The True Origin of "BC" and "AD" Sunday, August 13, 2017

ANNO DOMINI is the Roman expression for: The year of the dominium of the Lord. This is to say that the "Lord" as a title was given to the highest office of the Roman Empire. At that time this was Julius Caesar and it related to any year he was in office. 

There was a gate in Jerusalem, that had the statue of Caesar posted at the gate. It was expected that the Jews come into the city through that gate and pay their respect to the statue as their Lord and Master. After all, the Romans occupied the territory at that time, and also ruled over the Jews. The Jews avoided that gate like the plague, because they would have not been able to keep the commandment: 'Thou shall not worship other Idols..' The Christians did not have this problem.

Christianity really was promoted in Greece and spread from there. Remember that the world as it was known AT THAT TIME, was mainly ruled by Julius Caesar, and anything that was Roman was also in fashion. That is why the ANNO DOMINI was simply transferred to the God of the Christians by the Christians of that time as THEIR Lord.

Now, "B.C." stands for any year "BEFORE CAESAR". This is to say the Romans could not care less what came BEFORE CAESAR, and remember, the Romans ruled! 

Again, Christianity saw this as a golden opportunity to make this one of their own significance, by simply changing it to "Before Christ." Since the Greek word for king is "Christos", it fit. The Roman word REX or the Hebrew word MELEG would not have worked.

At that time the Christian movement was a small and insignificant sect. No one can seriously believe that the Roman Empire would have fixed something as important as the accounting of historic time and events to the Christian movement, especially if it was centered around a Jew to whom the Greek title of king was assigned, and whom they had crucified for rebellion against their own.

I think you would have to go to the library and look up works about Roman periods, especially under Julius Caesar. It was he who was determined to be worshiped as IDOL (GOD) by all nations of his time, especially those nations that he had conquered, and where his troops occupied the land. His role was not simply to rule, but to DOMINATE, hence DOMINI, and not simply a number of some sort of keeping track of time. 

Anything B.C (Before Caesar) did not matter to him one way or another. It was also coined to play down the achievements of Alexander the Great, (356-323 B.C) who was still in the people's mind at that time.

[By Kevan Coleman]

The Trinity Refers To Some Christians' Understanding of Their God

The Trinity refers to the Christian understanding of GOD as a unity of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equally God and so are one, each sharing in the divine attributes of ultimacy, eternity, and changelessness; yet they are distinguishable in their relations to one another and in their roles within creaturely and human life and destiny.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-scriptural attempt to bring to coherent expression diverse affirmations about God, all of which seemed necessary to a full statement of Christian experience and belief.

First, from the Hebrew Scriptures and the clear tradition of Jesus' teaching, the church affirmed that not only is God one, but God is also the creative and sovereign Father and thus, by implication, transcendent of finite limits, time, and change--all of which characterize God's creatures.

Second, it was affirmed that JESUS CHRIST was more than a great prophet adopted by God; rather, he was "the Son of God," "the Word made flesh," the divine LOGOS itself incarnate in a human.

Third, the HOLY SPIRIT, from whose presence the community of believers received their faith, their confidence in the truth of that faith, their holiness, and, above all, the efficacy of both baptism and the Eucharist, was necessarily also God--God's presence in their midst. For Christians, then, the one God appeared in what they called a threefold "economy," in, so to speak, three forms or modes.

Difficulties soon emerged in formulating and understanding this threefold "economy." Divergent views led early to numerous Trinitarian controversies such as those over subordinationism (the teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Holy Spirit to both; see ARIANISM) and modalism (the view that the three modes are transitory; see MONARCHIANISM and SABELLIANISM). The Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) outlined the dogma of the Trinity in express rejection of these teachings.

The Nicene, or Niceno-Constantinopolitan, CREED has defined through the ages, for both Catholic (Roman and Orthodox) and Reformation (Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican) churches, the basic doctrine of the Trinity.

Catholic and Protestant theology has sought in various ways to make the doctrine stated at Nicaea comprehensible. Saint Augustine's lucid analogies of the divine Trinity in our experience of ourselves as memory, understanding, and will, and in our experience of our own existence as characterized by being, truth, and love, have been the point of departure for most subsequent study.

In the religious thought of the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), there was a strong reaction against Trinitarianism as an "orthodox" mystery without basis in either experience or reason--this was the view of UNITARIANISM and DEISM and of much 19th-century liberal theology. The great figures of 20th-century theology--Karl BARTH, Paul TILLICH, and, most recently, Karl RAHNER--despite their diversity of outlook, have again found the Trinity a central, in fact an unavoidable, structure for expressing the Christian understanding of God.

Langdon Gilkey

Bibliography: Bracken, J. A., Society and Spirit (1991); Forte, B., The 

Trinity as History, trans. by P. Rotondi (1991); Fortman, E. J., The

Triune God (1972); Lonergan, B. J. F., The Way to Nicaea: The

Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology (1976); Richardson, C.

C., The Doctrine of the Trinity (1958); Stephens, B. M., God's Last Metaphor (1981); Welch, Claude, In This Name (1952).

WHO IS THE SUFFERING SERVANT OF ISAIAH 53? Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Isaiah 53 – A Jewish Perspective

Wasn’t the Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? And didn’t all Jews before the Middle Ages recognize this chapter as “messianic“? We hope to assist you in interpreting a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

Our Jewish sages teach that “whoever saves a single Jewish soul is considered as if he had saved an entire world.” How precious is the Jewish soul! Though the Bible study which follows is a lengthy one, we have prepared it in the belief that – as a Jewish soul – you are worthy of any method which may be required. We hope that you too will value your soul highly enough to prayerfully ponder that which follows. God’s truth is not always easy to discern, but we are possessors of a Divine promise; “you will find Him if you search after Him with all your heart and all your soul” (Deut. 4:29). As faithful Jews have attested for over 3500 years, it’s worth the effort. And now – on with the search!

A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, “see – the Prophet predicted what I already believe.” Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no “proof” at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.

Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus’ own disciples didn’t view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn’t see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims – why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God “remove this cup from me” (Mk. 14:36) – didn’t he know that a “removal of the cup” would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?

And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this “Messiah” to get the benefits?

B. CONTEXT

Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God’s revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you “tackle” Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah’s “Messages of Consolation“, which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God’s chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as “oppressed without cause” (v.4) and “taken away” (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53’s promise of a reward for God’s servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: “`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the L-rd.”

C. ISAIAH 53

In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 “Behold, My servant will prosper.” Israel in the singular is called God’s servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) – the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God’s servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

52:15 – 53:1 “So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?” Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the “servant of the L-rd,” and they will say “who would believe what we have heard?“. 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations’ astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.

