A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for sending me ISSUES. I find it interesting to read other people's viewpoints. I would like to continue my free subscription as long as you realize that I have no intention of believing in Jesus.

I cannot understand how you claim to be Jews and yet your belief that Jesus is somehow God is just the opposite of what Judaism teaches.

I used to think that you believed that Jesus became so holy that he became a god. Now I understand that Christians teach that God became a man instead of a manbecoming a god, which is nevertheless inaccurate.

No matter how you slice it, the idea of a Trinity" doesn't make sense which you ought to know since the watchword of our faith is the sh'ma: "Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one."

One God or monotheism is the cornerstone of Judaism. That is why it irritates me to think that you are spreading the belief that a Jew can think that somehow God is more than one.

However, I am an open-minded person and I do find some points of interest in ISSUES. I will continue to read your articles as long as you respect my position and don't try to convert me.



We do not ordinarily print letters to the editor, but if enough people express interest in a particular issue, we try to address it. This is a composite letter of several we've received on the subject of the Trinity. - Editor

"Hear, O 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.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."1

A Christian quote? Hardly. The above is taken from the Zohar, an ancient book of Jewish mysticism. The Zohar is somewhat esoteric and most contemporary Jews don't study it, but there are other Jewish books that refer to God's plurality as well.

Why then won't Jews discuss these things? Could it be that to do so might lead a person to consider Y'shua (Jesus) as who and what he claimed to be?2 Rabbis denounce the idea that God would come to us in human flesh as utterly pagan and contrary to what Judaism teaches.

What can we actually say that Judaism teaches? Some people see Judaism as a monolith of religion, with all its teachings resting upon the narrow foundation of the Sh'ma. The Sh'ma certainly is a point of unity that all Jews must affirm. But it does not state, imply or even support many of the interpretations and opinions that are labeled "what Judaism teaches." What Judaism teaches is neither static nor monolithic! Phrases such as "Judaism teaches" or "according to our tradition" are relative. They do not mean "this was, is and always will be the one and only Jewish viewpoint."

Ancient sages struggled with several portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and their implications vis-?-vis God's plurality. Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Sh'ma) is but one such passage. Isaiah 6:8 is another: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" However, the first "proof" passage on God as more than one appears in the first chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures: "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26).3

Rabbis who believed that each word of the Hebrew Scriptures, each letter, is God's revelation had to admit that God spoke to himself and referred to himself in the plural. How can that be, when we know there is only one God?

Much in Genesis 1:26 seems to confirm the idea that there is one God whose oneness is complex. The idea of God's nature being triune (three in one) is mind-boggling. Contemplation of the infinite is always confusing to finite beings. Nevertheless, certain illustrations can help people grapple with the issue of a complex unity. C. S. Lewis, a talented philologist, writer and debater put it this way:

We must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side, and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are of much the same kind.)4

Christians consider themselves monotheists, while Jewish tradition maintains that believers in a triunity of God reject monotheism. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures do imply some kind of plurality in the Divinity. Why else would Jewish sages offer various alternatives to explain those implications, particularly in Genesis 1:26? Evaluate the following methods our forebears used to deal with the text.

1. Change the text or translate it differently

According to Jewish tradition, scholars who worked on the Septuagint5 translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for King Ptolemy were embarrassed by the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. They took the liberty of changing the text from "let us" to "let me."6 Such "liberty" violates the sacredness of Scripture.

Other rabbinical commentators also took liberties with the text. The medieval rabbi Ibn Ezra described those commentators as "absurd" for attempting to translate the active "let us make" (na'a'seh) into a passive "there is made" (niphal). These commentators added that the phrase "in our image, after our likeness" was not said by God, but added as a postscript by Moses.7

2. The text describes God speaking to creation

Medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides accepted the talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi. Rabbi Levi explained that God was speaking to creation.

AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, ETC. With whom did He take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth, like a king who had two advisers without whose knowledge he did nothing whatsoever.8

Levi knew that the plural implied that God was speaking to someone and concluded that the Lord was seeking advice and approval from other beings.

According to Rabbi Nachmanides, the plural reference denotes God speaking to the earth because "man's body would come from the earth and his spirit (soul) from God."9 But the separation of a person into distinct parts owes more to the Greek influence of Aristotle's philosophy than to a careful and accurate reading of the text. The biblical view of humankind indicates that physical, spiritual and psychic aspects are held together in a composite and indivisible unity. Rabbi Abarbanel explained that God was capable of making all the lesser works of creation but needed assistance when it came to human beings. That position denies God's omnipotence.

3. God is addressing the angels around his throne

Rashi explains that God chose to demonstrate humility by consulting his inferiors:

The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they [the rabbis] learned from here: because man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore he took counsel with them.…Although they did not assist Him in forming him [the man] and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel [i.e., to argue in favor of their own views], yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, "I shall make man," we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself.10

According to Rashi, if God had used the singular ("I" and "my") we could not have known he was addressing the angels. True—we would never have guessed that God was addressing angels, since there is no mention of angels in the text. But even with the plural, there is still no mention of angels in the text!

The text does not support the concept of God consulting angels in creation, and Rashi's argument became a source of confusion and disagreement among various rabbis.

4. God was speaking to the souls of the righteous unborn

One Jewish tradition states that the souls of the righteous existed before God created the world (and were present at Mount Sinai for the receiving of the law). Those who believe this tradition link Genesis 1:26 with the phrase "there they dwelt with the king in his work" from 1 Chronicles 4:23.

R. Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi's name: "[W]ith the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before the creation of the world."12

A later commentator rebutted the suggestion that God had partners in creation. He insisted that since no other beings are mentioned in the passage, it is not valid to invent them; in fact, it is best to maintain the solitude of God in creation: "Why was man created last? So that the heretics might not say there was a companion [i.e., Jesus] with Him in the work."13

5. God was keeping his own counsel

Some Jewish scholars believe that the mystery of Genesis 1:26 can be solved grammatically. They suggest a "plural of deliberation," whereby the plural expresses God's pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision.

