Ancient Jewish Writings on the Trinity

[Spyridon]

What is the Zohar? Its doctrine seems very similar to Christian faith:

Hear, 0 Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith: in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone! The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements-fire, air and water, which have, however, become one in the mystery of the voice. Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai - three modes which yet form one unity. This is the significance of the voice which man produces in the act of unification, when his intent is to unify all, from the Infinite (Ein Sof) to the end of creation. This is the daily unification, the secret of which has been revealed in the holy spirit.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/YL_Trinity.asp">http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/YL_Trinity.asp</a><!-- m -->

There is more here:

Ancient Jewish Writings About the Trinity
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm#Jewish%20Teachings">http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference ... 0Teachings</a><!-- m -->

THE SHEMA
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hadavar.org/additional-obj-2-12.html">http://www.hadavar.org/additional-obj-2-12.html</a><!-- m -->

[Spyridon]

Is it true that the Zohar's commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) confirms the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=211">http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?opt ... Itemid=211</a><!-- m -->

I'm sorry if I've quoted from a fraudulent source.

[Christina]

Shlama Spyridon,

The Zohar is a collection of books which are esorteric commentaries on the Torah, it dates to the Middle Ages & is written in Aramaic. It's origin is unknown though many Jews believe that it contains material which dates to the 2nd and has been passed down through the generations.

Zohar, from the Jewish Encyclopedia: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z&search=Zohar">http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... arch=Zohar</a><!-- m -->

Also see:

Torah 101, The Nature of God: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/god.htm">http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/god.htm</a><!-- m -->

and:

Torah 101, Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/kabbalah.htm">http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/kabbalah.htm</a><!-- m -->

Personally I don't know much about the Zohar or Kabbalah, as mysticsm is not a big interest of mine. There's a searchable version of the Zohar online here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/zohar">http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/zohar</a><!-- m -->

Hope that helps.

[Spyridon]

I received this in an email from a Messianic Rabbi:

The scriptures say that Adonai is one (Deut. 6:4). Simply put, we believe there is one Supreme Being with three unifying parts to His anatomy. He specifically has manifested Himself as The Father, as The Son, and as The Spirit.

Because we are made in His image I liken the parts of His being to our body, which is one. The Brain (HaAv/The Father) controls everything and is head over everything. It is the Chief part. The Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) acts like the nerve impulse, which sends the messages back and forth between The Brain and The Arm. The Arm (HaBen) is what the Brain uses to create and to build with. And, it is what makes contact with creation. It is also capable of communicating and sending information to the Brain, but is subject to The Brain.

But, there should be no doubt that Elohim is one Being, not three separate and equal Beings. Just like The Father, The Holy Spirit, and The Son are not separate or independent from each other, so too is it with The Brain, The Nervous System, and The Arm as they are not separate and do not exist independent from each other. In conclusion, Elohim has one Head, not three. He is one Being who manifests Himself to His creation in three tangible ways...

He is one person, not three...

Because we are made in His image I liken the parts of His being to our body, which is one. The Brain (HaAv/The Father) controls everything and is head over everything. It is the Chief part. The Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) acts like the nerve impulse, which sends the messages back and forth between The Brain (The Father) and The Arm (The Son). The Arm (HaBen) is what the Brain uses to create and to build with. And, it is what makes contact with creation. It is also capable of communicating and sending information to the Brain, but is subject to The Brain. Therefore, The Arm (The Son) was communicating with The Brain (The Father). This one Being has a network of communication capable of communicating with Himself.

This Rabbi's words are similar to the position that Andrew advocates on his website.

[Spyridon]

One can also use the Tanakh to defend Trinitarian doctrine. In Genesis and Isaiah, God refers to Himself as "Us," the word "Echad" refers to a composite unity, the three angels who visit Abraham, the plurality of "Elohim," etc.

