To understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism

[Grailhunter]

To understand Christianity (in relation to the Cross) YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF MOSES (concerning the sacrifices).

But Judaism itself (living under the Law) was antithetical to the Grace that Christians have now been given by God to walk in.
.....

I am not saying that Mosaic Laws have anything to do with Christians.
As far as history the Old Testament is what lead up to Christianity and showed the need for Christianity.
Then some of the customs followed in with the Apostles/Jewish Christians. They still observed some of the Laws and customs and reverence to the Temple. That all changed with the Gentile-Christians.

 

[Pierac]

The real debate among scholars

Plato's ideas, along with the more mystical developments of Neoplatonism (especially through thinkers like Plotinus and later figures like Proclus), have left a deep and lasting mark on Christian thinking. This influence stretches from the earliest centuries right up to today, shaping how many Christians understand God, the soul, creation, evil, and the path to knowing the divine.

Early Christian writers found Platonic tools useful for explaining their faith in a Greco-Roman world. Concepts like an immaterial ultimate reality, the soul's immortality, and the supreme Good (or the One) helped articulate ideas about God's transcendence, the soul's eternal nature, and goodness as central to everything real. Thinkers such as Origen, the Cappadocian fathers, and especially Augustine drew on these to defend Christian beliefs against critics and to deepen their own theology. Augustine's famous encounter with "the books of the Platonists" (likely Plotinus or Porphyry) in the late 4th century shifted him away from materialism and toward seeing God as incorporeal, infinite light—and evil as simply a lack or twisting of the good rather than a rival force.

By the early 6th century, an anonymous writer (now called Pseudo-Dionysius) took Neoplatonic metaphysics and wove it tightly into Christian mysticism. He portrayed God as beyond all names and concepts (apophatic theology), as overwhelming light, and as the source of a great hierarchy of being descending from the divine through angels to the material world. His works on divine names, mystical theology, and celestial hierarchies became hugely influential in both Eastern and Western Christianity, shaping liturgy, church structure, and contemplative prayer for centuries.

These streams flowed forward. In the medieval West, even as Aristotle dominated university debates, figures like Aquinas quietly incorporated Platonic elements—such as divine ideas (eternal archetypes in God's mind) and Dionysian language about God as pure goodness and act. In the East, Maximus the Confessor and later Gregory Palamas built on Dionysian themes to defend the experience of God's uncreated energies (like the light of the Transfiguration) while keeping God's essence utterly unknowable.

The Renaissance brought a fresh wave of direct Platonic study (thanks to translators like Ficino), and Reformation leaders like Luther and Calvin inherited an Augustinian framework that carried Platonic traces—especially around grace, inner illumination, and God's absolute sovereignty. Even when they pushed back against excessive speculation, those roots remained.

In more recent times, Platonic themes keep resurfacing. Orthodox thinkers like Vladimir Lossky highlighted the Dionysian-Palamite legacy of mystical union and divine light. Catholic theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar emphasized divine beauty and glory in ways that echo Platonic ideals of the Good. Some contemporary Reformed and evangelical voices (like Hans Boersma) actively defend "Christian Platonism" as essential for grasping participation in God, the sacramental view of reality, and the beatific vision as humanity's true end—arguing that classical Christian theism relies on a basically Platonic metaphysics of transcendence, hierarchy, and the primacy of the spiritual.

Key doctrinal areas where Platonic influence shows up include:

• God as the ultimate Good or Light — transcendent, unchanging, the source of all reality (echoing Plato's Form of the Good and Plotinus's One).
• The soul's immortality and longing for divine union — adapted from Plato's Phaedo, though Christians rejected reincarnation and tied it to resurrection.
• Evil as privation — not a substance but an absence or corruption of good (a Plotinian idea Augustine popularized to address theodicy).
• Knowledge as illumination — truth comes from a higher divine light shining inward (Augustine's take on Platonic recollection).
• Mystical ascent and negative theology — approaching God by negation and stages of purification (Pseudo-Dionysius's hallmark).
• Hierarchical cosmos — ordered levels of being from God down to matter, influencing angelology, church order, and sacramental symbolism.

Of course, Christians almost always adapted these ideas selectively. They rejected emanation (the universe as necessary overflow from the One), insisted on creation from nothing by a free personal God, emphasized the Incarnation and bodily resurrection (which clash with any disdain for matter), and grounded everything in biblical revelation rather than pure philosophy.

Still, the Platonic framework provided conceptual scaffolding that helped Christianity articulate its claims in philosophical terms—and that scaffolding has proven remarkably durable. Some celebrate it as providential preparation (the "spoiling the Egyptians" motif), while others critique it as importing foreign dualisms that subtly shift focus away from Scripture's earthy, historical, embodied emphasis toward a more spiritualized or escapist outlook. The conversation continues, but the imprint is undeniable: Plato and Neoplatonism helped give Christian theology much of its metaphysical depth and mystical richness, even as Christianity reshaped those tools to proclaim its own distinctive message.

 

[Pierac]

Plato, Christianity, and the Development of Western Theology

The Architecture Beneath Theology

---

​

Introduction: A Continuous Metaphysical Framework

and the Question It Forces

The development of Western theology is often narrated as a sequence: Plato, followed by Neo-Platonism, then Christianity, then Augustine of Hippo, and eventually the divergence of Eastern and Western traditions. That telling suggests replacement, as though each stage displaces the one before it.

What actually unfolds is more structurally coherent. The same conceptual architecture persists across each stage, even as it is reinterpreted. Plato supplies the framework; later thinkers refine and adapt it; Christianity inhabits it and reshapes its internal logic without discarding its structure.

Once that continuity is recognized, however, a deeper and more probing question emerges—one that cannot be avoided if the analysis is to be intellectually honest:

If Plato provided the metaphysical scaffolding, where does Scripture resist that scaffolding? And if that scaffolding had never been adopted, what form might Christianity have taken instead?

