinitarian who would say that he did, or even suggests that he might have - and there are some non-trinitarians who have done that - is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) their audience.

 

[Matthias]

An old habit of those who have lost, if they ever had it to begin with, interest in real dialogue is unfolding before our eyes in this thread: Drown out the Jewish monotheist. Bury him under an avalanche of posts, massive in both size and quantity.

It is happening because the trinitarian doing it doesn’t want readers to hear the voice of Jewish monotheism; he wants to drown it.

“Flooding” can be an effective strategy to silence the voices others. Many online discussion forums, including this one, ban the practice in their rules.

P.S.

I’ve never asked AI anything before. A few minutes ago I did. “What is ‘flooding’ on a discussion forum?”

AI replied: “In a discussion forum, flooding’ refers to the act of posting an excessive number of messages in a short period of time, eventually overwhelming the conversation with repetitive or irrelevant content, often disrupting the normal flow of discussion and making it difficult for others to participate effectively.”

Check the size and quantity of “Johann’s flood”. See how large the posts are and how much time elapsed between them:

5:24 -> massive
5:25 -> massive
5:26 -> massive
5:27 -> massive
5:29 -> massive

None of them were posted to my attention. That wasn’t an oversight on his part.

Classic example. Textbook case. It damages his witness.

He didn’t get under my skin; I (unintentionally) got under his. He doesn’t want others to hear what Jewish monotheism has to say and resorted to attempting to drown it out with his cut and pastes.

I want everyone to hear what trinitarianism and what Jewish monotheism has to say. I’m not attempting to hide what trinitarianism has to say from anyone.

Those who “flood” message boards are acting in their interest, not in the best interest of others.

Mark such persons. They‘re trying to hide something from others that they don’t want them to see / hear.

 

[Matthias]

For those who are interested in discussion, not drowning, I forge on with Fortman.

”An imminent historian of the dogma of the Trinity has said that ‘what he has looked for in the inspired books of both Testaments is not the rule of our faith, but the expression of the faith of their authors; the excerpts are not quoted as if they were judicial texts to decide a debate, but as historical documents to mark the development of a doctrine.’ Our purpose is substantially the same. We do not intend to seek something in the Old Testament and in the New Testament that is not there. Our aim is to gather together the Biblical concepts that lie behind the doctrine of the Trinity and to find what the sacred writers say and imply about God that could lay the foundations for a later formulation of the doctrine of the Triune God. From the Biblical writings we plan to select what seems most relevant and important for our purpose and to evaluate this as objectively as possible.”

(The Triune God, p. 3)

The “imminent historian of the dogma of the Trinity” he alludes to is Jules Lebreton, History of the Dogma of the Trinity, p. vii., translated by A. Thorogold.

Fortman is taking a much different approach, a far better approach, than do “the drowners”.

P.S.

The biblical texts are written by Jewish monotheists, not by trinitarians. It’s crucial to keep that in mind. Fortman does, as we will see. (If you, the reader, want to see it, you’ll probably have to swim for it.)

 

[Matthias]

I’ll return to Fortman shortly. I want to give anyone who truly wants to discuss what I’ve already quoted from him an opportunity to do so.

In my reading of Jesus this evening, Revelation 7:10 -

“They were shouting at the top of their voices, ‘Salvation belongs to our God, to the one who sits on the throne, and to the lamb!’”

(NTFE)

A Jewish monotheist reading this verse would see here a clear and unmistakeable connection with “To the only God our Savior” (Jude 1:25); Yahweh, the God and Father of the lamb (Jesus, the Messiah, Son of God.)

”Jesus wasn’t, and isn’t Yahweh.” - Ben Witherington, III -> The lamb wasn’t, and isn’t Yahweh; always remembering the crucial messianic prophetic oracle, Psalm 110:1 -> “Yahweh says to my lord, …”.

 

[Johann]

Finally, back to Fortman and his historical study of the doctrine of the Trinity. “Trinitarianism for trinitarians.” But it isn’t just for trinitarians. It is written, by a trinitarian, which I will document, for the benefit of everyone. It is something which the trinitarian clergy should do. As a Jewish monotheist, I don’t have any objection to it being presented. In the absence of trinitarians who will, I will present it on their behalf. The history of the post-biblical formulation of the doctrine is preserved, indisputable, and easily confirmed.

