Since there seems to be some confusion concerning the Kabbalistic model of the Godhead, I figured I'd go ahead and post the following essay anyway. It's in five parts, so may be more than some of you will want to read, but I hope some of you will read it before making errors or accusations based on misunderstanding:

quote:

---

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm

Part 1
The Deity of Messiah is Scriptural

Introduction

There are several different positions that have to be dealt with in presenting the Deity of Messiah:

Judaic Anti-Deity Position - These reject the deity of Messiah because they insist it is contrary to Judaism. These are not persuaded by New Testament “proof texts”. They will dismiss such proof texts as invalid and even corruptions because they are supposedly not Jewish in theology. They will reject Tanak “proof texts” on the basis that Judaism supposedly does not understand the text that way.

Pure-Biblical Anti-Deity Position - These reject the deity of Messiah because they insist that it is contrary to Scripture. They are not persuaded by the demonstration that the doctrine is authentically Jewish. Many of these may actually look down upon Jewish tradition and especially Kabbalah.

Christian “Oneness” Theologians

Christian Orthodox Trinitarian Theologians


One finds oneself engaging on a debate on multiple fronts. Proving that the “New Testament” teaches the deity of Messiah to the “Judaic Anti-Deity” followers will generally only succeed in proving to their minds that the New Testament is in error. They must be shown that the teaching is authentically Jewish. However the “Pure-Biblical Anti-Deity” followers will misinterpret or misrepresent such arguments as “proof” that the doctrine is based only on extra-biblical sources and cannot be shown from the Scriptures themselves. And oftentimes single individuals will waffle between those two positions, not realizing their own inconsistency. All the while Orthodox Christian Trinitarians, Oneness Christians and others are raising their own issues along the way, which only serves to sidetrack the primary issue.

Therefore in order to deal with all of the issues in an organized manner this paper will be presented in five parts:

Part 1: The Deity of Messiah from the Scriptures

Part 2: The Deity of Messiah is Jewish

Part 3: Concerning Orthodox Trinitarian and Christian Oneness Theologies

Part 4: First Century Roots of the Kabbalistic Godhead Model

Part 5: Proof of the Ancient Nazarene Position

Part 1
The Deity of Messiah is Scriptural

Messiah as YHWH

The deity of Messiah is very easy to show from the Scriptures. The simplest way to show the deity of Messiah in the Scriptures is to point to instances where the “New Testament” quotes passages from the Tanak (“Old Testament”) and applies them to the Messiah.

For example in John 19:37, Zech. 12:10 is quoted:

But when they came to Yeshua, they saw that he was dead already
and did not break his legs.
But one of the soldiers stuck him in his side with a spear
and immediately blood and water came forth,…
For these things happened that the scripture might be fulfilled
which said, A bone of him will not be broken.(Ps. 34:21(20))
And again another scripture that said, They will look at him
whom they pierced. (Zech 12:10)

But now let us look at Zechariah 12:10 in context:

The burden of the word of YHWH concerning Israel.
The saying of YHWH, who stretched forth the heavens,
And laid the foundation of the earth,
And formed the spirit of man within him…
I will pour out upon the house of David,
And upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
The spirit of grace and supplication;
And they shall look at Me whom they pierced;
And they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son….
(Zech. 12:1, 10)

The one being pierced in Jn. 19:37 is clearly Yeshua but the one being pierced in Zech. 12:10 is clearly YHWH.

Lets now look at the quotation of Is. 8:14 in Rom. 9:32:

Because it was not from faith but from “Works of the Law”,
for they stumbled at the stumbling stone.
(Rom. 9:32)

Now Paul is clearly referring here it Messiah, but lets now look at Is. 8:14 in context:

YHWH of hosts, Him shall you sanctify; and let Him be your
fear, and let Him be your dread. And He shall be for a sanctuary;
but for a stumbling stone and for a rock of offence
to both the houses of Israel…
(Is. 8:13-14)

Here it is clearly YHWH who is the “stumbling stone”.

OK now lets look at Phil. 2:10-11:

That at the name of Yeshua every knee will bow
that is in heaven or on earth and that is under the earth,
and every tongue will confess that Yeshua the Messiah is YHWH,
to the glory of Eloah the Father.

Here Paul clearly refer to Is. 45:23:

Thus says YHWH…
That unto Me every knee shall bow,
and every tongue shall swear.
(Is. 45:1, 23)

Clearly Paul applies a Tanak passage which clearly speaks of YHWH to the Messiah.

Now lets look at Rom. 10:9, 13:

And if you confess with your mouth our Adon Yeshua,
And you believe in your heart that Eloah raised him from the dead,
you will be saved. …
For all who will call on the name of YHWH will be saved.
(Rom. 10:9, 13)

Here Paul clearly quotes Joel 3:5 (2:32) but applies the passage to Yeshua despite the fact that Joel is clearly here speaking of YHWH.

There are several other examples: James 5:7 clearly speaks of the coming of Messiah as likened to the “former and latter rain” while in Hosea 6:3 this is clearly the coming of YHWH. Likewise Jude 1:14 & 1 Thes. 3:13 refer to the coming of Messiah yet quote 1Enoch 1:9 & Zech. 14:5 which clearly refer to the coming of YHWH. Finally in Mt. 22:41-46 Yeshua himself identifies himself with the “YHWH” at the right hand of “YHWH” in Ps. 110:1-2, 5.


The Three Pillars

Now in Romans 1:19-20 we are told that

what may be known of Elohim is manifest in them [mankind]
his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead [or divine nature]..."

Then in Rom. 1:26-28 we are told that those who fail to perceive these things may fall into the errors of Homosexuality and Lesbianism. So when in creation were G-d's invisible attributes manifested in man and made clearly seen. The answer is in the Torah, in Gen. 1:26, 27 where we read:

Then Elohim said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...
So Elohim created man in His own image;
in the image of Elohim He created him;
male and female He created them.

Now following the parallelism of the passage, "Our image"; "Our likeness" and "male and female" appear to be parallel terms.

Now there are passages in the Tanak in which YHWH is referred to in a male, fatherly aspect:

…If then I be a Father, Where is My honor?…
Says YHWH of Hosts…
(Mal. 1:6)

…You, O YHWH, are our Father,…
(Is. 63:16)

But now O YHWH, You are our Father…
(Is. 64:7)

But there are also passages in the Tanak in which YHWH is referred to in a female, motherly aspect:

As one whom his Mother comforts,
so will I comfort you…
(Is. 66:13)

Now YHWH as a “Father” and YHWH as a “Mother” are clearly two DIFFERENT aspects of YHWH, they are not the same thing.

Moreover YHWH as an allegorical “Mother” is also YHWH as a “comforter” which is the same as the Holy Spirit:

…the comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name…
(Jn. 14:27 see also Jn. 14:16-17; 15:26 & 16:7)

Now just as YHWH is expressed as an allegorical “Father” and an allegorical “Mother”, the combination of these two aspects produce an allegorical “son”:

Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has bound the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name? And what is His Son’s name, if you know?
(Prov. 30:4)

The kings of the earth stand up,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against YHWH, and against His Messiah…
YHWH said to me: “You are My Son,”
This day have I begotten you…
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry…
(Ps. 2:2, 7, 12)

So now we have a Godhead which is the “image of Elohim” and is “male and female” expressing YHWH to us as a Father, a Mother and a Son.

Since the Son is the combination of the Father and Mother aspects of YHWH he is the fullness of the everlasting Godhead: “in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead” (Col. 2:9).

Thus the Messiah encompasses all the image of Elohim from which we were created:

…the Messiah, who is the likeness of Elohim.
(2Cor. 4:4)

[his Son] who is the image of the invisible Elohim…
(Col. 1:15)

[the Son] who is the radiance of his glory,
and the image of his being…
(Heb. 1:3)

And thus we can see all three aspects of the Godhead in passages like:

I, yes, I have spoken, indeed, I have called him,
I have brought him, and he will make his way succeed.
Come near to me and hear this: from the beginning
I have not spoken in [the] secret; from the time that she was,
there I am, and now ADONAI YHVH has sent me and his spirit.
(Is. 48:15-16 Original Bible Project preliminary edition)

Note the speaker is YHWH. Here we have:

1. YHWH the speaker.
2. ADONAI YHWH who sent Him.
3. "she" i.e. "his spirit"
("ruach" (spirit) is the only feminine word that "she" could refer to)

Another example of these three aspects is to be found in Hebrews 9:14:

How much more shall the blood of Messiah,
who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to Elohim,
purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living Elohim?