Answering that requires moving beyond development into tension—examining not only where the systems align, but where they diverge in fundamental ways.

---

​

Where Scripture Pushes Back Against the Platonic Framework

The Platonic structure is powerful because it is internally coherent. But it is not neutral. It carries assumptions—about reality, the human person, and ultimate destiny—that do not always align with the biblical narrative. At several critical points, Scripture does not merely adapt the framework; it resists it.

---

​

Creation: Not a Diminished Copy, but a Declared Good

Within the Platonic framework, reality is hierarchically structured. The higher level—the intelligible realm—is more real, more stable, and more valuable. The material world, by contrast, is less real because it is subject to change, decay, and imperfection.

This assumption subtly encourages a devaluation of the physical. Matter becomes something secondary, something that points beyond itself but does not fully matter in its own right.

The opening chapter of Scripture presents a strikingly different orientation. Creation is not described as a shadow or a lesser copy of a higher realm. It is described as something intentionally willed into existence and repeatedly affirmed as good. The culmination of that declaration—“very good”—is not ornamental language. It is a theological claim about the nature of reality.

To see the difference clearly, consider two ways of evaluating a physical object. In a Platonic framework, a wooden table is an imperfect instantiation of the Form of “tableness.” Its imperfections highlight its inferiority to the ideal. In the biblical account, the table would be part of a created order that is affirmed as good—not because it perfectly reflects an abstract ideal, but because it exists as part of a purposeful creation.

This does not eliminate hierarchy or transcendence, but it resists the ontological downgrade of matter. The material world is not treated as an inferior realm to be escaped. It is treated as a meaningful and valued part of reality.

That distinction becomes decisive later, when questions about salvation and ultimate destiny arise.

---

​

Resurrection: The Refusal to Abandon the Body

The Platonic trajectory naturally leads toward the idea that the soul’s highest destiny is to separate from the body. The body is a temporary vessel; the soul is the enduring reality. Salvation, therefore, becomes liberation from material constraints.

The New Testament insists on something far more concrete. The central hope is not disembodied survival but bodily resurrection. This is not an incidental doctrine; it is the culmination of the narrative.

To understand how radical this is, consider two different conceptions of “life after death.” In one, a person leaves behind a worn-out physical structure and continues in a purely immaterial state, much like data transferred from one device to another. In the other, the structure itself is restored—rebuilt, transformed, and made whole.

The Platonic instinct favors the first model. The biblical narrative insists on the second.

This insistence appears in the details. The resurrection is described in physical terms: the dead are raised, the body is transformed, creation itself is renewed. Even when later theology introduces more abstract language, the underlying imagery remains stubbornly concrete.

The result is a direct tension. If the body is merely a lower-level reality, why restore it? If matter is inherently inferior, why redeem it?

The doctrine of resurrection answers those questions not by argument, but by assertion: the material is not disposable.

---

​

The Human Person: A Unified Life, Not a Divided Substance

Plato’s anthropology introduces a sharp distinction between body and soul. The soul is the true self, capable of existing independently. The body is secondary—something the soul inhabits but ultimately transcends.

The Hebrew understanding reflected in the Old Testament presents a different picture. The human being is not described as a soul residing in a body, but as a unified, living entity. The term often translated as “soul” does not refer to an immaterial component detachable from the body, but to the living person as a whole.

This difference becomes especially clear in descriptions of death. Rather than being portrayed as the release of an immortal essence, death is depicted as a real cessation of life—a return to dust. Conscious existence is not assumed to continue independently. The hope for future life is tied not to inherent immortality but to divine action.

Consider the practical implications. In a Platonic framework, the question becomes: where does the soul go when it leaves the body? In the biblical framework, the question becomes: how will God restore life to what has truly died?

This distinction is not merely semantic. It reshapes doctrines of immortality, judgment, and salvation. It also highlights why modern discussions of conditional immortality press directly against inherited Platonic assumptions.

---

​

God and Time: Immutable or Relationally Active?

In the Platonic tradition, ultimate reality must be unchanging. Change implies movement between states, and movement implies imperfection. Therefore, the highest reality must be beyond change—timeless, immutable, and unaffected by temporal events.

Scripture repeatedly portrays God in ways that complicate this picture. God enters into covenant, responds to human actions, expresses grief, and alters courses of action. These are not framed as philosophical paradoxes but as narrative realities.

A helpful comparison can be made between two models of interaction. In one, a perfectly designed system operates independently of external input, unaffected by changes in its environment. In the other, a personal agent engages dynamically, responding to circumstances and entering into relationships.

The biblical portrayal aligns more closely with the second model. God is not depicted as detached from history, but as deeply involved in it.

Later theology often resolves this tension by interpreting such descriptions metaphorically, preserving immutability at the metaphysical level. But the textual tension remains. The biblical narrative resists being fully contained within a strictly unchanging model of divine reality.

---

​

Evil: Not Only Deficiency, but Personal and Historical Rupture

The Platonic account of evil as privation is philosophically elegant. It preserves the unity of reality and avoids positing a rival force to the Good. Evil becomes a lack, a distortion, or a corruption of something good.

Scripture, while not contradicting this, approaches evil differently. It describes evil as disobedience, rebellion, and violation of covenant. The focus is relational rather than ontological.

This distinction becomes clearer when examined through ordinary moral experience. Philosophically, lying can be described as a distortion of truth—a deficiency in alignment with reality. Narratively, lying is also an act of betrayal, a rupture in trust between persons.

The philosophical account explains structure; the biblical account emphasizes responsibility and relationship. Both are valid, but they operate at different levels. Scripture shows little interest in abstract definitions of evil and much greater interest in its lived consequences.

---

​

Salvation: Ascent Reversed into Descent

Plato frames the human journey as ascent. The soul rises toward the Good through contemplation and purification. The movement is upward, driven by intellectual and moral effort.

