Jewish Scholars Who Argue For "Two Powers" in Pre-Christian Jewish Tradition

The following resources linked below are by Jewish scholars Daniel Boyarin and Alan F. Segal. Neither believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Nevertheless they documents the fact that there were many (not all) Jews before, during and after the time of Jesus who believed in at least two persons who were Divine according to the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John by Daniel Boyarin
[or HERE]


TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism by Alan F. Segal
[I recommend the PDF version]

---

---

---

See also the following resources by Jewish believers in Jesus as Messiah

Christian William Henry Pauli's classic book, The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One?

Arnold Fruchtenbaum's The Jewish Life of Christ; Twenty One (21) mp3 Lectures

Michael L. Brown's Answering Your Toughest Questions; (32 videos) introductory lectures

The Trinity in the Old Testament (Anthony Rogers on Christian Theology)

The Trinity in the Old Testament (Anthony Rogers on Christian Theology)

https://youtu.be/tHpBtR3XrZA

See Also Anthony Roger's Debate with Ijaz Ahmad:

Anthony Rogers vs. Ijaz Ahmad: Trinity in the Old Testament?

https://youtu.be/SfnNToPnYec
OR HERE
https://youtu.be/QB80_7BLBd0

A Study in Messianic Prophecy: A Conversation with Anthony Rogers
https://youtu.be/txdTu1iUYqQ

 EXCELLENT Articles by Anthony Rogers on the Trinity and Islam:

https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html

Sample Articles by Anthony Rogers:

The Trinity in the Old Testament A Brief Summary of the Evidence

The Malak Yahweh:Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament Part I

Missing the Mark:Unveiling Mark’s High Christology of Divine “Inclusion”

The “Heavenly” and “Earthly” Yahweh:A Trinitarian Interpretation of Genesis 19:24 Part I

The Case for Monogenēs Meaning "Only Begotten" is Mounting

I don't take a dogmatic stance on the meaning of monogenes . I'm open to either interpretation. However, it is interesting that the tide of scholarly consensus is slowly turning back to the traditional interpretation.


Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’ by Charles Lee Irons


Lee Irons has posted a summary of his unpublished paper on MONOGENES by Denny Burk


Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’? by Daniel B. Wallace


The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered by J. V. Dahms



 Wayne Grudem Reverses His Views And Now Affirms that Monogenēs Usually Means "Only Begotten"
OR HERE


Monogenes: ‘only begotten’ or ‘one of a kind’? written by L. Brigden, Senior Editorial Consultant
https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/monogenes

Steve Hays' Excellent Critique of Dale Tuggy's Performance In His Debate with Michael Brown

Here's Steve Hays' excellent review of Dale Tuggy's part in his debate with Michael Brown

Tuggy v. Brown
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/tuggy-v-brown.html

Note my comments in the combox. Which includes my blogpost where I've linked to materials where I've personally interacted with Dale Tuggy:

Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy

Here's the debate itself:

https://youtu.be/Oi300_FvFz0

More relevant blogposts:

An Observation About the Tuggy-Brown Debate by James N. Anderson

Tuggy v. Brown by Steve Hays [same link at the top]

Who's the only true God? by Steve Hays

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever by Steve Hays

Praying to Jesus by Steve Hays

Is John 8:58 about predestination rather than preexistence? by Steve Hays

The Spirit of Wisdom in Creation

 

Messianic Jews discuss the Holy Spirit in creation

The Spirit of Wisdom in Creation with Seth Postell

https://youtu.be/VxcUJEEq0Vk

Jewish Scholar Benjamin Sommer's Comments on the Doctrine of the Trinity

In another blogpost I quoted Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity. Dr. Sommer is a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary. The following video records audio from Sommer's lectures series on his book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel where he concedes that the Christian understanding of the Trinity is technically consistent with Judaism.

https://youtu.be/FRxvTxcupBg

Christian (and Jewish Messianic Believer in Jesus) Dr. Michael L. Brown, wrote

Interestingly, Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary), came to similar conclusions in his recent book, The Bodies of God. He wrote: “Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. . . . No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions [referring to God appearing in bodily form in the Tanakh], whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores the triune God.”

So, it appears that there are Jewish scholars who do not believe in Yeshua who can see what my dear friend Rabbi Blumenthal cannot. Let’s continue to pray for Rabbi Blumenthal!

http://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2014/09/regarding-jewish-professor-dr-sommers.html

The above blogpost also provides links to Dr. Sommers full lectures that are relevant to the topic of the Trinity.

One of his lectures on YouTube:

Benjamin Sommer - The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel

https://youtu.be/NtSm-InTLoA

Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics

The following are my comments in Steve Hays' blogpost God Incognito. Typos corrected. Make sure to read the blogs my links refer to.

Speaking of the Synoptics...

Jesus is worshipped both before and after His resurrection Matt. 2:11; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52 [cf. John 5:23; John 20:28; John 9:38]. Some instances before the resurrection might plausibly be translated "do/did obeisance" as Unitarians do, but the post-resurrection one's seem to better be interpreted as true religious worship. Something which would be uncharacteristic for Second Temple Jews to do if Jesus weren't fully Divine.

