"The Kabbalah - is it the REAL Origin of the Trinity Doctrine."

http://www.endtime-truth.com/articles1.html

"The Kabbalah - the REAL Origin of the Trinity Doctrine."
Pastor K. Kirkland Valdez Apostolic Church, Valdez, Alaska

[An abridged article from "The View from the Lighthouse" newsletter, July 1998.]

Louis Berkhof, in his "History of Christian Doctrines," says the first perversion of Christianity was a form of Jewish Christianity: "marked by theosophic speculations and strict asceticism," "Circumcision and Sabbath were held in honor; ...magic and astrology were practiced among them. In all probability the epistle to the Colossians and 1st Tim. refer to this heresy." (p. 44) Not only Colossians and 1 Timothy, which Berkhof refers to, but history also verifies his conclusions.

Here we have the first apostasy of Christianity, opposed by the Apostle Paul. Those who understand the Mystery of iniquity should recognize Berkhof's observations in the following verses as identifying marks of the Jewish Kabbalah. Observations such as: theosophic speculations, strict asceticism, circumcision and Sabbath keeping, magic and astrology.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." (Col 2:16-18)

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim 6:20)

1. The "oppositions of science" is the opposition to early Apostolic Christianity from Jewish Gnosticism (science is "gnosis" in the Greek, esoteric knowledge/wisdom). The most deadly system of "profane and vain babblings" the Church has ever had to combat.

2. The worshipping of angels was back then, almost 2000 years ago, and still is, one of the distinctive trademarks of Jewish Kabbalism. Kabbalism today utilizes angels, magic, and astrology in their occult system, attempting to control the destiny of the universe. The first few chapters of the epistle of Hebrews is another example, correcting the Jew's emphasis on angels, putting the focus where it belongs - Jesus Christ.

3. The Apostle Paul has given us the Biblical definition of Kabbalism or Jewish Gnosticism here in Col. 2:18. A more accurate description of the entire system of Jewish theosophic speculations ("En Soph" and the "Sephiroths") cannot be found anywhere: "...Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." Sheer extrabiblical speculation.

4. Kabbalism today, slavishly and superstitiously, observes circumcision and Sabbath keeping, even as Jewish Gnostic opposition to the early Apostolic Church did. The Apostolic Church believed, as Col. 2:16, 17 above indicates, that these were types and shadows, fulfilled in the Body of Christ.

5. Berkhof says they practiced a false form of asceticism.
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:3)

The Apostle John also opposed this original form of apostasy. He said they do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, e.g., that God has been manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), thus they are antichrists. History identifies these as an apostate form of Jewish Christianity who rejected the Deity of Jesus Christ. The same Kabbalist apostates that Paul contended with. This Jewish system of mysticism and magic that was already in the world in John's time is also that spirit of antichrist "that should come", i.e., of the endtimes:

Don't miss this - the apostasy in the early Church and the endtime antichrist apostasy or "falling away" are, at its foundation, both linked to Gnostic Jewish Kabbalism!

Historically, following Jewish Gnosticism, Berkhof described the second perversion of Christianity as Christian Gnosticism. He says "It's original form was rooted in Judaism, but it ultimately developed into a strange mixture of Jewish elements, Christian doctrines, and heathen speculative thought." (Pg 45) Others who have noted this are:

*

"Gnostic ideas, which, though taken over by heretics, were originally Jewish - a fact that has often, oddly enough, been denied or disregarded." (The "heretics" he speaks of is what history has recorded as the great Christian heresy - gnosticism) Gershom Sholem, professor, Hebrew university at Jerusalem.
*

"The great heresy of Gnosticism, which nearly swept Christianity from the earth in the early centuries, is admittedly Cabalistic." "The Cabala was the basis of Gnosticism." (Sometimes "Kabbalah" is spelled with a "C" = Cabala, Cabalistic). Elizabeth Dilling, writer.
*

"Gnosticism, which was Jewish before it became Christian, was an attempt to harmonize the New Testament with heathen speculative thought." Martin L. Wagner, writer
*

The Jewish Encyclopedia, speaking of Christian Gnosticism, says: "The principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation." The Jewish Encyclopedia notes who led Christianity into Gnosticism: "It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the early Church fathers."

We need to pay special attention to what Berkhof tells us next. Here is where Kabbalistic Gnosticism subverted the course of original Christianity. He said some of Gnosticism's peculiarities were ... "absorbed by the Church and in course of time came to fruition in the Roman Catholic Church with it's ... philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries (saints, angels, Mary) and it's emphasis on asceticism."

1. The "philosophy of a hidden God" is the distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah! Berkhof, a Trinitarian, will probably not acknowledge this, but the mysterious "En Soph" of the Kabbalists was absorbed by the Church, emerging, via Gnosticism, as the aloof, remote, and distant "person # 1" of the Trinity doctrine.