Here we again have three aspects:
1. The Messiah (who is YHWH)
2. The Spirit through which his blood is offered.
3. The Elohim to whom he offers himself.

These three aspects of the Godhead are called in the Aramaic “K’NUMEH” (plural) “K’NUMA” (singular) as we read in Yochanan (John) 5:26:

For the Father has life in his K’NUMA,
Thus he gave also the Son to have life in his K’NUMA.
(Jn. 5:26 from the Aramaic)

K’NUMA is an Aramaic word meaning “aspect, element, substance, essence”. The three aspects of the Godhead are three K’NUMEH but are only one YHWH.


ECHAD as a Unity

This brings us to the wording of the Sh’ma:

SH’MA YISRAEL: YHWH, ELOHEYNU, YHWH ECHAD
“Hear O Israel, YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is one.”
(Deut. 6:4)

Let us examine other passages in the Torah to understand how this word ECHAD (“one”) is used in the Torah:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and they shall become one [ECHAD] flesh.
(Gen. 2:24)

And YHWH said, “Indeed the people are one [ECHAD] and they
all have one language…
(Gen. 11:6)

Thus it is clear that the word ECHAD in no way requires a singularity and can refer to a composite unity. Thus Deut. 6:4 may be taken as referring to the absolute unity of the three K’NUMEH of Father, Mother (Holy Spirit Comforter) and Son (Messiah).


James Trimm

(To be continued in Part 2 “The Deity of Messiah is Jewish”)

---

quote:

---

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 2
The Deity of Messiah is Jewish

Preface

The reader should know that the Zohar, Bahir and Sefer Yetzirah are the three most authoritative works of Kabbalah which is Jewish mysticism. The purpose of this part is to demonstrate that the deity of Messiah and three pillars of the Godhead is indeed a Jewish concept.


The Sh’ma

In Part 1 we discussed the meaning of the word ECHAD in the Sh’ma which reads:

SH’MA YISRAEL YHWH ELOHEYNU YHWH ECHAD
“Hear O Israel, YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is one (ECHAD)”
(Deut. 6:4)

Now let us to explore how this passage is understood by the Zohar:

The [profession of] unity that every day is [a profession of] unity
is to be understood and to be perceived. We have said in many places
that this prayer is a profession of Unity that is proclaimed:

”Hear O Yisrael, YHWH“ first, [then] “Eloheynu” [and] “YHWH” they are all One and thus He is called “One”.

Behold, these are three names, how can they be one? Is it because we call them one? (literally: And also concerning the proclamation that we call them one?). How these are one can only through the vision of the Holy Sprit be known. And these are through the vision of the closed eye (or the hidden eye) To make known that these three are one (i.e. a Tri-Unity).
And this is the mystery of the voice that is heard. The voice is one. And is three GAUNIN: fire and air and water. And all these are one in the mystery of the voice.
And also here “YHWH, Eloheynu, YHWH” these are One. Three GAUNIN that are One. And this is the voice of the act of a son of man in [proclaiming] the Unity.
And to which he sees by the Unity of the “All” from Eyn Sof (the Inifinite One) to the end of the “All”. Because of the voice in which it is done, in these are three that are one (i.e. a Tri-Unity).

And this is the [profession] of the daily profession of Unity that is revealed in the mystery of the Holy Spirit.
And there are many GAUNIN that are a Unity, and all of them are true, what the one does, that the other does, and what that one does, the other does.
(Zohar 2:43)
(The Aramaic word GA’UN (sing.)/GAUNIN (plural) has the same meaning in the Zohar as the Aramaic word K’NUMA did in the Aramaic New Testament. GAUN comes from the word for “color” and refer to an “aspect, element, substance, essence”. )

Thus the Zohar understands the Sh’ma to mean that YHWH, Elohim and YHWH are three GA’UNIN. This section of the Zohar also recalls a reading from the Sefer Yetzirah:

Three “mothers”: Alef; Mem and Shin
Their foundation is a pan of merit
a pan of liability
and the tongue of decree deciding between them.
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:1)

Three “mothers”, Alef, Mem, Shin
in the universe are air, water, fire…
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:4a)

(Note: The letter SHIN has a gematria (numerical value) of 300 which is the same as the gematria of the phrase ”Ruach Elohim” (the Spirit of God).)

As it we will demonstrate the “tongue of decree deciding between them” is the Middle Pillar of the Godhead which reconciles the two outer pillars of the Godhead.


The Three Pillars of the Godhead

The Zohar also calls these three GAUNIN the three pillars of the Godhead. The Zohar teaches that the two outer pillars are reconciled by the middle pillar just as the “tongue of decree” decides between the two pans of the scale in the Sefer Yetzirah. The Zohar reads as follows:

Why, it may be asked, was it necessary to repeat the word “light”
in this verse? The answer is that the first “light” refers to the
primordial light which is of the Right Hand, and is destined for
the “end of days”; while the second “light” refers to the Left Hand,
which issues from the Right.

The next words, “And God saw the light that it was good” (Gen. 1:4),
refer to the pillar which standing midway between them,
writes both sides, and therefore when the unity of the three,
right, left, and middle, was complete, “it was good”, since there
could be no completion until the third had appeared to remove
the strife between Right and Left, as it is written, “And God separated
between the light and between the darkness.” …

This is the Middle Pillar: Ki Tov (that it was good) threw light
above and below and on all other sides, in virtue of YHWH,
the name which embraces all sides.
(Zohar 1:16b)



The Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah

According to the Zohar the Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah:

Better is a neighbor that is near, than a brother far off.
This neighbor is the Middle Pillar in the Godhead,
which is the Son of Yah.
(Zohar 2:115)

The Zohar also says of the Son of YHWH:

The Holy One, blessed be He, has a son, whose glory (tifret)
shines from one end of the world to another. He is a great
and mighty tree, whose head reaches heaven, and whose roots
are set in the holy ground, and his name is “Mispar” and his
place is in the uppermost heaven… as it is written, “The heavens
declare (me-SaPRim) the glory (tifret) of God” (Ps. 19:1).
Were it not for this “Mispar” there would be neither hosts
nor offspring in any of the worlds.
(Zohar 2:105a)

This Zohar passage is intended to recall a passage from the Bahir:

Why are they called Sephirot?
Because it is written (Ps. 19:2),
“The heavens declare (me-SaPRim) the glory (tifret) of God.”
(Bahir 125)

The Zohar also says concering the Son of Yah:

"We may also translate "he who withholds blessings
from the Son" (Prov. 11:26), whom the Father and Mother
have CROWNED and blessed with many blessings,
and concerning whom they commanded, "Kiss the SON
lest he be angry" (Ps. 2:12), since he is invested
with judgment (GEVURAH) and with mercy (CHESED)"
(Zohar 3:191b)


Metatron

The Zohar also identifies the Middle Pillar as “Metatron”:

The Middle Pillar [of the Godhead] is Metatron,
Who has accomplished peace above,
according to the glorious state there.
(Zohar 3:227)

the Zohar teaches that Metatron is not just the Son of Yah, but that he is "first begotten of all the creatures of God":

"And Abraham said to his oldest servant of his house…" (Gen. 24:2)
Who is this of whom it said "his servant?"
In what sense must this be understood? Who is this servant?
R. Nehori answered: "It is in no other sense to be understood
than expressed in the word "His servant," His servant,
the servant of God, the chief to His service.
And who is he? Metatron, as said. He is appointed to glorify
the bodies which are in the grave. This is the meaning of the words
"Abraham said to His servant" that is to the servant of God.
The servant is Metatron, the eldest of His [YHWH's] House,
who is the first-begotten of all creatures of God,
who is the ruler of all He has; because God has committed to Him
the government over all His hosts.
(Zohar 1:129b)