[Dawid]

My opinion would be more Kabbalistic in nature, more inclined toward the position of the Zohar.
Ironically, it has been stated in some cases that if the Christians believe in three gods, then the Kabbalists must believe in ten. Kabbalists continue to insist that it's different, but they only do this by ignoring Christian explanations of the Trinity. As usual, I take the middle road. I believe that if God "wanted" to exist in three persons, one being, He could. I don't see how this is such a difficult concept. I simply believe that He doesn't. He exists in three "upper" attributes, and seven "lower" attributes, and One ayn soph. Ayn Soph is the essential God, from which the others were emanated. The three "upper" attributes are what are often misinterpreted as the trinity. The seven lower ones are referred to in Revelation as the seven spirits. They are higher and lower only in position. Not in actual deity.
My basic disagreement with trinitarianism is insisting on saying that they are separate "persons." I just don't see that. For one thing, it is clear that Yeshua is the entire Adam Kadmon (the ten attributes of God) because it is stated that we will "see angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man." This appeals to an ancient mystical interpretation of Jacob's Ladder that the ladder was actually God's ten Divine Attributes.
You can also find all ten of these attributes in the creation story, all tehn of them again appear in first John, and various ones are referred to in Proverbs 8, John 1, Ezekiel 1, the calling of Moses, etc.
All that to say, it supports a relative of the trinity, but not the trinity doctrine itself. It's a little bit different. Of course, one of my dearest friends and a very intelligent Kabbalist would tell you that the trinity is not represented by the three upper Attributes, but by the three Pillars of the Adam Kadmon. That's something we like to debate from time to time. I don't think it's a real important debate, personally.

[Christina]

Shlama Spyridon,

One can also use the Tanakh to defend Trinitarian doctrine.

Not exactly...

In Genesis and Isaiah, God refers to Himself as "Us," the word "Echad" refers to a composite unity, the three angels who visit Abraham, the plurality of "Elohim," etc.

I'm gonna quote akhan Andrew's Ruach Qadim: The Path to Life:

However, if they are really smart, they will look at Deuteronomy 6:4 with fresh eyes and say, "The word for "one" is echad (dxa), and that can mean a unity of aspects. If Elohim was exclusively singular, it would say yachid (dyxy) which can only mean one."

My answer: Yes and no.

Echad (dxa) does in fact have a compound singularity in it, such as having one synagogue with a hundred people inside. However, the situation is more complicated than Christians would like to believe. The fact is yachid is a very rare word, and in Hebrew, the number one is echad, so it also refers to things that are exclusively singular.

That's the thing about echad, 99% of the time in both ancient and modern Hebrew it means "only one", it denotes exclusive singularity. Conventional Jews see no reason to apply the 1% exception to Deuteronomy 6:4, because...

Although, that does not mean that Christians are entirely wrong in using echad as a pointer to the Godhead. Great Jewish rabbis, sages and mystics have been doing just that for centuries.

However, the difference that learned Jews understand that Christians do not is the reason behind Elohim being echad. It is not so much as Elohim being divided into distinct persons as it is pointing to the fact that Elohim is infinite. 1 Kings 8:27 relates this fact very clearly. Not even the uttermost reaches of the heavens can contain Him. Therefore, we must say echad, because while He is One, the number one cannot contain Him either. Infinity is greater than one!

If the number "one" cannot contain Elohim, then neither can the number "three". The point akhan Andrew makes is simple - Elohim is infinite, NO number can contain Him. We CANNOT classify His nature with human terms or divide it into "parts" because we CANNOT comprehend His nature. Do remember that the word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture, and you will find no statement anywhere in Scripture that declares that "Elohim is three". What about 1 John 5:7-8?

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8, KJV)

Akhan Andrew gives a footnote from the NIV (an Alexandrian based translation) which states:

The note in the New International Version with respect to 1 John 5:6-7 is particularly instructive and accurate: ???Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth; (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)???.

The NIV translators weren't the only ones who noticed this rather late interpolation in the Textus Receptus (which was compiled from both Byzantine Greek mss & Latin Vulgate mss), here is a much more detailed explanation from a footnote in the New English Translation (also Alexandrian), a.k.a. the NET Bible:

20 tc Before to. pneu/ma kai. to. u[dwr kai. to. ai-ma (to pneuma kai to hudo??r kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads evn tw/| ouvranw/|, o` path,r, o` lo,goj, kai. to. a[gion pneu/ma, kai. ou-toi oi` trei/j e[n eivsi. 5:8 kai. trei/j eivsin oi` marturou/ntej evn th/| gh/| (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth).

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647???49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.

This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of [b]the Latin Vulgate[/b], the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

And what does the Peshitta say?

6 This is he who came by way of water and blood, Yeshua Mesheikha. He was not by water alone, but by water and blood. 7 And the Spirit bears witness, for the Spirit is truth. 8 And there are three witnesses, Spirit and water and blood and the three of them are as one. (1 John 5:6-8)

So what do I believe about the "Trinity" and the "Godhead" (note I'm placing these words in "inverted commas" because they DON'T appear anywhere in Scripture)?