The biblical narrative reverses this direction. The central movement is not human ascent but divine descent. God chooses, enters history, and acts.

This difference can be illustrated through two contrasting images. In one, an individual climbs a mountain through discipline and effort. In the other, a rescuer descends, meets the individual at their level, and brings them upward.

The Platonic structure remains visible in later Christian language about drawing near to God or moving toward a higher reality. But the engine driving that movement is no longer self-directed ascent. It is divine initiative.

---

​

Part 1

 

[Pierac]

Part 2

f Plato Had Not Supplied the Framework

If Scripture resists the Platonic framework at these points, it becomes possible to imagine how Christianity might have developed without it. This is not a rejection of philosophy, but a thought experiment: what happens if specifically Platonic metaphysics is removed?

---

​

A Theology Rooted in Narrative Rather Than Abstraction

Without Platonic categories, theological language would likely remain more concrete and relational. God would be described primarily in terms of action and relationship—king, father, shepherd, judge—rather than as pure being or absolute simplicity.

The emphasis would fall less on what God is in an abstract sense and more on what God does in history. Theology would read more like a narrative of events and less like a system of metaphysical propositions.

---

​

A Different Understanding of the Human Person

Without the concept of an inherently immortal soul, the human person would be understood more holistically. Life would be seen as a unified reality, and death would be taken seriously as the loss of that life.

Immortality would not be assumed as a natural property of the soul but understood as a gift granted by God. The focus would shift toward resurrection as the central hope rather than the continuation of consciousness after death.

---

​

Salvation as the Renewal of Creation

The emphasis of salvation would move decisively away from escape and toward restoration. The future would be envisioned not as departure from the world but as its transformation.

This perspective aligns with biblical imagery of new creation, renewed bodies, and a restored cosmos. It places the material world at the center of redemption rather than treating it as something to be transcended.

---

​

A Relational Rather Than Legal Framework

Without the strong influence of Augustinian categories, theology might emphasize covenant, relationship, and restoration more than guilt, legal status, and justification. Sin could be framed more consistently as corruption and exile, and salvation as healing and return.

This would align more closely with the participatory emphasis found in traditions such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, even though those traditions themselves remain deeply shaped by Platonic metaphysics.

---

​

A Different Set of Questions

Without Platonic assumptions, many of the defining questions of Western theology would shift. Concepts such as divine simplicity, timelessness, and the natural immortality of the soul depend on that framework.

Remove the framework, and the questions themselves change. The debate is no longer about how an immutable being interacts with time, but about how a relational God acts within history.

---

​

What Would Be Lost

Removing Platonic metaphysics does not simply simplify theology; it alters its intellectual character.

What would be gained is a closer alignment with the narrative texture of Scripture—a theology that is more concrete, more historically grounded, and more immediately accessible.

What would be lost is a certain kind of conceptual coherence. The ability to articulate a unified metaphysical system, to engage rigorously with philosophical traditions, and to provide systematic explanations of reality would be diminished.

The result would not necessarily be less true, but it would be less systematized.

---

​

The Fault Line Beneath Theology

At the center of this entire discussion lies a fundamental divide. Is Christianity primarily a historical narrative about God’s actions within time, or is it a metaphysical system describing ultimate reality?

Platonism pulls theology toward abstraction, coherence, and ontology. Scripture pulls it toward story, relationship, and history.

Western theology often attempts to hold these together, creating a synthesis that is both philosophically rigorous and narratively grounded. Eastern theology tends to emphasize participation and transformation. Other approaches attempt to strip away philosophical influence altogether.

Yet none fully escape the tension.

---

​

Final Reflection

Plato did not simply influence Christian theology; he provided its conceptual architecture. Christianity did not merely adopt that architecture; it filled it with historical content, relational meaning, and theological claims.

The result is a tradition shaped by both metaphysics and narrative, by both structure and story.

But the fit was never perfect. At critical points, Scripture resists the framework it later inhabits. And once that resistance is taken seriously, it becomes possible to see that theology could have developed along different lines.

That possibility does not eliminate the value of the existing tradition. It clarifies its complexity.

The tension remains—not as a flaw, but as a defining feature of the theological system itself.

 

[Luther7]

Part 2

f Plato Had Not Supplied the Framework

If Scripture resists the Platonic framework at these points, it becomes possible to imagine how Christianity might have developed without it. This is not a rejection of philosophy, but a thought experiment: what happens if specifically Platonic metaphysics is removed?

​

---

A Theology Rooted in Narrative Rather Than Abstraction

Without Platonic categories, theological language would likely remain more concrete and relational. God would be described primarily in terms of action and relationship—king, father, shepherd, judge—rather than as pure being or absolute simplicity.

The emphasis would fall less on what God is in an abstract sense and more on what God does in history. Theology would read more like a narrative of events and less like a system of metaphysical propositions.

​

---

A Different Understanding of the Human Person

Without the concept of an inherently immortal soul, the human person would be understood more holistically. Life would be seen as a unified reality, and death would be taken seriously as the loss of that life.

Immortality would not be assumed as a natural property of the soul but understood as a gift granted by God. The focus would shift toward resurrection as the central hope rather than the continuation of consciousness after death.

​

---

Salvation as the Renewal of Creation

The emphasis of salvation would move decisively away from escape and toward restoration. The future would be envisioned not as departure from the world but as its transformation.

This perspective aligns with biblical imagery of new creation, renewed bodies, and a restored cosmos. It places the material world at the center of redemption rather than treating it as something to be transcended.

​

---

A Relational Rather Than Legal Framework

Without the strong influence of Augustinian categories, theology might emphasize covenant, relationship, and restoration more than guilt, legal status, and justification. Sin could be framed more consistently as corruption and exile, and salvation as healing and return.

This would align more closely with the participatory emphasis found in traditions such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, even though those traditions themselves remain deeply shaped by Platonic metaphysics.

