Understanding More About God of Israel.

[garrydons]

What is the common stand of Messianic Judaism when it comes to the Nature of God? Is it that God manifests in Three Entities (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)? Or the Three are distinct from each other, meaning separate from each other? Yet one in power and purpose. Or God is just only One, and the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are not His manifestations. Your answers are highly appreciated.

 

[Zardoz]

Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one

Shema Yisrael - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One. Son is still just a human, Messiah does not need to be Divine to do G-d's will; and Holy Spirit isn't any kind of being at all, but the most intimate relationship of a creature with it's creator.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one

Shema Yisrael - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One. Son is still just a human, Messiah does not need to be Divine to do G-d's will; and Holy Spirit isn't any kind of being at all, but the most intimate relationship of a creature with it's creator.

Thank you, Zardoz. That's exactly what I was going to say.

 

[John 5:46]

What is the common stand of Messianic Judaism when it comes to the Nature of God? Is it that God manifests in Three Entities (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)? Or the Three are distinct from each other, meaning separate from each other? Yet one in power and purpose. Or God is just only One, and the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are not His manifestations. Your answers are highly appreciated.

Hi garrydons! At first glance the Shema (Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one) quoted earlier by other posters, would seem to say that the Lord is refering to Himself as an absolute one. But in fact, the Hebrew word Adonai (for "Lord") is actually masculine gender PLURAL. So in fact, the correct English translation would be "Hear O Israel! The Lords is our God, the Lords is one."

In fact, there is not one place in Scripture where the Lord identifies Himself in the singular. There are always at least 2 parts of God (sometimes 3) either seen or heard by the patriarchs or prophets. For example, Abraham saw all 3 parts of God in the form of men in Gen 18. We see that 2 parts of God walked between the animal pieces (in the form of a "smoking oven" and a "burning torch") in Gen 15. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel etc, all heard 2 voices as seen in Gen 22:11, Gen 46:2, Ex 3:4 and 1 Sam 3:10, respectively.
And even the Lord Himself told us he was a unified one in 3 parts in Ex 34:6 where God is defining God. He says, "The Lord, the Lord, God...." The Hebrew language doesn't have punctuation marks so translators put the comma where they thought it should be to help with the flow of the sentence. But unfortunately, by doing so they've "cut out" one part of God by saying, "The Lord, the Lord God" as if there are only 2 parts of God.

A fascinating tidbit of info on this subject can be seen in Gen 49:24, specifically in the phrase, "From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel." The Hebrew word used here for "Stone" is eben, which is actually a compound word (one word made from 2 words.) One word comes from av which means "father" and ben which is "son." So this passage is telling us that the Shepherd of Israel is the Father/Son. So integrated are the Father and the Son, that it is impossible to seperate one from the other. Just like we cannot seperate a rock from itself, we cannot seperate the Father from the Son. And as Yeshua (Jesus) spoke in John 5:23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." And this is just as true vice-versa. If one believes and honors the Son than that person must also believe and honor the Father.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Hi garrydons! At first glance the Shema (Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one) quoted earlier by other posters, would seem to say that the Lord is refering to Himself as an absolute one. But in fact, the Hebrew word Adonai (for "Lord") is actually masculine gender PLURAL. So in fact, the correct English translation would be "Hear O Israel! The Lords is our God, the Lords is one."

In fact, there is not one place in Scripture where the Lord identifies Himself in the singular. There are always at least 2 parts of God (sometimes 3) either seen or heard by the patriarchs or prophets. For example, Abraham saw all 3 parts of God in the form of men in Gen 18. We see that 2 parts of God walked between the animal pieces (in the form of a "smoking oven" and a "burning torch") in Gen 15. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel etc, all heard 2 voices as seen in Gen 22:11, Gen 46:2, Ex 3:4 and 1 Sam 3:10, respectively.
And even the Lord Himself told us he was a unified one in 3 parts in Ex 34:6 where God is defining God. He says, "The Lord, the Lord, God...." The Hebrew language doesn't have punctuation marks so translators put the comma where they thought it should be to help with the flow of the sentence. But unfortunately, by doing so they've "cut out" one part of God by saying, "The Lord, the Lord God" as if there are only 2 parts of God.