2. The Kabbalist intermediaries of saints and angels emerge in Catholic forms. (the angel the Kabbalists call Metatron, for instance, is actually Enoch, which they term as a saint). The female god of the Kabbalah, which they term the "shekhinah", emerged in Catholic theology as Mary. Berkhof only mentions saints, angels, and Mary as intermediaries, as a Trinitarian he would prefer not to acknowledge the "second god" of the Gnostics, the intermediate, preexistent Logos emerging into Christianity as "person # 2 of Trinitarian theology. The mysterious "three in one" of the Jewish Kabbalah emerges in a Christian form - the Trinity.

3. The Catholic Church absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics - evolving into a system of celibacy (marriage forbidden) for monks, priests and nuns, and the Catholic doctrine of marriage and divorce for the laity. Monasticism: monks and nuns living hermit-like, reclusive lives in monasteries and convents.

An observation from someone outside the fishbowl of Christianity can prove interesting. such as Albert Pike, the high prophet of Freemasonry, on the origin of Trinitarianism, for instance. On such subversive matters, and with the secret avenues he had at his disposal - he was in a position to know.

In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" it says Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine being derived from their long history of "intimate relations" while in Babylon. If you go to the index and look up "Trinity" you find this: "Trinities of the Kabbalists the origin of the Christian Trinity."

Many pages of his ponderous book are devoted to how the Sephiroth trinities of the Kabbalah, the mysterious "three in one," got transposed into Christianity as the Trinity. Indeed, and my own independent research has came to the same conclusion.

Some Oneness researchers, such as William Chalfant, have noted something very odd about the one who played the key role in the development of Trinitarian theory - he was a Jew! Not a Christian. His name? Philo of Alexandria. Pike has inside info on him too; Philo, he says, was a Kabbalist "initiate of the mysteries."

In the following quotation, Ted Pike, in his book "Israel, our duty our dilemma," has perceived also the confusion that has been introduced into Christian theology by Jewish gnosticism. He, however, only calls it "a subtle influence." Being Trinitarian, he, as would be expected, reports the damage done to Christianity as only Catholic "asceticism, celibacy, and monasticism." The author singles out the Pharisees, who are actually Masonic-like Kabbalists, the most bitter enemies of Jesus Christ. Note especially the last few lines:

"Because Jewish gnosticism ultimately spread throughout the ancient world to become one of the most compelling philosophies of the first several centuries AD, it is natural that it exert a subtle influence upon orthodox Christianity. There can be little doubt that the contempt for the flesh which resulted in the asceticism, celibacy, and monasticism of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD can be laid squarely at the feet of Gnostic influence. If gnosticism, then, is a Jewish creation as the Jewish Encyclopedia insists, we are forced to conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of confusion into Christian theology which we still have not emerged from."

No wonder Jesus said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees!" Matt. 16:6.

As vast an impact upon Christianity as Gnostic Kabbalism has made, yet it is but one of the many subversions of the Great Whore, "Mystery Babylon the great." Not only in religious matters but also in politics, economics, and occultism - "... for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived," Rev. 18:23.

Note: Many have rightly noted the powerful influence of Greek philosophy and the pagan "trinities" of the world in the development of the Trinity doctrine. The Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, & Shiva, for instance, during the early centuries of the Christian era (the Hindu trinity's origin is Babylon, where it was incorporated by the Jews into the Kabbalah, during their long stay in Babylon. The names of Brahma, Vishnu, & Shiva being transposed into Jewish names of the "sephiroths"). But God bypasses these, his ire and wrath, instead, directed towards an apostate, occult, religious whore - the REAL culprit.

Thanks Voice! What a great article! I haven't done much studying and have mostly surmised what l do know but am amazed to see the surmising was mostly right.

When l was in astrology there was no computer...All had to come from books. But l had one little black book by cc zain...the mother of all little black books. I use to constantly ponder the roll of Judaism in all of it. I was so blinded by humanism and a lack of knowledge l couldn't see nor understand the roots of this mystery l had stumbled upon. And l do mean stumbled...Praise God he rescued me and after all these years am finally coming to a greater understanding of those things that took me captive and how they have and are weaving their web through out history for their intended purpose.

I wish l could remember this article verbatim so as to repeat it again and again...



You know why it's hidden don't you...Because it's Satan...This is the "other" revealing that's coming...A revelation of two. 1 and 1 make two. Yep...confusion is the name of the game. He can't come out of the closet because most would run screaming. Thanks again for the concise article. I really like the scriptural references...It makes sense the apostles were refering to Kabbalah in it's early form.

ps...ever notice how you can't get a spell check on Kabbalah.. (Cabala) but if you run a spell check on Qubalah it comes up Kabbalah ...

Wait just a minute here folks. Lets not just give this a shrug and a pass. This article is fraught with error. Your first red flag should be that much of the material comes from the leader of the free masonry movement. Look to the motive.

Here is the origin of the trinity doctrine,

The Trinity


The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel; it appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine Persons who are one divine being (God).
The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Didache7:1 [A.D. 70]). (notice this date, this is less than 30 years after Jesus death.)

Ignatius of Antioch

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2 [A.D. 110].


Justin Martyr

We will prove that we worship him reasonably, for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, but they are ignorant of the mystery that lies therein (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).