“Is Fortman really a trinitarian?“ a student of mine asked one day. The student followed up with a disturbing question: “Did he write against belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, as some non-trinitarians say that he does?”

Fortman, as told by Fortman.

“The aim of this book is simple - to trace the historical development of trinitarian doctrine from its written beginnings to its contemporary status among Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic theologians. As a Catholic and a firm believer in the Triune God my belief will inevitably affect to some extent my selection, interpretation and presentation of the documents and writings that manifest the historical development of this doctrine. This is not an exhaustive and definitive study but it is meant to be more than a superficial survey, and it is hoped it may stimulate other fuller studies.

The doctrine of the Triune God has an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine, I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the zold and New Testaments.”

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, p. xv.)

Fortman was really a trinitarian.

He doesn’t write against the doctrine of the Trinity. Any non-trinitarian who would say that he did, or even suggests that he might have - and there are some non-trinitarians who have done that - is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) their audience.

You're on ignore, mate. Speaking behind my back and pushing your Jewish monotheistic views doesn't sit well with me, especially if you keep taking jabs at me.

Dr. Micheal Brown has silenced you.

J.

 

[Scott Downey]

“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, ...”

(1 Corinthians 8:6a, ESV)

This is the one God of Jewish monotheism. This is Yahweh, the God and Father of our lord Jesus Messiah.

”Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Messiah.” - Paul and Peter, both Jewish monotheists.

”…and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

(1 Corinthians 8:6b,c, ESV)

This is the Messiah, the “my lord” of Psalm 110:1.

Yes God created the heavens and the earth and all things are through, to, for, of Him

As it says also in Colossians 1 about the Christ

9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and [c]conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [d]through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

As you see right there the Christ is the God of creation

 

[Scott Downey]

2 Peter 1

1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have [a]obtained like[b] precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the [c]corruption that is in the world through lust.

The divine nature of God...

 

[Scott Downey]

John 4:42
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

God want us to know the He is the Savior, there is no one else like Him, and that this Savior is the Christ

 

[Scott Downey]

It was foretold by the Lord God in Isaiah, what the family of God would call the Son, for that is who He IS.
When we call Him these things, we are being obedient to the will of the Father as was foretold, for we are His people.

Isaiah 9

The Government of the Promised Son​

1 Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.

2 The people who walked in darkness
Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined.

3 You have multiplied the nation
And [a]increased its joy;
They rejoice before You
According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

4 For You have broken the yoke of his burden
And the staff of his shoulder,
The rod of his oppressor,
As in the day of Midian.
5 For every warrior’s [b]sandal from the noisy battle,
And garments rolled in blood,
Will be used for burning and fuel [c]of fire.

6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called

Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

 

[Scott Downey]

God does not give His glory to another, but to the Son he has shared His glory together with and glorified Him.
Gee, that must mean they are related!

4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together [b]with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Christ who being in the form of God did not think it robbery to be equal with God but humbled himself and was found born as a man.

What love is this!

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it [a]robbery to be equal with God, 7 but [b]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

 

[Scott Downey]

An old habit of those who have lost, if they ever had it to begin with, interest in real dialogue is unfolding before our eyes in this thread: Drown out the Jewish monotheist. Bury him under an avalanche of posts, massive in both size and quantity.

It is happening because the trinitarian doing it doesn’t want readers to hear the voice of Jewish monotheism; he wants to drown it.

“Flooding” can be an effective strategy to silence the voices others. Many online discussion forums, including this one, ban the practice in their rules.

P.S.

I’ve never asked AI anything before. A few minutes ago I did. “What is ‘flooding’ on a discussion forum?”

AI replied: “In a discussion forum, flooding’ refers to the act of posting an excessive number of messages in a short period of time, eventually overwhelming the conversation with repetitive or irrelevant content, often disrupting the normal flow of discussion and making it difficult for others to participate effectively.”

Check the size and quantity of “Johann’s flood”. See how large the posts are and how much time elapsed between them:

5:24 -> massive
5:25 -> massive
5:26 -> massive
5:27 -> massive
5:29 -> massive

None of them were posted to my attention. That wasn’t an oversight on his part.

Classic example. Textbook case. It damages his witness.

