How Come the other Spirt of G-ds are left out of Trinity?


#1

There are more than just three manifestations of G-d in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is of course, the Spirit of G-d, as we read in Genesis 1:2:

And The Spirit Of God moved over the face of the waters

But there is also an Evil Spirit of G-d, as we read in I Samuel 16:23:

And it came to pass, when The Evil Spirit Of God (Ruach Elohm Raah) was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

There is also a Lying Spirit Of G-d in I Kings 22:23:

Now therefore, behold, the Eternal hath put a lying spirit (Ruach Sheker) in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Eternal hath spoken evil concerning thee.

In Exodus 12:23, we are told that G-d will smite the Egyptians. But later in the same verse, we see that it is the Destroyer who smites the Egyptians.

For the Eternal will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Eternal will pass over the door, and will not suffer the Destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

One could then say that the Destroyer should be seen as a Person in G-d, just as the Spirit Of G-d is seen as a Person in G-d. To this we could add that the Lying Spirit Of G-d should be seen as a Person in G-d, and the Evil Spirit Of G-d should be seen as a Person in G-d. This would mean that instead of the Trinity in the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, one should have the Father, the son, the Holy Spirit, the Lying Spirit, and the Evil Spirit, as well as the Destroyer. Should we add to this the Burning Bush?

Why did the Christian community stop at the three of the trinity, when they could have also had more persons in the supposed Compound unity of God? The reason is that the highest deities in the other religions of the area also came in threes:

Babylon had: [1] Anu [2] Bel and [3] Ena;

India had: [1] Brahma [2] Vishnu and [3] Shiva;

Roman [1] Jupiter [2] Juno and [3] Minerva;

Greece [1] Zeus] [2] Apollo and 3} Hermes

Christians may tell us, “Behold Your God,” but the last time we heard something similar was in Exodus 32:4, when the ex-slaves pointed to the Golden Calf and said, “Eilay elohecha – these are your gods.”


#2

<<e are more than just three manifestations of G-d in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is of course, the Spirit of G-d, as we read in Genesis 1:2:>>

First off, Christian theology does not speak of 3 “manifestations of God.” This is the heresy of Sabellian Modalism.

Christian Trinitarian theology speaks of Three Person in one Divine Nature.

So you’re starting off from the wrong assumption, saying that Christianity teaches something which it in fact does not.


#3

#4

It’s not some dichotomy (trichotomy? polychotomy?) of Spirits. There are spirits (angels, demons, etc.) out there that are not the Holy Spirit.

In fact, if it is a spirit that we’re talking about - a created being - then we’re not talking about the Spirit: the third Person of the Holy Trinity.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight


#5

BP thanks for bringing this up. All this modalism, etc… is such a head swim.

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY
Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus’ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I think I will look at this Catholic forum links to try to understand Catholics better. Don’t Catholics call “J” G-d?


#6

#7

Zahava,

You are sadly misinformed. The Rabbis did not only translate the Torah at Jamnia (beginning in approximately 90 CE).

The Torah is the T in the TaNaKh: otherwise known as the Hebrew Bible.

The Magilla was retranslated (passages in Isaiah were changed to avoid any references to Yeshuva as the Messiah: how do we know this? From the oldest Christian manuscripts and from the Dead Sea Scrolls which were found in 1947: the Essenes [another Jewish group] were scrupulous in transcription) and well as other targums in order to define a canon for the Jewish Faith.

Too much midrash and you have too many prophets and messiahs!

Peace of the Lord be with you, Zahava

Robert


#8

Zahava,

I am sorry for the use of the original name your mother gave you.

Being Catholic (and following our Jewish heritage) I was honoring your mother by using it.

I will abide by your request. However, Shoshana is not ‘Shoshanna’ or ‘Shoshannah’ as might be customary in your Orthodox circles. Her father (Moshe of blessed memory) was an Israeli-born (then called Palestine) American citizen who named her with this spelling.

Peace Zahava

Robert


#9

Hi

Nevermind, the Spirit does not seem to be a very essential part of Trinity, in my opinion, it is hardly ever mentioned, and when mentioned just for record puposes.

You may differ with me if you like; but with reasons.

Thanks


#10

No, I truly am not misinformed, Robert.