Rabbi Ammi said: "He took counsel with His own heart. It may be compared to a king who had a palace built by an architect, but when he saw it, it did not please him: with whom is he to be indignant? Surely with the architect! Similarly, 'And it grieved Him at His heart.'" (Genesis 6:6)13

Several passages in Scripture describe a person deliberating by "consulting" some part of himself. In Psalm 42:6, the psalmist addresses his soul: "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why moanest thou within me?" Yet unlike Genesis 1:26, the psalmist uses the words "O my soul," and it is clear that he is deliberating within himself.

6. The royal "we"—plural of majesty

Just as Queen Victoria referred to herself in the plural ("We are not amused"), some say that God, as a majestic being, referred to himself the same way. This is a popular contemporary explanation. It does not raise the question of other beings. It rules out the possibility of God having a plural nature. It seems to be based on good linguistic evidence and analysis.

The Hertz Commentary on Genesis sees this explanation as one of two possibilities and points out that the first person plural is used for royalty in the Book of Ezra.14 "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18) is the sole example of a "plural of majesty" construction in Scripture. It also happens to be one of the few portions of Scripture in Aramaic, a language similar to Hebrew.

It would be poor scholarship to build a case for a grammatical construction in Hebrew on the grounds of this Aramaic text. Even so, the Ezra passage does not necessarily contain a singular royal subject linked to a plural verb-form. If the plural of majesty were a regular Hebrew idiom, why is the singular "me" in the same line?

Rabbinical commentators and linguists recognize that the Hebrew language provides no real basis for such an explanation.15 Ibn Ezra quotes the Gaon,…who suggests that the plural of Genesis 1:26 is the plural of majesty. He refuted that view in favor of God having consulted the angels.16 However, we have already mentioned the difficulties of using angels to solve the mystery.

7. There are different aspects within God's being

Some rabbis acknowledge different aspects within God's nature. There is no consensus as to what these aspects are or how to distinguish one from another. For example, the Zohar describes God as being both male and female.17

8. The Word: wisdom or messenger of God

Another way to explain Genesis 1:26 is to use the Memra, or "Word" of God. The Targum Neofiti (an early Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew text) translates verse 27: "And the Memra of the Lord created the man in his (own) likeness."18

The Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 33:27 translates the Hebrew "underneath are the everlasting arms" as "And by His 'Memra' was the world created."

Like the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Word is often personified and assigned divine attributes, implying divine status.19 Memra is used to describe God Himself, especially when he is revealing himself to human beings. Rabbinical thought also links the Memra to the Messiah. The New Covenant portion of the Bible reveals a similar understanding of the role of the Word in creation.

The Book of Genesis records that God's dynamic act of creation was through his spoken word: "And God said, Let there be light…," etc.20 The New Covenant Gospel of John begins this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.21

Jewish believers in Jesus believe in the Word of creation in Genesis. Therefore he is not only the Messiah, but God in human form.

Why the Rabbis Won't Regard the Plurality of God with Credibility

Some rabbis agreed that the Genesis 1:26 passage gives weight to the case for God's plurality. Their position has not shaped the current position or practice of Jewish religious leaders:

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name: "When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'"22

Some rabbis believe that to take the Scriptures at face value is to err. And yes, some out of concern to protect those who are deemed susceptible to such error, have set aside normative interpretations of the Scriptures. Rashi provided a clear example of this with the "suffering servant" passages of Isaiah 52 and 53.

The contemporary interpretation of Israel as the suffering servant was held by few of the early Jewish authorities. Nearly all believed it pointed to an individual and personal Messiah who would suffer and die for Israel's sin. But Rashi popularized the "national view" in the Middle Ages to refute the obvious messianic interpretation. Neither grammar, context nor logic supports this view, yet it is considered superior to the previously held (Jewish) view.

Similarly, in discussion of the Genesis 1 passage, various cases are presented in order to refute Jewish belief in Y'shua. Rabbis understood that a passage wherein God speaks and acts in the plural is significant evidence of diversity within his nature. They also knew that the New Covenant describes Y'shua as the eternal Word of God, the instrument of creation and the fullness of God in human form. They realized that people might make a connection between the two and designed their interpretations for the sake of countering "the heretics."23

Rabbi Simlai said: "Wherever you find a point supporting the heretics, you find the refutation at its side. They [the heretics] asked him again: 'What is meant by, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN?' 'Read what follows,' replied he: 'not, "And gods created [Hebrew: wa-yibre'u—the plural of the verb] man" is written here, but "And God created [Hebrew: wa-yibra—in the singular]"' (Genesis 1:27). When they [the heretics] went out his disciples said to him: 'Them you have dismissed with a mere makeshift, but how will you answer us?"24

Rabbi Simlai dealt with Jewish believers in Jesus by sidestepping the question. His own disciples recognized that he had done so and expressed the need for a more satisfying reply.

Some of the ancients admitted that certain Scriptures seemed to pose a threat to their understanding of God. They sought ways to direct others away from disturbing conclusions, and, in the case of Rashi, they openly explained that they made choices based on the need to refute Christians.

A Warning and a Challenge

Reverence for the text prevented the ancient rabbis from ignoring or altering the text. Nevertheless, for all their creative solutions to the mystery of this passage, they could not agree on an answer that would satisfy them all.

Today, however, Jewish thinkers are in danger of simply excising from Scripture and from history clues that the rabbis were hard pressed to explain. Such clues point to ideas most Jewish people wish to avoid.

How many contemporary rabbis will say that some of their interpretations and translations are strongly weighted to help people avoid "unacceptable" beliefs? How many would admit that their answers to these complex issues might direct people away from the Bible?