​

---

A Different Set of Questions

Without Platonic assumptions, many of the defining questions of Western theology would shift. Concepts such as divine simplicity, timelessness, and the natural immortality of the soul depend on that framework.

Remove the framework, and the questions themselves change. The debate is no longer about how an immutable being interacts with time, but about how a relational God acts within history.

​

---

What Would Be Lost

Removing Platonic metaphysics does not simply simplify theology; it alters its intellectual character.

What would be gained is a closer alignment with the narrative texture of Scripture—a theology that is more concrete, more historically grounded, and more immediately accessible.

What would be lost is a certain kind of conceptual coherence. The ability to articulate a unified metaphysical system, to engage rigorously with philosophical traditions, and to provide systematic explanations of reality would be diminished.

The result would not necessarily be less true, but it would be less systematized.

​

---

The Fault Line Beneath Theology

At the center of this entire discussion lies a fundamental divide. Is Christianity primarily a historical narrative about God’s actions within time, or is it a metaphysical system describing ultimate reality?

Platonism pulls theology toward abstraction, coherence, and ontology. Scripture pulls it toward story, relationship, and history.

Western theology often attempts to hold these together, creating a synthesis that is both philosophically rigorous and narratively grounded. Eastern theology tends to emphasize participation and transformation. Other approaches attempt to strip away philosophical influence altogether.

Yet none fully escape the tension.

​

---

Final Reflection

Plato did not simply influence Christian theology; he provided its conceptual architecture. Christianity did not merely adopt that architecture; it filled it with historical content, relational meaning, and theological claims.

The result is a tradition shaped by both metaphysics and narrative, by both structure and story.

But the fit was never perfect. At critical points, Scripture resists the framework it later inhabits. And once that resistance is taken seriously, it becomes possible to see that theology could have developed along different lines.

That possibility does not eliminate the value of the existing tradition. It clarifies its complexity.

The tension remains—not as a flaw, but as a defining feature of the theological system itself.

And this is what God says about Plato and others like him:

Corinthians 1:20-24
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, God was well pleased, through the foolishness of preaching, to save those that believe. 22 For the Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Pray for the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grailhunter]

The real debate among scholars

Plato's ideas, along with the more mystical developments of Neoplatonism (especially through thinkers like Plotinus and later figures like Proclus), have left a deep and lasting mark on Christian thinking. This influence stretches from the earliest centuries right up to today, shaping how many Christians understand God, the soul, creation, evil, and the path to knowing the divine.

Early Christian writers found Platonic tools useful for explaining their faith in a Greco-Roman world. Concepts like an immaterial ultimate reality, the soul's immortality, and the supreme Good (or the One) helped articulate ideas about God's transcendence, the soul's eternal nature, and goodness as central to everything real. Thinkers such as Origen, the Cappadocian fathers, and especially Augustine drew on these to defend Christian beliefs against critics and to deepen their own theology. Augustine's famous encounter with "the books of the Platonists" (likely Plotinus or Porphyry) in the late 4th century shifted him away from materialism and toward seeing God as incorporeal, infinite light—and evil as simply a lack or twisting of the good rather than a rival force.

By the early 6th century, an anonymous writer (now called Pseudo-Dionysius) took Neoplatonic metaphysics and wove it tightly into Christian mysticism. He portrayed God as beyond all names and concepts (apophatic theology), as overwhelming light, and as the source of a great hierarchy of being descending from the divine through angels to the material world. His works on divine names, mystical theology, and celestial hierarchies became hugely influential in both Eastern and Western Christianity, shaping liturgy, church structure, and contemplative prayer for centuries.

These streams flowed forward. In the medieval West, even as Aristotle dominated university debates, figures like Aquinas quietly incorporated Platonic elements—such as divine ideas (eternal archetypes in God's mind) and Dionysian language about God as pure goodness and act. In the East, Maximus the Confessor and later Gregory Palamas built on Dionysian themes to defend the experience of God's uncreated energies (like the light of the Transfiguration) while keeping God's essence utterly unknowable.

The Renaissance brought a fresh wave of direct Platonic study (thanks to translators like Ficino), and Reformation leaders like Luther and Calvin inherited an Augustinian framework that carried Platonic traces—especially around grace, inner illumination, and God's absolute sovereignty. Even when they pushed back against excessive speculation, those roots remained.

In more recent times, Platonic themes keep resurfacing. Orthodox thinkers like Vladimir Lossky highlighted the Dionysian-Palamite legacy of mystical union and divine light. Catholic theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar emphasized divine beauty and glory in ways that echo Platonic ideals of the Good. Some contemporary Reformed and evangelical voices (like Hans Boersma) actively defend "Christian Platonism" as essential for grasping participation in God, the sacramental view of reality, and the beatific vision as humanity's true end—arguing that classical Christian theism relies on a basically Platonic metaphysics of transcendence, hierarchy, and the primacy of the spiritual.

Key doctrinal areas where Platonic influence shows up include:

• God as the ultimate Good or Light — transcendent, unchanging, the source of all reality (echoing Plato's Form of the Good and Plotinus's One).
• The soul's immortality and longing for divine union — adapted from Plato's Phaedo, though Christians rejected reincarnation and tied it to resurrection.
• Evil as privation — not a substance but an absence or corruption of good (a Plotinian idea Augustine popularized to address theodicy).
• Knowledge as illumination — truth comes from a higher divine light shining inward (Augustine's take on Platonic recollection).
• Mystical ascent and negative theology — approaching God by negation and stages of purification (Pseudo-Dionysius's hallmark).
• Hierarchical cosmos — ordered levels of being from God down to matter, influencing angelology, church order, and sacramental symbolism.

Of course, Christians almost always adapted these ideas selectively. They rejected emanation (the universe as necessary overflow from the One), insisted on creation from nothing by a free personal God, emphasized the Incarnation and bodily resurrection (which clash with any disdain for matter), and grounded everything in biblical revelation rather than pure philosophy.