Matthew's use of "ho theos" for Jesus in Matt. 1:23 might plausibly be teaching Christ's full deity given the rest of what Matthew says of Christ.

Matthew has Jesus being greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). How could Jesus claim to be greater than the temple when it's the place were YHVH resides unless God resides in the body of Christ as well [cf. John 1:14]?

Matthew's statement that Jesus is present whenever/wherever two or three gather in His name is an allusion to a famous passage in the Mishnah about the Shekinah glory and presence of YHVH (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2).

Both Matthew and Luke imply that Jesus' "Wings" are YHVH's "Wings".

The Synoptics uniformly teach Jesus' (apparently favorite) self-indentification of being "the Son of Man". As Steve said, that has clear divine implications as many have argued [and which I've argued in brief in one of my blogposts].

Matthew's concluding command to baptize in the Name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit suggests the Trinity. As Steve wrote in a recent blog, to which I added my own comments in the combox. See Dale's excellent interview with Robert Bowman. One of the things I can complement Dale on is his great interviews. Unlike other interviewers, Dale allows the guest to give his full comments with little interruption. Then Dale's latter interactions often get to the heart of the issues.

All three Synoptics quote Isa. 40:3 and/or Mal. 3:1 which was originally in reference to YHVH [Mark 1:2,3; Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Matt. 11:10].
Apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.

The "I have come" sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics is consistent with Christ's preexistence. Though, Dale gave a link to Dunn's critique of Gathercole which made some good points that weakened Gathercole's case [I'd link to Dunn's book review, but I can't find the url].

All three Synoptics refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in contrast to sins against the Father and Son [Matthew 12; Mark 3; Luke 12]. This implies the personality of the Holy Spirit and that the blasphemy is a sin against Him. I've addressed this issue and how it's consistent with and hints at the Trinity in my blogs [e.g. here, or here].

The Synoptics teach Jesus is the bridegroom of the future church in a way that parallel's YHVH's marriage to Israel. Since the Church is the fulfillment of spiritual Israel, Jesus would seem to be the eschatological fulfillment of YHVH's receiving back His divorced and/or estranged wife.

All three Synoptics teach Jesus is the "Lord of the Sabbath" even though one would think that only YHVH, who instituted the sabbath, could be its Lord [Matt. 12; Mark 2Luke 6].

All three Synoptics have Jesus applying Ps. 110:1 to Himself [Matt. 22; Mark 12; Luke 20]. The Masoretic vowel pointing of "adoni" was standardized after the beginning of the Christian era and so may not be the correct pointing and reading [as non-Messianic Jews would have a vested interest in pointing it "adoni" rather than "adonai"]. But if some Christian apologists are correct that verse 5—which does have "Adonai"—interprets verse 1, then that would imply Jesus is Adonai. See McLatchie's blogposts on Ps. 110:1 HERE and HERE. The second link has my comments in the combox which slightly weakens McLatchie's line of argument. But I make them for the sake of full disclosure.

I've also got an ENTIRE BLOGPOST focused on the VERY HIGH Christology of the Gospel of Mark. I meticulously comb through the entire gospel looking for every possible passage that I can find where Jesus is plausibly being taught to be YHVH. Ignore the text highlighted in yellow which I have to seamlessly trim away in the future. Many of observations I made in Mark can be seen in Matthew and Luke as well (sometimes amplified). Nevertheless, the assumption of Markan Priority enhances their authenticity and earliness in a way that GMatt and GLuke don't. Most scholars think Mark has the lowest Christology of the four Gospels. But I think Mark's is definitely higher than Luke, and either equal with or higher than Matthew's. I haven't combed through Matthew like have with Mark and Luke.

Both Matthew and Luke teach Christ to be the future eschatological Judge [e.g. Matt. 19:28; Matt. 25; Luke 22:30; cf. John 5:22]. When one would think that only the omniscient [and therefore all fair/just] and all-authoritative YHVH would or could render such Judgment(s).

All three Synoptics teach Jesus can forgive sins [Mark 2, Matt. 9; Luke 5]. Some/all of them refer to Jesus as the Son of Man on earth [presumably in contrast to in heaven as in Dan. 7]. Some/all say that the Jews thought only God could forgive sin, AND that Jesus was blaspheming for presuming to do so.

All three Synoptics have Jesus being explicitly [Mark & Matthew] or implicitly [Luke] charged with blasphemy during His trial before the Jewish council and condemned as being worthy of death. The charge most plausibly was the [alleged] blasphemy for claiming to be on par with YHVH and to be the 2nd divine figure in Dan. 7 who was the Son of Man [divinely] "riding the clouds".

More could be said about the high Christology of the Synoptics, but that should do as examples.

Steve wrote: In addition, this has a counterpart in the OT. A "man" might turn out to be an angel, while an angel might turn out to be Yahweh!

There are many passages like that in the OT. For example, the interactions with the Angel of YHVH or the Word of YHVH by Hagar, Manoah, Gideon, Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel, Samuel etc. In some of those passages the entity is called the Angel of YHVH, then also called or predicated to be YHVH a few moments later without the qualifier of "the Angel/Messenger OF". Or it says YHVH looked or turned or had a form as if the Angel were YHVH Himself.