53:1 “And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?” In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God’s “arm” refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).

53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.” While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared “a riot of the people” (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:3 “A man of pains and acquainted with disease.” Israel’s adversities are frequently likened to sickness – see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore.” In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus’ healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted.” See Jer. 30:17 – of God’s servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”

53:5 “But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities.” Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant’s sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures – see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah “shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth” (Isa. 42:4).

53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.” Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel’s faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

Regarding the claim that Jesus “did not open his mouth” when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

53:8 “From dominion and judgement he was taken away.” Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since – by Jesus’ own testimony – he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the “first coming.” See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living.”

53:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.” See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as “cut off” and God promises to open its “graves” and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.

53:8 “From my peoples’ sins, there was injury to them.” Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word “lamoh“, when used in our Scriptures, always means “to them” never “to him” and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 – “They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them.”

53:9 “And with the rich in his deaths.” Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).

53:9 “He had done no violence.” See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.

53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed“, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as “sons“, is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

53:10 “He will prolong his days.” Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

53:11 “With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just.” Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not “justify the many.” The Jewish mission is to serve as a “light to the nations” which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God’s Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 “Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty.” If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people – who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) – who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?

[Source: Jews for Judaism]

Echad In Shema Monday, September 7, 2015

“Echad” in the Shema

A case is often argued by some Bible expositors that the Hebrew adjective echad means a "compound unity." Thus, they say, the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) literally means:

Hear, O Israel:

The LORD our God,

The LORD is a compound unity.

This translation is then taken to be primary evidence that the Jewish Bible teaches the triune nature of God. In my view this interpretation of echad in the Shema isn't correct. There are three reasons why.

First

Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible. To say it means "compound unity" puts the word in a tiny box that doesn't match its varied uses by the biblical writers. It's like saying the word elohim only refers to the true God. When, in fact, elohim is used for false gods or goddesses, angelic beings, the judges of Israel, the king of Israel, and the Messiah.

Second 

The "Shema" (="Hear"; Deut 6:4) is not a creedal jewel suspended in mid-air. It exists within a theological context. It exists in the early, foundational chapters of Deuteronomy, and Deuternomy exists as the final chapter of the Chumash, the Torah. The specific placement of this crucial passage must have a bearing on how we interpret it.

Third 

Yeshua told his disciples that he and the Father were "one" (John 10:30). He didn't define their oneness here. Later when he prayed to his Father on behalf of his disciples, he asked that they "may all be one, just as we are one" (John 17:21-22). 

Whatever this oneness may entail, we assume it doesn't mean his disciples would enter into metaphysical unity with the transcendent deity, as in Neo-Platonism or modern New Age pantheism. 

Paul provides one definition of the unity of Yeshua's disciples: "The one who joins himself to the Lord [Messiah] is one SPIRT with him" (1 Cor 6:17). Elsewhere, he writes of those who "are standing firm in one SPIRIT, with one MIND striving together for the faith of the Gospel" (Phil 1:27). See Synonyms of RUACH/SPIRIT. Elsewhere, he equates this SPIRIT with the "new man" or new nature: the nature of the Messiah.

What Does Mean?

The Hebrew adjective echad occurs 970 times in the Tanakh. (Its feminine form, achat, is included in this total.) [Note 1]

"One"

By far, the most common meaning of echad (600+x) is the simple cardinalnumber "one."

Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place [maqom echad]. (Gen 1:9)

He took one of the man's ribs [achat mitzalotayv]. (Gen 2:21)

The man has become like one of Us [ke-achad mimmennu]. (Gen 3:22)

We are all sons of one man [ish echad]. (Gen 42:11)

The youngest is with our father today and one is no more. (Gen 42:13)

"First" 

In its first appearance in the Bible echad is an ordinal number and means "first":

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day [yom echad]. (Gen 1:5b)

Some expositors say "yom echad" alludes to the composite nature of the day, since it consists of an evening and morning. Yet the subsequent days are also made of an evening and a morning, but they are numbered the "second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth" days of the week (Gen 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This pattern shows that echad in v. 5b means "first," not "compound (day)."

The ordinal echad occurs elsewhere in Genesis:

The name of the first [ha-echad] is Pishon. (2:11)

On the first day [be-echad] of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible. (8:5b)

In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up. (8:13)

"Same"

Echad can signify "the same" or "one and the same."

Behold, they are one people [am echad] and they all have the same language [safah achat, fem.]. (Gen 11:6)

They both had a dream the same night [layelah echad]. (Gen 40:5)

Pharaoh's dreams are one and the same [halom echad hu]. (Gen 41:25)"Singularity"

Echad can denote oneness as "singleness."

[The Passover] is to be eaten in a single house [bayit echad]. (Exod 12:46a)

The [menorah] was a single [achat] hammered work of pure gold. (Exod 37:22b)

They...cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes [eshkol anavim echad]. (Num 13:23)

Not a single word [davar echad] has failed of all He promised, which He promised through Moses His servant. (1 Kgs 8:56b)

Look to Abraham your father,

And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain;

When he was one [single man] I called him,

Then I blessed him and multipled him. (Isa 51:2)

I will remove the iniquity of that Land in a single day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b] (Zech 3:9)

"Undivided Oneness"

At times, echad denotes a unity of purpose or effort, or a shared condition.

The people answered with one voice [kol echad].(Exod 24:3)

Then I will give to the peoples purified lips,

That all of them may call on the name of YHVH,

To serve him with one shoulder [shechem echad]. (Zeph 3:9)

The Hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart[lev echad]. 

(2 Chron 30:12)Genesis 2:24

This passage is a common focus of attention in discussions of the Shema.

[Adam and Eve] shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)Some expositors propose that our First Parents' oneness of flesh is a compound unity consisting of each other's physical being. But the verse points to the opposite. Before her creation, Eve was "in" Adam (Gen 2:22). Upon creation, she became a separated, though obviously related, distinct person.

Then God reversed the operation and rejoined them in a new way, in marriage. They are no longer apart: they are one single body. Eve is not now "in" Adam, but "with" him as his counterpart [kenegdo, v. 20b]. Their unity is not composite, but singularly whole. The two, as male and female, are now one Human—one, single "Adam" (Gen 3:22, 24).

Ezekiel 37

Similarly, in Ezekiel 37 God plans one day to bring together the two rebellion-split houses of Israel and Judah. There will not be a king in the Northern Kingdom Israel and a king in the Southern Kingdom Judah. God will take their two "sticks" or "rods" (symbols of their authority) and rejoin them as one scepter under "David," the future Messiah.