Still, the Platonic framework provided conceptual scaffolding that helped Christianity articulate its claims in philosophical terms—and that scaffolding has proven remarkably durable. Some celebrate it as providential preparation (the "spoiling the Egyptians" motif), while others critique it as importing foreign dualisms that subtly shift focus away from Scripture's earthy, historical, embodied emphasis toward a more spiritualized or escapist outlook. The conversation continues, but the imprint is undeniable: Plato and Neoplatonism helped give Christian theology much of its metaphysical depth and mystical richness, even as Christianity reshaped those tools to proclaim its own distinctive message.

You are right. It is hard to imagine how different concepts and beliefs were......and then to explain them in a language that did not have words for it. It is not only that the Gods changed but the concept of Gods the spirit world and of reality and society.

 

[quietthinker]

To understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism​

I guess all those 'good for nothing' pagans Paul preached to who accepted the Gospel must have understood Judaism!

 

[rockytopva]

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.- Romans 10:9

I mean... How hard is that?

 

[Lambano]

To understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism​

I guess all those 'good for nothing' pagans Paul preached to who accepted the Gospel must have understood Judaism!

What Paul was doing was bringing those pagans into a covenant relationship with that Jewish God.

 

[Angelina]

A professor at the University of Cambridge used to teach a course called ‘To understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism.’

I know I have blown people’s minds when I tell them that the Trinity is made up of three Gods, not one God. There is one Godhead with three full-fledged Gods that sit on three thrones in Heaven…

Historic Christianity does not teach three Gods. It teaches one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), sharing one divine essence (Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19). The idea of three separate Gods is known as tritheism, which is different from the doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

First things first…

The Jews do not believe in Hell or the Devil…

This is an oversimplification. The Old Testament includes Sheol, and later Jewish thought includes resurrection and judgment (Daniel 12:2). The figure of “the satan” appears in Job 1–2.

The Jews believe a person’s rewards and punishments occur during their lifetime…

While early texts emphasize this life, later Jewish writings include future judgment and resurrection.

There are three circumstances that people may have been taken to Heaven…

Scripture explicitly records Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). Abraham is not described this way.

The Jews believed the Messiah would be a warlord king…

Some expected a রাজনৈতিক deliverer, but Scripture also includes passages describing a suffering figure (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22) and a figure with divine authority (Daniel 7:13–14).

There is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the Messiah would be killed…

Isaiah 53 describes a servant who suffers and dies; Psalm 22 reflects similar themes.

At no time do the Old Testament scriptures say that the Jews would be responsible for the Messiah’s death…

The Old Testament does not frame the issue in those exact terms, but it does include rejection of God’s chosen servants (e.g., Isaiah 53:3).

In the Old Testament all souls went to Sheol…

Sheol is referenced, but its structure (levels, etc.) is not clearly defined in Scripture.

Yeshua went to Sheol to preach the Gospel there…

This interpretation is debated (see 1 Peter 3:19). It is not described in detail.

No Salvation in the Old Testament…

Forgiveness is clearly present (Psalm 32:1; Exodus 34:6–7). The sacrificial system provided atonement.

Yahweh had zero tolerance for sin…

Scripture shows both justice and mercy consistently (Malachi 3:6; Psalm 103:8).

So what changed…

Scripture teaches that God did not change (Malachi 3:6), but that His plan was progressively revealed (Ephesians 3:5–6).

Speculation…

The following sections involve speculation. Scripture confirms the existence of Satan and spiritual conflict (Job 1–2; 1 John 3:8), but does not provide detailed narratives about motives, territorial control, or structured levels of Sheol.

We know that Satan led a rebellion…

Revelation 12 symbolically describes conflict in heaven, but details are limited.

By the time of Yeshua… Satan had a strong hold on the world…

Scripture affirms the presence of evil (John 12:31), but does not describe specific geographic control as outlined here.

The Messiah had to be a God…

Christianity teaches the Messiah is divine (John 1:1, 14), but within the framework of one God, not multiple gods.

Now Heaven is for God…

Believers are described as children of God (Romans 8:14–17), but Scripture does not state that humans become “senior to angels.”

This speculation is not complete…

The identity of the Holy Spirit is not hidden; the Spirit is revealed in Scripture (John 14:26; Acts 5:3–4).

The Magi knew…

Scripture does not state that the Magi had knowledge of the Holy Spirit’s identity, nor that they financed Jesus’ ministry.

Female Magi…

This is not supported by Scripture.

 

[quietthinker]

What Paul was doing was bringing those pagans into a covenant relationship with that Jewish God.

I guess Paul was doing a few things but let's just say he spoke to people removed from the Jewish mindset about the forgiveness of their sins and they believed him. From then on their learning trajectory took on new dimensions ie, a new paradigm was initiated.
It seems to me that new wine skins took on new wine easier than old wine skins.

It is much the same in our societies. Trying to put new wine into old paradigms has fuses being blown left right and centre.

 

[Luther7]

What Paul was doing was bringing those pagans into a covenant relationship with that Jewish God.

Romans 3: 29-30:

Or is He the God of the Jews only? But is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith.

It's not about the jews. It's about the New Covenant in Christ's shed blood.

 

[ScottA]

I forgive you too.
Christianity and judaism are diametrically opposed to one another?
Yeshua was a Jew.
As a theologian I am use to dealing with a lot if ignorance.
God Bless.

I was traveling when you made your Original Post, so did not comment. Now, after first reading your OP, my first comment is following post #17.

Christianity and Judaism are indeed diametrically opposed to one another, as were the Jews to Jesus, and vice versa.

But first--DO NOT SPECULATE. Do you not know that this is the way of the serpent, who caused speculation, rebellion, and sin to begin, saying, "Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” It is for this reason that we are told to be "silent" in the church, with the only exception being not us "speaking, but the Holy Spirit"--which requires our being silent.

