Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[Soapy]

In order to attempt to class Jesus Christ as being God, trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

I cannot understand that [il]logic and also can find nothing in Jewish tradition that makes any such claim of a Son being equal to his Father.

Furthermore, trinity claims that Jesus was not ‘born’ from the Father… which further confuses the issue (pardon the pun!) since then Jesus being ‘son’ of God therefore has no meaning in terms of equality with the Father.

Can anyone give any enlightenment on where there is evidence of a Jewish tradition of a son being equal to his Father … and how Jesus, who was not a ‘birthed’ son of God could be part of this tradition.

 

[Rival]

No Jews believe Jesus is the son of God.

 

[Kenny]

In order to attempt to class Jesus Christ as being God, trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

I cannot understand that [il]logic and also can find nothing in Jewish tradition that makes any such claim of a Son being equal to his Father.

Furthermore, trinity claims that Jesus was not ‘born’ from the Father… which further confuses the issue (pardon the pun!) since then Jesus being ‘son’ of God therefore has no meaning in terms of equality with the Father.

Can anyone give any enlightenment on where there is evidence of a Jewish tradition of a son being equal to his Father … and how Jesus, who was not a ‘birthed’ son of God could be part of this tradition.

A little confusing in your statements but here is a thought..
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

[exchemist]

In order to attempt to class Jesus Christ as being God, trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

I cannot understand that [il]logic and also can find nothing in Jewish tradition that makes any such claim of a Son being equal to his Father.

Furthermore, trinity claims that Jesus was not ‘born’ from the Father… which further confuses the issue (pardon the pun!) since then Jesus being ‘son’ of God therefore has no meaning in terms of equality with the Father.

Can anyone give any enlightenment on where there is evidence of a Jewish tradition of a son being equal to his Father … and how Jesus, who was not a ‘birthed’ son of God could be part of this tradition.

You could start by not getting Jewish belief completely wrong.

 

[74x12]

No Jews believe Jesus is the son of God.

First ... I usually don't say something is no true scotsman's fallacy; but this definitely is. You're just using circular reasoning. You're defining Jew as someone who doesn't believe in Jesus; but that's not always true. It's just your limited and limiting understanding of Judaism.

Secondly, did you even read the post? That's not what he was saying.

 

[Rival]

First ... I usually don't say something is no true scotsman's fallacy; but this definitely is. You're just using circular reasoning. You're defining Jew as someone who doesn't believe in Jesus; but that's not always true. It's just your limited and limiting understanding of Judaism.

Secondly, did you even read the post? That's not what he was saying.

I did read the post and got what he's saying (well, mostly) but pointed this out.

Judaism is a religion with a definition, and that definition does not include Jesus. Jews reject Jesus the same way they reject Muhammad. Ergo, a Jew by definition does not believe in Jesus.

 

[74x12]

In order to attempt to class Jesus Christ as being God, trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

I cannot understand that [il]logic and also can find nothing in Jewish tradition that makes any such claim of a Son being equal to his Father.

Furthermore, trinity claims that Jesus was not ‘born’ from the Father… which further confuses the issue (pardon the pun!) since then Jesus being ‘son’ of God therefore has no meaning in terms of equality with the Father.

Can anyone give any enlightenment on where there is evidence of a Jewish tradition of a son being equal to his Father … and how Jesus, who was not a ‘birthed’ son of God could be part of this tradition.

The Jews said that not because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (although that was also blasphemy in their opinion) but because he said "I and my Father are one". So that was why they picked up stones to stone him and said he was making himself equal with God. He really was claiming to be one with the Father but they did not believe his claim.

 

[exchemist]

First ... I usually don't say something is no true scotsman's fallacy; but this definitely is. You're just using circular reasoning. You're defining Jew as someone who doesn't believe in Jesus; but that's not always true. It's just your limited and limiting understanding of Judaism.

Secondly, did you even read the post? That's not what he was saying.

What do you mean by "believe in Jesus", in the context of Jewish belief?

 

[74x12]

I did read the post and got what he's saying (well, mostly) but pointed this out.

Judaism is a religion with a definition, and that definition does not include Jesus. Jews reject Jesus the same way they reject Muhammad. Ergo, a Jew by definition does not believe in Jesus.