The Memra (The Word)

Another term for the Middle Pillar of the Godhead in Judaism is the Memra (the “Word”). The eminent Kabbalah Scholar Gershom Scholem writes of the Memra:

...the memra-- the paraphrase used in the Targumim,
the Aramaic Bible translations, to refer to God's word.
The memra is not merely a linguistic device for overcoming
the problem of biblical anthropomorphisms; it has theological
significance in its own right. The memra....is.... a world-permeating
force, a reality in the world of matter or mind, the immanent aspect
of Elohim, holding all things under its omnipresent sway.
(On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead:
Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah, by Gershom Scholem pg 181-182)

The Targums were authoritative Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Tanak which were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftorah readings. Whenever the Targums come to passages where YHWH is anthropomorphisised or seen, or where two or more YHWHs are indicated by the text, the Targums will often substitute "The Word [Memra] of YHWH" for YHWH. For example in Gen. 19:4 the Tanak has:

And YHVH rained brimstone and fire
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah,
from YHVH, from the heavens.
(Original Bible Project preliminary edition)

The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one YHWH rains fire from another YHWH) But Targum Jonathan substitutes "The Word of YHWH/the LORD" for the first of the two YHWHs as follows:

And the Word of the YHWH caused to descend
upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah,
brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven.

In another example the Torah has:

Ex. 24:1a (YHWH is the speaker, see Ex. 20:1-2)

Now He [YHWH] said to Moses, "come up to YHWH..."

But Targum Jonathan paraphrases the speaker in Ex. 20:1 with the substitution "the Word [Memra] of YHWH" in place of "YHWH."

And the Word of the Lord spoke all these glorious words...

So it would seem that one of these entities called "YHWH" in these Torah passages was actually understood by the Targumists as being the "Word of YHWH." It was, according to Targum Onkelos, this Word of YHWH that Abraham trusted in:

And Abraham trusted in the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and He counted it to him for righteousness.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 15:6)

Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH:

And Abraham worshipped and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and said, "You are YHWH who does see, but You cannot be seen."
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 22:14)

Note that here Abraham prays "in the name of the Word of YHWH" to the YHWH who "cannot be seen." Here two YHWHs are very apparent. Abraham is praying in the name of the Word of YHWH but is praying to the YHWH who cannot be seen. This idea is reinforced elsewhere as follows:

And Hagar praised and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] Of YHWH
who had revealed Himself to her…
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 16:3)

It was this Word of YHWH that Jacob also trusted in:

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying,
"If the Word [Memra] of YHWH will be my support,
and will keep me in the way that I go,
and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
so that I come again to my father's house in peace;
then shall the Word [Memra]of YHWH be my God.
(Targum Onkelos on Gen. 28:20-21)

King David also urged Israel to trust in the Word of Yah as the Targum of Psalm 62 reads:

Trust in the Word of Yah at all times,
O people of the house of Israel!
Pour out before Him the sighings of your heart;
Say, God is our trust forever.
(Targum on Psalm 62:9)

This "Word of YHWH" was, according to Targum Jonathan, the Creator:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH
created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

This idea is also put forward in the Jerusalem Targum:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH said to Moses:
"I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was:
and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be."
And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel:
'I Am' has sent me to you."
(Jerusalem Targum Ex. 3:14)

The Fragmentary Targum of the Torah also expresses that the Word of YHWH was the Creator:

The first night, when the "Word of YHWH"
was revealed to the world in order to create it,
the world was desolate and void,
and darkness spread over the face of the abyss
and the "Word of the Lord" was bright and illuminating
and He called it the first night.
(Fragmentary Targum Ex. 12:42)

That the Word of YHWH was the Creator can also be seen in the Tanak itself:

By the Word of YHWH were the heavens made,
And all the hosts of them by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Ps. 33:6)

The Word was also the covenant maker. For example the Noachdic covenant was between the Word and all mankind:

And YHWH said to Noah,
"This is the token of the covenant
which I have established between My Word [Memra]
and between all flesh that is upon the earth.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 9:17)

The Word also made the Abrahamic covenant as Targum Onkelos also paraphrases:

And I will establish my covenant
between My Word [Memra] and between you…
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 17:7)

The Word of YHWH was also the giver of the Mosaic Covenant and the Torah as the Jerusalem Targum (as quoted above) makes the Torah giver "the Word of YHWH" in Ex. 20:1. It was to th e Word that Jacob turned to for salvation:

Our father Jacob said: "My soul does not wait for salvation
such as that wrought by Gideon, the son of Joash,
for that was but temporal; neither for a salvation
like that of Samson, which was only transitory;
but for that salvation which You have promised to come,
through Your Word unto Your people, the children of Israel;
for your salvation my soul hopes."
(Targum Jonathan Gen. 49:18)

That the Word of YHWH is the savior is expressed elsewhere:

But Israel shall be saved by the Word of YHWH
with an everlasting salvation…
By the Word of YHWH shall all the seed of Israel be justified…
(Targum Jonathan Is. 45:17, 25)

But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah,
and I will save them by the Word of YHWH, their God.
(Targum Jonathan Hosea 1:7)


Conclusion

Thus the Zohar teaches that the Sh’ma (Deut. 6:4) refers to the three pillars of the Godhead as being ECHAD. Moreover the Zohar also teaches that the Middle Pillar of the Godhead reconciles the two outer Pillars (Father and Mother). The Zohar further teaches that this Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah, the firstborn of all creation who will glorify all the bodies which are in the grave. This is the Word of YHWH in whom Abraham placed his faith and who made the covenant with Israel.

James Trimm

(To be continued in Part 3).

---

quote:

---

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 3
The Trinities of Christendom



Three Persons?

Now as shown in part one, the Aramaic “New Testament” refers to the components of the Godhead as K’NUMA (sing.)/K’NUMEH (plural). As we have learned both the Biblical and Jewish model of the Godhead contains two contrasting K’NUMEH/GAUNIN and a third K’NUMA/GAUN which was a combination or harmonization of the other two. This third K’NUMA/GAUN is the Son of Yah.

The original Aramaic followers of Yeshua maintained that there were three K’NUMEH and one PARSOPA or one KYANA. This Aramaic terminology continued to be used by the Aramaic speaking Assyrian Christians of the Church of the East (and still is).

The early Greek speaking believers used the Greek words HYPOSTASIS for K’NUMA and PROSOPON for PARSOPA. They maintained a belief in a Godhead with three HYPOSASIS (aspects, substances) and one PROSAPON (person). The earliest Greek “Church Fathers” also used these terms. However the later Greek “Church Fathers” inverted this formulation creating a Godhead of three PROSAPONS (persons) who are one in HYPOSTASIS (essence). Finally the Latin “Church Fathers” formulates a Trinity with three PERSONAS (persons) and only one SUBSTANTIA (essence. Substance).

Now by the year 362 C.E. the Roman Church had become embroiled in a crisis. The conflict in terminology was becoming a problem for Rome. Rome was promoting a Trinity with three persons (PERSONA) in one substance (SUBSTANTIA) but this formula was in conflict with the early Greek “Church Fathers”, a formulation which many Greek speaking Christians still held to. This left the Greek speaking Christians in a dispute. Some held to a Godhead with three aspects (HYPOSTASIS) and one person (PROSPOPON) while others held to a Trinity with three persons (PROSOPONS) who are one in substance/essence (HYPOSTASIS). The Ecclesiastical Council of Alexandria was held in 362 to resolve this dispute. The whole matter was wept under the rug at this council when Rome ruled that both Greek schools were using different words to say the same thing. Rome ruled that the “Old School” Greeks MEANT “PERSONA” when they used HYPOSTASIS and that they had MEANT “SUBSTANTIA” when they used the term PROSOPON. Thus Rome had succeeded in transforming the triune Godhead of three aspects in one person into three persons who are one in substance/essence.

The Mormons have taken this process a stage further. They teach a “Godhead” of three persons who are not one in essence but are one only in “purpose”. This variation brings Rome’s Trinity of three persons firmly into the territory of Tri-Theism.