I believe that YHWH Elohim is ONE meaning He is infinite, and that He cannot be divided into "parts" or "persons" or have man-made labels slapped onto Him. I believe that Yeshua is the arm of YHWH (Isaiah 53) which became flesh (and because He is the arm of YHWH, He is YHWH) and I believe that the Holy Spirit is simply another Biblical title for YHWH Elohim. All of God's manifestations and attributes are brought under the Biblical title YHWH Elohim, IOW there is no "Trinity" there is YHWH Elohim.

What I'm trying to say here is we cannot say that God is a "Trinity" not only because it's not a Biblical term but more so because He is not limited to His primary Qnume (which never means "persons"), He is greater than them, the 3 Qnume mentioned in Scripture are only a mere introduction to the vastness of His nature which our limited brains can never comprehend on this side of Heaven. The "Trinity" doctrine limits His vastness, His infinite glory and power - YHWH Elohim is GREATER than "Trinity" that is why He is NOT a "Trinity". YHWH's 3 Qnume (Abba, Bar & Ruhkha D'Qudsha) may be His 3 primary "manifestations" or "revelations of His nature" but they are by no means His only ones. YHWH also appeared to Abraham as an man, and to Moshe as a burning bush, and to the Israelites as pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire. Isaiah and Revelation speak of the seven spirits (actually better understood as the "seven-fold Spirit"). And to top all that, it must be remember that YHWH hasn't even revealed everything there is to know about Himself! The Bible does not tell us WHAT YHWH is, it tells us what He is LIKE and what He is CAPABLE OF. This is why I reject the "Trinity" doctrine.

Hope what I wrote makes sense.

[Amatsyah]

I wish this Forum would make up its mind: theological - or not theological?

Because this thread, and others recently, sound awfully theological!

[Yochanan5730]

Shalomie homies <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

just my point of view on some things. Dawid, you should find this familiar <!-- sarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="arcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sarcasm: -->

from all my studies, i cannot say that there are any ancient Jewish writings that pertain to the trinity. there is the Zohar which has a brief little statement that would seem to promote the trinity concept, but in actuality has nothing whatsoever to do with it, though groups like Jews for Jesus and other such messianic organisations love to quote it:

"The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three Heads, which are united in One, and that Head is threefold exalted. The Ancient Holy One is described as being Three; it is because the other Lights emanating from Him are included in the Three. Yet the Ancient One is described as being two (Daniel 7:13). The Ancient One includes these two. He is the Crown of all that is exalted; the Chief of the chief, so exalted, that He cannot be known to perfection. Thus the other Lights are two complete ones, yet is the Ancient Holy One described and complete as One, and He is One, positively One; thus are the other Lights united and glorified in One; because they are One."

as to the things of the Kabbalah, i cannot say any thing of whether or not i have received such instruction. (lol) having said that, any thing i may say pertaining to the Tradition reflects one person's understanding of it, which i have learned from him. this is the disclaimer rofl.

about Adam Kad'mon in the traditional sense, i may not say much, considering that such doctrine isn't as compatible with Messianic doctrine as some may think. to embrace the concept would be to embrace the Infinite as finite in the sense that Ayin Soph, the Infinite One, created G'd. anything created is finite. this is in the Zohar when it explains that "B'reshith bara Elohim..." (In the beginning God created...) means: "With Reshith (Wisdom) it (Ayin Soph) created Elohim..."

(using estrangelo)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]
(dyyt0 0ld 0myts 0whh 0rb ty40r Y0hb
0d 0zrw .Myhl0 Yrq0 0d 0lkyh .0d 0lkyhl
..................................Myhl0 0rb ty40rb
[/font]

"With this Reshith the Unknown Concealed One (Ayin Soph) created a palace. This palace is called Elohim. The secret is: With Reshith it created Elohim."
~Zohar 1:15a

as an interpretation, Adam Kad'mon could be seen as a preincarnate Mashi'ach, however that would contradict the traditional doctrine in Kabbalah, despite the fact that it is said in the tradition: "If it were not for that Adam (Adam Kad'mon), who is called YHVH, the universe would not exist." reading this, one would think of Yeshua right away. there are other things pertaining to Adam Kad'mon that would seem to reinforce the idea of it being a preincarnate Mashi'ach, but there are also more things that would contradict the Messianic belief.

