NEW: OT291 The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead

There is no such thing as a "Jewish Trinity" however much the Christian Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament when read through the lens of the cross. To combine "Jewish" and "Trinity" into a single term is (a) to refer to an non-existent concept (b) reflects a total lack of understanding of Judaism (c) is insulting to our Jewish friends (d) is an insult to Christian logic/scholarship ...

You need to be careful not to believe that your particular understanding of the term "Jewish" is universal and that others MUST subscribe to it (which you require by leaving no room for disagreement).

It can be convincingly argued that New Testament writers, including Paul, saw themselves as "Jews" within Judaism preaching the Jewish Messiah and as such the Jewish Trinity. They were not preaching a new religion but intended to show what true/real Judaism is. For them, the "Jewish Trinity" was the culmination of the progress of revelation about God's nature. Maybe the concept of "Jewish Trinity" is non-existent in the framework in which you operate (this is your right after all). However, to claim that disagreeing with your view "reflects a total lack of understanding of Judaism" (whose Judaism?) and  "is an insult to Christian logic/scholarship" is rather narrow minded (for lack of a better word) unless you see yourself as determining what Judaism and Christian logic/scholarship are.

Since the time of Jesus, people have disagreed with the Jewish Christian church's understanding of what real /true Judaism is. However, The New Testament presents a clear case that Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah also believed in a "Jewish Trinity" and did not see themselves outside Judaism or against it but as showing its true meaning.

My point is not to start a theological debate but just to point that for a number of Jews and Gentiles, historically, "Jewish Trinity" is not a "non-existent concept" championed by the ignorant.

Could this concept be offensive to some (and even many) Jews? Definitely (and I can see why because of many historical developments) and in the same way many of the claims of the New Testament are. However, let us not confuse being PC with history, logic, or scholarship.

You had a point about the potential offensive nature of the title but your appeal to proper understanding of the (not carefully defined) Judaism (some second temple scholars find “Judaisms” to be more appropriate) and reference to logic and scholarship show a clear overreach.

By trying not to offend one group, you might have insulted another.

Should title of books or courses (reflecting particular doctrines and geared toward a particular group) now be changed in order not to offend another group? I could give a list of titles, concepts, and even posts that I find offensive... but should we go down that road?

This is something Logos will have to address at some point but careful for what you wish for.

I think Alan's point is valid ... the Mormons encapsulate the NT so presumably one could say 'the Mormon New Testament'. And their early leaders were Christians which would make that OK.  I'm sure the concept shouldn't offend the Christians?

Actually early Christianity disenfranchised the jews from the OT in-toto. No reason they should be offended by their history re-written.

But I suspect the good Doctor knew exactly what the game was.  But Mr Ehrman did demonstrate the jews indeed recognized a trinity ... just not one including an itenerant preacher from Galilee.

MJ,

I would argue that there was never a time when the concept of the Trinity within Judaism as Jesus understood it (including Jesus being God) was not offensive to many Jews including the Jewish leadership; it was so offensive in the early first century that Jewish rulers wanted to kill Jesus (John 5:18; 10:33, which form an inclusio for the whole section in the Gospel of John describing the growing opposition to Jesus and his doctrines and the beginning of the efforts to eliminate him, see also 19:7). As such, the Gospel and attendant doctrines have always been offensive (the blasphemous kind of “offensive”) to some groups especially within Judaism.

Your response suggests that you would not dispute that there are different (legitimate) ways to look at the question of Trinity and Judaism from Jewish Christians in the first century to Messianic Jews today. I do not dispute the fact this characterization has the potential (to put it mildly) to be offensive. My point is that in some expressions of Judaism, whether ancient or modern, the Trinity is a Jewish doctrine (at least according to their adherents). This is a case that can be made logically and with scholarly rigor.

If “Jewish Trinity” is a legitimate articulation of belief within Judaism in history, should such expressions be censured because of their offensive potential (offensive nature not to be confuse with anti-Semitic statements which are another issue)? If so, where do we stop knowing that Christianity and especially the person of Jesus are also potentially offensive and seen as a perversion of “true” Judaism by some? For many, Jesus the “Jewish Messiah” is as offensive as “Jewish Trinity.” What about what offends Christians in some Jewish works?

As Logos expands to reach more groups that are not historically “best buddies” and whose doctrines are sure to offend others, these kinds of issues are bound to multiply… exponentially. Should Logos become now a doctrinal editor (or censor)? If titles of books or courses are targeted, why not the work themselves and what they represent? Some are offended by the very fact that what they see as heretical books/works are sold by Logos.  I believe Logos has decided that offending some of its users is worth doing when reaching a greater audience. While I have my reservations about this strategy, I understand that I will need to get over it if I choose to continue to use Logos as a platform (I already do it with places like Amazon).

But the good doctor knew his target audience, and selling is the game plan.

I'm sold.