Theophilus of Antioch

It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all, for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).


Irenaeus

For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).


That article is nothing but the same old corruption being rehashed.

God Bless,
K.D.

Am l missing something?

Would you mind putting the argument in a NUTSHELL...

...What you think voice is implying and the argument against.

Thanks

I'm glad you enjoyed the article ... it's an eye opener in terms of how the triunity of God can be attacked and/or criticized ... in this case credit is given to the Kabbalists. But for purely scholarly endeavors, it is good to check out. Remember .... it's only a 'article'. When your truly saved, the Blood of Christ will immunize you from believing error. In any case, I am a certified scholar and teacher and so for me, there is no fear at all.
God bless you in Christ

History of the Trinity

The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who claimed He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish people believed for centuries that there was only one God. If the claims of "this Jesus" were accepted, then in their minds their belief would be no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole system of monotheism would disintegrate.

When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33).

To get around the problem of a plurality in the God-head, the Jewish community simply rejected Jesus. And to this day, Orthodox Jews will not accept Jesus' Messiahship. However, the more liberal Jews will at least admit that He was a great man -- maybe even a prophet.

But the "new" Christian religion was still faced with the problem. How would proponents explain that there was only one God, not two?

"The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian concept of God from the first origin of Christianity turned" (International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3021).

But does the Deity of Christ does mean that a doctrine of the Trinity is necessary? (Pentecostal Oneness sort of 'deal' with this challenge)

Are there Roots in Greek Philosophy?

Many of the early church fathers were thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy, from which they borrowed such non-biblical concepts as dualism and the immortality of the soul. However, most theologians, for obvious reasons, are generally careful to point out that they did not borrow the idea of the Trinity from the Triads of Greek philosophy or those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians.

But some are not so careful to make such a distinction.

"Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the Trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and the Egyptian religion with the Trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato..." (Hasting's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458).

Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinity does not in itself mean that the Christians borrowed it. McClintock and Strong make the connection a little clearer.

"Toward the end of the 16t century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" (article "Trinity," Vol. 10, p. 553).

In his book, A History of Christian Thought, Arthur Cushman McGiffert points out that the main argument against those who believed that there was only one God and that Christ was either an adopted or a created being was that their idea did not agree with Platonic philosophy. Such teachings were

"offensive to theologians particularly to those who felt the influence of the Platonic philosophy" (ibid., p.240).

In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samosata tried to revive the adoptionist idea that Jesus was a mere man until the Spirit of God came upon Him at baptism making him the Anointed One, or Christ. In his beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, he:

"rejected the Platonic realism which underlay most of the Christological speculation of the day" (ibid., p. 243).

At the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffert concludes:

". . . It has been the boast of orthodox theologians that in the doctrine of the Trinity both religion and philosophy come to highest expression" (Vol. I, p. 247).

Some influence of Platonic philosophy on the Trinity doctrine can hardly be denied.

However, Trinitarian ideas go much further back than Plato.

"Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one.... The definition of Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen religions" (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S., p. 396).

It was Athanasius' formulation for the Trinity which was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.

"The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was theological speculation. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included among its members . . ." ( Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).

In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the philosophy of the day. They obviously thought that their religion would be more palatable if they made it sound like the pagan philosophy that was extant at the time. These men were versed in philosophy, and that philosophy colored their understanding of the Bible.

It was the doctrine of the Trinity -- colored by the philosophy of the time—that was accepted by the Church in the early part of the fourth century — over three hundred years after Christ's death.

Even theologians recognize that the Trinity appears officially 'doctrinally' in the fourth century, not the first ... it took 325 or so years to make it official (to the chagrin of Arius ... the first 'Jehovah's Witness').

"'There is recognition on the part of exegetist and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without some qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition —that when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," Vol. 14, p. 295).

The Council of Nicaea

It was at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that two members of the Alexandrian congregation, Arius, a priest, who believed that Christ was not a God, but a created being; and Athanasius, a deacon who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are the same being living in a threefold form (or in three relationships, as a man may be at the same time a father, a son and a brother), presented their cases.

The Council of Nicaea was not called by the church leaders, as one might suppose. It was called by the Emperor Constantine. And he had a far from spiritual reason for wanting to solve the dispute that had arisen.

"In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an ecclesiastical council to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony. Constantine himself of course neither knew or cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 258).

The decision as to which of the two men the church was to follow was a more or less arbitrary one. Constantine really didn't care which choice was made—all he wanted was a united church. ( one really should note that Arius was banished, but later recalled by Constantine, was examined and found to be without heresy.)

The majority of those present at the council were not ready to take either side in the controversy. That really is the documented history.

"A clearly defined standpoint with regard to this problem — the relationship of Christ to God—was held only by the attenuated group of Arians and a far from numerous section of delegates, who adhered with unshaken conviction to the Alexandrian [Athanasius'] view. The bulk of the members occupied a position between these two extremes. They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents . . . the voting was no criterion of the inward conviction of the council" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., article "Nicaea, Council of," p. 641).