A fascinating tidbit of info on this subject can be seen in Gen 49:24, specifically in the phrase, "From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel." The Hebrew word used here for "Stone" is eben, which is actually a compound word (one word made from 2 words.) One word comes from av which means "father" and ben which is "son." So this passage is telling us that the Shepherd of Israel is the Father/Son. So integrated are the Father and the Son, that it is impossible to seperate one from the other. Just like we cannot seperate a rock from itself, we cannot seperate the Father from the Son. And as Yeshua (Jesus) spoke in John 5:23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." And this is just as true vice-versa. If one believes and honors the Son than that person must also believe and honor the Father.

Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim, Yahweh is one!

Adonai=Lord
YHWH=LORD or GOD

Yahweh is the name of one deity, not two or three. Adonai might be plural sometimes; I don't know. Elohim is plural, yes, but is used as a singular noun.

 

[anotherglenda]

Total agreement with Zardoz & Freelance Policeman!
Also, the Royal Plural exits for singular entities ... even the British Queen uses the Majestic Plural for herself ... 'WE are not amused'.
God used the Majestic Plural for individual Moses when God conferred great majesty on him at Exodus 7:1.
Behemoth has the majestic plural used on it because of the magnitude of its mightiness
The non-English grammar rules of knowing if a numerical or majestic plural are being used are indicated by the verbs and adjectives associated with the plural ... if they are numerical plural adjectives and verbs then multiple entities are being referred to, otherwise if the adjectives and verbs are singular then a multiple-majesty individual entity is being referred to. God is a Multiple-Majesty Individual Entity
Moses and Behemoth aren't multiple entities and neither is the One True God

 

[BilliardsBall]

Total agreement with Zardoz & Freelance Policeman!
Also, the Royal Plural exits for singular entities ... even the British Queen uses the Majestic Plural for herself ... 'WE are not amused'.
God used the Majestic Plural for individual Moses when God conferred great majesty on him at Exodus 7:1.
Behemoth has the majestic plural used on it because of the magnitude of its mightiness
The non-English grammar rules of knowing if a numerical or majestic plural are being used are indicated by the verbs and adjectives associated with the plural ... if they are numerical plural adjectives and verbs then multiple entities are being referred to, otherwise if the adjectives and verbs are singular then a multiple-majesty individual entity is being referred to. God is a Multiple-Majesty Individual Entity
Moses and Behemoth aren't multiple entities and neither is the One True God

With respect to all, Y'shua is G_d and One in plural majesty with the Father. I'm Jewish and I believe not in a Catholic trinity, but a tri-unity.

Y'shua also warns us that unless we "Believe that I AM He" will die in our sin. Y'shua received the worship of Thomas, who knelt before Him and exclaimed of Y'shua, my LORD AND my GOD. Y'shua did not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy but instead said, "How blessed you are to have seen and believed in me [as God and Messiah]. How blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

 

[Sariel]

The Greek theos is used pretty similar to the elohim of Hebrew. Both can refer to god but are also used to refer to being of authority like judges, kings, and angels.
I myself follow no trinity doctrine, mostly being that God can have any number of manifestations not solely three. The Shekhina, the Bat Kol, the Malakh HaShem, Hochma, etc. They are all one with God, but should not be called God proper, for they are merely emanations.

 

[anotherglenda]

With respect to all, Y'shua is G_d and One in plural majesty with the Father. I'm Jewish and I believe not in a Catholic trinity, but a tri-unity.

Y'shua also warns us that unless we "Believe that I AM He" will die in our sin. Y'shua received the worship of Thomas, who knelt before Him and exclaimed of Y'shua, my LORD AND my GOD. Y'shua did not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy but instead said, "How blessed you are to have seen and believed in me [as God and Messiah]. How blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

With respect, scripture assures us that God is not a man or a son of man
NUM 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
1SAM 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
JOB 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.
Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man– the Holy One among you.