So is it valid to say that there are three “persons” in the Godhead in English? It depends on what one means by “person”. There are several definitions of the word “person” in English. If you look in a Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary you will find that the first and most common definition of “person” in English is “a human being”. Certainly Elohim is not three “human beings”… in fact He is not even ONE “human being”. The last definition in the Unabridged Dictionary is “any of the three modes of the Trinity”. So one might argue that the aspects of the three pillars of the Godhead may be called “persons” by virtue of a special definition of the word in English apart from any other meaning of the word. However use of the word “person” in English creates confusion because it strongly implies agreement with the Roman Trinity of three persons who are one in essence. More accurate terms are "three pillars"; "three aspects"; "three GAUNIN"; "three K'NUMEH" or "three Tzachtzachot (splendors)".

Now the Orthodox Christian Trinity with three “persons” who are one in essence has certain problems.

In Isaiah 9:6-7 the Son (the Messiah) is called “everlasting Father” while 1Cor. 15:45; 2Cor. 3:17 and Rom. 8:9-11 taken together seem to identify the Son with the Spirit.

According to the NT we as believers are immersed in the Messiah (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27); we have the “Spirit of Messiah” which raised Messiah (Rom. 8:9-11) in our hearts (Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:17), which is the “Spirit of God” (1Jn. 4:12-13) or the “Holy Spirit” (1Cor. 6:19; 1Thes. 4:8). This also would seem to identify the Messiah with the Holy Spirit.

Finally Col. 2:9 states of Messiah “in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead”.

These passages pose problems for the Orthodox Christian trinity of three “persons”.
How can the Messiah be called “everlasting Father” if they are different persons? How can the Messiah be identified with the Holy Spirit if they are different persons? And finally how can the Messiah have “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwelling within him if he is only one of three persons in the Godhead?


Absolute Oneness?

Many of these difficulties with the Orthodox Christian trinity have led to the advent of a doctrine known as “Oneness Theology” in certain Christian circles. Oneness theology teaches that the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are all one and the same thing.

However “Oneness Theology” has other problems. For example Messiah stated that the Father is greater than he (Jn. 14:28). But this cannot be the case if they are one and the same.

The distinction between the three K’NOMEH of the Godhead is clear in a number of other passages as well:

The Father sends the Spirit (Jn. 14:26); Messiah sends the Spirit (Jn. 15:26); the Father sends Messiah (Jn. 17:8; 20:21) and in Jn. 14-16 we read that Messiah would have to leave so that the Holy Spirit cold come.

Moreover as shown earlier, in Hebrews 9:14 Messiah presents himself through the Spirit to “Elohim”. This would not be possible if they were all one and the same.

In other examples:

Yeshua could not have been praying to himself in the garden when he said “let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will but as you will.” (Mt. 26:39)

Is. 11:1-2 says that Messiah would have the “fear of YHWH”… did he fear himself?

In. Mt. 13:32 the Son does not know the day nor hour of his return but the Father does. They cannot be one and the same.

In Rev. 5 the Lamb takes the sealed book from the right hand of the figure on the throne… but how could this be if they are one and the same?

Finally the Messiah is frequently described as sitting or standing at the right hand of the Father (a clear allusion to Ps. 110:1, 4) how could this be if they are one and the same?

Clearly Christian “Oneness Theology” cannot stand… the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same thing, they are different aspects of the one Elohim.


Conclusion: The True Understanding of the Godhead

The true understanding of the Godhead resolves all of the difficulties found in both the Orthodox Christian and Oneness Christian models.

The true understanding of the Godhead understands the Son as the combination of the Father and the Spirit and thus the Son can be identified with either. However as a combination of these two he is a third, unique and distinct aspect within the one person of the Godhead. Thus the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three K’NUMEH or three GAUNIN (aspects), which are but one PARSOPA (person).

James Trimm

(To be continued in Part 4).

---

quote:

---

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 4
The Kabbalistic Godhead Model
in the First Century

The purpose of Part 4 in this series is to establish the fact that the Gohead model set forth in Part 2 was not simply a late innovation of the middle ages, but in fact can be traced back to Judaism at least back to the first century.


The Essene Roots of Kabbalah

The two most authoritative earliest works of Rabbinic Kabbalah are the Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir.

The earliest known reference to the Sefer Yetzirah is found in the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions the book as having been used by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (j.San. 7:13 (41a)) who lived in the late first century. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (47 BCE - 73 CE) was one of the five talmidim (students) of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai (m.Avot 2:8) who is said to have received his tradition from his colleague Rabbi Nehunia ben HaKana the traditional author of the Bahir. According to the Sefer HaTagin Rabbi Nehunia ben HaKana learned his teaching from a certain Menachem. Most scholars identify this Menechem as Menechem the prominent early first century Essene by that name mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 15:10:5). Thus the Kabbalistic tradition in Rabbinic Judaism can within its own tradition be traced back to early first century Essene Judaism, the sect of Judaism which most scholars believe were authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.


The Dead Sea Scrolls and Kabbalah

Now it is well known that researchers believe that Chritendom has roots at Qumran. What is less well known is that many researchers also see the roots of Kabbalah at Qumran.

Kabbalah had its beginning as "torat-ha-sod" as Adin Steinsaltz writes:

The sources state that torat ha-sod (mysticism)
was divided into two parts: Ma'aseh Bere**** (Act of Creation)
and Ma'aseh Merkavah (Divine Chariot). The former was more
theoretical and dealt with the creation of the world and the first
divine revelations. Ma'aseh Merkavah, based on the prophet
Ezekiel's description of the Divine Chariot, is a study of the
prevailing relations between God and the world and apparently
contained the seeds of what later came to be known as
Kabbalah ma'asit (practical kabbalah).
(The Essential Talmud; Adin Steinsaltz p. 213)

And as G. Vermes writes:

The Throne-Chariot was a central subject of meditation
in ancient as well as in medieval Jewish esotericism
and mysticism, but the guardians of the Rabbinic orthodoxy
tended to discourage such speculation. The liturgical use
of Ezekiel's chapter on the Chariot is expressly forbidden
in the Mishnah; it even lays down that no wise man is
to share his understanding of the Merkavah with a person
less enlightened than himself. As a result, there is very little
ancient literary material extant on the subject, and the Qumran
text is therefore of great importance to the study of the Origins
of Jewish mysticism.
(The Dead Sea Scroll in English; Second Edition; G.Vermes; p. 211)

Among the parallels between Kabbalah and Qumran esotericism is the strong parallel between the Metatron figure of Kabbalah and the Melchizadek figure at Qumran as P. Alexander writes:

The Merkabah literature has links also with Qumran.
Perhaps the closest Parallels are in the following texts:
The angelic liturgy (4QsirSabb) … The heavenly
Melchizedek (11QMelch) [also known as 11Q13]…
Physiognomies (4QCryptic)…
(OTP Vol. 1 pp. 250-251)

Regarding the Melchizedek/Metatron connection Alexander states:

In this text Melchizedek appears as being exalted
over all angels. It is stated that he will preside over
a heavenly assize and exact Punishment, with the help
of other angels, from Belial and his Minions. In view of
the priestly functions of Melchizedek in the Bible (Gen. 14:8;
Ps. 110:4), van der Woude has conjectured that at Qumran
Melchizedek may have been regarded as the high priest of
the heavenly Temple and identified with the archangel Michael,
who fulfills the role of the heavenly high priest in rabbinic tradition …
However all of this is very uncertain. A number of clear parallels
between the heavenly Melchizedek of Qumran and Metatron
of 3 Enoch at once suggest themselves: both figures hold exalted,
if not pre-eminent, positions among the angels, both are heavenly
judges… and both, apparently had earthly lives prior to their exalted,
heavenly states.
(ibid)


The Deity of Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The fact that the Qumran community believed in the deity of the Messiah can best be shown by examining the Qumran community's understanding of Is. 61:1-2. Now we know from 4Q521 that the Qumran community saw the one "anointed" by YHWH in Is. 61:1-2 as the Messiah as this fragment reads:

For the heavens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah …

And then goes on to allude to Is. 61:1-2. Another reference to the figure of Is. 61:1-2 is made in another Qumran document known as 11Q13. 11Q13 speaks of this Messiah as a figure called "Melchizedek." In this document Is. 61:2 is quoted with "Melchizedek" substituted for YHWH. Furthermore the terms EL and ELOHIM are in 11Q13 applied to the Melchizedek/Messiah figure.