The council rejected Arius' views, and rightly so, but they had nothing with which to replace it. Thus the ideas of Athanasius—also a minority view—prevailed. The rejection of Arianism was not blanket acceptance of Athanasius. Yet, the church in all the ensuing centuries has been "stuck," so to speak, with the job of upholding— right or wrong—the decision made at Nicaea. All the while Jews whether Orthodox, Conservative or of the Reform disposition have believed - "Hear Oh Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One!" They intoned this as they were burned by medieval crusaders, burned alive in medieval York, England,
forced into the gas chambers and crematoriums of Hitler's Auschwitz, and as they defend the land of Israel from the likes of Nasser, Arafat, Kadafi, Amin, Hussein, Ahmadinejad etc.

After the council the Trinity became official dogma in the church, but the controversy did not end. In the next few years more Christians were killed by other Christians over that doctrine than were killed by all the pagan emperors of Rome. Yet, for all the fighting and killing, did either of the two (or more?) parties gain anything, or have a lasting impact on today's 'Christianity'?

Councils were often called to officially make a statement to combat heresy. The date of the Council does not equate to the time of the teaching. The teaching of the Trinity was from the beginning starting with the Apostles and continued as I demonstrated through writings of the very first church fathers. It is exactly the same heresy that voice is trying to spread again that prompted the Church to make it teaching official at a council. His speculation to the purpose of the council being an ulterior motive of Constantine is just that SPECULATION. We know for a fact that they dealt with the heresy and put an end to any speculation to what the Church believes and had taught from the Apostles on.

Is there no one else on this board that sees this attack of heresy

God Bless,
K.D.

Is the Trinity doctrine really so HARD to understand?

A Gallup Poll taken in 1966 found that 97% of the American public believed in God. Of that number, 83% believed that God is a Trinity.

Yet for all this belief in the Trinity, it is a doctrine that is not clearly understood or 'articulated well' by most Christian laymen. In fact, most have neither the desire nor the incentive to understand what their church teaches. Few laymen are aware of any problems with the doctrine of the Trinity. They simply take it for granted—leaving the mysterious doctrinal aspects to theologians.

And if the layman were to investigate further, he would be confronted with discouraging statements similar to the following:

"The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul" (Harold Lindsey and Charles J. Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, pp. 51-52).

Such a statement means that the concept of the Trinity should be accepted or else. But, merely to accept it as doctrine without proving it would be totally contrary to Scripture. God inspired Paul to write:

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thes. 5:21).



Peter further admonished Christians:

". . . Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you..." (I Peter 3:15).

Therefore the Christian is duty bound to prove whether or not God is a Trinity.

A Clear Explanation

If you were to confine yourself to reading the articles on the Trinity in popular religious literature for laymen, you would conclude that the Trinity is everywhere and clearly taught in the Bible. However, if you were to begin to read what the more technical Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries and books say on the subject, you would come to an entirely different conclusion. And the more you studied, the more you would find that the Trinity is described in different ways.

The problems inherent in clearly explaining the Trinity are expressed in nearly every technical article or book on the subject.

The Trinity is God in three Persons.
The Trinity is God manifest in three Persons.
The Trintiy is God's Essence manifested in three distinct separate Persons.
The Trinity is One God in Three distinct Persons manifest in One Purpose.

etc...etc.... or The Trinity is a Mystery and cannot be comprehended, like the virgin birth (or virgin conception?) ... whatever.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins:

"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette" (Vol. XIV, p. 295). (Emphasis ours throughout article)

But why should the central doctrine of the Christian faith be so difficult to understand? Why should such an important doctrine present an unsteady silhouette? Isn't there a clear biblical revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity? Didn't Christ and the apostles plainly teach it? Is it taught clearly from Matthew through to Acts through to Revelation?

Surely the Bible would be filled with teachings about such an important subject as the Trinity. But, even if the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible, neither does the word "Rapture" or "computer".

'The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3012).
Some might say that because the word "Trinity" is never found in the Bible, there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated. Well, we've heard that before, and if Jesus was the first to introduce it, why are Christian apologists bringing Old Testament 'types' forward, to prove it? If so, then the trinity can be found in the Old Testament?

In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been:

". . . embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the 'imminent' Trinity (even John's prologue is no such doctrine)" (The Trinity, p. 22). (Author's emphasis.)

Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first chapter of John's Gospel--the prologue-- clearly shows the pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing John's prologue, Dr. William Newton Clarke writes:

'There is no Trinity in this; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God. This distinction or duality is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as key to the possibility of an incarnation" (Outline of Christian Theology, p. 167). That is of course what Clarke says.

The first chapter of John's Gospel clearly shows the pre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God. And as Dr. Clarke points out, the key to the possibility of the incarnation—the fact that God could become a man.

The Apostle John makes plain the unmistakable fact that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1-4). Yet can we find the Trinity discussed in this chapter ?

Biblical Proof for the Trinity?

Probably the most poignant scripture used in times past as "proof" of a Trinity is I John 5:7. However, many theologians recognize that this scripture was added to the New Testament manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D. Does that make it an 'uninspired' scripture?