Jesus expected Jews, including himself and his eye-witness apostles, to consider The Father (Who is spirit) alone as God
JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
JN 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
JN 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus stated truthfully that Jesus was both a man and a son of man. Jesus told us that God is spirit and Jesus stated that Jesus is not spirit. Jesus told us The Father is his God and is greater than Jesus.
I believe Jesus and his eye-witness apostles who assured us that Jesus was 'a man' approved by God and God was with him.
LK 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
ACTS 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

God doesn't sleep PS 121:4 Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.
Jesus slept MT 8:24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.

Thomas was in shock. What he said was the equivalent to the modern term of surprise 'OMG', and Jesus mercifully recognized his shocked state and did not tick him off, like he also didn't tick off Peter for using socially unacceptable language when he unexpectedly saw Jesus after the resurrection. A shocked person's comments should not be considered as literal or correct ... whatever term Peter used was obviously not printable or an accurate description of Jesus, but Jesus allowed for the shock state and the resultant words.

If you are Jewish, I don't know how you could consider God as being a tri-unity from scripture which Jesus quoted before the NT was written for him to refer to.
What man do you think is the Jewish God in Tanach or don't you think the Jewish God became a tri-unity human until after the NT was written so Jesus didn't quote him?
Jesus said God is a spirit. If Jesus believed that God was a trinity or tri-unity then he certainly would have said so, but he didn't.

Jesus said this of The Father:
Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I believe Jesus, that the Father, Who is spirit and is greater than Jesus according to Jesus, and is the God of Jesus, is the One True God.
I embrace the Father as God. I accept that others embrace alternatives.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thomas was in shock. What he said was the equivalent to the modern term of surprise 'OMG', and Jesus mercifully recognized his shocked state and did not tick him off, like he also didn't tick off Peter for using socially unacceptable language when he unexpectedly saw Jesus after the resurrection. A shocked person's comments should not be considered as literal or correct ... whatever term Peter used was obviously not printable or an accurate description of Jesus, but Jesus allowed for the shock state and the resultant words.

There is neither justification for saying Thomas made an error nor that the Word of God is in error here.

 

[anotherglenda]

There is neither justification for saying Thomas made an error nor that the Word of God is in error here.

Interesting statement since Thomas just said that Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. I wouldn't rely on anything confused imperfect Thomas said at that particular time. Jesus didn't verify any of Thomas's comments either. People can translate silence on a matter however their imagination or preferred dogma leads them, but they cannot claim their interpretation is biblical. Whatever Thomas may have said, Jesus did clearly teach that God is a Spirit and also that God is greater than Jesus and Jesus stuck with that teaching.
Everyone is free what source they choose to believe, but I believe Jesus.

Also I believe God when He says in the bible that scribes sometimes write error in the bible. God doesn't hold to 'infallibility of the bible' and actually says the opposite. There are many words from many sources other than God in the bible, so not everything said in it are 'words of God' eg the serpent in Eden spoke & it wasn't God yet its words are in the bible. A donkey spoke and it wasn't God either. Goliath spoke and he wasn't God etc etc. Thomas also spoke & he wasn't God or claiming to be speaking 'God's words' at that time as proven by his error in judgment ... unless you agree with him that Jesus hadn't risen from the dead?
The concept of the whole bible only being God's words is sadly an errant anti-scriptural human doctrine/dogma.
It may be a better practice (but less popular) to believe what God said were His actual words through his authorized prophets and believe him that there is some corruption in the bible.