I will make them an undivided nation [goy echad] in the Land . . .

One single King [melech echad] will be king for all of them,

And they will no longer be two nations, 

And they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms. (Ezek 37:22)

Some believe this union of the two kingdoms is also a compound or composite unity of two parts. But that's precisely not the point here. Their once individual, self-willed identities will disappear; they will become one nation, indivisible, under God.

As originally intended, the one people will be ruled by Messiah, The One King.

"Uniqueness"

Finally, echad has another nuance of meaning that sheds light on the Shema.

We saw above that echad usually denotes the number "one" (as opposed to two, three, or 10 million). There is something about one thing that is like no other—a solitary "one-ity" that highlights uniqueness, one-of-a-kind-ness. Several things are unique in the Bible.

King David, in overwhelmed prayer, after being given the privilege of leading God's redemptive program on earth, asks the Lord:

Who is like Your people Israel, 

a unique nation [goy echad] on earth? (2 Sam 7:23)In the future, God will return to Har Zetim with his armies and radically change Jerusalem's geography. And that

will be a unique day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b]

which is known only to the LORD . . . . (Zech 14:7)

And on that Yom Echad . . .

YHVH will be king over all the earth;

in that day YHVH will be Echad [the only one], 

and his name Echad [the only one]. (Zech 14:9)

In the Song of Songs, the young man describes his singularly peerless, inimitable, incomparable beloved:

My dove, my perfect one, is unique [achat; fem.] (Song 6:9a)

Yachad — The Real Word for Unity

When commentators declare (without making qualifications) that "echad means compound, composite unity," they haven't done the thorough lexical study. For example, the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad.

He was King in Yeshurun,

When the heads of the people were gathered,

The tribes of Israel together [yachad]. (Deut 33:5)

My heart is turned over within Me,

All together [yachad] my compassions are kindled. (Hosea 11:8b)

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is

For brethren to dwell together in unity [gam yachad]! (Ps 133:1)

In the Dead Sea Scrolls document The Community Rule (1QS, The Manual of Disciple), the group of priests and their disciples abiding at Qumran is called The Yachad: the Union, the Comm-Unity.

This is the rule for the men of the Yachad... (5:1)

... the Yachad of the eternal covenant (5:5)

Whoever enters the council of the Yachad enters the covenant of God (5:7-8)

How to Translate the Shema

In light of these sample passages, we must be open to reading the Shema with an open mind about what echad denotes. What are our options? What makes most sense, within the Bible?

The LORD is first.

The LORD is one [God].

The LORD is the same [as whom?]

The LORD alone.

The LORD is a single [Being, Deity, Elohim].

The LORD is a unified [Being, Deity, Elohim].

The LORD is unique, one and only [God].

Given the theme of YHVH's centrality in Deuteronomy (see below), and given the command aspect of the Shema ("and you shall love YHVH your God"), the sense of uniqueness seems most appropriate in this verse.

Here is how some Jewish versions render the Shema:

Isaac Leeser: Hear, O Israel! The Lord, our God, is the One Eternal Being.

Jewish Publication Society (1917): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Joseph Hertz: Hear, O Israel, The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.

Jewish Publication Society (1985): Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

[Echad occurs in Deuteronomy at: 1:2, 3, 23; 4:42; 6:4; 12:14; 13:12; 15:7, 7;16:5; 17:2, 6, 6; 18:6; 19:5, 11, 15; 21:15, 15, 16 [Heb v. 17]; 24:5, 5, 11; 28:7, 25, 55; 32:30.]

The Septuagint (LXX) renders the Shema literally, except it does not transliterate the Tetragrammaton (YHVH). Rather, it substitutes "Lord" without an article ("ho") as though the word is God's proper name.

[akoue israel, kurios ho theos hemon kurios heis estin]

"Hear, Israel: Lord our God Lord is one."

He is God of Gods 

The Bible never denies the reality of other "gods" (elim, elohim), though it calls them demons (Lev 17:7; Deut 32:17; 2 Chron 11:15). The commandment "You shall have no other elohim before me" is thus quite meaningful, else God would not have said it. [Consider the study Elohim in Biblical Context.]

All parts of the Hebrew Bible have a unified testimony:

Who is like You among the gods, O YHVH? (Exod 15:11a)

Who is a god like You . . . ? (Micah 7:18a)

For great is YHVH, and greatly to be praised;

He is to be feared above all gods.

For all the gods of the peoples are idols. (Ps 96:4-5a)

YHVH your God is Elohim of elohim,

And Lord [Adonim] of lords [adonim]. (Deut 10:17)

The Shema in Historical Context

The jewel of the Shema is mounted in an intricately crafted setting.

The book of Deuteronomy is the concluding "Law of Moses." It depicts the time when Moses is preparing the Second Generation to enter Canaan (without him). Their parents had escaped from Egypt and most died in the wilderness. He is instructing the children in their national history and teaching them God's torah about who He is and what they should do as His people in the Land.

Beyond this moment, in the wider biblical context, Israel is about to join a centuries-long battle with the people of Canaan and their primary god, Baal, son of El and Asherah (Astarte).

The Egyptians had numerous deities, whom the LORD humbled in the Ten Plagues. Following their decimation, he gave a spiritual banner to new-born Israel: "I am YHVH your God who brought you out of Egypt ... you shall have no other Elohim (God or gods) before me" (Exod 20:2, 3).

For more details on the Ancient Near Eastern pantheons, see The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible [PDF, 26 pages].

Forty years later, in full view of the western hills of Canaan, Moses now gives the Second Generation the foundational doctrine about their unique ancestral God and about them, his unique people.

What great nation is there that has a god so close at hand

as is YHVH our God whenever we call upon him? (Deut 4:7)

Has anything as grand as this ever happened:

or has its like ever been known?...

Has any god ventured to go take for himself one nation 

from the midst of another ... as YHVH your God did for you in Egypt

before your very eyes? (Deut 4:32, 34)

It has been clearly demonstrated to you that YHVH alone is God 

[YHVH hu ha'elohim ein od milvado] 

in heaven above and on earth below;

there is no other [ein od]. (Deut 4:35)

I��n effect, Moses then takes the premiere doctrine of the Decalogue and forms it into a national banner for the Second Generation to march under as they enter into Canaan:

Shema Yisrael—Hear, O Israel!

YHVH is our God. YHVH is Unique, He is the One and Only God.