As for the OP, men go on and on in their speculative babbling, while the issue is easily stated--and has been stated and written already--in few words. I will paraphrase...and if you do not recognize the words, you are not ready to comment, keep reading the scriptures:

Judaism is the "foundation" that Christianity is built upon. Meaning Judaism was and is an incomplete word from God, in fact, elementary. But indeed opposing what was to come after, beginning with Christ--because, as it was explained and written, "the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual." That is the opposition, which is a much bigger matter than Judaism vs. Christianity. Even so, it was given to Israel to know and understand that their part was only part, by Isaiah, saying, "the word of the Lord was to them, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little”--which did not stop or "return void" when they crucified their Messiah sent to them.​

​

Israel was simply the first nation and people to become what they speculated, by their own measure. For this reason Jesus--a Jew of that "light unto the gentiles"--preached, “take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness.” But who even among Christians, even now, will actually "be silent in church?"​

 

[Justified]

A professor at the University of Cambridge use to teach a course called “To understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism.”

It would be better to teach that to understand Christianity, you must understand the OT.

I know I have blown people’s minds when I tell them that the Trinity is made up of three Gods, not one God. There is one Godhead with three full-fledged Gods that sit on three thrones in Heaven with Yeshua the Son of Yahweh sitting on the right of His Father. Well, here we go again.

By definition, that is not the Trinity, that is tritheism. That is unbiblical and anti-Christ. The OT teaches that there is only one God, which is why Jesus and the rest of the NT teach that as well.

There is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the Messiah would be killed and return thousands of years later.

Jesus disagrees with you:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Notice that he calls them "foolish ones," who are "slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." That the Jews largely didn't understand that the Messiah had to die for their sins and rise again clearly shows that they had some mistaken beliefs about what was taught in the Tanakh.

At no time do the Old Testament scriptures say that the Jews would be responsible for the Messiah’s death. They did not believe they would wait 700 years to kill their Messiah. Killing the Son of Yahweh! Max wrath, they would have ran for hills and would have had nothing to do with Judaism.

Zec 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Now as we know, this did not happen, the terrible day of the Lord or the advent of Elijah return in a fiery chariot. Because they were still looking for him in New Testament. This was one of the reasons that the Jews did not believe Yeshua was the Messiah because Elijah did not introduce him. Some thought that it was John the Baptist or Yeshua. And as the scriptures say John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was more of a predecessor to Yeshua. So why didn’t it happen, what changed?

Why did the Messiah need to be a God?

Why was Hell created or when was it created?

Why did Mankind need to be saved?

In the Old Testament all souls went to Sheol….which had levels, good and bad? Which brings up other questions. In the New Testament the dead are said to be asleep and in the end will resurrect….does that mean the souls are in the grave? Not defined.

The upper level of Shoel was paradise and this is where Yeshua and the thief on the cross went when they passed. Yeshua went to Sheol to preach the Gospel there. No scripture suggests that Yeshua went to Heaven after He passed on the cross. In fact Yeshua told Mary the Magdaline….Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father;….John 20:17

In the Old Testament the word salvation meant to save lives, in the New Testament Salvation was/is the saving of souls from Hell and the reward was Heaven.

No Salvation in the Old Testament because Yahweh had zero tolerance for sin. Which meant one sin and Salvation was not possible. No forgiveness just avoidance of the wrath of Yahweh through atonement by sacrifice. The same is true of the New Testament/New Covenant, Yahweh was not changed by the New Covenant. So how does forgiveness and Salvation work in the New Testament? One of the effects of Grace is that it provides a cloak of perfection for us. Yahweh does not see our sins. Yeshua’s perfect sacrifice removed us from the type of sin caused by breaking the Law. Our sins are covered by the blood of Yeshua provided by the love of the Sacred Heart of the Son of God. Our sins are between us and Yeshua and if we own up to our sins and ask forgiveness his love forgives our transgressions as long as we do not use Grace for a license to sin. Which means do not expect to get forgiveness for the same sin over and over again. You cannot play Christ for a fool.

So what changed that caused all this to happen? It is not written in the scriptures and apparently the Apostles did not know. So all we know is that something changed and it apparently happened between the Testaments. So do we just leave it at that? Or can we speculate. Speculation is good as long as it is just that and do not try to say it is fact. So here is the speculation…..

There is no need for speculation because there is nothing that "changed that caused all this to happen." It was God's plan all along:

Act 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

 

[Grailhunter]

It would be better to teach that to understand Christianity, you must understand the OT.

Judaism includes the Old Testament....Culture is important too.

By definition, that is not the Trinity, that is tritheism. That is unbiblical and anti-Christ. The OT teaches that there is only one God, which is why Jesus and the rest of the NT teach that as well.

False beliefs run amuck....Christianity has had 2000 years to develop some whopping false beliefs......
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

Jesus disagrees with you:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Notice that he calls them "foolish ones," who are "slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." That the Jews largely didn't understand that the Messiah had to die for their sins and rise again clearly shows that they had some mistaken beliefs about what was taught in the Tanakh.

OK, I am waiting for where Yeshua disagreed with me.

Zec 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

No kill.....And where did the Jews mourn for what they done to him. And where does it say they would kill him and He we would return thousands and thousands of years later.
Again I am going to say......If the prophets were telling the Jews that they were going to be responsible for killing Yahweh's Son.....knowing His wrath....they would have ran for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it.

There is no need for speculation because there is nothing that "changed that caused all this to happen." It was God's plan all along:

Act 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

A lot changed.....A lot.
Now it might have been a plan to change, but not a lot to suggest that it was coming.
Hell and the devil in the New Testament was a change......If Yeshua would have told the Jews He was there to save them, they would have said....Save us from what?