Who gets to define what a Jews is? Do you know how many different sects of Juidaism exist right now? Let's start there.

 

[rosends]

OK, so this is what I think is important to say:

The statement was, "trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God."

This means (as far as I can tell) that there is a teaching within some form of Christianity that summarizes (and agrees with) Judaism's view of Jesus as being equal to God based on the interpretation of the trinity that states that Jesus is the son of God and this begs equivalence.

This assumes that Jewish teaching about the trinity explains the trinity by saying that it equates Jesus with God.

I am sure that for many Jews, this is indeed the most basic understanding of the trinity -- that there are three entities which are both distinct and yet identical. To many, then, this brings up issues of heresy as the idea that there is something separate from God which is equated with God seems to reek of polytheism. This is not to say that this Jewish view is that Jesus is the same as the father, but that the trinity, as a teaching, appears to be presenting this as the theological underpinnings of the religion.

Maimonides is one Jewish authority who saw the trinity claim as having something akin to separate entities that shared a rank as supreme.

A more nuanced approach, though, might be that the 3 "persons" are not, strictly speaking, polytheism, but that they (and another aspect of Christianity) lead to a concept of partnership which is anathema to Judaism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

First ... I usually don't say something is no true scotsman's fallacy; but this definitely is. You're just using circular reasoning. You're defining Jew as someone who doesn't believe in Jesus; but that's not always true. It's just your limited and limiting understanding of Judaism.

Secondly, did you even read the post? That's not what he was saying.

I don't know... what's this part then?

the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

Is this only stating that someone of Jewish persuasion (all Jews?) claim that IF Jesus were the son of God, that he would then be equal to God?

That just seems weird. Really weird. Like the Jews make a claim about a belief they don't even hold, that actually supports trinity claims that they also don't hold... I am not sure it could be more confusing here. Why would they do this? And who has done this? "The Jews" made some official statement about the idea that Jesus is the son of God and stated that "if he were, indeed, the son of God, then he would be God?" Did that happen? If not, then that part of the post seems entirely nonsensical. As in... there is no sense to be found there.

 

[Rival]

Who gets to define what a Jews is? Do you know how many different sects of Juidaism exist right now? Let's start there.

I'm probably more aware than you are. And no, Christians aren't Jews. Messianic Jews aren't Jews, they're Christians. We're discussing religion, not ethnicity, not ancestry; this is a religious discussion with religious definitions. Jews don't believe in Jesus.

I don't know why I have to keep telling Christians this or why they even care so much.

 

[Starlight]

OK, so this is what I think is important to say:

The statement was, "trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God."

This means (as far as I can tell) that there is a teaching within some form of Christianity that summarizes (and agrees with) Judaism's view of Jesus as being equal to God based on the interpretation of the trinity that states that Jesus is the son of God and this begs equivalence.

This assumes that Jewish teaching about the trinity explains the trinity by saying that it equates Jesus with God.

I am sure that for many Jews, this is indeed the most basic understanding of the trinity -- that there are three entities which are both distinct and yet identical. To many, then, this brings up issues of heresy as the idea that there is something separate from God which is equated with God seems to reek of polytheism. This is not to say that this Jewish view is that Jesus is the same as the father, but that the trinity, as a teaching, appears to be presenting this as the theological underpinnings of the religion.

Maimonides is one Jewish authority who saw the trinity claim as having something akin to separate entities that shared a rank as supreme.

A more nuanced approach, though, might be that the 3 "persons" are not, strictly speaking, polytheism, but that they (and another aspect of Christianity) lead to a concept of partnership which is anathema to Judaism.

What you wrote is not the trinity. What you desribed is a christian heresy called tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that the three persons is three different beings, three different gods that work and live in unity

The trinity doctrine is: three persons who share one Being. That God is only one divine Being. And one divine will, and one action. It is because of this Christianity is classified as monotheism

 

[AdamjEdgar]

This question needs editing so as to be correct in the way it's making a statement about the claim Jesus was/is God.

1. Jews were going to stone Jesus because of blasphemy.

2. Under Jewish law, what did blasphemy mean?

In helping refine the blasphemy definition, why was Stephen stoned 3 years after crucifixion?

Because he looked into heaven and claimed, in that moment, to see Jesus standing at the right hand of the father! He was immediately dragged out into the street and stoned!

