Has The Faith Of Jews Lessened...

[abercius24]

I believe I am at least beginning to understand where you are coming from. I am more from a camp that believes the Trinity was not revealed until the New Testament. I can understand how you would find a lessed tie between the Catholic Church and the Rabbinic Jews if a continuity of Trinitarian belief started with the Hebrews and was passed on to the Catholic Church, and subsequently abandoned by the Rabbis. I do believe my position(which is very much a position of the Western Church) remains to some degree (even if it is a lesser degree) amidst the Eastern view. But as always, my friend, you have given me a lot more to think about and study up on.

Question: Jesus appeared to be surrounded by non-Trinitarian Jews in His time. From the Eastern view, did the abandonement of Trinitarian belief start much ealier than that? If so, was there a major catalyst to bring about the prevalent disbelief in Christ's day?

Question: Were the Church Fathers you quote in any way influenced by the Jewish Kabbalah with regards to their understanding of Hebrew Trinitarian belief? I have seen teachings from the Kabbalah that could be understood as Trinitarian, but the Kabbalah has also been mixed with ideas of the Shekinah Glory Cloud (the Spirit of God, aka the Holy Spirit) as having a feminine nature, which is contrary to Christian Trinitarian belief.

Edited July 2, 2008 by abercius24

[reyb]

[indent]Excuse me...But...
Before we go on to our subject discussion, I would like to post some studies which we will use as our reference so that we will not let any speculation or assumption and thus fall into wrong judgments.
---------------------
The Trinity is a Christian doctrine, stating that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons:[1] the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Since the beginning of the third century[2] the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".
…….
The first recorded use of the word "Trinity" in Christian theology was in about AD 180 by Theophilus of Antioch who used the corresponding word in Greek (Τριάς) to refer to "the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom", of which he considered the first three days of creation to be types.[8][9] He did not apply the word to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
………
Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century, is credited with using the words "Trinity",[10] "person" and "substance"[11] to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence – not one in Person".
………
About a century later, the First Council of Nicaea (325) established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed that described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".
………………
The basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is found in New Testament passages that associate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[25] Two such passages[25] are Matthew's Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) and St Paul's: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_trinity#The_Origin_of_the_Formula"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_trinity#..._of_the_Formula[/url]
------------------------
So there you are. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was established in 325 in the First Council of Nicaea with one very important idea – that the son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity is the historical Jesus.


Now , it was quoted by abercius from Apotheoun in the beginning of this post that Patriarchs and Holy Prophets believe in the Holy Trinity.

[color="#4169E1"]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:22 PM' post='1587535'
The Eastern Church Fathers held that the Patriarchs believed in the Holy Trinity, and that it was the rabbis during and after the time of Christ who fell away from the true faith. Thus, in a sense Rabbinic Judaism can be called the first major heresy (cf. the letters of St. Ignatios of Antioch), because those who accepted it broke with the undefiled Triadological faith of the Patriarchs of the Old Covenant.

quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:53 PM' post='1587605'
I deny absolutely that the state of the faith was "radically changed," because the faith is immutable. The Old Testament patriarchs and prophets believed in Christ (i.e., in the pre-incarnate Logos), and they worshipped the Holy Trinity.
/quote[/color]
---------------
I want to know in what way that these early church fathers believed that Patriarchs and Holy Prophets were Trinitarians. Do the Holy Prophets said it or it is just an assumption by these early church fathers?[/indent]

Edited July 2, 2008 by reyb

[Apotheoun]

Reyb,

The linguistic formulation of a doctrine does not indicate the doctrines date of origin. Anyone who reads the Church Fathers can see that they all believed that the Father, the Son (or Logos), and the Holy Spirit, were one and the same God, even before the word "trinity" or "triad" was used. That is why the use of the word "trinity" or "triad" is not all that important to me as an Eastern Christian. Moreover, the New Testament itself speaks of the three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), who are one in nature, will, and action, and the Gospel of John in particular is replete with this theological viewpoint. So do not fall into the modernist trap of confusing the date that a particular word comes into use, with the belief that it is meant to convey.

As far as the Patriarchs and Prophets are concerned, they speak of God as Father, but they also speak of Him as Word (Logos), and as Spirit (Ruah).