We are all fully accountable for our personal choices only & not for the choices of others
I accept people will believe whatever source they choose to heed and interpret it however they choose. That's free will in action

 

[BilliardsBall]

Interesting statement since Thomas just said that Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. I wouldn't rely on anything confused imperfect Thomas said at that particular time. Jesus didn't verify any of Thomas's comments either. People can translate silence on a matter however their imagination or preferred dogma leads them, but they cannot claim their interpretation is biblical. Whatever Thomas may have said, Jesus did clearly teach that God is a Spirit and also that God is greater than Jesus and Jesus stuck with that teaching.
Everyone is free what source they choose to believe, but I believe Jesus.

Also I believe God when He says in the bible that scribes sometimes write error in the bible. God doesn't hold to 'infallibility of the bible' and actually says the opposite. There are many words from many sources other than God in the bible, so not everything said in it are 'words of God' eg the serpent in Eden spoke & it wasn't God yet its words are in the bible. A donkey spoke and it wasn't God either. Goliath spoke and he wasn't God etc etc. Thomas also spoke & he wasn't God or claiming to be speaking 'God's words' at that time as proven by his error in judgment ... unless you agree with him that Jesus hadn't risen from the dead?
The concept of the whole bible only being God's words is sadly an errant anti-scriptural human doctrine/dogma.
It may be a better practice (but less popular) to believe what God said were His actual words through his authorized prophets and believe him that there is some corruption in the bible.

We are all fully accountable for our personal choices only & not for the choices of others
I accept people will believe whatever source they choose to heed and interpret it however they choose. That's free will in action

I apologize for raising the issue with Thomas. Let me put it this way instead if I may. Clearly, absolutely, certainly, definitely, the Pharisees called for the death of Jesus because Jesus equated Himself with God.

 

[anotherglenda]

I apologize for raising the issue with Thomas. Let me put it this way instead if I may. Clearly, absolutely, certainly, definitely, the Pharisees called for the death of Jesus because Jesus equated Himself with God.

Sadly wrong according to the gospels. Jesus was condemned on the testimony of 2 FALSE witnesses
MT 26:60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

There would have been no condemnation for a rabbi (or prophet) to in some way equate himself to God since Pharisee oral law/tradition is based on a premise that some rabbis have an equal right with God to make non-scriptural laws, even if such laws overturn the actual laws of God.

The Pharisees didn't condemn Jesus to death since they didn't even have the authority under Roman rule. The Roman leadership condemned Jesus to death for being a danger to their power. They had sought to kill Jesus since his birth if you read the gospels and why the parents of Jesus avoided Herodian confrontation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sadly wrong according to the gospels. Jesus was condemned on the testimony of 2 FALSE witnesses
MT 26:60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

There would have been no condemnation for a rabbi (or prophet) to in some way equate himself to God since Pharisee oral law/tradition is based on a premise that some rabbis have an equal right with God to make non-scriptural laws, even if such laws overturn the actual laws of God.

The Pharisees didn't condemn Jesus to death since they didn't even have the authority under Roman rule. The Roman leadership condemned Jesus to death for being a danger to their power. They had sought to kill Jesus since his birth if you read the gospels and why the parents of Jesus avoided Herodian confrontation.

The false witnesses of Matthew 26 accused Jesus of saying something He truly said, "I can rebuild this temple within three days." However, the temple He spoke of was His body (John 4).

The witnesses were required to fulfill the OT law that "every matter must be established by [at least] two or three witnesses". Note that the high priest said in Matthew 26 once Jesus echoed Daniel 7 (that He would return to sitting at the right hand of the Father) "what need have we of any witnesses?!" That is, once Jesus blasphemed to say He is God, there was no need for true or false [other] witnesses. The Pharisees witnessed Jesus's blasphemy.

Now, since Jesus is God, they were actually witnesses therein that Jesus is the innocent lamb sacrifice of Passover. The Romans recognized this too, even nasty old Pilate washing his hands in public, telling the Romans and Jews alike Jesus was innocent. Other people who said Jesus was innocent include Pilate's wife, Judas, the apostles and NT writers, etc.