The other elohim are idols and demons.

Because of this, you shall love YHVH your God with all your heart 

and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deut 6:4-5 my paraphrase)

[Note 2]

The Five Shemas

But this is not the only "Shema Yisrael" in Deuteronomy. There are others in this pre-Canaan primer for the Second Generation. And each one encourages the people to listen, obey, and trust the Lord their God.

Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. (Deut 5:1)

Hear, O Israel! You are crossing over the Jordan today to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you . . . (Deut 9:1)

Hear, O Israel! You are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be fainthearted. Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, for YHVH your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. (Deut 20:3-4)

Hear, O Israel! Today you have become the people of the LORD your God. (Deut 27:9)

Within the historical, pedagogical setting of Deuteronomy, the Shema Yisrael in 6:4 shines as a banner of faith in the unique God. It also reminds the hearers that His uniqueness and love for them should rightly produce reciprocal love for Him. [See The Seventh Shema.]

The Shema in Later Times

Some six centuries after Moses and the national entry into Canaan, a later generation was apostacizing from the Lord. To bring them back, the prophet Elijah (whose name means "My God is YHVH") called for a spiritual Identity Contest on the mountain of Carmel [1 Kings 18:20-40]. His question to the people was very simple:

Who is the true God? 

Is it Baal, the fertility/storm god of the Canaanites?

[whom most Israelites are fawning over] 

Or is it YHVH, the Lord, the God of our fathers? [paraphrase, v. 21]

At the flaming conclusion of the contest—when Baal failed to send fire from heaven, but YHVH did—the wavering people made loud confession of the ancestral faith:

"YHVH hu haElohim, YHVH hu haElohim —

Yahveh he is the true God, Yahveh he is the true God...

[implied: Baal is not!]" 

(1 Kings 18:38)

The Shema, long before given through Moses, was now vindicated. A generation in peril chose it as their own creed and bowed the knee to the one, true, unique God. Adonai eloheinu Adonai echad.

Finally, in some future era, prophet Zechariah foresees a time when the God of Israel is the only deity recognized on earth. In an apparent allusion to the Shema, he predicts.

The LORD will be king over all the earth;

in that day the LORD will be the only one (or "one") [YHVH echad] 

and his name the only one [shemo echad] (Zech 14:7, 9)

The Hebrew and Ugaritic scholar Cyrus Gordon notes that Greeks in the 6th century BCE, at the time of Zechariah, called their Creator god "The One." Perhaps Zechariah's message contains a contemporary anti-Hellenist polemic along the lines of:

Only YHVH, the God of Israel, will be "The One"... 

and his name "The One" [contra any gods of the Greeks].

[C.H. Gordon, "His Name is One," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29 (1970): 198-99]

Context, Context, Context

Thus, in the whole expanse of Israelite history, the Shema declares YHVH's singular uniqueness as Israel's God. She was to listen (shama) to that declaration and obey (shama) its implications, and love the One who chose to reveal himself to her.

There is no internal evidence in the Hebrew Bible that any generation of Israelites understood the Shema as a reference to a compound unity in the Godhead.

Nor is there such evidence in the New Testament. [See the parallel idea that Yeshua is "unique," as is God, in the study HaYachid—The Unique Messiah (PDF).]

Yeshua and the Shema

When a Torah scribe asked Yeshua which was the foremost commandment in the Law of Moses, he quoted the Shema and its appended command:

The foremost is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your understanding, and with all your strength."

(Mark 12:28-30)

He added the command to love one's neighbor found in Leviticus 19:18 as a corollary of loving God.

The scribe responded by affirming Yeshua's answer. Then he shifted focus to what seems to be a veiled reference to monotheism—perhaps to tempt Yeshua to make a statement about his identity. [Note 3]

Rabbi, teacher, you have truly stated that He is one, 

and there is no one else besides him . . . (v. 32)

Yeshua didn't take the bait. Instead, "When Yeshua saw that he had answered intelligently [about the command to love], he said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God' " (v. 34).

Yeshua didn't take this discussion of the Shema as an opportunity to affirm a theoretical compound unity in the Godhead or his place in it. Rather, he pointed the scribe to the extraordinary passage in Psalm 110:1, which speaks of a "Lord" who sits next to YHVH.

YHVH said to my Lord [Adon],

Sit at my right hand,

Until I put your enemies beneath your feet.

Then Yeshua tested him with an exegetical question about that Lord's identity: "How is it that the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? [Ps 110:1] David himself calls him 'Lord': and so in what sense is he his son?" (Mark 12:25-37).

The scribe and his theological comrades apparently could not, or dare not, answer Yeshua. Instead, "No one was able to answer him a word . . ." (Matt 22:46).

Yeshua's diverting attention from the Shema to Psalm 110:1 is a significant move. In fact, Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted Hebrew text in the NT, more than Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22. He set the exegetical agenda for all his followers—and for Israel.

In essence, Psalm 110:1 is the other Shema in Hebrew Scripture. The one that completes the revelation of the one God to his people and to all peoples on earth.

Yeshua's shift of emphasis could become a vision-changing lesson for modern interpreters to follow his example—instead of the example of their teachers and rabbis.

[Source: Hebrew Bible Study By Paul Sumner]

Notes

(1) According to J.R. Kohlenberg & J.A. Swanson's Hebrew English Concordance to the Old Testament (1998), echad occurs 970 times in the Tanakh.

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testamentsays echad occurs 962 times. 

Inexplicably, Abraham Even-Shoshan's Hebrew Qonqordantzia Hadashah Le'Torah Neviim Ukhtuvim says echad occurs only 699 times. 

(2) Here are renderings of the Shema in some Christian English Bibles.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, is the LORD is one. (New International Version, 2011)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. (King James Version, 1611)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. (New Revised Standard Version, 1989)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (New American Standard Bible and English Standard Version)

Attention, Israel! GOD, our GOD the one and only! (The Message, 2002)

Israel, listen to me. The LORD is our God. The Lord is the one and only God. (New International Reader's Version, 2014)

(3) The statement by Yeshua, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), begs to be interpreted in light of this discussion of echad. In context, it seems clear that he was affirming a unity of purpose, will, and power with God the Father. His Father, who is "greater than all" (v. 29), had given him authority and divine power to keep all his sheep safe within the protected sphere of eternal life.

He asked his Father that his disciples "may all be one, just as we are one" (John 17:21-22). What all their unity may be, it does not mean they become united into the one Deity, as in New Age pantheistic religion.