Notice what Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote in their commentary:

"The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts], in any form which support the words, 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth . . .' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Rauianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a MS. [manuscript] at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words." Kabbalah to the rescue? 'Hear Oh Israel, Jehovah, our Eloheinu (our Elohim), Jehovah is a Unity" (?)

The conclusions arrived at in their commentary, written over 100 years ago, are still valid today. More conservatively oriented The New Bible Commentary (Revised) agrees, though "quietly" with Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.

". . . The words are clearly a gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV [Revised Standard Version] even from its margin" (p. 1269).

The editors of Peake's Commentary on the Bible wax more eloquent in their belief that the words are not part of the original text.

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT [New Testament] of Erasmus" (p. 1038).

Scholars clearly recognize that I John 5:7 is not part of the New Testament text. Yet it is still included by some fundamentalists as biblical proof for the Trinity doctrine. Why? 'Thou shalt not add or detract from the word of God'.

Even the majority of the more recent New Testament translations do not contain the above words. They are not found in Moffatt, Phillips, the Revised Standard Version, Williams, or The Living Bible (a paraphrase).

Is it clear, then, that these words are not part of the inspired canon ? Were they added by a "recent hand"? The two verses in I John should read:

"For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Three things bear record. But what do they bear record to? A Trinity?

Bear Record to What?

The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record of the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is living His life over again in us. John clarifies it in verses 11-12:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

But how do these three elements—the Spirit, the water, and the blood—specifically bear witness to this basic biblical truth?

"The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16).

Water is representative of baptism, which bears witness of the burial of the old self and the beginning of a new life (Rom. 6:1-6). It also could mean one's original birth? "Except a man be born of water and the spirit...etc"

The blood represents Christ's death by crucifixion, which pays the penalty for our sins, reconciling us to God (Rom. 5:9, 10).

Now understand why Christ commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). First of all, did Jesus command the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit as an indication that God is a Trinity ? ... if such relationship may not be clearly indicated in the Bible ?

Why, then, were they to baptize using these three names?

They were to baptize in the name of the Father because it is the goodness of God that brings us to repentance (Rom. 2 4), and because the Father is the One "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:15). In the name of the Son because He is the one who died for our sins, and in the name of the Spirit because God sends His Spirit, making us His begotten Sons (Rom. 8:16).

Many theologians have misunderstood the part that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit play in each person's salvation. Is the doctrine of the Trinity is the result of that misunderstanding ? ... or is it plain?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on a point so vital.

What you are posting is full of errors, the time lines don't match up and it is full of statments that are presented as fact yet have no proof of fact.

The Trinity doctrine was taught by the Apostles. We know this from the writings of the very people who were taught by the Apostles themselves.

K.D.

I believe in the Trinity of course.

Yet from a scholarly historic perspective the 'story' on Tertullian ...

Tertullian Taught:
Tertullian (A pagan turned Catholic) was the first man who can be said to be Trinitarian since he introduced the word "Trinity". He knew Greek as well as Latin, and wrote works in Greek. When he was yet a pagan (Around mid life) he accused the Catholic Church of also worshipping pagan gods as he did because the teachings of the trinity were much like his own. Long after the Apostles were dead, Tertullian was converted to the Catholic religion around 195, and became presbyter of the Catholic church in Carthage, North Africa. Today he is referred to as the founder of Western theology (See EH Klotsche, The History of Christian Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979, 52-53). He wrote Against Praxeas in 213 and attacked the modalist concept of God, bringing an explanation of his own trinitarianism into view.

It must be noted that he began believing in only two persons of the Godhead as opposed to three but later accepted three. Tertullian, the father of Trinitarianism, wrote in his book that God was not yet Father before the time in which He begat the Son. By teaching that the Son was not eternal Tertullian in fact diminished the point of Jesus being our Savior. It's very important to keep in mind that if Jesus is a created being then He cannot be our Savior! Remember it is written in Matt 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." This scripture notes the very important fact that when the Messiah walked the earth He was in fact God!

Tertullian wrote: "He was (born and created) of the Father, making the Father stronger, older and more noble than the Son. This is what Tertullian wrote of a "Trinity." He said that God consisted of "three persons". These three persons were the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God is "one only substance in three coherent, inseparable (Persons)" He said that the three persons were three "beings" making up one God. He said that the Father and the Son were "two different Beings" They were "distinct but not separate" He said the Son was "another." Tertullian' teachings were accepted by many although his 'descriptions' might not be readily 'accepted' today.

Was it not until the end of the fourth century that the trinitarian doctrine was being introduced to the church of Rome? John of Damascus put the last touches in solidifying the doctrine as late as the eighth century! John of Damascus was the Chief Administrator to the ruler of Damascus, and was a Syrian monk and presbyter. So, was our concept of Trinitarianism not fully developed until the eighth century ? and we seem to find that the very early Catholic Church Fathers had no clear conception of the Trinity. (Information from, History of Christian Doctrines, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1937, p. 40)

Can we compile a list of scriptural statements by the Apostles?
Can we compile a list of clear statements by the very early Church fathers?

