Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[IndigoChild5559]

I’m not asking about worship though. I’m asking about the promised kingdom.

I mean, Jewish people reject Jesus based on their understanding of how the kingdom works. These are basic questions..

Again, IMHO (you don't have to agree) the Kingdom of God is wherever he is obeyed. That's here in this world, not some spiritual place.

As far as why Jews reject Jesus, let me paste the following:

1. God is ECHAD, one, not three in one. Christianity teaches Trinitarianism, which although it is monotheism, is a muddied monotheism. Judaism on the other hand teaches a pure and simple monotheism. Anything that comprises the oneness of God is unthinkable.
2. God is not a man. This is the nature of God, and the nature of God is unchanging. It is stated three times in the Tanakh: twice in Numbers 23:19, and a third time in Job 9:32. For something to be reiterated three times -- it must be of great importance. Christianity on the other hand, claims that Jesus is "fully God and fully man," at least in the orthodox version. The two are absolutely incompatible. Christians try to claim that "let us create man in our own image" is a reference to the triune nature of God, but in reality it is God talking to the heavenly court. Similarly, the claims of Elohim being a plural are moot -- it is more similar to the royal "we" used by the Queen.
3. The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster
4. The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah), misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young maiden, not virgin), and even makes up prophecy out of whole cloth (such as Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene aka someone from the city of Nazareth.)
5. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he simply did not fulfill messianic prophecy. It makes no sense to say, "He will fulfill the rest when he comes back again." After all, anyone can claim to be the messiah and say they will fulfill the prophecies the next time around. The only way we have of determining the messiah is if they fulfill the messianic claims, all of them, and quite frankly Jesus did not; thus he failed in his attempt to be the messiah. Here are just three examples:
   • The Messiah will usher in an era of worldwide peace between the nations. Jesus did not.
   • The Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. Jesus did not.
   • The Messiah will bring ALL Jews back to the Land of Israel. Jesus did not.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Again, IMHO (you don't have to agree) the Kingdom of God is wherever he is obeyed. That's here in this world, not some spiritual place.

If God is spirit, but the Kingdom of God is “not some spiritual place,” I have to ask: Does God reside in the Kingdom of God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If God is spirit, but the Kingdom of God is “not some spiritual place,” I have to ask: Does God reside in the Kingdom of God?

I dont' think the Kingdom of God is a place.

And since I view God as being outside of space time, it would be inappropriate of me to assign God any location.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I dont' think the Kingdom of God is a place.

And since I view God as being outside of space time, it would be inappropriate to assign God any location.

What is the Kingdom of God?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

It seems to me the saying, “missing the forest for the trees,” is spot on for Judaism post Jesus. I look forward to more conversations with Jewish people in the future. To be continued.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is the Kingdom of God?

It was already answered.

The answer was similar to the text of a Christian hymn:
"Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est."
Translation: "Where true charity is, God is there."

There is also another song from the Taizé Community:

The kingdom of God is justice and peace
And joy in the Holy Spirit
Come, Lord and open in us the gates of your kingdom

 

[Ebionite]

If you say Yahweh is El, then you're stuck with Asherah as his wife.

El isn't a proper name, it's a title that roughly means powerful or dominant. For the Hebrews El meant YHWH, but for other cultures that most likely would not hold true.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What it does is contradict basic logic. Something cannot be X and not X at the same time. You can say God is one if you want. Or you can say God is three if you want. But you cannot rationally say that God is one and three at the same time.

Some Christian theologians explain this as follows: God is like a family name, so it's one and three at the same time. To me this is polytheism disguised as monotheism.

 

[Ebionite]

The scriptures clearly present ONE God comprised of three Personal beings.

... and some disciples...

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
John 17:20-23

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

Christendom’s leaders deviated from following Jesus, when they began encouraging Christ’s sheep to engage in warfare. In direct opposition to Christ’s command to ‘love your enemy’ (Matthew 5:44), and “love among yourselves.” (John 13:34,35. See John 14:15 & 15:14)

That was early in Christendom’s development!

 

[RestlessSoul]

But it's these same authorities who put that Bible together.

So I'm still seeing hypocrisy there.

Following the Reformation, didn't some of the more radical Protestant groups declare that they acknowledge only one ultimate authority? A position, to be fair, that can be readily supported by scripture, eg. Matthew 23:9-12


9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I guess, if there were no Bible, some people wouldn't be Christians?

It's surely no coincidence that the Reformation coincided with the invention of the printing press; a dangerous and subversive instrument, and a threat to the authority of both Church and State. If an increasingly literate population had direct access to The Bible in their own language, then they were free to interpret Christ's message for themselves. The Bible became a revolutionary instrument, in the hands of such dangerous radicals.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is the Kingdom of God?

I'll say it a third time, but not again after this. IMHO the Kingdom of God is wherever God is obeyed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some Christian theologians explain this as follows: God is like a family name, so it's one and three at the same time. To me this is polytheism disguised as monotheism.

Christians have tried to use any number of different analogies to try to help make Trinitarianism more understandable. But these analogies generally either actually describe modalism (the idea that this one God is ONE person who simply has different modes) such as the ice, water, steam analogy, or else the analogy indicates that each of the three is a PART of the whole rather than fully God, as with i.e. the idea that a clover leaf has three leaves. There really isn't any accurate analogy of Trinitarianism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Because, as I said, one of the fundamental rules of logic is that something cannot be both x and not x at the same time.

If someone points to a fruit and asks, "Hey is that a banana?" can you answer "Yes, it is a banana and no its not"???

This works as a 'gotcha', only if you are using binary logic, whereby a proposition has only two possibilities; a thing either is, or it is not.

In four cornered logic, the same proposition has 4 possibilities.

In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition, P:

1. P; that is being.
2. not P; that is not being.
3. P and not P; that is being and that is not being.
4. not (P or not P); that is neither not being nor is that being.

 

[Dimi95]

What it does is contradict basic logic. Something cannot be X and not X at the same time. You can say God is one if you want. Or you can say God is three if you want. But you cannot rationally say that God is one and three at the same time.

Rationality comes from Irrationality

God is 'omnisciens' , 'omnipresent' , 'omnipotent'

It is very odd that you mentioned logic.
What you are doing is using human standard to describe divine nature.It does not go that way.
How do you know how God defines Logic?

Job 5
"But man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.
But as for me, I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause;
Who doeth great things and unsearchable, marvellous things without number;
Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields;
So that He setteth up on high those that are low, and those that mourn are exalted to safety.
He frustrateth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands can perform nothing substantial.
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness; and the counsel of the wily is carried headlong."

Most people make mistake when they point out 'one' , and ignore 'oneness'.

God is whatever God wishes to be.

 

[Firenze]

El isn't a proper name, it's a title that roughly means powerful or dominant. For the Hebrews El meant YHWH, but for other cultures that most likely would not hold true.

No, El is the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon of gods, as documented in the texts discovered in Ugarit long ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So on what basis do people believe in Christianity at all if they have no Tradition?

According to them: the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dimi95]

No, El is the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon of gods, as documented in the texts discovered in Ugarit long ago.

The descriptive title "el" (or its plural "elim") is used without reference to the one true living God in Exodus 15:11 and 11:36.

'El' can also describe humans: Job 41:25; Ezekiel 32:21 are examples of instances in which the word 'el' is used to describe human beings.

We can see that the word 'el' is not a name of God but is a descriptive term denoting either deity (true or pagan) or strength.

 

[Rival]

According to them: the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But He couldn't guide the Fathers etc?

It all seems very convenient, really.