Notwithstanding the accusations of the Jerusalem theologians that Yeshua, "being a man, [made himself] out to be God" (v. 33), he stood his ground that, as "Son of God" (v. 36), the Father was "in" him—not that he was God the Father. 

[Compare the study The Two Lords.] 

Echad VS Trinity Thursday, April 10, 2014

God as One vs The Trinity

Christian Belief

The foundation of Christian theology includes belief that G-d exists as a Trinity, and that Jesus is the bodily incarnation of G-d and acts as a mediator between G-d and man. Hebrew Christian missionaries claim that this theology is totally compatible with Judaism.

Jewish standpoint

Judaism maintains that although certain beliefs may be permissible for non-Jews, they are not acceptable for Jews. The Christian theology concerning G-d is one example of a belief that is absolutely forbidden to Jews according to the Hebrew Bible, as the following biblical sources demonstrates:

“Hear O Israel, The Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

G-d’s absolute Oneness

The commandment to believe in G-d’s absolute Oneness was given specifically to the children of Israel (the Jewish people).

The concept expressed in this verse (Deuteronomy 6:4) not only refutes the plurality of G-ds, but also asserts that G-d is the only true existence.

Biblically

G-d is not only infinite, but He transcends time, space and matter. G-d has no beginning and no end, as it states:

“I am the first and I am the last and besides Me there is no other.” (Isaiah 44:6)

While Judaism believes that G-d manifests Himself to His creation (humanity) in many ways, (i.e. as a judge or a protector) G-d’s essence itself is indivisible and therefore without any possibility of distinction. Something that transcends both time and space cannot be described as consisting of three different aspects. The moment we attribute any such distinctions to G-d’s essence, we negate His absolute Oneness and unity.

One vs Unity

Missionaries incorrectly argue that the use in Deuteronomy 6:4 of the Hebrew word for One (Echad), rather than the word unique (Yachid), teaches that G-d is a “composite unity” instead of an “absolute unity.” They claim that the Trinity is a composite unity, similar to a physical object that includes many different individual aspects, (eg. one pen, composed of ink, plastic and metal). This reasoning is incorrect, since physical objects that exist within the context of time and space cannot be used to describe G-d who transcends these dimensions. Prior to Creation, G-d was alone and concepts of time, space and the plurality of numbers did not exist. The term unique (Yachid), correctly describes G-d’s existence prior to Creation since it indicates the absence of any plurality or of rapport with any created object.

What does it mean that God is one, when His name is Elohim?

Christian View

The word “one” used here is “echad.” Christians point to other instances where “echad” is used to denote a compound unity, and as such, they declare that every time “echad” is used, that it denotes a compound unity, and therefore, The Lord must be a compound unity, proving that the Trinity is in the Torah!

Jewish Response 

The word “echad” in Hebrew actually works in the same way the word “one” does in English. It can mean either a single unity or a compound unity. These Christians are very quick to point to Genesis 1:5, but totally failed to point out verses like these:

וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְהִנֵּ֗ה לֹא־מֵ֛ת מִמִּקְנֵ֥ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַד־אֶחָ֑ד וַיִּכְבַּד֙ לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְלֹ֥א שִׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־הָעָֽם

“And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.” Exodus 9:7 

וַֽיְהִי֙ הֵ֣מָּה בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וְהַשְּׁמֻעָ֣ה בָ֔אָה אֶל־דָּוִ֖ד לֵאמֹ֑ר הִכָּ֤ה אַבְשָׁלֹום֙ אֶת־כָּל־בְּנֵ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְלֹֽא־נֹותַ֥ר מֵהֶ֖ם אֶחָֽד

 “And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom hath slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them left.” 2 Samuel 13:30

וּבָ֣אנוּ אֵלָ֗יו [בְּאַחַת כ] (בְּאַחַ֤ד ק) הַמְּקֹומֹת֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִמְצָ֣א שָׁ֔ם וְנַ֣חְנוּ עָלָ֔יו כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יִפֹּ֥ל הַטַּ֖ל עַל־הָאֲדָמָ֑ה וְלֹֽא־נֹ֥ותַר בֹּ֛ו וּבְכָל־הָאֲנָשִׁ֥ים אֲשֶׁר־אִתֹּ֖ו גַּם־אֶחָֽד

 “So shall we come upon him in some place where he shall be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground: and of him and of all the men that [are] with him there shall not be left so much as one.” 2 Samuel 17:12 

יֵ֣שׁ אֶחָד֩ וְאֵ֨ין שֵׁנִ֜י גַּ֣ם בֵּ֧ן וָאָ֣ח אֵֽין־לֹ֗ו וְאֵ֥ין קֵץ֙ לְכָל־עֲמָלֹ֔ו גַּם־ [עֵינָיו כ] (עֵינֹ֖ו ק) לֹא־תִשְׂבַּ֣ע עֹ֑שֶׁר וּלְמִ֣י ׀ אֲנִ֣י עָמֵ֗ל וּמְחַסֵּ֤ר אֶת־נַפְשִׁי֙ מִטֹּובָ֔ה גַּם־זֶ֥ה הֶ֛בֶל וְעִנְיַ֥ן רָ֖ע הֽוּא

“There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith he], For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is] also vanity, yea, it [is] a sore travail.”  Ecclesiastes 4:8

The word "echad" (in red)  used in these verses  means "one" as a "single object" that stands alone. 

[Source: Jewish for Judaism]

Trinity: Mary Worshipped As A God? Wednesday, March 12, 2014

It is common among Christian missionaries to say, “the Quran got the trinity wrong.” Hence, they assume that the trinity that is mentioned in the Quran speaks of Mary as part of the Christian trinity. What they do not perceive is that nowhere in the Quranic verses they cite, does it indicate Mary of being part of the trinity.

The aim of this article is to respond to the claims made by missionaries that the Quran got the trinity wrong. Let’s now read the verses they use as proof that the Quran says ‘Mary is part of the Trinity’,

“And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.” – Quran 5:116

From this passage Christians think it speaks about the Trinity, but they are wrong. If we read the verse from start to end one will not find the word “Trinity” in there. Another passage they use as proof that the Quran got the Trinity wrong is,

“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.” – Quran 4:171

Again, the above verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the trinity. If one reads the above verse carefully, it is clear that the passage is mainly speaking of Jesus. The name of Mary is used, because Allah is elucidating, making Christians ponder that Jesus son of Mary was only a messenger of God, and through His (God’s) command, he (Jesus) became a created being that was born in the womb of Mary. Then after that, Allah says, “say not trinity” (or Three). It is quite clear that the verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity.