Jesus was condemned for claiming his rightful Jewish Kingship and God-ship. I'm sure you'd agree that Jesus was the Jewish king by right of genealogy. It was on his cross where the Romans would post your crime. Jesus's crime was He WAS and is the king. Same for his godhead.

I love my JW and Mormon buddies. I appreciate those of those groups here at this forum and the other eager writers who make Jesus less than true God. But! JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

 

[BilliardsBall]

With love and respect to my Jewish brethren and [sistren] I only want to defend what I know and understand as true.

Jesus has to be God or else many other things fall down in our understanding.

Thank you for your patience with me.

 

[Katzpur]

I love my JW and Mormon buddies. I appreciate those of those groups here at this forum and the other eager writers who make Jesus less than true God. But! JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, but Mormons do believe that Jesus Christ is God. We just don't believe He is God the Father.

 

[anotherglenda]

With love and respect to my Jewish brethren and [sistren] I only want to defend what I know and understand as true.

Jesus has to be God or else many other things fall down in our understanding.

Thank you for your patience with me.

With love and respect to you too. I understand you wish to defend what you believe to be true and you are right that if your concept of Jesus being God is not correct that many other things will fall down in your understanding. I took the plunge and began over with new wine in a new skin when I questioned what if Jesus was a man sent by God as his eye-witness apostles claimed, and the awakening to truth was shocking but beneficially life-changing. Truth is simple and needs no defence. There is no complicated dogma presented by Jesus, but sadly there grew up a mystery religion 'about' him rather than an embrace of his simple Mosaic religion. Jesus said he worshiped the One God who is spirit and said salvation is of the Jews because they know this One God, not later dogmas which Jesus even warned in advance were lies.

It's scary to dive into the unknown and risk losing everything you ever 'believed' and starting over but I highly recommend taking the plunge.
peace and blessings to you

 

[BilliardsBall]

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, but Mormons do believe that Jesus Christ is God. We just don't believe He is God the Father.

How many gods are there? Is Jesus eternal or created? The Master and Teacher or a mere example? What will you and die do in the afterlife regarding propagation (childbearing) and leadership?

 

[BilliardsBall]

With love and respect to you too. I understand you wish to defend what you believe to be true and you are right that if your concept of Jesus being God is not correct that many other things will fall down in your understanding. I took the plunge and began over with new wine in a new skin when I questioned what if Jesus was a man sent by God as his eye-witness apostles claimed, and the awakening to truth was shocking but beneficially life-changing. Truth is simple and needs no defence. There is no complicated dogma presented by Jesus, but sadly there grew up a mystery religion 'about' him rather than an embrace of his simple Mosaic religion. Jesus said he worshiped the One God who is spirit and said salvation is of the Jews because they know this One God, not later dogmas which Jesus even warned in advance were lies.

It's scary to dive into the unknown and risk losing everything you ever 'believed' and starting over but I highly recommend taking the plunge.
peace and blessings to you

I already took such a plunge and paid a personal, heavy price for trusting Jesus as a zealous Jew! And yes, I'd be willing to "dance a new step" if you can convince me via the scriptures. But let me ask you, in the passage you're thinking of, wasn't it so that Jesus told the woman at the well that "I speak to you... I AM He... and that many believed Him because of His Own Word..."

I do agree with you, however, that there should be little or no complicated dogma in our Christian faith and practice.

 

[Katzpur]

How many gods are there?

To me (and in Mormonism), there is one God, a Godhead comprised of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Is Jesus eternal or created?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Jesus was with His Father in the beginning and was God himself in the beginning.

The Master and Teacher or a mere example?

Master, Teacher, Creator, Lawgiver, Redeemer, Deliverer, Advocate, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Certainly not "a mere example." I really feel as if you want to think that we see Jesus Christ as some kind of a demi-god, which simply isn't the case.

What will you and die do in the afterlife regarding propagation (childbearing) and leadership?

Whatever God wants me to do. He will, after all, still be my God and I will be subject to Him in every way. How about you? Have you got your itinerary for the next life planned out yet?