The Jews were looking for the Messiah to be a human warlord king that would take down their oppressors in the "Terrible Day Of The Lord" and establish His kingdom forever and put the Jews in power over the world and make the Mosaic Law the law of the land and Temple sacrifices would go on forever.

Instead of a warlord they got the Lord. He did not take on the Romans and preached love and forgiveness. He did not establish His kingdom and He was killed. Nothing to say that the Son of God would come to save their souls (The Jews knew very little of souls) and the people He came to save would be responsible for His death. And thousands of thousands of years later He would establish His kingdom.

For the Jews, Heaven was the abode of God and was never offered as a reward for humans.

Yeap there were changes.....and they could have been part of the plan, but the changes were more than most of the Jews could deal with.

All in all Christianity was a complete change for everybody....No language at that time had words for what they were preaching....And the Greeks and the Greek language had some pretty lofty thoughts, but the Greek language did not have words to explain the theology of Christianity. The Apostles would have to take Greek words and change what they meant to explain Christianity.....For a simple example.....If you told a Roman he sinned....it would mean his arrow missed the target......they changed that to mean a transgression against God.

The Jews were looking for a different Messiah and the Pagans did not have a personal relationship with their gods and no hope of going where their gods lived and existing in the spirit world and revelations!!! Revelations seemed like a nightmare to some of them....the day of the walking dead!

So Christianity was a change for everyone......GRANTED IT WAS A GOOD CHANGE, BUT IT WAS A LOT FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE IN.

 

[amigo de christo]

to understand true chritanity one only need to beleive on JESUS the CHRIST
and open that bible and learn for oneself .
Cause many leaders in wool are not and have not been preaching the TRUE JESUS
Times running out and soon all will have bought the lie . well , by all i mean ALL NOT IN THE LAMBs book of life .
And blood as it has come upon the church t hroughout the ages
WILL THEN RAGE in the fullest amount ever known against the last sheep standing . AND ALL WILL BELIEVE
this was the will of GOD for world peace n safety . WELL , ALL NOT IN THE LAMBS BOOK Of life will .
FOR THEY WILL BE HEEDING teh voice of HE who came in his own name
and had infiltrated them all , changing the very image of GOD and HIS CHRIST , into ANTI CHRIST .
OOPSY . WE GETTING DUPED folks . GET the heck outta them satanic ecumeincal whore agenda serving places .
OR prepare to BUY THE LIE , IF one has not arleady bought the lie .

 

[Justified]

False beliefs run amuck....Christianity has had 2000 years to develop some whapping false beliefs......

And numerous individuals, such as yourself, haven't stopped coming out with false beliefs for 2,000 years. A couple of notable persons are Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell.

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.”

But all the foundations of the Trinity are in the Bible. The doctrine itself is a summation of what the Bible teaches, as is every doctrine.

Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

Which is not relevant as to whether or not the foundations of the Trinity which form the doctrine are in the Bible.

OK, I am waiting for where Yeshua disagreed with me.

Of course you are, because you don't like being proven wrong; it seems that it's actually impossible for you to be wrong, which is a very un-Christian position.

You stated that, "There is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the Messiah would be killed and return thousands of years later."

But, clearly, Jesus disagrees:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

He taught that it was "necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory." That he wouldn't vanquish his enemies first but would return to do so, would include passages such as Dan. 7 and Joel 2, which must be read carefully.

No kill.....And where did the Jews mourn for what they done to him. And where does it say they would kill him and He we would return thousands and thousands of year later.
Again I am going to say......If the prophets were telling the Jews that they were going to be responsible for killing Yahweh's Son.....knowing His wrath....they would have ran for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it.

Clearly not. Just look at the miracles Jesus did, and it only made the Jewish leaders jealous and angry to the point that they wanted to kill him. To say that if they had known "that they were going to be responsible for killing Yahweh's Son" that "they would have ran for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it," demonstrates a lack of understanding of the power of sin and the effect on the human heart and mind.

A lot changed.....A lot.
Now it might have been a plan to change, but not a lot to suggest that it was coming.
Hell and the devil in the New Testqment was a change......If Yeshua would have told the Jews He was there to save them, they would have said....Save us from what?

The Jews were looking for the Messiah to be a human warlord king that would take down their oppressors in the "Terrible Day Of The Lord" and establish His kingdom forever and put the Jews in power over the world and make the Mosaic Law the law of the land and Temple sacrifices would go on forever.

Instead of a warlord they got the Lord. He did not take on the Romans and preached love and forgiveness. He did not establish His kingdom and He was killed. Nothing to say that the Son of God would come to save their souls (The Jews knew very little of souls) but the people He came to save would be responsible for His death. And thousands of thousands of years later He would establish His kingdom.

For the Jews, Heaven was the abode of God and was never offered as a reward for humans.

Yeap there were changes.....and they could have been part of the plan, but the changes were more than most of the Jews could deal with.

All in all Christianity was a complete change for everybody....No language at that time had words for what they were preaching....And the Greek language had some pretty lofty thoughts but the Greek did not have words to explain the theology of Christianity. The Apostles would have to take Greek words and change what they meant to explain Christianity.....For a simple example.....If you told a Roman he sinned....it would mean his arrow missed the target......they changed that to mean a transgression against God.

The Jews were looking for a different Messiah and the Pagans did not have a personal relationship with their gods and no hope of going where their gods lived and existing in the spirit world and revelations!!! Revelations seemed like a nightmare to some of them....the day of the walking dead!

So Christianity was a change for everyone......GRANTED IT WAS A GOOD CHANGE, BUT IT WAS A LOT FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE IN.

You claimed that, "So what changed that caused all this to happen? It is not written in the scriptures and apparently the Apostles did not know. So all we know is that something changed and it apparently happened between the Testaments."

Nothing changed "between the Testaments." Christ came and brought further revelation that increased their understanding of what the OT was saying.

 

[Grailhunter]

But all the foundations of the Trinity are in the Bible. The doctrine itself is a summation of what the Bible teaches, as is every doctrine.