Todd

Edited July 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588955' date='Jul 2 2008, 04:24 AM']So there you are. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was established in 325 in the First Council of Nicaea with one very important idea – that the son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity is the historical Jesus.[/quote]
The Council of Nicaea did not "establish" or "create" the doctrine of the Trinity; instead, it merely gave linguistic expression to that pre-existing dogma. Thus, Eastern Christians, unlike modern Western Christians, reject the notion of doctrinal development. Doctrines do not grow or develop over time, and so the decrees of the ecumenical councils do not create new doctrines; instead, they simply give linguistic expression to the faith once for all given to the Church (cf. Jude 1:3), which is an immutable experience of God in prayer and worship, and as scripture itself attests all Christian worship is directed to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1588934' date='Jul 2 2008, 01:51 AM']Question: Jesus appeared to be surrounded by non-Trinitarian Jews in His time. From the Eastern view, did the abandonement of Trinitarian belief start much ealier than that? If so, was there a major catalyst to bring about the prevalent disbelief in Christ's day?[/quote]
If you will notice, the Byzantine Fathers and theologians speak of the Patriarchs and Prophets being privy to the mystery of God's inner life, but whether or not every Jew understood this at an intellectual level is not all that relevant, because their worship of God was always made through His Word and in the power of His Spirit. The Eastern Fathers never looked upon doctrine as a series of epinoetic concepts, but as a living experience of God in worship and prayer. The rule of prayer is the rule of faith.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1588934' date='Jul 2 2008, 01:51 AM']Question: Were the Church Fathers you quote in any way influenced by the Jewish Kabbalah with regards to their understanding of Hebrew Trinitarian belief? I have seen teachings from the Kabbalah that could be understood as Trinitarian, but the Kabbalah has also been mixed with ideas of the Shekinah Glory Cloud (the Spirit of God, aka the Holy Spirit) as having a feminine nature, which is contrary to Christian Trinitarian belief.[/quote]
The Kabbalah is of medieval origin (although some strands of thought within that system antedate the writing of the Zohar), so it had no direct influence on the Church Fathers. Nevertheless, some of the mystical strands of Kabbalistic thought have affinities with the Eastern Church's doctrine of the divine energies, but this doctrine can even be found in the writings of Philo of Alexandria who lived in the first century of the Christian era (see my paper [url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper08b"][u]Augustine of Hippo and the Theophanies of the Logos[/u][/url]). Finally, as far as the shekinah glory is concerned, it is not the Holy Spirit; instead, it is the divine energy common to all three persons of the Holy Trinity, but the divine energy is not identified with femininity in Eastern theology because it is an active power, and so it not receptive or passive. In fact, the feminine principle in Byzantine theology is the Church (and by extension the second person of the Trinity), because it is the Church that is receptive to God's energy and power, and so it is she who receives her life from Him, and not the other way around.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[reyb]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1589008' date='Jul 2 2008, 10:04 AM']Reyb,

The linguistic formulation of a doctrine does not indicate the doctrines date of origin. Anyone who reads the Church Fathers can see that they all believed that the Father, the Son (or Logos), and the Holy Spirit, were one and the same God, even before the word "trinity" or "triad" was used. That is why the use of the word "trinity" or "triad" is not all that important to me as an Eastern Christian. Moreover, the New Testament itself speaks of the three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), who are one in nature, will, and action, and the Gospel of John in particular is replete with this theological viewpoint. So do not fall into the modernist trap of confusing the date that a particular word comes into use, with the belief that it is meant to convey.

As far as the Patriarchs and Prophets are concerned, they speak of God as Father, but they also speak of Him as Word (Logos), and as Spirit (Ruah).

Todd[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1589012' date='Jul 2 2008, 10:14 AM']The Council of Nicaea did not "establish" or "create" the doctrine of the Trinity; instead, it merely gave linguistic expression to that pre-existing dogma. Thus, Eastern Christians, unlike modern Western Christians, reject the notion of doctrinal development. Doctrines do not grow or develop over time, and so the decrees of the ecumenical councils do not create new doctrines; instead, they simply give linguistic expression to the faith once for all given to the Church (cf. Jude 1:3), which is an immutable experience of God in prayer and worship, and as scripture itself attests all Christian worship is directed to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
[indent]Let us assume that the word ‘trinity’ is not used by the Holy Prophets although the substance of their faith was based on this doctrine. And let us say, you are correct in saying ‘The Council of Nicaea did not "establish" or "create" the doctrine of the Trinity; instead, it merely gave linguistic expression to that pre-existing dogma. Again Let us say you are correct in saying ‘The Old Testament patriarchs and prophets believed in Christ (i.e., in the pre-incarnate Logos), and they worshipped the Holy Trinity.’ And yes, it is true that the Holy Prophets speaks of God, Holy Spirit and Christ which sometimes they call the son of man, wisdom of God, Power of God, Seed of Abraham, and so on and so forth. Why then they never mentioned that the Holy Trinity is the mystery God? But rather they said ‘Christ is the mystery of God’. If you find anything in the Old testament and also in the New Testament which says ‘The Holy Trinity is the mystery of God or to this effect’, Can you please post it here? [/indent]