Please remember, this isn't an inquisition ... just a scholarly discussion.
Unless perhaps this could be moved to the Debates and controversial issues section?
Praise God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Well...I've never had a problem with understanding the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I can't understand what all the argument is about? So many words...and no nut shells...only nuts.

God is all. And we are in the midst of his purpose..like it or not.

I think folks make it so complicated it drives people away. They think "Oh l will never understand this Christianity thing and get depressed and walk away...I can feel it coming on now

So true Miki. We have intimations of the Trinity everywhere in mathematics, science and in the creation itself. The Lord has stamped his Divine blueprint on just about everything. The posts deal with the scriptural blueprint.

God bless

St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum," claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary to save man." St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever. Amen" ("Serm. in Theoph.", n. 10). ( St Hippolytus died around 236)

Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops,…

St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality. ( see here where the conclusions at Nicaea were from teaching already held by the church)
The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.

(Justin was born around 100 AD and converted to Christianity around 130AD

Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in "Paedag." I, vi, (This Clement died around 215, not sure when he was born)

I have found these from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will check some other sources as well, but this clearly shows the very first Church fathers taught the trinity doctrine and attribute the teaching to the Apostles.

God Bless,
K.D.

that's good work from the Catholic Encyclopedia ....(we use some of that with persistent Jehovah Witnesses) in cult evangelism ... these are of course post Tertullian 'fathers'

and now for a clear, concise word from the Apostles
God bless

Having a background from childhood under the term 'Protestant', I
find this excerpt from a leading Bible Codes expert, to be the well
rounded Godly(IHVH) viewpoint, for the word : Kabbalah

Many should stay with the milk of the `Word`.

This excerpt, in my humble opinion, explains why only the believer's
who can eat of the Meat of the Word, will even understand this text:

Much thanks to the author of this excerpt . . . your divine wisdom
can only lead other's to the truth of Christ the Messiah :

http://www.bible-codes.org/acrostic-balanc...e-code-full.htm

(EXCERPT from the above codes link) :

(The following update is still in rough form!)

All this will seem strange to non-Jews. However, to a large segment of the Jewish population this is their language, and this is the way many of them mystically understand these Hebrew letters. Does not the zayin and the ayin come forth from the yod of the hand of the Balance of Justice, which is a tree of life and light? The way I just spoke is foreign to Gentiles, but to Hasidic Jews who study the Cabbala it is simple speech. For God is using the language and symbols of His people after the flesh to win them. For Yeshua is the Aleph and the Tav, the first and the last, the beginning and the ending! And he is all the letters in between. And by Him all things were created for He is the Word of God! And these letters are no mere impersonal force, but the Word of God is a person! He is the Son of God --- not born by natural birth, but as One who has always been in the bosom of the Father --- The Almighty. But He took upon Himself the form of man, and lived as a man, and died as a man, and rose again by the power of God, having made atonement for sins. He is the New Creation of God. He is the Promised Messiah. And God is using your speech, the Cabbala, to prove to you that He is the Messiah even though the Cabbala up until this day has been used by Satan to lead you astray, pointing to mystic powers to save you rather than Messiah. But that power is not of Him. It is of Baal! But God has defeated Baal. He has plundered him and God now speaks to you in the language of Babylon so that you might believe. For you have left the path and have become as a Babylonian in His sight. Therefore He speaks to you in the foreign tongue which has become your own. Yes, you speak Hebrew --- but your understanding of language is Babylonian. And so He speaks your language so that you may believe that He is who He is. And then He will come! And He will wrap up this age. And He will make all things new. And the Babylonian language will never again be on your lips. For with an uncircumcised lip God speaks to you to the end that you might be circumcised in heart, and not just flesh.

Actually Tertullian began writing around 200AD you can see that Justin was alive in 100AD, Clement 215 and Denis around 260. This represents Church fathers before, at the same time of, and after Tertullian.
But most importantly, long before the council of Nicaea and the supposed influence of Constantine as the article implied.


God Bless,
K.D.

yes ... this is my language exactly and it is how I understand Him. Good post ... especially this part:

" Many should stay with the milk of the `Word`.This excerpt, in my humble opinion, explains why only the believer's who can eat of the Meat of the Word, will even understand ...

yes ... this is my sentiment too - and many also hate my people and their gentle ways ... b'nai Esau again
striving to kill b'nai Jacob .... but God will move for his Chosen People and remove those who 'toy' with them.

Thanks for a lovely post ( especially the 'aleph and the taf (saf) and everything in between'
Shalom and blessings




good work ... there were those before and after Constantine ... but the most important
were the Apostles and their words.
God bless

Now what the Lord is saying is worth a re-post in it's entirety as it comes through Shekels mouth to speak the truth.

Run with fear and trembling those who sought the gain of fame through lust for knowledge...

This says it well Shekel and praise God! Even a truck drivers daughter can see it! Glory to God! And Dean...I don't know why but l've never read it before? All these little hidden nuggets throughout the codes one has to watch for.