The Origin of the Septuagint
Talmud - Megillah 9a

The following is a translation of a page of the Talmud, which addresses the origin of the Greek translation of the Scriptures, the Septuagint. This translation comes from the Davka CD-ROM Talmud. Numbers highlighted in blue denote footnotes beneath the Talmud quote.

‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.1 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy,2 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate3 for me the Torah of Moses your master.4 G-d then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him, G-d created in the beginning,5 I shall make man in image and likeness,6 And he finished on the sixth day,and rested on the seventh day,7 Male and female he created him 8 [but they did not write ‘created them’],9 Come let me descend and confound their tongues,10 And Sarah laughed among her relatives;11 For in their anger they slew an ox and in their wrath they digged up a stall;12 And Moses took his wife and his children, and made them ride on a carrier of men;13And the abode of the children of Israel which they stayed in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years,14 And he sent the elect of the children of Israel;15 And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his and;

(The Talmud goes to the next page to list the rest of the changes from the original Hebrew that were made in the translation.)

(1) Thus R. Judah forbade other books of the Scripture to be written save in the original language.
(2) It seems to be an historical fact that a Greek translation of the Pentateuch was made in the time of King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt (285-247), but many regard this as apocryphal; cf, The Letter of Aristeas.
(3) Lit., ‘write’.
(4) Here follow a number of cases in which the translation of the Elders did not follow the Massoretic text. We do not find all these variants in our texts of the Septuagint.
(5) Instead of ‘In the beginning G-d created’. The purpose of this change was apparently to prevent the idea of Two Powers being read into the text, i.e., ‘In the beginning’ and ‘G-d’. V. Rashi and Tosaf. a.I.
(6) Gen. 1, 26, instead of ‘Let us make’, for the same reason.
(7) Ibid. II, 2, instead of ‘and he finished on the seventh day’, which might be taken to imply that some work was done on the seventh day.
(8) Ibid. V, 2.
(9) Which might be taken to mean that they were separate from the first.
(10) Ibid. XI, 7: ‘me’ instead of ‘us’. V. n. 7.
(11) Ibid. XVIII, 12: instead of ‘in herself’, in order to make a distinction between Sarah and Abraham, who also laughed inwardly.
(12) Ibid. XLIX, 6: ‘ox’ instead of ‘man’, to save the name of Jacob’s sons.
(13) Ex. IV, 20: carrier of men’ instead of ‘ass’, to save the dignity of Moses.
(14) Ibid. XII, 40. The words ‘and in other lands’ are inserted because, according to the Biblical record, the Israelites were at the utmost 210 years in Egypt.
(14) Ibid. XXIV, 5: ‘elect’ instead of ‘young men’, which is regarded as not suitable to the context.
(15) Ibid. 11 : ‘elect’ instead of ‘nobles’.

Furthermore, we see corroboration of this from the works of Flavius Josephus, in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.

I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. Now Eleazar the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books. They, indeed, contain in them the history of five thousand years; in which time happened many strange accidents, many chances of war, and great actions of the commanders, and mutations of the form of our government. Upon the whole, a man that will peruse this history, may principally learn from it, that all events succeed well, even to an incredible degree, and the reward of felicity is proposed by G-d; but then it is to those that follow his will, and do not venture to break his excellent laws: and that so far as men any way apostatize from the accurate observation of them, what was practical before becomes impracticable and whatsoever they set about as a good thing, is converted into an incurable calamity.

So, we see, the Septuagint, as it was in its original form, was only a translation of only the Torah for a specific reason, and that reason is that the Sages would not allow the Prophets and Writings to be translated at that time. Often you find Christian apologists and missionaries pointing to the Prophets and the Writings in the Septuagint, saying “don’t you see? This is how the rabbis translated it into Greek!”

Those portions of the LXX were translated by Christians to advance Christian theology.

Yes, I am very aware that T stands for Torah.

aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_40_-_Seeds_of_Christianity.asp

aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_33_-_The_Great_Revolt.asp

Shalom to you, Robert. And no offense was taken when you called my by my given name. I just worked so hard to become Jewish. I chose the name Zahava because I felt that I had gone through the fire with my conversion and all my impurities refined as gold. Zahava is from the root gold.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.