Sherlock Holmes once observed that when you have eliminated all possible explanations, the only remaining solution is the truth, no matter how impossible it seems.

  1. Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134 in the Soncino Press edition).
  2. John 10:30.
  3. Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia, 1917). All quotations from Hebrew Scriptures are from this translation, unless otherwise stated.
  4. Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The Quotable Lewis (Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL, 1989), p. 587.
  5. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures written some two hundred years before Y'shua.
  6. As stated in "The Image of God in Man," D.J.A. Clines, Tyndale Bulletin (1968), p. 62, referring to J. Jervell, "Imago Dei…," Gottingen (1960), p. 75.
  7. Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereshit), H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver, trans. (New York: Menorah Publishing Co., 1988), p. 43.
  8. Genesis Rabbah VIII.3 (Soncino Midrash Rabbah, p. 56).
  9. Referred to in Soncino Chumash (Soncino Press: London, 1956), p. 6.
  10. Pentateuch with the commentary of Rashi, Silberman edition, Jerusalem 5733, pp. 6-7.
  11. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.7, p. 59.
  12. Tosephta on Sanhedrin 8:7.
  13. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.3, p. 57.
  14. J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1940), p. 11.
  15. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (A. E. Cowley, ed., Oxford, 1976) says on the "plural of majesty": "Jewish grammarians call such plurals…plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc.10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, and 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way.…It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew," p. 398.
  16. Ibid., Soncino Chumash, p. 6.
  17. Zohar 22a-b (vol. 1, pp. 91-93 in the Soncino Press edition).
  18. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Martin McNamara, tr. (The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 55.
  19. Compare Colossians 1:5, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 3:14 with Proverbs 30:2-6. By His Memra was the world created corresponds to John 1:10.
  20. Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26.
  21. John 1:1-4.
  22. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.8, p. 59.
  23. Hebrew minim literally "sectarians" but generally assumed to be a reference to Jewish Christians. See R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1903), p. 361ff.
  24. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.9, p. 60.

Glossary of Names

Ibn Ezra
12th c. Spanish poet and biblical scholar.
David Kimchi
12th-13th c. Hebrew grammarian and Bible commentator.
Moses ben Maimon, 12th c. Spanish-born philosopher and codifier of Jewish law.
R. Joshua b. Levi
a 3rd c. amora.* Known as a peacemaker, he refused to attack Christian teaching.
Moses ben Nachman, 13th c. Spanish biblical commentator and leader of Spanish Jewry in his day.
15th-16th c. Spanish biblical commentator and philosopher.
Rabbi Solomon b. Yitzchak, an 11th. c. French biblical and Talmudic scholar; his commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures remains standard to tis day.
Joshua of Siknin
a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel.
Ammi bar Nathan. A 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, closely associated with R. Assi.
Jonathan b. Eleazer, a 3rd. c. amora* born in Babylonia but who lived in Eretz Israel.
a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, the first to reduce 613 commandments to one (Habakkuk 2:4).

Add comment

  • If your comment does not pertain to this specific article/blog please click here to send us a message. Comments not related to this article will not be posted.
  • We reserve the right to delete vulgar, racist, or hateful content, as well as inappropriate and off-topic posts.
  • Comments including links will not be published.
  • Multiple comments posted in a row will not be accepted.
  • Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.




Very impressed with your answer. Thank you for your research.


I was a little concerned with the use of the Zohar since I understand Jewish mysticism is considered "another gospel". And while you show the different opinions of Jewish rabbis, I would like to know basically what is the original text and what would it mean in English considering the cultural backdrop. If God being ONE is God, Son and Holy Ghost, then is it due to the Name of God itself or the context of these scriptures or both? Thank you.

Michael Kenna

In section "1. Change the text or translate it differently" you say that the scholars change the text in the Septuagint. I looked at that translation and did not see the use of the singular noun. Would you please clarify what you were trying to say. Did they attempt to change but didn't? Did they change it but then chnges it back? Thanks

Alvin Krieger

I am from the Jewish faith. In 1972 i received Jesus into my heart. In 1988 i received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In that same year the spirit lead me to do some research and bible study into the belief the Christians hold dearly; The trinity doctrine. If your interested in what i found on this subject write to me.


[email protected] Krieger...I am interested..


I too am interested n the beliefs of the early Christians, and also the Jewish beliefs that formed them. Please send me the information you found on this subject! Thank you so much!

Sarah Noll

Remember, "God is Spirit!" He can hover over the waters, speak, create, overshadow a virgin, beget a son, speak from Heaven while alighting upon Jesus in the form of dove, and being in Him all at once. He can pour out His Spirit on all flesh, indwell them, speak through them, walk alongside them, go forth into all the earth and still be One God! Confess all that Scripture says; Say the same thing as God. Don't add or subtract from it. If you come upon a part you are uncomfortable with ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you, to teach you, and to help you understand, but don't alter Scripture, or try to find a way around it. Embrace it as part that you have not seen yet but that one day you will. Oh the joy! Shalom!

no more trinity

I like that. I believe that. I just had a revelation that sums up the misunderstanding. Christians are of the mistaken impression that they get to think because somehow their intelligence is on the same level as God, and this is a democracy. Whereas jews say "God said it...the end". The moment Jesus said let them be one as we are one in his prayers, that was the end. He never mentioned trinity. Jews obviously saw the Spirit of God, and the Glory of God in the old testament, but that wasn't enough to make them try to contradict an obvious order. Because of His mercy I don't think its a dealbreaker, but revelation says the seven spirits of God...how do you rationalize that. By saying, "Just because He said so".

Dr Howard Davis

Greek;" Baptizing them in the NAME [nomos sing.] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Jesus Matthew 28:
cf. l Thess.5:23: our best 'human' illustration of the trinity as man was made in the" image and likeness" of God.pl..