The Quran does speak about the Trinity somewhere else, but says nothing about Mary being part of the Trinity. Here is the verse:

“They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” – Quran 5:73

As we read the above passage, it does speak about the trinity, but does not mention anything about Mary being part of the trinity.

Another thing critics love citing for chapter 4 verse 171, is use classic commentaries such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, by that they conclude the Quran is a false book and not from God, since they believe the trinity consists of “the Father, Son and Mary.” Nowhere in the verse (Quran 4:71) does it say that the trinity consists of, “the Father, Son and Mary.” Even if we agree with what some of the commentators like Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs said, it will not disprove what the Quran already stated. The Scholars made that comment, because they were referring to some Christian sects, who believed that trinity consisted of the “Father, the Son and Mary.” Another thing if you read their exegesis, nowhere will you see them mention that this ‘belief was believed by all Christians.’ There is vast amount of evidence from the Church Fathers that there was certain sect(s) in Arabia that believed the trinity consisted of: “Father, the Son and Virgin Mary.”

1. George Sale

“This notion of the divinity of the virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the compliment of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect with her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous….” [1]

2. Reverend Gilbert Reid D.D.

“As to Christianity as it was represented in Arabia, it was not a clear untarnished theism, but tritheism. The Heavenly Father, Mary the mother of God and Jesus their son, were WORSHIPPED as three Gods, and their images appeared in the churches along with the images of other saints. Christianity as taught by Christ had lost its identity in the formalism and errors of the church of Arabia. Still more the truths pro-claimed by God through all the ages had been lost sight amid the vain imaginings of men’s hearts. The only God of, an omnipresent spirit, without form or body. The reformation of Mohammed was thus a return to the first and second commandment of the Prophet Moses, which Jesus himself had taught.” [2]

3. English theologian Theophilus Lindsey

“The followers of Christ had been for some ages quarrelling and destroying each other in their heat’s and disputes, not concerning the Supreme Father of all, to whom they paid little attention; but about the nature of Christ. And of the Holy Spirit, and many other objects of worship, which they invented. (t) The notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was believed by some even at the council of Nice: who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz. Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence names Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified: which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition, in calling her the complement of the Trinity…” [3]

4. William Cook Taylor

“In Arabia itself some of the worst heresies were propagated: the chief of these were the heresies of the Ebonites, the Nazareans, and the Collydrians, the last of which derived its name from the collyris, or twisted cake offered by them to the Virgin Mary, whom they worshipped as a deity. It is known to all readers of ecclesiastical history that a sect called Mariamites exalted the Virgin to a participation in the Godhead, and that writers of the Romish Church have named her the ‘complement of the Trinity…” [4]

5. John Holmes

“…Jacobites, so called from Jacobus, Bishop of Edessa in Syria, and whose doctrine, directly contrary to that of the Nestorians in one point, denied the double nature of Christ in his state of incarnation: Mariamites, so called because they worshipped the Virgin Mary, and regarded her as, along with the Father, and the Son one of the persons of the Divine Trinity” [5]

6. John Henry Blunt D.D.

“In Accordance with which are the statements of certain writers, logically in agreement with the worship they advocate, that St. Mary has been assumed into the Trinity, so as to make it a quaternity, that Mary is the ‘compliment of the Trinity.’” [6]

7. Allan Freer

Nestorians, so called from their founder, Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople and whose heresy consisted in a recondite distinction between Jesus the man, and Christ the God-man; Jacobites, so-called from Jacobus, Bishop of Edessa in Syria, and whose doctrine directly contrary to that of the Nestorians in one point, denied the double nature of Christ in his state of incarnation: Mariamites, so-called because they worshipped the virgin Mary, and regarded her as, along with the Father and the Son, One of the persons of the divine Trinity: and collydrians, a sect guilty of similar heresy, and deriving their name from their practice of offering to the virgin Mary a particular kind of cake, called Collyris. [7]

8. John William Draper

In the east, in consequence of the policy of the court of Constantinople, the Church had been torn in pieces by contentions and schisms. Among a countless host of disputants may be mentioned Arians, Basilidians, Carpocritains, Collydrians, Eutychians, Gnostics, Jacobites, Marcionites, Marionites, Nestorians, Sabellians, Vallentians. Of these the ; the Collydrians worshipped the Virgin as a divinity, offering her sacrifices of cakes… [8]

We can see from the academic references quoted that Mary was indeed believed to be part of the trinity by certain Christian sects of Arabia.

Question: “why does the Quran in chapter 5 verse 116 state Mary is a God?”

Well it’s clear that the Quran is in dialectic discussion with the native Arabs of that time, when it was first revealed. The Quran is naturally responding to ideas and teachings of people had at that time. So, the Quran is correcting their error in worshipping Mary and bringing them back to the path of worshipping God as One (Monotheism) and none else besides Him i.e., no worship of Mary or Jesus. The Quran also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus never told people any of this. Allah is asking Jesus on the day of judgement, “did you tell people to worship You and your Mother as Gods?” In the presence of the people, to bring them to judgement. It will be obvious that Jesus won’t accept any responsibility as he is not the one who commanded such a thing. Here are many more academic sources that attest to Mary being worshipped as a God

1. Reverend Henry Adelbert Thomson (Cincinnati, Ohio)

It is plain that the tendency to sail with the popular wind, which existed in church dignitaries of that age as well as in this, easily prevailed on many who held ecclesiastical office, so that they approved or winked at beliefs and practices which more independent clergymen considered erroneous. The people carried the clergy along with them. Even the fearless and powerful Augustine, and with him such strenuous men as John Chrysostom and two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nyssa, were unable to stem the tide in some matters of which were disapproved. The worship of Mary and the Saints met the popular mood and pleased the popular fancy; so the great leaders. Confronted by an enthusiasm they were really powerless to curb, endeavoured to the point out and maintain a distinction between latreia and douleia. But, once having given way, even partially, to the prevailing opinion, these same great men were afterward quoted as conservators and expounders of the tradition which, through them, thus received the more impressive authority….. the pure Christian doctrine had led to veneration of Saints; the adoration of the feminine ideal, together with the peculiar relationship of Mary to Christ, had designated her as “Queen of Saints;”….. the practice of Mariolatry gained a tremendous impulse, along with the Worship of Saints, especially in the post Nicene period….. the Church was still more effectually darkened and its doctrine debased. In such a period those elements of the Faith which almost readily lent themselves to idolatry suffered most in purity and gained most in practice. Saints, relics, images, with Mary, as Queen of Heaven, at their head, almost completely absorbed the worship of the people. [9]