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.”
Over a hundred scriptures prove the 3 in 1 God formula wrong. But this site has a fetish for false beliefs so that is all I am going to say about that.

You stated that, "There is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the Messiah would be killed and return thousands of years later."

But, clearly, Jesus disagrees:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

He taught that it was "necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory." That he wouldn't vanquish his enemies first but would return to do so, would include passages such as Dan. 7 and Joel 2, which must be read carefully.

Again where does say He would be killed and return thousands of years later?
Everything was about them living in the last days.....return soon.....not thousand and thousands of years later.

Clearly not. Just look at the miracles Jesus did, and it only made the Jewish leaders jealous and angry to the point that they wanted to kill him. To say that if they had known "that they were going to be responsible for killing Yahweh's Son" that "they would have ran for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it," demonstrates a lack of understanding of the power of sin and the effect on the human heart and mind.

Yeshua did miracles because He was a God, the Jews were not expecting that. In fact they accused Him of being demonic and later said he was a magician. And it is you that demonstrates a lack of understanding.

You claimed that, "So what changed that caused all this to happen? It is not written in the scriptures and apparently the Apostles did not know. So all we know is that something changed and it apparently happened between the Testaments."

Nothing changed "between the Testaments." Christ came and brought further revelation that increased their understanding of what the OT was saying.

I have already explained the changes. And yes, Yeshua brought revelation to a lot of things but as a whole the Old Testament did tell of a God coming to save the world. That is completely foreign to the Old Testament scriptures.

 

[Justified]

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.”

Yes, you posted that already. It wasn't helpful the first time. That is was formulated formally "only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD" is not relevant as to whether or not it is true. Again, all the foundations of the Trinity as the Church has historically defined it, are in the Bible.

Over a hundred scriptures prove the 3 in 1 God formula wrong.

I have never seen a single one prove it wrong. I've certainly seen how people take verses out of context and so think that they've proven the Trinity wrong, but taking things piecemeal instead of as a whole will almost certainly lead to a wrong understanding. Most of those people have a wrong understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to begin with.

Take your use of the word "Trinity" to refer to tritheism. That proves you don't understand the doctrine because those two ideas are opposed and mutually exclusive. That's quite apart from undermining your own argument that "the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible," means that it "is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.”

But this site has a fetish for false beliefs so that is all I am going to say about that.

Tritheism is probably the most false belief of them all; certainly it is the most obvious.

Again where does say He would be killed and return thousands of years later?
Everything was about them living in the last days.....return soon.....not thousand and thousands of years later.

You have to be much more careful in your reading; take more time and read closely.

Yeshua did miracles because He was a God, the Jews were not expecting that. In fact they accused Him of being demonic and later said he was a magician. And it is you that demonstrates a lack of understanding.

This doesn't address anything I said.

You stated: "If the prophets were telling the Jews that they were going to be responsible for killing Yahweh's Son.....knowing His wrath....they would have ran for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it."

But, as I pointed out, that completely ignores the hardness of their hearts, which is what led them to actually killing the Son of God, even though all the evidence was given to them that Jesus was truly the Son of God. That was even the main reason they wanted to kill him, and why they eventually did:

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 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.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

So, no, clearly if the prophets had made it any clearer that they would kill the Messiah, they would not have run "for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it."

I have already explained the changes.

You claimed there were changes, but you didn't really explain anything. It's quite unclear as to what you even mean by "changes" and what they have to do with anything.

And yes, Yeshua brought revelation to a lot of things but as a whole the Old Testament did tell of a God coming to save the world. That is completely foreign to the Old Testament scriptures.

Assuming you meant to say "the Old Testament did [not] tell of a God coming to save the world," No, it's all there, hence why Yahweh is repeatedly referred to as a Saviour and why Paul could say things like:

Rom 15:8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,
Rom 15:9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name.”
Rom 15:10 And again it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”
Rom 15:11 And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him.”
Rom 15:12 And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.”

Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, you posted that already. It wasn't helpful the first time. That is was formulated formally "only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD" is not relevant as to whether or not it is true. Again, all the foundations of the Trinity as the Church has historically defined it, are in the Bible.


I have never seen a single one prove it wrong. I've certainly seen how people take verses out of context and so think that they've proven the Trinity wrong, but taking things piecemeal instead of as a whole will almost certainly lead to a wrong understanding. Most of those people have a wrong understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to begin with.

Take your use of the word "Trinity" to refer to tritheism. That proves you don't understand the doctrine because those two ideas are opposed and mutually exclusive. That's quite apart from undermining your own argument that "the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible," means that it "is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.”


Tritheism is probably the most false belief of them all; certainly it is the most obvious.


You have to be much more careful in your reading; take more time and read closely.


This doesn't address anything I said.

You stated: "If the prophets were telling the Jews that they were going to be responsible for killing Yahweh's Son.....knowing His wrath....they would have ran for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it."

But, as I pointed out, that completely ignores the hardness of their hearts, which is what led them to actually killing the Son of God, even though all the evidence was given to them that Jesus was truly the Son of God. That was even the main reason they wanted to kill him, and why they eventually did:

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 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.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

So, no, clearly if the prophets had made it any clearer that they would kill the Messiah, they would not have run "for the hills and would have had nothing to do with any of it."


You claimed there were changes, but you didn't really explain anything. It's quite unclear as to what you even mean by "changes" and what they have to do with anything.


Assuming you meant to say "the Old Testament did [not] tell of a God coming to save the world," No, it's all there, hence why Yahweh is repeatedly referred to as a Saviour and why Paul could say things like:

Rom 15:8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,
Rom 15:9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name.”
Rom 15:10 And again it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”
Rom 15:11 And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him.”
Rom 15:12 And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.”

Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

I will save you the trouble.
They do not like discussions about the Trinity on this site.
They will just shut it down.

Grailhunter’s Corner