Body=Soul = MAN
Spirit= MAN Not three men but 'one' man. Three in 'one being .'
Spirit =MAN each is not the other!

Allen Woodward

Mt 28.19 is a case of interpolation, there is no "inspired" Father, Son, Holy Spirit verse in the entire Bible. Wonder why?

Fish Mooney

@Allen, that's simply excising a verse that doesn't agree with you. And circular reasoning. Matthew 28:19 must be interpolated, since there is no "Father, Son, Holy Spirit verse" in the Bible. Yet it *is* in the Bible, so there *is* a Father, Son, Holy Spirit verse. But since there really isn't such a verse, it must be interpolated. Not a good way to handle the textual evidence!

Teshome Woreti

Quoting Alvin Krieger:
I am from the Jewish faith. In 1972 i received Jesus into my heart. In 1988 i received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In that same year the spirit lead me to do some research and bible study into the belief the Christians hold dearly; The trinity doctrine. If ! your interested in what i found on this subject write to me.

I am a christian. Please let me know what you found on the the doctrine of the trinity. God bless!!!



Chris Malan

@Anitchka You are right. The trinity is so much hocus-pocus. It's nowhere in the Bible. There is much in the Bible which is contrary to the trinity position. In John 17:3 Jesus said, when speaking to his Father:
"And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The same Jesus did not claim to be God. In John 20:17 Jesus also said: “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” You also know that 1x + 1x + 1x = 3x, not 1x. The trinity is a crack dream. I have always been a Christian, and so have my ancestors.

james hockman

You are under a strange assumption. Think of the Trinity, or God head if you will, as a cube for instance. The cube itself is one 3 dimensional plane yet it has multiple faces to form the one object. That is how the Trinity works. It is God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit all one being but serving different purposes. And thinking in the logic that God is omnipresent then he can do that. And as for the guy a few messages up the Bible does in fact have a father, son, holy spirit verse. When the apostles were told to go and baptized the name of the father the son and the holy spirit. And yes jesus did claim to be God that's why he was crucified when he said to the Pharisees from the beginning before there was abraham I AM. Blasphemy they yelled. All through his ministry he claimed to be the son which would have made him equal with God and hence being 2 immortal beings for all eternity without the Trinity it makes our belief polytheistic instead of monotheistic.

Chris Malan

A cube is one thing. Not one of its faces is a cube, but only part of the cube. Not an apt analogy.


In light of the Bible being the word of GOD, whether of the Jewish or the Christian faith, we humans are the created not the creator. If we serve a GOD we can understand, then He ( GOD ) is in a human box and needs to be released into the MYSTERY of who He is,Omnipresent Omniscient.GOD has no problem being anything He wants to be whether three personalities, the voice of a donkey, the forth man in a furnace, or we, us, our,or them. We must let GOD be who He is in us in spite of our understanding of Him!!!


Amen Brother Doug. With GOD all things are possible he does not need our approval or understanding to exhibit his will.

Chris Malan

Sheldon, that does not mean God endorses pure nonsense, like 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. You are with Athanasius on this: "You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent enquiries about the holy Trinity, and only believe that it exists?" That's the best the trinitarians can come up with in the past 1500 years. Not good enough for any thinking man.


The Bible says Hear O Isreal the Lord Our God is One Lord. God dones not want us to give our praise to another. I am a Christian and I do no believe in the trinity but I believe in the Oneness of God. God was manifest in the flesh. God is Jesus there is no doubt. My Church teaches alot of the smae teachings that the Jewish people teach and we teach Hear O Istreal the Lord Our God is One Lord. Hesham is One. He is the Creator and God of all living things. He is our Saviour and our Lord. I believe the Shema and repeat it every day as God has instructed. I believe Hesham to us to repeat the Shema everyday because He knew that the trinity would be taught and believed by so many people. God wanted us to know that Hesham is one Lord. He is the God of all, He is Jesus Christ and he is the Holy Ghost. I love the Shema and will always hold true to what Hesham has told us to do. He is the only Lord and God of all.

Dr Howard Davis

Deut. 6:4 The Hebrew word "ONE" is echad. I have researched every place where it used in the OT and it can mean in places its root meaning -a unity-unified. The "people stood up as ONE" or echad. Compound unity.

We are hung out on the word ONE. When we read that word since childhood it meant the number one or singular 1.ECHAD can mean unity. It is used "sewed together"(echad) "Hold two sticks together in your hand to become one." Ez.37:17 "ONE "stick echad. 'Two are as one.'
We have to examine this in light of scripture. We are the ones created in his image and likeness not the other away around.


Properties of God:
1- Properties of acts and capacity of God:Most High, Guide, Holy, Appointed, Mighty..etc..2- Self properties of God:
God Is : Exists, Sensible, Alive, Exists = Father: Because father of the idea is the source of an idea, father of the profession is the source of a profession and God is called Father because he is the existing and the source of the existence of the universe, Sensible = Son: In oriental languages ​​say the son of the desert, the son of Egypt, the son of the Nile, the son of 6 years, these descriptions do not mean sexual birth, but it means that the expression and equality, and Christ is the Word of God (Logos) mind and intellect, Alive = Holy Spirit: Spirit is life because God is live
God is one and has a one self, this self is Exists the same self is Sensible Mind, and the same self is a Spirit, Look at Genesis 1: 1 - 3: We find here the existence of God, Spirit of God, Mind of God (And God said), however there is one God.


trinity = idolatry.
I came across Numbers 23:19.

the light in day 1 is not the sun, the moon, the stars. It is the radiant refecting on Elohim's garment. The soul is the garment of the spirit. The body is the garment of the soul. The spirit is always refered as wind, but the soul is a form of light and the soul of man was created on day 1.
Elohim fashioned and filled the earth with living things.