2. Ernst Benz

The virgin birth entered into creeds of all Christendom and became one of the strongest motifs in the liturgy and worship of the early Church. Veneration of the mother of God took a tremdous leap from the moment Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and the pagan masses began pouring into the Church. For thousands of years the religious mentality of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin and near East had been shaped by the cult of the great Mother Goddess and Divine Virgin. From the ancient popular religions of Babylonian Ishtar to the mystery religions of the late Hellenistic age the great Goddess had been worshipped under a variety of forms. The peoples who had practiced her cult could not easily adjust to the sole dominance of the Father God and to the strictly patriarchal structure of Judaic religiosity, which had been taken over by the early Christians. This ancient tradition sought a new mode of expression within the Christian Church and found it in adoration of the Virginal Mother of God in whom the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature had been accomplished…. In Egypt the veneration of Mary began very early. Origen, the Alexandrian father of the Church, employed the term theotokos- God bearer in the third century. The second council of Ephesus gave its sanction to this title. The second council of Constantinople added the epithet ever-lasting Virgin.” The prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church invoke the name of the Mother of God as often as the names of Christ and the Holy Trinity. A god example of such homage is found in the Eucharistic liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the conclusion of the great intercessory prayer: “Truly worthy is it to praise Thee God bearer, eternally blessed and perfectly irreproachable Mother of our God, who art more worthy of honor than the cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim, who intact, hast borne the Divine Logos-Thee the true Mother of God, we Praise.” [10]

3. Professor of the New Testament Beverly Roberts Gaventa

“Orthodox theologians insist Mary is deserving of this grace, and it is for that reason that she is identified as Panhagia, or All Holy. From birth she is without sin. Her own holiness and her divine maternity warrant the high veneration given to her by the Church. Mary is “the first of all humanity to have attained, through the complete transfiguration of her being, that to which every creature is summoned. She has already transcended the boundary between time and eternity and now finds herself in the Kingdom which the Church awaits with the second coming of Christ.” Because of Mary’s own holiness, she stands in solidarity with the sanctified humanity who constitute with the Church. For those reasons, Orthodox Christian tradition icons and hymns praise Mary at ‘the centre of the Saints as a representation of the worshipping and praying community.’”[11]

4. Professor James R. Adair

“…the highest veneration was given to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historically Marian veneration can be connected with the controversies over the use of the term theotokos, rejected by Nestorius but accepted by most Christians of the day. The veneration of Mary was especially popular among the common people and the Monks, particularly in the EAST.” [12]

5. Reverend James Gardner

“Mariolatry, the worship of the Virgin Mary. In the fourth century, in consequence of prevalence of the ascetic spirit, the most extravagant opinions began to be entertained of the merit of virginity, and Mary, the mother of our blessed Lord, was venerated as the ideal of the celibate life. About this time an opinion arose that there were in the temple of Jerusalem virgins consecrated to God, among whom Mary grew up in vows of perpetual Virginity. In the end of the fourth, it became customary to apply to Mary the appellation, “Mother of God.” …the worshippers of Mary prevailed, and in the fifth century images of the Virgin were placed in the Churches holding the infant Jesus in her arms. Once introduced, this species of worship spread rapidly, and Mary became a conspicuous object of veneration in the Churches, both of the East and West. .. towards the close of the tenth century the custom became prevalent among the Latins, of celebrating masses, and abstaining from flesh on Saturdays, in honour of Mary. About the same time the daily office of St. Mary, which the Latins call lesser office, was introduced, and it was afterwards confirmed by Pope Urban II. In the council of Clement. The Rosary also came into use, consisting of fifteen repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and one hundred salutations of St. Mary; and the Crown of St. Mary, as it was called by the Latins consisted of six or seven repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and sixty or seventy salutations according to the age ascribed by different authors to the Holy Virgin. Mariolatry now became an established doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome, and down to the present day has continued to occupy a very spicuous place in her ritual; while with equal intensity Mary receives the worship of Oriental Church under the name of Panagia, or All-Holy…” [13]

6. German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz

…the Collydrians- a female sect in Arabia dating from the fourth century- who offered to her bread-cakes (in imitation of the heathen worship of ceres). Epiphanius, who opposed that sect, maintained:…. On the Antidicomarianites, comp. 92. But during the Nestorian controversy Mariolatry became again more general in the Church. In the fifth century, the 25th march was celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation… [14]

7. Reverend John Dowling

When we observe, on the one hand, the earnest manner in which these fathers contend for perpetual virginity of Mary, and on the other hand the extravagant honors attached to the virgin state, we need not be surprised that the notion soon became prevalent among some that ‘ the mother of God.’ As she was now frequently denominated, was herself worthy of the honors of divine worship. Accordingly, about this time, we find that a sect sprang up, whose peculiar tenet it was, that the Virgin Mary should be adored in worship, and that religious honors should be paid to her. They were called Collyridians, from collyridae, the cakes which they offered to the virgin… [15]

8. Church of England quarterly review

The first persons upon record, as offering divine honours to the Virgin Mary, were the Collyridians, who derived their names from the…, or certain cakes, which they offered annually to Saint Mary, in sacrifice upon her festival, when they worshipped her as a goddess. This superstition came from Thrace, and the yet more distant regions of Scythia and Arabia… [16]

9. Professor of the New Testament studies Amy-Jill Levine

“There are even stronger hints that Mary was venerated as a goddess. By the fourth century, Epiphanius (315-403 CE) was ordering the faithful not to worship Mary but only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, suggesting that such activity had been transpiring for a while.” [17]

10. Professor of religious studies Gail Paterson Corrington

“It would certainly not have been surprising if the Christian women of Egypt had found another divine mother with whom to identify; the Christian women of Arabia, to Epiphanius’s consternation, did a similar thing in their worship of Mary rather than Jesus… The cakes (kollybas) offered by the Collyridians to Mary in the worship are described in a way similar to the cakes offered Isis as the queen of heaven…” [18]

11. Mary Walsh

“The first council’s decision was approved, and Mary was the theotokos, ‘The Mother of God.’ This date, A.D. 431, marks the time when Mary was in the ascendancy, and her veneration and worship began. …. About the middle of the fourth century, according to Jerome, Augistine, Gregory, Epiphanius, and others, teachings came in regarding Virgins who had taken the vows of sanctity and chastity and who devoted their lives to the service of the temple at Jerusalem. Among these virgins was Mary, who had consecrated her life to God by taking the vow of perpetual virginity. It was declared that her marriage to Joseph was formal, and that she continued a virgin until her death. This was the new teaching, and it caused long debated arguments as to whether Mary was actually was a perpetual virgin. The other phrase of the new teaching was that Mary was the ‘Mother of God’ and was therefore entitled to devotion and honor. These extravagant honors conferred on Mary led to the development of a sect called Collyridian, derived from the word collyridae, the cakes which were offered to the Virgin. This sect regards Mary as worthy of divine worship. Thus the floodgates were opened for the beatification of the Virgin.” [19]