11Q13 Col. 4-9 quotes Is. 61:1-2 but substitutes "the year of Melchizedek's favor" for "the year of YHWH's favor" thus identifying the Melchizedek figure with YHWH in this passage. 11Q13 goes on to say:

…as it is written about him [Melchizedek] in
the Songs of David, "ELOHIM has taken his place
in the council of EL; in the midst of the ELOHIM
he holds judgment" (Ps. 82:1)
Scripture also says about him [Melchizedek],
"Over it take your seat in the highest heaven;
EL will judge the peoples" (Ps. 7:7-8)
(11Q13 Col. 10-11)

The text of 11Q13 goes on to apply the passage "Your ELOHIM reigns" (Is. 52:7) to Melchizedek finally concluding:

"Your ELOHIM" (Is. 52:7) is Melchizedek,
who will deliver them from the power of Belial.
(11Q13 Col. 24-25)

It is therefore apparent that the Qumran community saw the Messiah as a Melchizedek figure who was identified as EL, ELOHIM and even YHWH.

Further evidence for belief in the deity of Messiah at Qumran is found in a reference in the Book of Enoch, (seven fragmentary copies of this book were found in cave four at Qumran). In Enoch 14 Enoch is having a vision of the divine throne in which the figure on the throne calls to Enoch "come near to Me and to My Holy Word." (1En. 14: 24). Thus it would seem that the concept of the entity known as the "Word" of YHWH which we discussed in terms of Rabbinic Judaism earlier, was also held to by the Qumran community. It seems hard to escape the fact that in 1En. 14:24 the "Word" of YHWH seems to be positioned next to the throne of YHWH, just as Melchizedek is in Ps. 110.


Philo and Kabbalah

In addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls the first century Jewish writer Philo also wrote many things which demonstrate that this same Godhead model found in the Kabbalah existed in the first century. Philo believed that the essence of God was unknowable to man, but that man could know God thru his emanations. Philo writes:

...Every man in regard of his intellect is connected with Logos (Word),
being an impression of, or a fragment or emanation of that blessed
nature...
(Philo; On Creation LI (146))

Philo gave a very detailed description to the Word (Logos). To Philo the Word was the creator:

As therefore the city, when previously shadowed out in
the mind of architectural skill had no external place, but
was stamped solely in the mind of the workman, so in
the same manner neither can the world which existed in
ideas have had any other local position except the
Logos which made them...
(Philo; On Creation V (20))

Philo taught that the Word (Logos) was the shadow of God and that man was made in the image of the Word (Logos):

...But the shadow of God is his Word,
which he used like an instrument when he was
making the world.
(Philo; Allegorical Interpretation III XXXI (96))

...For God does not seem to have availed himself
of any other animal existing in creation as his model
in the formation of man; but to have been guided,
as I have said before, by his own Word alone...
(Philo; On Creation XLVIII (139))

Most astonishingly, Philo identifies the Word of God as God's "first-born son!":

...For God, like a shepherd and king, governs
(as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water,
and the fire, and the air and all the plants, and living
creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine;
and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical
revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations
and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them
according to law and justice; appointing as their immediate
superintendent, his own right Word [Logos], his first-born son,
who is to receive the charge of this sacred company,
as the lieutenant of the great king;...
(Philo; On Husbandry XII (45))

Philo also taught that "Wisdom" is the "Mother of the Word [Logos]" Philo also identified the three angels which appeared to Abraham in Gen. 18 as "God, the creative power"; "Lord, the ruling power"; and "the Word [Logos]." Not only did Philo teach that God' first-born son is the "Word" and that "Wisdom" is his mother, Philo also clearly taught the concept of a Trinity. He refers to God as “...the Lord of three natures...”(Philo; On the Change of Names II, 11)

Elsewhere Philo writes:

...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one,
for they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes
the appearance of a trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen
in his oneness without something [else], the chief Powers
that that exist immediately with him... the Creative, which
is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called "Lord"...
[Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine vision
in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity [triad],
and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)


Conclusion

In closing it is clear that the tradition of the Godhead model found in the Kabbalah tradition of Rabbinic Judaism can be traced back to a tradition held by the early first century Essenes who authored the Dead Sea Scrolls. This Godhead tradition also can be found in the writings of the first century Jewish writer Philo.

James Trimm

To be Continued in Part 5

---

quote:

---

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 5
The Kabbalistic Godhead Model
Among the Ancient Nazarenes




The Minim

Now before beginning this section it is important to define an important Talmudic term MIN (singular) / MINIM (plural).

The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes of the Nazarenes and Ebionites:

What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians?
Today there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues
of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans,
and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers]
are ordinarily called 'Nazarenes'; they believe that Christ,
the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him
to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended
to heaven, and in whom we also believe."
(Jerome; Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)

Now Ebionites and Nazarenes were two distinct groups with varying beliefs (the Ebionites split off from the Nazarenes round 70 C.E.) but both of these groups were known by Rabbinic Jews as “Minim” or as Jerome calls them in Latin “Mineans”.

According to the Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalami and Midrashic Literature Marcus Jastrow defines MIN “…sectarian, infidel… a Jewish infidel, mostly applied to Jew Christians”. Jastrow uses the term “Jew-Christians” to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes although these groups did not call themselves “Christians”.

Many scholars believe that the term MIN began as an acronym for a Hebrew phrase meaning “Believers in Yeshua the Nazarene”.


Many Powers in Heaven

The Mishna states that the MINIM taught:

“There are many ‘powers’ in heaven”
(m.San. 4:5)

Clearly the MINIM in this portion of the Mishna were Nazarenes and not Ebionites, since Ebionites clearly rejected the deity of Messiah.

The Mishna counters that man was created alone in order to disprove this teaching of the MINIM. In fact Man was created “male and female” in “our image”/”the image of Elohim” and after being separated into a male and female these two were ECHAD (all of this was discussed in part 1) just as the three K’NUMEH of the Godhead are ECHAD.

In the Gemara to this portion of Mishna (b.San. 38b) the Talmud discusses various proof texts that the MINIM used to support their teaching of “many powers in heaven” and attempts to rebut them:

R. Johanan sad: In all the passages which the Minim have taken
[as grounds] for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand.
Thus: Let us make man in our image, (Gen. 1:26)
And God created [sing.] man in His own image; (Gen. 1:27)

Come, let us go down and there confound their language, (Gen. 11:7)
And the Lord came down [sing.] to see the city and the tower; (Gen. 11:5)

Because there were revealed [plur.] to him God, (Gen. 35:7)
Unto God who answereth [sing.] me in the day of my distress; (Gen. 35:3)

For what great nation is there that hath God so nigh [plur.] unto it,
as the Lord our God is [unto us] whensoever we call upon Him [sing.]; (Deut. 4:7)

And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, [like] Israel,
whom God went [plur.] to redeem for a people unto himself [sing.], (2Sam. 7:23)

Till thrones were placed and one that was ancient did sit. (Dan. 7:9)

Why were these [plurals] necessary? To teach R. Johanan's dictum;
viz.: The Holy One, blessed be He, does nothing without consulting
His Heavenly Court (literally “Family”) , for it is written, The matter
is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of
the Holy Ones.(Dan. 4:14)

This section of Talmud tells us that the MINIM used Tanak passages in which Elohim was referenced in a plural form as proof texts for their teaching of “many powers in the heavens”. Among their proof texts were Gen. 1:26; 11:7; 35:7; Deut. 4:7; Sam. 7:23 & Dan. 7:9). The Rabbinic Jews dismissed these as examples of Elohim speaking to “His Heavenly Court” (literally “Heavenly Family”) i.e. the “watchers” of Dan. 4:14.