When Elohim bara (fatten) filled the A & T (Aleph and Tov), the heaven and the earth. [skip] Elohims wind sweep over the waters
2nd sentence is still corelated to the first.
Elohim said, let there be light. (Jewish-Aramaic) light = manifestation

Elohim sweep and filled the earth with water and filled the light through His spirit (wind)

Judeo Aramaic:
In the beginning was the manif, the manif. was with Alah/Aloh and the manif. was of Alah/Aloh Manifestation represents Elohim.

Dr Howard Davis

I know Hebrew:
Gen.1:1 literally
"In the origin El ohim (pl.) created (bara sing.) pl. the heavens(uplifted waters) and the earth." LPL. 3 or more unlike English which is 2 or more. Yim pl. ending. El 'strong Ones.'
Then we have God making man in his image and likeness (l Thess.5:23)as He was saying "Let US make man in OUR image." Gen.1:26-7; 3:22;11:7; Isa.6:8 1-8 note the seraphim cry out three times holy- holy -holy... (with John 12: 41 John says 'Isaiah (in Isa.6) saw Jesus in his glory! ' FYI "three men" or persons-all speak as one; eat as one; walk as one; are addressed as one. Gen.18-19 Yahweh from heaven rains fire from the earth! Gen.19:24 Note carefully how Lot speaks to them and how they answer him. Angels" is King James bible terminology.

Finally Jesus the Son of God: "Baptizing them in the name [nomos-sing.] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matt.28:

Chris Malan

"In the beginning was the manif, the manif. was with Alah/Aloh and the manif. was of Alah/Aloh " That makes complete sense. The genitive in the case of the last Alah/Aloh says Jesus belonged to Alah/Aloh. It doesn't say Alah/Aloh sent Jesus, but that is elsewhere in the Bible. That, even simple soul like I, can understand.


Mr. John during a your talk that the spirit of God is a force or influence, I imagine that you are from the Jehovah's Witnesses, I will give you some evidences of the identity of the spirit of God in the Old and New Testaments, God created Adam’s spirit, Is this spirit a force or effect in Adam? Of course not. It is life to Adam, if the spirit of Adam is not power so how the Spirit of God is power, Psalm 139: 7 we find here that the spirit of God is unlimited in place or time, but power or influence is limited, it’s appear in place and a particular time, the spirit of God here is the essence or nature of God: that God, Psalm 104: 30 and Job 33: 4 Spirit of God the Creator, so he is God, Is God creates the spirit..then this spirit creates Instead of God?!!!, this is impossible so the Spirit of God is God.


Reply to John 2: Isaiah 40: 13, we find that the Spirit of the Lord's greatest mentor and this is proof that it is not power, that if the spirit is a force.. so God must guide this spirit, in Zacarias 4: 6 that the spirit of the Lord is not the strength nor the ability, in the New Testament in Acts 5: 3 - 4 The Holy Spirit is God and Jesus said in John 4:24 God is spirit, if you Jehovah's Witnesses: who is Christ for you, God non God, so you are a heathen worship more than one god while trinity means one God in 3 Properties of Self: existence, knowledge and life as I said earlier.


to john 3 you said that the light in the first day is not the sun or moon and that's right, do you mean the spirit is light as you said "the soul is a form of light", but you know that God said Let there be light but the spirit of God was existed before look at Genesis 1: 2 - 3

thank you.... God bless you


It's funny that you refer to the Zohar for your confirmantion that jesus is part of a G-dhead...i.e that jesus is G-d.You don't even recognize the authoritiy of the Rabbis or any of their writings.Anyway,the intention of your article is to prove that jesus IS G-d.The question is this : IF jesus is G-d (of one substance with G-d) then how could he die?G-d,the Eternal One, CANNOT die...it is IMPOSSIBLE.If you purport that G-d "became flesh" in the form of jesus then jesus,when he died,was flesh and bone,just like you and me,and not worthy of worship...unless you believe that worshiping a human being is OK.


Quoting Marco:
It's funny that you refer to the Zohar for your confirmantion that jesus is part of a G-dhead...i.e that jesus is G-d.You don't even recognize the authoritiy of the Rabbis or any of their writings.Anyway,the intention of your article is to prove that jesus IS G-d.The question is this : IF jesus is G-d (of one substance with G-d) then how could he die?G-d,the Eternal One, CANNOT die...it is IMPOSSIBLE.If you purport that G-d "became flesh" in the form of jesus then jesus,when he died,was flesh and bone,just like you and me,and not worthy of worship...unless you believe that worshiping a human being is OK.

I don't know how it works with Messianic Judaism, but in Catholicism we sustain that as G-d incarnated he BECAME man... than is, he retained both natures, a physical nature (whichs dies) and His own G-d nature which lives (thus the Ressurrection...)


The Zohar is not authentic or inspired by God and is possibly written in Christian era so I agree that Zohar should not be quoted but for entirely different reasons.

However, Jesus raised Himself from the grave as such His God nature did not and, you are right, could not die. However Jesus died in the flesh. Jesus was 100% man yet 100% God. Strange but true evidently.

Mathematical Person


I am a 28 year old Christian who came to faith in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit working in my heart AND REASON. I will only reference OLD testament Scripture proofs (considering the audience intended). PLEASE have the integrity to read the quoted Scriptures for yourself & consider them impartially (logic apart from prejudices, good and bad!). I am quoting the Scriptures in shorthand (ch. & vs.) b/c it is your responsibility to look into it.

Now back to REASON. God made our brains and we are to use them in our worship of him (Deut.10:12, "soul" includes "mind", if you know your Strong's Concordance: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nephesh.html); it's quite important. Secondly, God refers to himself multiple times in the plural (Gen.1:26, Gen.11:7, who is he conversing with in Gen.18:17?, Is.6:8, Ps.110:1, etc.)

If a) God's word is infallible (it cannot err), b) the Hebrew Old Testament is God's Word,


Genesis 1:26 is God conversing with Jesus. But you cut the quote too short. Keep reading to Genesis 1:27- "Then HE made man in HIS image"

Why did US become HIM AND HE. Because God isn't plural.