for me, G'd is One, and more than trinity. He is Infinite, beyond the containment of human conceptions, such as trinity. in saying this i don't know what i'm talking about, do i? after all God is beyond human conception lol. but who are we to determine how, and in what manner the Holy One of Blessing may manifest Himself? in the concept of the ten S'phiroth/etz chayim and the "Greater" and "Lesser" YHVH (which i dont think was mentioned on this thread <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- s --> ), there are actually three sets of trinities, which is what the passage from the Zohar quoted above is alluding to in saying that Head is threefold exalted... take a piece of paper and fold it in half three times, open it, and count the creases <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> it should come up with eight squares and ten individual creases... and in this, "they are all One". of course one may ask, "What's the eight about?" <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> but without the other one there could not be ten to consider. <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

much B'rakhoths and Ahavoths in Yeshua <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Yochanan

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Ryan,

I wish this Forum would make up its mind: theological - or not theological?

Because this thread, and others recently, sound awfully theological!

I concur that portions are sounding like they could be over the line. This thread originally dealt with the Zohar and Kabbalah, Aramaic topics. As Akhan Stephen Silver mentioned, there will be times when discussing something pertaining to Aramaic texts will spill over into theological debates and all hell will break loose.

I will leave it to one of the other moderators to decide whether to lock this thread, delete it altogether or allow it to remain until hell does break loose. I need a break from moderating. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

+Shamasha Paul

[Yochanan5730]

Shlama Spyridon,

... It's origin is unknown though many Jews believe that it contains material which dates to the 2nd and has been passed down through the generations.

......Personally I don't know much about the Zohar or Kabbalah, as mysticsm is not a big interest of mine. There's a searchable version of the Zohar online here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/zohar">http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/zohar</a><!-- m -->

Hope that helps.

its origin is in the 12th century, written solely by Moses de Leon. it's background is shady. Moses de Leon wrote "sections" of it from a manuscript he supposedly had, and he distibuted them amongst other scholars. they were fascinated to say the least. upon his death, the scholars went to his home to collect the 1st-2nd century document only to find that it never existed. His own wife had told them that he never had such a book, and that he wrote these things of himself. it is also reported, though sketchy itself, that Moses de Leon used a method of meditation called automatic writing to author the Zohar. with this as it's medium, it could then be said that he received it prophetically as a revelation from the past. however, we know that scripture doesn't promote such revelatory methods of the occult.

Personally, i believe that Moses de Leon wrote the book of his own thoughts. i believe that he was a rather withdrawn individual who was shy about sharing his own ideas of interpretation for fear of rejection. but to present them as someone elses work, especially that of an ancient sage of long ago, would at least give people the interest to look into it, and more readily receive it. i have found many interesting things in my studies of the Zohar over the past 15+ years. but if one isn't grounded in an understanding of the Torah and rabbinical traditions, they could easily misinterpret what they read from it such as groups like the Kabbalah Centre (Madonna's School).

now having mentioned Kabbalah Centre, i do not really recommend the Zohar website at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.kabbalah.com">http://www.kabbalah.com</a><!-- m -->. the translation is not a "pure" translation. infused within the text, in all caps, are the groups personal ideas of what the Zohar is saying. Many reputable Kabbalists of the traditional genre do not consider this group or their activities as being upright. i'm not going to tell anyone not to look, i'm just saying don't readily receive their personal inputs of the text.

much blessings in Yeshua,
Yochanan

[Christina]

Shlama akhay Ryan & Paul,

Shlama Akhi Ryan,

I wish this Forum would make up its mind: theological - or not theological?

Because this thread, and others recently, sound awfully theological!

I concur that portions are sounding like they could be over the line. This thread originally dealt with the Zohar and Kabbalah, Aramaic topics. As Akhan Stephen Silver mentioned, there will be times when discussing something pertaining to Aramaic texts will spill over into theological debates and all hell will break loose.

I will leave it to one of the other moderators to decide whether to lock this thread, delete it altogether or allow it to remain until hell does break loose. I need a break from moderating. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

+Shamasha Paul

Well I ain't the one asking theological questions here. I admit that my post above split into theology more than I wanted it to, though I did address an interpolation in the Greek NT in thorough detail, and also made mention of Qnume.

Yes I think it's time to lock the thread. And Spyridon take note: NO MORE THEOLOGY, NO MORE "TRINITY" TALK OR I WILL IMMEDIATELY DELETE YOUR POST.