One thing l want to add though. Meat isn't just this. Meat gives mature believers the option to chew..that's all. Mysticism is no prerequisite to eat meat.

http://www.bible-codes.org/acrostic-balanc...e-code-full.htm


And my own mouth and understanding came not from what l've read or contrived but through the mercy of God's Holy Spirit.



Am l bragging about the tid bit l know? No... I'm praising God, because this is personal for me. Finally coming full circle with an understanding birthed on my own lips the moment it's spoken. I didn't study for hours and hours to come up with the right words but it's revealed for mercy's sake....one piece at a time.

It's a lot of lonely years dragging a bag behind me...clear back to the seventies when some of you were still at your mothers knee. Always these bits and pieces but never quite able to see a clear picture...

being held captive to this site by the Lord...

Alas! May God have mercy on me still.

Dean...

The above says it well...

sums it up

and reaches into the depths of souls willing to admit to their motives.

Now l see why l was so uncomfortable in the beginning and so full of doubts (and with good reason) and yet held here by some unseen hand. God wanted me to see. No...He was letting me see it...To release me from the bondage of knowledge that's held me captive so many years...

He's helping me tie up loose ends...
I'm greatful...

Well, that was a very interesting article posted by 'voice', although I have read all that before in bits and pieces, and I am not at all convinced that the Trinity is a pagan, gnostic notion. (This is why I have quoted the above refutation of the anti-trinitarian aspect of the article. Thanks 'Kansasdad'. )

Nevertheless, the article has a lot of truth in it regarding the origins and use of the Kabbalah, and of pagan trinities, and of much pagan tradition within the Roman Catholic Church. However, as 'Kansasdad' pointed out, the doctine of the trinity was held by the apostles themselves, although it probably took them a few decades to be able to articulate it, Paul leading the way.

Still, this is a fair article posted by voice, although I don't at all agree with its final conclusions about the Trinity. But since it is controversial and contrary to the beliefs believed by and agreed upon in this forum, therefore I am moving this topic with link attached to the debates forum where it belongs.

...

I think it singularly unlikely that the overwhelmingly Gentile Church of the 4th century would--or could--have had much recourse to the Kabbalah.......

Voice says:



What do others think?

It certainly lines up with scripture, if you think about it.



Make you think of anyone?


Ah! Now maybe that was why John was awestruck, ........the whore of Babylon is Jerusalem??

and if you want an example of the Very Elect being deceived read Galatians 2, regarding the infiltration of the Church by the circumcision, and the deception of Peter and Barnabas.

It all makes sense to me, but
what do others think?

and that is why Solomon is associated with 666, because he was the first Kaballist?
The founder of freemasonry.

No, the idea is that we are made in His Triune image, body, soul and spirit.

By the way, I found the information in this thread ( I mean the first several pages) very interesting and it forced me to rethink about how one should treat those who hold a view that is not Trinitarian. So, I am grateful for the thread and found it very beneficial because it challenged my thinking and I am the better for it. Although, I am still solidly Trinitarian!

Thanks for the ethusiasim Miki!

But it really doesn't matter whose mouth something comes through. We all must be judged by one another when we speak. And I have made my share of mistakes.



Your brother in the Lord,
Shekel

Can you expand on this thought. I have struggled with just how to respond to this.

Thanks,
K.D.

Let's keep it simple.

Jesus said:

'Let us make man in our image'

That means God and Jesus are made in the same image as one another,
soul, spirit, body

and we likewise.

One thing l've learned to do is respect the word the Lord has given me. Act on it. I may be wrong in part but as l continue in faith and humility...leaning fully on him he will bring to the place he wants me.

What I mean by this statement is that we make whether one has a certain view of the godhead (Trinitarian) out to be a matter of salvation. I do not find that in the bible. There is no clear Trinitarian statement, only allusions to it.

Now I believe that God is a Triune being. But I will not pretend that it is crystal clear in the bible. And history shows that they rammed this teaching, true or false, down everyone’s throat to the point of death in many cases.

Where is patience? Where is love?

How about giving people space to work out these hard things themselves without duress?

The disciples during the Lord's stay with them on earth obviously were largely clueless about who Jesus really was, and yet Jesus was patient with them.

What I mean is that we can wean out a nat and swallow a camel!

There are many out there who are fully devoted to Jesus as Lord and Savior, but whose understanding of the trinity is faulty. And yet we say there Christianity is suspect. And there are many who are not committed to Jesus as Lord, but who parrot the proper confession and we think that they are alright. (When I say "we" I mean the average Christian.)

Do we know why a carnal man often has his theology right?

Because he is happy with the status quo and does not care to think for himself because he is content to be lukewarm in his faith. But the zealous man searches out everything knowing that he does not want to sacrifice all for a lie, and so he makes sure that what he believes is the truth. However, in the process he slips and stumbles at times, and it might take many years to get his thinking in line with the bible. But at least his doctrine is his, taught by God, and not by books that claims to be from the bible.

How many men have been burned at the stake, whose only crime was trying to maintain a good conscience when it came to what they believed?

And how full is heaven with those who did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, but nevertheless know the Triune God?

And how full hell will be with those that understand the doctrine of the Trinity, but do not know God!