12. Thomas Anthony Trollope

Collyridians, from Greek word signifying a piece of bread or cake in a cylindrical form; a sect of Christians, who arose towards the conclusion of the fourth century, and, together with another sect, called the Antidico-Marianites, filled all Arabia with controversies and disorder. These latter maintained that the Virgin Mary did not preserve immaculate state after the birth of Christ, in jospeh autem mariti sui concubitu adhuc indulgebat. The Collyridians, on contrary, who are said to have chiefly consisted of women, worshipped the Virgin as a goddess, and sought favours by libations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes. [20]

13. Professor Maxwell E. Johnson

“Epiphanuis of Salamis (315-403 CE), according to his witness, not only was there in existence an anti-marian group called the Antidicomarianites, who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, but also an EXTREME pro-marian group, known as the Conllydrians (from cakes), a group compromised mostly of women who worshipped Mary as a goddess, offered her and then consumed small cakes, and had a female priesthood…” [21]

14. Protestant theologian and Church historian Phillip Schaff writes,

“Epiphanius, in his seventy-eighth heresy, combats the advocates of the opposite view in Arabia toward the end of fourth century (367), as heretics under the title of Antidiomarianites, opposer’s of the dignity of Mary i.e., of her perpetual virginity. But, on the other hand, he condemns, in the seventy-ninth heresy, the contemporaneous sect of the Collyridians in Arabia, a set of fanatical women, who, as priestesses rendered divine Worship to Mary…”[22]

15. Reverend George William D. Evans

The religious worship now paid to the virgin seems clearly deducible from that which was paid to the female deities of old. How reluctantly the converts from heathenism bade adieu to that sex as objects of worship, is evident from heretical opinions held by the sect of the Collydrians- a sect which arose towards the close of the fourth century, and offered up cakes (collyridae) to the Virgin Mary, as a goddess, and the Queen of heaven… [23]

16. Erich Fromm

“In the Nestorian controversy a decision against Nestorius was reached in 431 that Mary was not only the mother of Christ but also the mother of God, and at the end of the fourth century there arose a cult of Mary, and men addressed prayers to her. About the same time the representation of Mary in the plastic arts also began to play a great and ever-increasing role. The succeeding centuries attached more and more significance to the mother of God, and her worship became more exuberant and more general. Altars were erected to her, and her pictures were shown everywhere.” [24]

17. English historian Edward Gibbon

“The Christians of the Seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collydrian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess. The mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation appear to contradict the principle of the Divine unity. In their obvious sense, they introduce three equal deities, and transform the man Jesus into the substance of the Son of God: and orthodox commentary will satisfy only a believing mind: intemperate curiosity and zeal had torn the veil of the sanctuary; and each of the Oriental sects was eager to confess that all, except themselves, deserved the reproach of Idolatry and Polytheism. The Creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The Prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.” [25]

We can conclude that the Quran nowhere says that “Mary is part of the trinity.” I responded to critics claims on  Scholars (commentators of the Quran), they also never said, “Mary is believed by all Christians to be part of the trinity.” Their views were based on certain sects of Arabia which believed that Mary is part of the trinty. I also referenced two dozen or more academic quotes from Christian experts, that Virgin Mary indeed was worshipped and she was part of the trinity. I believe everything I have presented is in my favour that the Quran is not wrong in responding to the Christians of that time in Arabia that they worshipped Mary as a Goddess.

[Kaleef K. Karim | Discover the truth]

References:

[1] The Koran translation and Notes (2007) by George Sale page 27

[2] Gilbert Reid – The Biblical World: Volume 48, Number. 1, page 12

[3] An Examination of Mr. Robinson of Cambridge’s Plea for the Divinity of Our Jesus Christ [London: Printed for J. Johnson, No. 72 St. Paul’s Church-Yard] by Theophilus Lindsey  page 124

[4] Readings in Biography: A Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of All Nations [The second Edition. London: John W. Parker, West Strand. (1899)] by William Cooke Taylor page 192

[5] The Eclectic Magazine: Foreign Literature science and Art. [September to December 1850.] By John Holmes Agnew, Walter Hilliard Bidwell, volume 21, page 40

[6] Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology by John Henry Blunt page 441

[7] The North British Review [Febraury 1850 – August 1850] by Allan Freer Volume 13, page 197

[8] History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science [New York: D. Appleton and company 1875] by John William Draper page 78 – 79

[9] Henry Adelbert Thompson The Catholic Cultus of the Virgin Mary: The American Journal of Theology: Volume 10, No. 3, page 480 – 484

[10] The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life by Ernst Benz page 61 – 62

[11] Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus by Beverly Roberts Gaventa page 15 -16

[12] Introducing Christianity by James R. Adair page 207

[13] The faiths of the world : an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (1858) by Reverend James Gardner,  Volume 6, page 372 – 373

[14] History of the Christian Church to the Reformation by Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz  page 223

[15] The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the present time [sixth edition 1845] by Reverend John Dowling page 82

[16] The Church of England quarterly review, [London: William Edward Painter, 342 strand] – volume 9, page 172

[17] A Feminist Companion to Mariology by Amy-Jill Levine, Maria Mayo Robbins page 173

[18] Gail Paterson Corrington Her Image of Salvation: Female Saviors and Formative Christianity page 96 – 97

[19] Bible Lessons For Catholics [Copyright 2002, Published by TEACH services, INC.] by Mary Walsh page 70 – 71

[20] An encyclopædia ecclesiastica; or, A complete history of the Church by Thomas Anthony Trollope page 403

[21] Praying and believing In early Christianity by Maxwell E. Johnson page 83

[22] History of the Christian Church [Third revision – New York: Charles Scibner’s Sons 1891] by Phillip Schaff Volume 3, page 417

[23] The classic and connoisseur in Italy and Sicily, with an appendix: (1835) by Reverend George William D. Evans volume 2, page 59

[24] The Dogma of Christ: And Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture by Erich Fromm page 62 – 63

[25] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, [Philadelphia 1816] by Edward Gibbon – Volume 6, page 249