Now I want to examine the first of these (Gen. 1:26) in more detail. This passage appears as a synonymous parallelism as follows:

And Elohim said: “Let us make man in our image,
After our likeness;…
And Elohim created man in His own image,
in the image of Elohim created He him;
male and female created He them.
(Gen. 1:26-27)

In context “our image” = “our likeness” = “the image of Elohim” = “male and female”. As we discussed in part one, Paul refers back to this point in Romans 1 to establish that there are invisible attributes in the Godhead made manifest in the creation that when ignored may lead persons into the errors of Homosexuality and Lesbianism. It is not speaking of the “Watchers” but the “male and female” “image of Elohim”.

Even the Rabbinic Jews realized that their explanation of Elohim speaking to the Watchers did not work for many of the MINIM proof texts (including Dan. 7:9) and so the Talmud goes on to address these passages:

Now, that is satisfactory for all [the other verses], but how explain
Till thrones were placed? (Dan. 7:9) One [throne] was for Himself
and one for David [Messiah]. Even as it has been taught:
One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba's view.
R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Sh’kinah?
Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy.
Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear!
For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity;
this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba,
what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of]
Nega'im and Ohaloth [civil issues]. But one was a throne, the other
a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet (Is. 66:1).

Here Rabbi Akiba gets in trouble with the other Rabbis because he ADMITTED that the additional throne was for Messiah! Rabbi Jose said that the “thrones” were for “justice” (GEVURA) and “charity” (CHESED). Of course these are titles of sefirot which are regarded in Kabbalah a typical of the two opposing pillars of the three pillars of the Godhead. Finally the consensus of the Rabbis found that Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Jose were giving to much away in the debate. They argued that “thrones” were plural to refer to the “throne” and the “footstool” of Isaiah 66:1.

It bears mentioning here that Is. 66:1 is also cited in Mt. 5:34-35. Both the Hebrew (DuTillet) version and the Old Syriac (s) Aramaic version of Matthew word the phrase “for it is the throne of Elohim” in the Hebrew and Aramaic with a plural possessive pronoun (in the English translation this possessive pronoun does not appear because it is not used in English grammar).


R. Nahman said: He who is as skilled in refuting the Minim
as is R. Idith, let him do so; but not otherwise. Once a Min
said to R. Idith: It is written, And unto Moses He said,
Come up to the Lord (Ex. 24:1). But surely it should have
stated, Come up unto me! It was Metatron, he replied,
whose name is similar to that of his Master, for it is written,
For my name is in him (Ex. 23:21). But if so, [he retorted,]
we should worship him! The same passage, however,
— replied R. Idith says: Be not rebellious against him,

i.e., exchange Me not for him. But if so, why is it stated:
He will not pardon your transgression? He answered:
By our troth we would not accept him even as a messenger,
for it is written, And he said unto him, If Thy [personal]
presence go not etc. (Ex. 33:15).

In the Targum resolves the issue of YHWH speaking of himself in the third person by naming the speaker in Ex. 20:1 as “the Word (MEMRA) of YHWH”. Here Rabbi Idith resolves the issue by making one of these “Metatron”. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica article on “Metatron” the Karite author Kirkisani had a different reading in his copy of this Talmud passage. His copy had Rabbi Idith saying “This is Metatron, who is the Lesser YHWH”. As we have shown in part 2, Metatron is identified in the Zohar as the Middle Pillar of the Godhead and as the Son of Yah.

A Min once said to R. Ishmael b. Jose: It is written,
Then the Lord caused to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord: (Gen. 19:24) but from him
should have been written! A certain fuller said,
Leave him to me, I will answer him. [He then proceeded,
’ It is written, And Lamech said to his wives, Ada and Zillah,
Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech; (Gen. 4:23) but he should
have said, my wives! But such is the Scriptural idiom
so here too, it is the Scriptural idiom.

The Targum also resolves this issue by paraphrasing one of the occurrences of “YHWH” in Gen. 19:24 as “the Word (MEMRA) of YHWH”. A much lengthier paper could be written on Gen. 19:24 but it is beyond the scope of this article.

It is important to note that the Rabbis seem to stumble all over themselves in dealing with the proof texts presented by the Nazarenes (an this is even their account of the debate). They find themselves admitting that the Nazarene proof texts refer to the “Heavenly Family”; “Elohim and the Messiah”; “Gevura and Chesed”; “Metatron” and “The Lesser YHWH” while attempting to disagree with the Nazarene interpretations. It is also important to note that this debate can be easily dated. Rabbi Akiba who lived in the early second century is one of the debaters.


The Holy Spirit and the Nazarenes

It is also clear that the ancient Nazarenes saw the Holy Spirit as a sort of Heavenly Mother and the Messiah being her “Son” just as he is the Son of the Heavenly Father.
As the fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes of the Nazarenes:

According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech,
which the Nazarenes read, the whole fount of the
Holy Spirit shall descend upon him… Further in the
Gospel which we have just mentioned we find
the following written:

When the Lord ascended from the water,
the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended
and rested upon him, and said to him, “My Son,
in all the prophets I was waiting for you,
that you might come, and that I might rest in you.
For you are my rest; and you are my firstborn son,
who reigns forever.
(Jerome; Commentary on Is. 11:2)

Note that it is the Holy Spirit here and not the Father that refer to Messiah as “My Son”.

Moreover the third century “Church Father” Origin writes of the Nazarene Gospel according to the Hebrews:

And if any accept the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
where the Saviour himself saith, 'Even now did my mother
the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me
away unto the great mountain Thabor', he will be perplexed, &c. . . .
Origen on John, ii. 12.


“Kabbalistic” Terminology

Now are we to believe that the parallels between the Kabbalistic Godhead, Metatron and Memra; the Melchizadek figure of Qumran; Philo’s Triad and Logos and the terminology and concepts in the “New Testament” are just a coincidence?

Philo spoke of a Godhead which was a “Triad” while the Zohar speaks of three Pillars of the Godhead which are “one”. The New Testament speaks of the Father, the Holy Spirt and the Son as all being one Elohim.

Philo identifies one of his Triad members as being the “Son of God”; The Zohar identifies one of its three pillars as the “Son of Yah” and the Messiah is called in the New Testament the “Son of Elohim”.

Philo identifies his “Son of God” as the Logos (Word). Kabbalah identifies the Son of Yah as the Memra (Word). The New Testament identifies the Son of Elohim as the “Word”.

Philo identified the components of his Triad as “powers” while the Mishna ascribes that the Nazarenes identified them as “powers”.

Philo identifies the Logos as the “firstborn son” the Zohar says that Metatron (the Son of Yah) is “the first begotten of all the creatures of Elohim” and the New Testament says that Messiah is “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15)

Philo says that one of the members of his Triad is “Wisdom” and that “Wisdom is the Mother of the Word”; In Kabbalah one of the three Pillars of the Godhead is called the Mother and is identified with wisdom. And the Nazarenes saw the Holy Spirit as the Mother of Messiah.

Philo says his Word “is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the Great King”. The Zohar says of Metaron that he is “ruler of all he has; because Elohim has committed to him the government over all his hosts.” Similar descriptions of Messiah appear in the New Testament.

The Talmud says that Metatron is “the Lesser YHWH” while in the book of John the Messiah says the Father is “greater” than he.

Philo says the Word was “the model for the formation of man”. The Kabbalah teaches that the Adam Kadamon (the Three Pillars harmonized) was the blueprint for the creation of man and the NT says that Messiah was the image of Elohim from which man was created.

Scholars identify the Melchizadek figure of Qumran with the Metatron of Kabbalah while the New Testament identifies Messiah with Melchizadek (Heb. 7). And the Qumran scrolls identify this Melchizadek with the terms El, Elohim and YHWH and identifies him with the Messiah.

Are all of these things the most amazing coincidence of all time? Or is the Godhead concept of the Kabbalah also found in the Qumran scrolls and the writings of Philo in the first century? Are these the same concepts that also appear in the New Testament and among the ancient Nazarene Jews?


Conclusion

There can be no doubt that the ancient Nazarene Jews maintained a belief in the Three Pillars of the Godhead and the deity of Messiah. It is clear that their belief was very similar to that of Rabbinic Kabbalists, the Qumran Scrolls and the writings of Philo. Thus the Rabbinic concepts of Kabbalah presented in part 2 of this series descend from the same Godhead model expressed by Philo, in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament.