Knowing a creed without knowing God is a great deception.

Thank you, I understand your thoughts much better now.

God Bless,
K.D.

Thank you for this excellent example of Kabbalah.

Kabbalah does not worship Angels... Kabbalah is not the study of Magic. I wish people would understand before speaking.

Bananna

Voice...I think you've read way to much of this stuff for your own good. It bends your mind. Like the bending of the Hebrew alphabet...subtly...over a period of time. I've had it happen to me in the day when l dove head first into every kind of teaching. It's not easy to shake off. Much of what you talk about on the forum is tinged with those studies. esoteric gnosticism...This is kind of like seeing through a glass darkly...It's just not quite clear..So many people think they get it theologically but when we get to the other side l think we will all be some what red faced...

Thank you so much to all the contributors to this thread. I'm still trying to understand people's belief of trinity and the insistance that all Christians should believe it.

For those raised in a church-going family, perhaps it was ingrained early. I didn't have that, though. Echoing what one of 'voice's' posts mentioned about research not leading to an absolute Bible-base trinity doctrine, I agree and that's my own story. I don't see it, but I understand that those who do are defining, in their own way, the very nature of God. I don't think the doctrine in and of itself is 'evil' or completely contrived - it's what's done with it that's the 'proof of the pudding'. I see nothing wrong with pursuing knowledge that leads to 'know' God better, to understand His ways in order to be righteous in His eyes. We are actually told to dig for His wisdom like treasure - which it really is! And Y'eshua is a pearl of great value!

Shekel - your post almost made me cry - yes! I love God because of my love for His Son - Y'eshua shows us what His Father is really like, and assures us that we were loved by Him first, always and forever. I feel your obvious love for all who love God and His Christ, our King.

I can really understand the trinity view in light of a few scriptures. But in light of the whole Bible, there are so many things that don't add up, imho, to a complete underscoring of trinity as some have implied. There are scriptures I find impossible to reconcile with that doctrine. I'll start a new thread tomorrow for that - don't want to run off with this one. But I will look forward to discussing this further, with lots of scriptural references. I appreciate everyone help because it's not about being the 'rightest', it's about our wanting to please our God.

I agree with Miki, though I'll be the first to admit that what I 'know' theologically wouldn't fill a thimble, so maybe even all of us will be surprised at what we never had a clue about come that Great Day! (No eye has seen the wonders in store for those who love God!)

Thanks for all the information, 'voice' and 'KansasDad' - for sure there is a balance to be found as the evidence is weighed. I'm not nuts, these are questions that many many others have had w-a-a-a-y before me - nice to know!

I've read very little about Kabballah - just enough to know it's not something I want to know more about, lol. Madonna and many 'stars' find it fascinating which turn into more reasons to stay far away.

With love,
w

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Philippians 2:5

Proverbs 12:17 He who speaks truth tells what is right, But a false witness, deceit.

Proverbs 19:5 A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.

A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.
Proverbs 14:25

But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, You know not what manner of spirit you are of. Luke 9:55












Three is Not Enough

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Trinity.html#$

The historical interlude of the Christian reception of the Zohar in counterreformation Italy aside, it seems to me that a more profound theological question has arisen: If God can, indeed, have personalist dimensions as part of God's own inner being, why should there be only three such dimensions? If God can, indeed, encompass different levels of being, all of which are equal within God's inner-ness, why should there not be as many such levels as necessary? To put it clearly: If God's being is plural, why only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Why not Ineffability, Knowability (Father), Intuition (Mother), Grace (male), Judgment (female), Compassion (Husband), Eternity, Awe, Fecundity (male), and Providence (Bride, Mother) -- all of which are equally integral to the divine whole? To put it in declarative form: The zoharic dialogue with the trinity leads to the statement: Three is not enough! God, in God's fullness, is more than three. God, in Whose Image humanity is created, has more than three dimensions. The awesome complexity of the human personality -- in which Image humanity is created -- suggests that there are many more than three basic dimensions to God's personhood. Indeed, if we, humans, are more than trinitarian, certainly God is more than three.

Jewish readers of the Zohar and its related literature knew all this. The non-philosophers were struck by the very depth of its insight into God, and into humanity, and made the Zohar into a holy book, probably the third holiest in Judaism after the Bible and the Talmud. Jewish rationalists of philosophic or halakhic bent were struck by the almost heretical pluralism within the divine and objected strenuously to teaching, publishing, and translating the Zohar. In fact, the charge of the Zohar being a book that aids and abets trinitarian thinking precisely because the sefirot are integral elements of God Godself, was first made by Jews and it is surely one of the reasons why the Zohar may not be taught to Jews who are too young or uneducated, or to Christians.

Jewish rationalist hesitations notwithstanding, the question remains: If God's being is plural, why only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Why not Ineffability, Knowability, Intuition, Grace, Judgment, Compassion, Eternity, Awe, Fecundity, and Providence -- all of which are equally integral to the divine whole? If we, who are complex beyond three, are created in God's Image, God must be complex beyond three.

I must admit that I am in sympathy with this question and with the theology it g