If a teacher says "Let us see what's inside the box" does this mean that the whole class is at one with the teacher and are one teacher?

Mathematical Person

PART 2 of 2

c) God commands us to worship him with our minds, & d) He referes to himself in the plural (which is not a mistake b/c this is God's Word we're talking about), then the conclusion is: you must explain how ONE God can refer to himself (correctly) as more than one.

There are several ways to resolve this:
1. Even in a LITERALLY perfect world, with ALL PERFECT people (all 1 of them, LOL), people still need people (Gen.2:18). Hence community is important, and in this (as in everything) God excels and we are merely a copy (God exists in community). Compare this to the idea that 2 people are 1 in marriage (Gen.2:24).
2. Think about the Sun. It's rays emanate from it, made of exactly the same stuff, yet are distinct (consider 2, one each emanating from polar opposite sides of the Sun).
3. Triple point of water (gas, liquid, solid ALL AT ONCE!)
4. A person able to percieve 2 dimensions could never see a cube (6 squares making 1 shape!).


Another way to look at this and get a glimpse of the Trinity (it IS after all a Mystery)... is looking at a woman, who is one person but can be a mom, a daughter and a grand-daugher or grand-mother all the same time... she is still one, and in each "role" she is completely herself...

Patrick OFlaherty

The only thing I feel wrong with your name is that it could be construed as an insult to the Jewish people. Just as in talking to a friend when we end the conversation with “Talk to you later.”, saying “Talk with you later” is much better semantics as the first connotation can be construed as being talked down to rather than being on the level. “Jews for Jesus” could be interpreted as all inclusive. A 180 degree name change to “Jesus for Jews” would be a clearer message and would reflect His love for His people. The parable of the prodigal son, where he represents the Gentiles and his elder brother represents the Jews, is His affirmed feelings for His people. What did the father say to the elder son? “You are with me always; everything I have is yours (meaning his half of the inheritance is all that remains).” In my view, to call one’s self a Christian is to recognize that the Jews are still God’s chosen people.

james hockman

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Matt Sieger

Dear Mr. O'Flaherty,
I appreciate your suggestion about our name and your sensitivity to the feelings of our Jewish people. You might be interested to know that in the earliest days of our ministry, it was the people on the street and in the media who kept saying, "There go those 'Jews for Jesus,'" and after a while, we adopted the name they were already calling us. I see your point about Jesus for Jews expressing God's love for His chosen people. Over the years, we have from time to time used the phrase Jesus for Jews in our evangelistic literature and outreaches. As to inclusiveness, it is not uncommon to hear of groups with names like Democrats for Life (pro-life group). But I think that most people understand that this is a minority among the Democratic party. Similarly, I think most people also understand that Jews for Jesus is a minority among the greater Jewish population.
Matt Sieger
editor, ISSUES
Jews for Jesus


Matt. I can't find the original comment what you have responded to so I will respond here.

John 8:58
"here the words ego eimi translated as "I AM" are not a connection to Exodus 3. The Greek here is in the past progressive and should be translated "I have been of I existed." Due to Trinitarian bias it is a false connection to Exodus 3:14. Which is also mistranslated as Exodus 3:14 should be "I shall prove" or "I will become". Not I AM.

John 1:1. Jesus can't be the God of whom he is with. Jesus is not in the verse. Look up the Greek of the verse. You will notice a distinction between ton theos and ho theos. The correct understanding of this verse is "the word was divine" or "a god".

John 10:33
So you're taking a Pharisees accusation as proof of a doctrine? Nope

1 Cor 8:6
Only the father is God.

John 17:3
"YOU the only true God". Not "US the only true God".

norman bissell

I am a christian and I believe absolutely in the oneness of God.
Not all christians believe in a trinity.
God can and does manifest himself in various ways and some interpret this as a trinity. Gods greatest manifestation is
joining the human race in the person of Jesus to redeem us from sin-check isaiah9;6-prophecy that a son would also be the Mighty God and Everlasting Father.


I came to the conclusion sometime ago that God has placed in nature a perfect example of how it works with the "Trinity ". The holy spirit showed me Ice, Water and steam. all 3 are seperate but all belong to the same single H2O all 3 can exist Quoting norman bissell:
I am a christian and I believe absolutely in the oneness of God.
Not all christians believe in a trinity.
God can and does manifest himself in various ways and some interpret this as a trinity. Gods greatest manifestation is
joining the human race in the person of Jesus to redeem us from sin-check isaiah9;6-prophecy that a son would also be the Mighty God and Everlasting Father.

seperatly but also together....makes sense to me and seems to me to agree with all sides of the arguement


Actuall this points to modalism... Not trinitarian view because evaporited, liquid and solid water are still water only in different stages. Modalism is God is the Father in the OT, then Jesus in the New Testament and the Holy Spirit after the ascension. God in different stages so...that's not a valid arguement.


I agree with this. Many don't know the difference between modalism and the Trinity.


The Trinity is a result of the great falling away if the church that was foretold. The Trinity is a pagan concept. The holidays and the beliefs. Jesus is not God.

1 Cor 8:6
"But to use there is ONE GOD THE FATHER....And one LORD JESUS CHRST" Notice it does not days "Father son Holy Spirit".

2 Tim 2:5
"There is one God and one mediator between God and man"
Jesus mediate for God. If they were both got it would say that he mediates between the father and man.

John 17:3
"This means everlasting life Their knowing YOU the only true God"
Jesus said that only the father was the true God. Many will twist this and say that this is only while in the flesh. Jesus taught eternal truths. Not flesh limited ones.

John 20:17
"I am ascending to my God and to your God"

Jesus is called "Son OF God" and not God the Son. The Trinity is a pagan concept from the 4th century.