[Aloysius]

that is not his contention, his contention is that the patriarchs experientially knew God, and because God is in fact Trinity by nature, they would thus have known Him as a Trinity. He has very much made his case for this and convinced me... he is not saying that there is historical evidence that there was a doctrine about the trinity taught or intellectually discussed by the Hebrews; rather, he is saying that because the patriarchs encountered God they encountered Him as a Trinity. it wasn't academic to them, it was simply part of their worship.

east or west, progressive revelation or not, we are all required to believe that Rabbinic Judaism is not the true continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, that the Church is the true continuation and that Rabbinic Judaism is a religion created not by God but by those Hebrews who rejected the Messiah and His message.

[reyb]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1589141' date='Jul 2 2008, 12:56 PM'][color="#0000FF"]that is not his contention, his contention is that the patriarchs experientially knew God, and because God is in fact Trinity by nature, they would thus have known Him as a Trinity[/color]. He has very much made his case for this and convinced me... he is not saying that there is historical evidence that there was a doctrine about the trinity taught or intellectually discussed by the Hebrews; rather, he is saying that because the patriarchs encountered God they encountered Him as a Trinity. it wasn't academic to them, it was simply part of their worship.

east or west, progressive revelation or not, we are all required to believe that Rabbinic Judaism is not the true continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, that the Church is the true continuation and that Rabbinic Judaism is a religion created not by God but by those Hebrews who rejected the Messiah and His message.[/quote]

[indent]That is exactly my point, why we will assume that God is triune in the first place? After God appeared to them (Holy Prophets) through His Power, Wisdom,…etc which is Christ, they never said or discussed that God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is One and in the unity of One, it is still a mystery (in whatever presentation to this effect). Why not leave it that way when it is written in Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image – that ‘us’ does not necesarily mean ‘three’. Why then we need to assume it is a representation of triune God?[/indent]

[abercius24]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1589141' date='Jul 2 2008, 12:56 PM']east or west, progressive revelation or not, we are all required to believe that Rabbinic Judaism is not the true continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, that the Church is the true continuation and that Rabbinic Judaism is a religion created not by God but by those Hebrews who rejected the Messiah and His message.[/quote]

Yes, we are required to believe that Rabbinic Judaism is not the true [u]continuation [/u]of the religion of the Old Testatment, but instead it is the Church.

But I do think it is inaccurate to state that all elements of faith and practice that exist in Rabbinic Judaism have no source in God. And though their religion may not be a completely valid [u]continuation [/u]of the Faith of the Patriarchs, I believe it is more accurate to state they exist in a fractured and stalled place in the progression of the Hebrew faith. They have lost their ability to worship in the Temple and offer sacrifice through their priesthood, and they have not progressed into the Messianic era as they should have. But their faith is otherwise the same as those who pre-date Christ. Just because you lose an arm and are left in a coma from a car accident, that doesn't mean you are no longer the person you were before the accident. The entity of Judiasm has not been substantially changed to the point that it can longer be understood as being the same entity as it was in the Old Testament.

[mortify]

Is this whole argument basically summed up this way:
i) Abericus believes Judaism is still efficacious for salvation
ii) Apotheoun believes Judaism is no longer efficacious because the Church is the true Israel

?