The Bible very clearly defines that the Jews believed that Jesus was claiming to be a deity. Since the Jews believed in one God, they believed Jesus was claiming to be the one who fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 9...he was claiming to be their saviour...the messiah.

 

[Colt]

In order to attempt to class Jesus Christ as being God, trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

I cannot understand that [il]logic and also can find nothing in Jewish tradition that makes any such claim of a Son being equal to his Father.

Furthermore, trinity claims that Jesus was not ‘born’ from the Father… which further confuses the issue (pardon the pun!) since then Jesus being ‘son’ of God therefore has no meaning in terms of equality with the Father.

Can anyone give any enlightenment on where there is evidence of a Jewish tradition of a son being equal to his Father … and how Jesus, who was not a ‘birthed’ son of God could be part of this tradition.

While Jesus never claimed equality with the Father the Jews were offended by his reference to his divinity. To them claiming God to be his father was stating equality.

By the times of Jesus the Jews had eradicated plural deity concepts from their religion even though shadows of it remain in their scripture writings.

 

[rosends]

What you wrote is not the trinity. What you desribed is a christian heresy called tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that the three persons is three different beings, three different gods that work and live in unity

The trinity doctrine is: three persons who share one Being. That God is only one divine Being. And one divine will, and one action. It is because of this Christianity is classified as monotheism

The issue I was dealing with was whether Christianity is considered monotheism by Judaism. Part of this would depend on any Jewish thinker's understanding of the trinity. Then it would depend on the exact meaning of "three persons" for any Jewish thinker. The opening quote seemed to be from a position of someone who said that Jewish thinkers who see the trinity as what you call tritheism are correct.

 

[rosends]

This question needs editing so as to be correct in the way it's making a statement about the claim Jesus was/is God.

1. Jews were going to stone Jesus because of blasphemy.

2. Under Jewish law, what did blasphemy mean?

In helping refine the blasphemy definition, why was Stephen stoned 3 years after crucifixion?

Because he looked into heaven and claimed, in that moment, to see Jesus standing at the right hand of the father! He was immediately dragged out into the street and stoned!

The Bible very clearly defines that the Jews believed that Jesus was claiming to be a deity. Since the Jews believed in one God, they believed Jesus was claiming to be the one who fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 9...he was claiming to be their saviour...the messiah.

Under Jewish law, making a claim to be divine isn't blasphemy. Making a claim to be a messianic figure isn't blasphemy. (and in Judaism, making a claim to messiah-ship isn't a claim to divinity)

 

[74x12]

I'm probably more aware than you are. And no, Christians aren't Jews. Messianic Jews aren't Jews, they're Christians. We're discussing religion, not ethnicity, not ancestry; this is a religious discussion with religious definitions. Jews don't believe in Jesus.

I don't know why I have to keep telling Christians this or why they even care so much.

No one brought up ethnicity. However ethnicity does play a role in Judaism. Even so, I didn't bring it up and I'm not talking about it.

It's just the no true scotsman's fallacy. This is why I disagree with you. You're trying to claim that only your own definition of Judaism is valid. It's not that I care so much. It's that you state it as a fact; when we know it isn't.

So you are aware that there are hundreds of different sects of Judiasm right now. Are you also aware that they will not all agree on what it means to be a Jew?

Secondly are you aware that the earliest "Christians" were not called Christian; but simply considered themselves Jews?

 

[74x12]

I don't know... what's this part then?

You see, you don't understand his post or the point he's making. You don't have the context. It's John chapter 10 and maybe he's also referring to something in John chapter 5.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Under Jewish law, making a claim to be divine isn't blasphemy. Making a claim to be a messianic figure isn't blasphemy. (and in Judaism, making a claim to messiah-ship isn't a claim to divinity)

Under your definition, are you able to provide reference to Jesus blaspheming Gods name in a manner different from him claiming to be God?

Mark 14:61 states that the high priest then asked Jesus: "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am", at which point the high priest tore his own robe in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy. Sanhedrin trial of Jesus - Wikipedia

Again the high priest questioned Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”62“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Powerl and coming with the clouds of heaven.”m63At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “Why do we need any more witnesses? 64You have heard the blasphemy. What is your verdict?”

And they all condemned Him as deserving of death.​