Matt Sieger

Jesus claimed to be God:

John 8:58-59: "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' So they picked up stones to throw at him . . ."

John 10:33: "The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.'"

Jesus is God:

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . "


Found it :)

The scripture I gave explicitly show that only the Father is God. Regarding the I Am statements in English are mistranslation. For example the "I Am" statement in John 8:58 are connected to Exodus 3:14. However, in Exodus 3:14 the phrase translates "I am that I am" is severely mistranslated. It's "I will become" or "I will prove to be". Not I AM. Also, in John 8:58 the words in Greek "ego eimi" means I Am. However in this context and grammar it is in the past progressive which should be "I have been" not I AM. Trinitarians scholars will agree.

Also, you can't take an attack from the Pharisees and use their attacks to establish doctrine.

These are exact scriptures that show Jesus is not God. 1 Cor 8;6, 2 Tim 2:5, John 17:3

It doesn't get clearer than that. You need to read a Bible that isn't Trinitarian biased. KJV is extremely biased toward Trinity. Case in point they added "these three are one" in 1 John 5:7


Hey Chris! Jesus is the Father manifest in the flesh. Isaiah 9:6 It says the child given is the Everlasting Father. When asked by Phillip for Him to show them the Father, He straight out asked, "Have I been with you so long and you still don't know me?" This wasn't a mere representative of God or messenger of God. It was God himself. He humbled Himself for our sake. Hebrews 2:17 and Phillipians 2.

When Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Acts 2:38 shows us that this NAME is Jesus.
John 1:1 ...the word was God. Is God's logos a distinct person? No. In a similar way my verbal words are expression of my thoughts, Jesus was God's self expression manifested, made personal or bodily as the Son. "For in Him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9


Now the question many trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, and Jehovah's Wiitnesses all ask is "So it the Father the Son?"
This can be answered with the following question which I will then explain. "In relation to who?"


The quick answer is the way Jesus is God because he is the Father in the Son. Or the God (Who is the Father) as the Son.
He is creator of all and in terms of redemption, has given us the spirit of adoption by which we can cry out Abba Father.
When Jehovah God came into this world as a man. He entered a different form of existence as a genuine man. Did God Himself change forms? No. He is the same forever. He simply expressed himself in a different manner. As a man. As Jesus, His divine identity He chose to keep down low, because blood was necessary for the ultimate sacrifice, so again He became genuine man. (Again) Hebrews 2:17. As a man he had to eat, sleep and even pray. This person is deity but entered humanity. It is this way that He is known as the Son.


Dear Chris,
Regarding the three verses you cited,
1 Cor 8:1-6- If you read the context, Paul is talking about Idolators and how in contrast to the idolators who have he many " Gods" and "lords", we Christians have only one God and one Lord.Since the Gods and lords of the idolators were objects of worship, he is clearly defining God the Father and the Lord Jesus as objects of worship for christians.
John 17:3- i would like to draw your attention to 1John5:20 which exegetes john 17:3 beautifully -We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus the Messiah, who is the true God and eternal life.Johns emphasis is that the only way to eternal life and the true God is through Jesus who is himself the true God.


1 Cor 8:6 context does NOT change the meaning. It says there is one God the father. Why would this change from Father Son holly spirit? It doesn't.

Look again at 1 John 5:20. The subject of the passage is speaking about the faith. I quote.

But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us insight so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true. And we are in union with the ONE who is true, by means of HIS Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

This passage is showing that Jesus came to show the father. This is the true God. Not Jesus but the father.


God Himself came to this earth in the person of Jesus to do what human beings are incapable of doing for ourselves, and He sent His very Spirit to teach, guide, convict, comfort and empower all who repent and receive His forgiveness through Jesus. These are clear teachings of Scripture whatever theological terms you may or may not choose to attach. It doesn't mean we believe in more than one God. It does mean that God is complicated beyond what any finite creature can know. I don't believe God expects us to fully comprehend much less explain His infinite and complex nature. I'm here to state my point, not to argue with those who disagree, so pls don't be offended if I don't respond to comments on this post. IMO, those who want to write a book or teach a course probably need a publisher or students to enroll in their class, rather than a website that invites space limited comments :-)


Jesus said "This means everlasting life their knowing YOU the only true God" John 17:3

Jesus never claimed to be God. This teaching came into play 300 years after Jesus died. This is right on par with what the bible calls the apostasy. That false teachings will enter into the church.


The Lord spoke to me and said, "Get a piece of notebook paper." Next, He said, “You will need a pair of scissors too.” After I got both items, He said, “Cut the paper where the red line runs next to the three holes.” I did and He asked, “What does the cut off piece look like?” I said, “It looks like the number one, and it has three holes in it.” He said, “This is how the Church sees me.” God pointed out that the top hole represented God the Father, the middle hole represented God the Son, and the bottom hole represented God the Holy Spirit. Next, He said, “Fold the cut off piece of paper so that the three holes are aligned on top of each other making only one hole.” I did as He said. He then said, “This is how I want the Church to see me – as one God.” Finally, He said, “Open the piece of folded paper back to its original form.” As I opened it, He said, “This is how I want the Church to see me as I have revealed myself: one God who has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Mike Reddy

The writers of the New Testament Paul et al make reference to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Everywhere writers refer to Jesus as the Son of God and not God. Jesus himself refers to himself as the Son of Man and refers to God as "My Father in Heaven or your "Father in Heaven. After he rose from the dead he sent message to his disciples and said: "My father and Your Father, My God and your God". The Trinity was not taught by the early church. The Trinity was invented in the fourth century by the gentile Roman Church to counter Arian beliefs that Jesus was not God. It must be remembered that at that stage the Roman church was semi-Christian. Constantine forced Christianity onto Roman Citizens who accepted the religion without repentance and fused the faith with two existing Roman pagan religions. The Trinity is a pagan concept of one deity with three faces. Jesus is the Son of God and not the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is deity by virtue of being the Son of God.