He didn’t get under my skin; I (unintentionally) got under his. He doesn’t want others to hear what Jewish monotheism has to say and resorted to attempting to drown it out with his cut and pastes.

I want everyone to hear what trinitarianism and what Jewish monotheism has to say. I’m not attempting to hide what trinitarianism has to say from anyone.

Those who “flood” message boards are acting in their interest, not in the best interest of others.

Mark such persons. They‘re trying to hide something from others that they don’t want them to see / hear.

Jewish monotheism utterly failed God. And that is the problem with the OC, God did not fail, they failed to know Him and be obedient.
God made their Jewish monotheism obsolete and the OC is no more, it has passed away, it is no longer of any effect, of any salvation.

So, He sent Christ to be the Savior, and they utterly missed Him too, but not all did, some did believe.
They missed Him as they refused Christ, being their idea of monotheism could not accommodate the Christ, who was with God from the beginning and whom God sent.

Renewed Efforts to Stone Jesus​

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and [f]believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

 

[Matthias]

You're on ignore, mate. Speaking behind my back …

He asked me yesterday to stop tagging him. I honored his request.

Post in thread 'Jesus was not a Jew?'
Jesus was not a Jew?

… and pushing your Jewish monotheistic views doesn't sit well with me ..,

I’m a Jewish monotheist. I post my views, just like every other member of the forum does. He doesn’t like what Jewish monotheism teaches and it got under his skin. Since my views were more than he could take and he found himself unable to control himself, he made a good decision to block me.

I have no animostity toward him. I wish him well.

Dr. Micheal Brown has silenced you.

J.

Dr. Brown hasn’t silenced me and, if he were here, he wouldn’t silence me. I call upon his commentary from time to time to support my position and will continue to do so. We can all learn from one another.

 

[Matthias]

Yes God created the heavens and the earth and all things are through, to, for, of Him

As it says also in Colossians 1 about the Christ

9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and [c]conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [d]through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

As you see right there the Christ is the God of creation

You aren’t reading the passage as a Jewish monotheist would read the passage. The Messiah has a role in bringing about the new creation, not the Genesis creation.

 

[Scott Downey]

You aren’t reading the passage as a Jewish monotheist would read the passage. The Messiah has a role in bringing about the new creation, not the Genesis creation.

Sorry but Christ made the worlds, and that's correct, I am not a Jewish monotheist. Is that what you are?

 

[Matthias]

2 Peter 1

1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have [a]obtained like[b] precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the [c]corruption that is in the world through lust.

The divine nature of God...

“TEXTS WHERE THE USE OF ‘GOD’ FOR JESUS IS DUBIOUS

B. Passages where obscurity arises from syntax

6) 2 Peter 1:1“

(Raymond E. Brown, Jesus God And Man, p. 22)

So you chose to go with “dubious” and set aside Psalm 110:1. Verse 2 in 2 Peter makes a clear distinction between God and the Messiah —> “in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Peter obviously isn’t talking about “in the knowledge of the Trinity and of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Peter, like Jesus and Jude and all of the other apostles is a Jewish monotheist. “In the knowledge of God” to a Jewish monotheist is “in the knowledge of ‘our only God and Savior’” (Jude 1:25) -> the Messiah’s God and Father, our God and Father.

Now, let’s say that this is an occurrence where Jesus really is called theos (“God”). Does that mean that Jesus is Yahweh? Certainly not. Many people who aren’t Yahweh are also called theos in scripture. A good example of this are the judges of Israel. Yahweh has appointed Jesus to judge mankind.

“Jesus wasn’t, and isn’t, Yahweh” - Ben Witherington, III

Dr. Witherington is a trinitarian. Why would he concede that to me? He wouldn’t if he didn’t have to.

 

[Matthias]

Sorry but Christ made the worlds, and that's correct, I am not a Jewish monotheist. Is that what you are?

Yahweh is the Genesis creator, not the Messiah. Yahweh did it alone, by himself (Isaiah 44:24).

Yes, I’m a Jewish a Jewish monotheist.

The majority of Jewish monotheists don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth, who is also a Jewish monotheist, is the Messiah. I do.

Jewish monotheists are, by definition, unitarian.

Don’t you see for yourself in scripture that the Messiah’s God is only one person?