James Trimm

---

Bracy-

This was a very interesting article, and in most instances has good correlation with Orthodox Christian theology (e.g. Christ is the Word, the Word is the Creator, etc.) There are some portions that might be suspect according to the same, such as definitively assigning gender to the persons (or aspects) of the Godhead.

On this:

quote:

---

These passages pose problems for the Orthodox Christian trinity of three “persons”. How can the Messiah be called “everlasting Father” if they are different persons? How can the Messiah be identified with the Holy Spirit if they are different persons? And finally how can the Messiah have “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwelling within him if he is only one of three persons in the Godhead?

---

These statements focus too much attention to how we as humans understand unity at expense of the unity of the Godhead. If any one person of the Godhead is hierarchically over another, then the other person(s) somehow becomes less God and you are left with polytheism. The beauty of any explanation is that our human understanding can’t ever adequately describe the true nature of the Trinity; we can say what we don’t know, however, and that is that we don’t worship multiple gods.

A great (though still not fully adequate) analogy that I’ve heard is that the Godhead is like a family name. I and my father and grandfather are all Kotinek; we are distinct persons but have equal claim to the name. The aspects that Trimm describes sound a lot like Modalism or Sabellianism, where the members of the Trinity are not distinct, but various expressions of the Godhead at different times, as if God has multiple personality disorder.

Some good reads on the Orthodox Christian teaching on the Trinity are excerpted below:

quote:

---

...The way in which the Fathers interpret the transcendence of God; that is, God remains unknowable in his unique essence, but he has revealed himself as a Trinity of Three Persons. The God of the Bible therefore in known to the extent that He is a living and acting Deity, the One who has sent His Son for the salvation of the world. This particular emphasis of the thought of the Eastern Fathers distinguishes them - (...) - to the way in which their Latin brothers preferred to think of God first as a unique essence, and then only as a Trinity. These two different attitudes would later give rise to two schools of Trinitarian theology. In Latin theology, the divine Persons were considered as the simple inner relations of the unique essence of the Godhead: hence, if the very existence of the Spirit is determined by its relations to the Father and the Son, the doctrine of the Filioque - or procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - becomes a logical, dogmatic necessity, for the Spirit cannot be said to be distinct from the Son if he does not proceed from him. Eastern theologians, on the other hand, remained faithful to the old "personalism" of the Greek Fathers. The doctrine of the Filioque appeared to them, consequently, as Semi-Sabellianism (to use the expression of Photius). [Sabellianism is a heresy dating from the second century attributed to a certain Sabellius, who taught that the divine Persons are simply "modes" or "aspects" of a unique God.] Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, because proceeding from the Father, the unique source of the Deity, the Spirit has his own existence and personal function in the inner life of God and the economy of salvation: his task is to bring about the unity of the human race in the Body of Christ, but he also imparts to this unity a personal, and hence diversified, character. It is with a prayer to the Holy Spirit that all the liturgical services of the Orthodox Church begin, and with an invocation of his name that the eucharistic mystery is effected. (pp. 195-197)
From: John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, Crestwood, NY, 1981.

---

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/filioque.html

quote:

---

God in Trinity
Our social programme, said the Russian thinker Fedorov, is the dogma of the Trinity. Orthodoxy believes most passionately that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a piece of ‘high theology’ reserved for the professional scholar, but something that has a living, practical importance for every Christian. Man, so the Bible teaches, is made in the image of God, and to Christians God means the Trinity: thus it is only in the light of the dogma of the Trinity that man can understand who he is and what God intends him to be. Our private lives, our personal relations, and all our plans of forming a Christian society depend upon a right theology of the Trinity. ‘Between the Trinity and Hell there lies no other choice (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 66). As an Anglican writer has put it: ‘In this doctrine is summed up the new way of thinking about God, in the power of which the fishermen. went out to convert the Greco-Roman world. It marks a saving revolution in human thought (D. J. Chitty, ‘The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity told to the Children,’ in Sobornost, series 4, no. 5, 1961, p. 241).
The basic elements in the Orthodox doctrine of God have already been mentioned in the first part of this book, so that here they will only be summarized briefly:
1. God is absolutely transcendent. ‘No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature or nearness to it (Gregory Palamas, P.G. 150, 1176c (quoted on p. 77)). This absolute transcendence Orthodoxy safeguards by its emphatic use of the ‘way of negation,’ of ‘apophatic’ theology. Positive or ‘cataphatic’ theology — the ‘way of affirmation’ — must always be balanced and corrected by the employment of negative language. Our positive statements about God — that He is good, wise, just and so on — are true as far as they go, yet they cannot adequately describe the inner nature of the deity. These positive statements, said John of Damascus, reveal ‘not the nature, but the things around the nature.’ ‘That there is a God is clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond our comprehension and knowledge (On the Orthodox Faith, 1, 4 (P.G. 94, 800B, 797B)).
2. God, although absolutely transcendent, is not cut of from the world which He has made. God is above and outside His creation, yet He also exists within it. As a much used Orthodox prayer puts it: ‘Thou art everywhere and finest all things.’ Orthodoxy therefore distinguishes between God’s essence and His energies, thus safeguarding both divine transcendence and divine immanence: God’s essence remains unapproachable, but His energies come down to us. God’s energies, which are God Himself, permeate all His creation, and we experience them in the form of deifying grace and divine light. Truly our God is a God who hides Himself, yet He is also a God who acts — the God of history, intervening directly in concrete situations.
3. God is personal, that a to say, Trinitarian. This God who acts is not only a God of energies, but a personal God. When man participates in the divine energies, he is not overwhelmed by some vague and nameless power, but he is brought face to face with a person. Nor is this all: God is not simply a single person confined within his own being, but a Trinity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom ‘dwells’ in the other two, by virtue of a perpetual movement of love. God is not only a unity but a union.
4. Our God is an Incarnate God. God has come down to man, not only through His energies, but in His own person. The Second Person of the Trinity, ‘true God from true God,’ was made man: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). A closer union than this between God and His creation there could not be. God Himself became one of His creatures (For the first and second of these four points, see pp. 72-9; for the third and fourth points, see pp. 28-37).
Those brought up in other traditions have sometimes found it difficult to accept the Orthodox emphasis on apophatic theology and the distinction between essence and energies; but apart from these two matters, Orthodox agree in their doctrine of God with the overwhelming majority of all who call themselves Christians. Monophysites and Lutherans, Nestorians and Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Orthodox: all alike worship One God in Three Persons and confess Christ as Incarnate Son of God (In the past hundred years, under the influence of ‘Modernism,’ many Protestants have virtually abandoned the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Thus when I speak here of Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans, I have in mind those who still respect the classical Protestant formularies of the sixteenth century).
Yet there is one point in the doctrine of God the Trinity over which east and west part company — the filioque. We have already seen how decisive a part this one word played in the unhappy fragmentation of Christendom. But granted that the filioque is important historically, does it really matter from a theological point of view? Many people today — not excluding many Orthodox — find the whole dispute so technical and obscure that they are tempted to dismiss it as utterly trivial. From the viewpoint of traditional Orthodox theology there can be but one rejoinder to this: technical and obscure it undoubtedly is, like most questions of Trinitarian theology; but it is not trivial. Since belief in the Trinity lies at the very heart of the Christian faith, a tiny difference in Trinitarian theology is bound to have repercussions upon every aspect of Christian life and thought. Let us try therefore to understand some of the issues involved in the filioque dispute.
One essence in three persons. God is one and God is three: the Holy Trinity is a mystery of unity in diversity, and of diversity in unity. Father, Son, and Spirit are ‘one in essence’ (homoousios), yet each is distinguished from the other two by personal characteristics. ‘The divine is indivisible in its divisions (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 31, 14). for the persons are ‘united yet not confused, distinct yet not divided’ (John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8 (P.G. 94, 809A)); ‘both the distinction and the union alike are paradoxical’ (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 25, 17).
But if each of the persons is distinct, what holds the Holy Trinity together? Here the Orthodox Church, following the Cappadocian Fathers, answers that there is one God because there is one Father. In the language of theology, the Father is the ‘cause’ or ‘source’ of Godhead, He is the principle (arche) of unity among the three; and it is in this sense that Orthodoxy talks of the ‘monarchy’ of the Father. The other two persons trace their origin to the Father and are defined in terms of their relation to Him. The Father is the source of Godhead, born of none and proceeding from none; the Son is born of the Father from all eternity (‘before all ages,’ as the Creed says); the Spirit proceeds from the Father from all eternity.
It is at this point that Roman Catholic theology begins to disagree. According to Roman theology, the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; and this means that the Father ceases to be the unique source of Godhead, since the Son also is a source. Since the principle of unity in the Godhead can no longer be the person of the Father, Rome finds its principle of unity in the substance or essence which all three persons share. In Orthodoxy the principle of God’s unity is personal, in Roman Catholicism it is not.
But what is meant by the term ‘proceed?’ Unless this is properly understood, nothing is understood. The Church believes that Christ underwent two births, the one eternal, the other at a particular point in time: he was born of the Father ‘before all ages,’ and born of the Virgin Mary in the days of Herod, King of Judaea, and of Augustus, Emperor of Rome. In the same way a firm distinction must be drawn between the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and the temporal mission, the sending of the Spirit to the world: the one concerns the relations existing from all eternity within the Godhead, the other concerns the relation of God to creation. Thus when the west says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and when Orthodoxy says that He proceeds from the Father alone, both sides are referring not to the outward action of the Trinity towards creation, but to certain eternal relations within the Godhead — relations which existed before ever the world was. But Orthodoxy, while disagreeing with the west over the eternal procession of the Spirit, agrees with the west in saying that, so far as the mission of the Spirit to the world is concerned, He is sent by the Son, and is indeed the ‘Spirit of the Son.’
The Orthodox position is based on John 15:26, where Christ says: ‘When the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father — he will bear witness to me.’ Christ sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father: so the Bible teaches, and so Orthodoxy believes. What Orthodoxy does not teach, and what the Bible never says, is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
An eternal procession from Father and Son: such is the western position. An eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, a temporal mission from the Son: such was the position upheld by Saint Photius against the west. But Byzantine writers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries — most notably Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1283 to 1289, and Gregory Palamas — went somewhat further than Photius, in an attempt to bridge the gulf between east and west. They were willing to allow not only a temporal mission, but an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit by the Son. While Photius had spoken only of a temporal relation between Son and Spirit, they admitted an eternal relation. Yet on the essential point the two Gregories agreed with Photius: the Spirit is manifested by the Son, but does not proceed from the Son. The Father is the unique origin, source, and cause of Godhead.
Such in outline are the positions taken up by either side; let us now consider the Orthodox objections to the western position. The filioque leads either to ditheism or to semi-Sabellianism (Sabellius, a heretic of the second century, regarded Father, Son, and Spirit not as three distinct persons, but simply as varying ‘modes’ or ‘aspects’ of the deity). If the Son as well as the Father is an arche, a principle or source of Godhead, are there then (the Orthodox asked) two independent sources, two separate principles in the Trinity? Obviously not, since this would be tantamount to belief in two Gods; and so the Reunion Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-1439) were most careful to state that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son ‘as from one principle,’ tanquam ex (or ab) uno principio. From the Orthodox point of view, however, this is equally objectionable: ditheism is avoided, but the persons of Father and Son are merged and confused. The Cappadocians regarded the ‘monarchy’ as the distinctive characteristic of the Father: He alone is a principle or arche within the Trinity. But western theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the Father to the Son as well, thus fusing the two persons into one; and what else is this but ‘Sabellius reborn, or rather some semi-Sabellian monster,’ as Saint Photius put it? (P.G. 102, 289B).
Let us look more carefully at this charge of semi-Sabellianism. Orthodox Trinitarian theology has a personal principle of unity, but the west finds its unitary principle in the essence of God. In Latin Scholastic theology, so it seems to Orthodox, the persons are overshadowed by the common nature, and God is thought of not so much in concrete and personal terms, but as an essence in which various relations are distinguished. This way of thinking about God comes to full development in Thomas Aquinas, who went so far as to identify the persons with the relations: personae sunt ipsae relationes (Summa Theologica, 1, question 40, article 2). Orthodox thinkers find this a very meagre idea of personality. The relations, they would say, are not the persons — they are the personal characteristics of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and (as Gregory Palamas put it) ‘personal characteristics do not constitute the person, but they characterize the person’ (Quoted in J. Meyendorff, Introduction à 1’étude de Grégoire Palamas, Paris, 1959, p. 294). The relations, while designating the persons, in no way exhaust the mystery of each.
Latin Scholastic theology, emphasizing as it does the essence at the expense of the persons, comes near to turning God into an abstract idea. He becomes a remote and impersonal being, whose existence has to be proved by metaphysical arguments — a God of the philosophers, not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has been far less concerned than the Latin west to find philosophical proofs of God’s existence: what is important is not that a man should argue about the deity, but that he should have a direct and living encounter with a concrete and personal God.
Such are some of the reasons why Orthodox regard the filioque as dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead. The oneness of the deity is emphasized at the expense of His threeness; God is regarded too much in terms of abstract essence and too little in terms of concrete personality.
But this is not all. Many Orthodox feel that, as a result of the filioque, the Holy Spirit in western thought has become subordinated to the Son — if not in theory, then at any rate in practice. The west pays insufficient attention to the work of the Spirit in the world, in the Church, in the daily life of each man.
Orthodox writers also argue that these two consequences of the filioque — subordination of the Holy Spirit, over-emphasis on the unity of God — have helped to bring about a distortion in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church. Because the role of the Spirit has been neglected in the west, the Church has come to be regarded too much as an institution of this world, governed in terms of earthly power and jurisdiction. And just as in the western doctrine of God unity was stressed at the expense of diversity, so in the western conception of the Church unity has triumphed over diversity, and the result has been too great a centralization and too great an emphasis on Papal authority.
Such in outline is the Orthodox attitude to the filioque, although not all would state the case in such an uncompromising form. In particular, many of the criticisms given above apply only to a decadent form of Scholasticism, not to Latin theology as a whole.

---

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

jkotinek:

quote:

---

These statements focus too much attention to how we as humans understand unity at expense of the unity of the Godhead. If any one person of the Godhead is hierarchically over another, then the other person(s) somehow becomes less God and you are left with polytheism. The beauty of any explanation is that our human understanding can’t ever adequately describe the true nature of the Trinity; we can say what we don’t know, however, and that is that we don’t worship multiple gods.

---

Ahh, but remember that the Jewish Kabbalistic model doesn't explain the Godhead as three persons sharing one substance, but as One Person with three aspects to His Divine Nature. There isn't a "person" in a hierarchical position over another "person." There is only One Person playing three different roles.

Obviously, there must be some type of hierarchy in place, otherwise Yeshua would not have said "for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

quote:

---

There are some portions that might be suspect according to the same, such as definitively assigning gender to the persons (or aspects) of the Godhead.

---

God created woman, so obviously femininity cannot be outside of His Nature. Man was created to reflect one side of His Nature, and woman was created to reflect the other side.

The Fatherly aspect is represented by the Left Pillar of the Sefirotic Tree, and is made up of "Binah" (Knowledge), "Gevurah" (Strength/Justice), and "Hod" (Splendor/Glory). The Motherly aspect is represented by the Right Pillar of the Sefirotic Tree, and is made up of "Chochmah" (Wisdom), "Chesed" (Mercy/Lovingkindness), and "Netzach" (Eternity/Victory). These two Pillars "fuse together" (for lack of a better term) to create the Middle Pillar (Son) which embodies all of the attributes of both the Left and Right Pillars combined.

quote:

---

The aspects that Trimm describes sound a lot like Modalism or Sabellianism, where the members of the Trinity are not distinct, but various expressions of the Godhead at different times, as if God has multiple personality disorder.

---

Heh! Well, from a Jewish perspective, the Trinitarian model sounds more like polytheism.

Thanks for the article, give me some time to look it over.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/4/2004 2:30a).]