Trinity is wrong. This comes from the Athanasian creed itself. Read it carefully. Then read Romans 10. "Say not in your heart..." interesting Paul was refering to Deut 30. The knowledgable will understand. If you don't carefully all, including the commands Moses gave. Interesting is Peters warning to the unlearned twisting Paul's words for disobedience. So if the prophets say that the heaven cannot be measured by man, than the very act of man demanding to put the creator himself in a box is futile and arrogant as well. We cannot measure the creation. The creator is far more complex. We see in part. His law is not complex - that was given through Moses as Deut 30 says. This is what Paul referred to in Romans 10. What I know is the creed is disobedience to Romans 10, even without the law. Paul also wrote how Yeshua would also be subject to the creator after he has put all enemies under his feet "So G-d would be all in all". Yeshua said his father was greater. That is how it is.

Dr Howard Davis

Man according to (l Thess.5:23) has a "whole" body; soul; and spirit.
Gen.1:26-7 says that God (pl.) made man in his' image and likeness.' He said let "US" make man in "OUR"... "image and likeness"- not angels which are spirit and intellect. (Heb.1-2; Gen.5:1) Since when does the Creators (pl Heb. Ecclesiastes 12:1) need to 'consult' with anyone as He says in Isaiah, and Job?
So: MAN is 'one' being, but three 'entities':

Body (soma gk.) is not soul and spirit
Soul (psyche) is not spirit and body body=soul=spirit=MAN one being three in one
Spirit (pneuma) is not soul and body

As to soul and spirit being 'separate' see Heb.4:12 This is our best human illustration of a trinity since it is said man is in the image and likeness of God.

Three but 'one.' A compound unity.

Jim Sochacki

So much error and silly thinking. Jesus said, I and the Father one. He said, Father, as you and I are one so I want them to be one with us. The Holy Spirit throughout the Bible is the power of Yahweh, not Yahweh. Everything comes from Yahweh. That makes everything a part of Yahweh, but not Yahweh. Yeshua was the Son of Yahweh, the first born of all creation. There is not trinity. There is no hidden mystery. There is Yahweh, His Son, Yeshua on His Right and the Saints of the Most High (the Bride of Christ) on Yeshua's Right. We have Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah. We have Proverbs 8. We have Daniel 7. We have Peter's letters, John's writings, Paul's writings and they all verify this. We even have Stephen's testimony before he dies. Jahweh has an AWESOME plan through Yeshua, His Son and His Son's Bride. It is clearly in nature and throughout the Judaism literature. Taking a verse here and a verse there allows one to come up with all kinds of crazy ideas.


The part about angels is inconclusive - the text neither mentions angels nor does it not mention them, so it's a non-argument. Also, the Memra part could also be expanded to the idea that God created the world with Wisdom (Sophia/Hokhmah) at his side.
Either way, arguing for or against the Trinity from scripture is merely proof-texting. Scripture never explicitly teaches the trinity, nor does it deny it. It's a non-issue. The Trinity was doesn't developed until Gregory of Nyssa developed it in the 3rd century as way to combine Jewish monotheism with pagan polytheism (Orations 3).
Second Temple Judaism had an idea of a binity - or two gods in one, but it was Christians who created the trinity.
This article clearly has a bias to prove and does not honestly weigh the evidence. It merely rejects the rabbinic view out of hand. Instead of wrestling with the text alongside your co-Jews, you parrot the Christian answer of Trinity.


In creating Almighty God does not ask 'advice' nor does He need to 'inform' anyone including angels ! Isa.40:13-14 Isaiah is saying by the Holy Spirit that the Yahweh needs no one to counsel with in creation or in any other matters related to His creation.
'Then God said," Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...' This statement (from the Hebrew) comes FROM God and arises from His OWN Divine mind "Let Us make[form]." We know this because it says, "So God created [bara] man in His "OWN" image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." All of the narrative directly from Elohim EXCLUDES angels or anything or anyone else! This indicates in the creation account Elohim (pl.) is a uniplural Being. But, He thinks, creates and speaks as One as shown here to the unbiased mind. Man is three: body, soul and spirit yet, he is 'one.' Man was created in the very 'image and likeness' of Elohim!


The Septuagint says "Let US make man in Our image" so the part about the Jewish Scribes hired by Ptolemy being so embarrassed that they changed it to "Let me" is completely wrong. The Septuagint is used by Orthodox Christians and they're very big on the Trinity. Their entire theology is based on the Trinity. In fact you all should know that since the co-founder of Jews for Jesus ended up converting and becoming an Orthodox priest. A.J. Bernstein is his name. He is now called Father Bernstein. Haha

Rich Robinson

Arnie Bernstein was one of the people doing volunteer work with Jews for Jesus and spending time with us, but he was not the co-founder.


I have held the same confusion as to the Trinity as well for many years I didn't understand how it wasn't considered polytheism. So over time I prayed about it, thought about it, and meditated on it and finally the answer came. God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit are all the same one true God. And as God is omnipresent, the three that we perceive as separate to the human mind are the same God manifest in three forms for three purposes to place ease of mind to our uncomprehending consciousness.

Allen Woodward

"Gen 1.26 - Why does the Bible use the plural "us" when God refers to Himself? Others have claimed that the plural pronoun refers to the Trinity. ... However, students of Hebrew grammar point out that the plural pronoun "us" is simply required by the plural Hebrew noun elohim which is translated "God" ("Then God[elohim, plural] said, 'Let Us [plural] make man in Our [plural] image' "). Consequently, they claim that this statement should not be used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. " When Critics Ask byNorman Geisler and Thomas Howe p. 30-31.
Issues Email Signup
Get Issues Magazine in your inbox. Sign up below!

Are you Jewish?

Do you believe in Jesus?

Issues Editions