[abercius24]

[quote name='mortify' post='1590218' date='Jul 3 2008, 02:03 PM']Is this whole argument basically summed up this way:
i) Abericus believes Judaism is still efficacious for salvation
ii) Apotheoun believes Judaism is no longer efficacious because the Church is the true Israel

?[/quote]

i) No. Judaism is not efficacious for salvation. But I do believe Rabbinic Jews have the same value in God's eyes as they did before Christianity (as the documents of Vatican II teach). And because of that, we should have as much of an appreciation of our relationship with them as we do the Prophets and the Patriarchs.

ii) Apotheoun disagrees with this position because he believes (as the Eastern Church teaches) that the Patriarchs and Prophets worshiped God in His Triune nature (as the Trinity) which Rabbinic Jews refuse to do. As a result, Apotheoun believes that Rabbinic Jews are apostates to their own ancient faith and therefore are not deserving of recognition as brothers of faith to the Catholic Church.

[mortify]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1590949' date='Jul 4 2008, 01:08 AM']i) No. Judaism is not efficacious for salvation. But I do believe Rabbinic Jews have the same value in God's eyes as they did before Christianity (as the documents of Vatican II teach). And because of that, we should have as much of an appreciation of our relationship with them as we do the Prophets and the Patriarchs.[/quote]

What Vatican II document(s) do you have in mind?

How can God value Rabbinic Judaism when it rejects the Messiah Who fulfills it?

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Christians view Rabbinic Judaism in the same way that we view any heresy against the Trinity and the incarnation (e.g., Adoptionism, Docetism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, et al.), for as scripture teaches: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. [b]No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also[/b]" (cf. 1 John 2:22-23). The anciient Patriarchs and Prophets conversed with the pre-incarnate Logos, and so they worshipped the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The religious system created by the Rabbis after the time of Christ is no different than the systems devised by other heretics.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Madame Vengier]

None of you has any place making a judgment on the faith of the Jews. What's it to you? You don't know their hearts. You don't know their relationship with God. You are not fellow members of their religion nor do you share a culture with them. You are placing a judgment on a people that you know very little about and with whom you have no shared relationship. Wow, the nerve. You guys.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1591570' date='Jul 4 2008, 07:26 PM']None of you has any place making a judgment on the faith of the Jews. What's it to you? You don't know their hearts. You don't know their relationship with God. You are not fellow members of their religion nor do you share a culture with them. You are placing a judgment on a people that you know very little about and with whom you have no shared relationship. Wow, the nerve. You guys.[/quote]

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1591570' date='Jul 4 2008, 05:26 PM']None of you has any place making a judgment on the faith of the Jews. What's it to you? You don't know their hearts. You don't know their relationship with God. You are not fellow members of their religion nor do you share a culture with them. You are placing a judgment on a people that you know very little about and with whom you have no shared relationship. Wow, the nerve. You guys.[/quote]
I haven't judged anyone's heart; instead, I have judged a theological system that arose after the time of Christ (i.e., Rabbinic Judaism), and which was specifically formulated in opposition to the Orthodox faith. I stand by everything that I have said in this thread.

God bless,
Todd

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1591821' date='Jul 5 2008, 01:41 AM']I haven't judged anyone's heart; instead, I have judged a theological system that arose after the time of Christ (i.e., Rabbinic Judaism), and which was specifically formulated in opposition to the Orthodox faith. I stand by everything that I have said in this thread.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]


Uh-huh. But because I like you, I'm not going to argue with you. We've already determined from previous threads that we differ enormously in our views on Judaism and Jewish theology.

I just want people to lay off them. They have suffered enough in their history without people (seemingly) attacking/judging/inspecting their relationship with God, along with everything else they get attacked for.

You and I have to save our collective energy for the topic of Islam.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[mortify]

Madame V, what do you make of Zionism? Good or bad?

Just curious

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='mortify' post='1591901' date='Jul 5 2008, 09:21 AM']Madame V, what do you make of Zionism? Good or bad?

Just curious [/quote]

I'm not going to answer that. I don't even know what Zionism is but I know that people like me who are staunchly pro-Israel get accused of being "Zionists". I don't even want to get into a discussion about Zionism. It has nothing to do with me.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1591570' date='Jul 4 2008, 07:26 PM']None of you has any place making a judgment on the faith of the Jews. What's it to you? You don't know their hearts. You don't know their relationship with God. You are not fellow members of their religion nor do you share a culture with them. You are placing a judgment on a people that you know very little about and with whom you have no shared relationship. Wow, the nerve. You guys.[/quote]

But we do share a culture, and from my position as a Western Catholic, a relationship. Half of the Bible and half of our history is shared!