My Chrisian Brehs, Did Abraham and Moses Worship a Triune God

[MMS]

First off:

Elohim is plural

Second off:

The being that went to Abraham and Moses was actually Baal/Moloch.

Baal tricked them into believing he was "God".

The "covenant" Moses made with "God" (Baal) was really a deal with the "devil". This is why they do blood sacrifices.

Jesus came to the Jews to tell them they are worshipping the wrong "God".

read Exodus 17 in light of Exodus 20 (Atheism in high places)

Baal just means Lord

Moloch or Melqart or Chermosh etc is the glorification of Death as a deity (And moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness)

many protestants are utterly bamboozled as to what is happening in the OT

biblical poetry and the nature of hebrew is complicated...Consider the power of the words when YOU the reader speak them.

Consider what the writer is trying to tell you...consider which words are from the Lord and which ones are from man.

Why did Joseph/Mary flee to Egypt? Did they flee literally or allegorically or both I strongly encourage more interested seekers to study the Bible with respect to logical questions like:

1. Are children born with bibles? Then what do the written and oral traditions mean with respect to people who will never know or read them?
2. Is reality real? Or do you believe in Gnosticism and that God is in a realm beyond you, and that God made mistakes (don't recommend this route)
3. Furthermore who and what is God? How can one "know" God? What manner has God revealed himself to man?

Consider how a world that is largely illiterate would perceive scripture compared to the very literate today.

Also read the bible with the names as titles as opposed to discreet individuals. You will see different meanings start arising (IE substitute "Jesus Christ" with "The Word of God" when you read the Gospels and see if it still makes sense to you; justified by John 1:1).

 

[MMS]

Jesus at John 14:28 - “The Father Is greater than I am.”

If Jesus and the Father and anyone else are apart of the same equilateral personage in one being,
one of them can’t be greater than the others.

Jesus in prayer to The Father on behalf of The Apostles at John 17:11 & 20, 21 -
“Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me,
so that they may be one, just as we are one.”

- The Father has his own name
- The original language rendering for “are one” means “in unity”.
They are one in purpose, but not in status or being.

(20 and 21) “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they may also be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me.”

If Jesus and the Father were one in being, these verses would be saying that Jesus was asking for the Apostles and everybody who became Christians to be part of God, too. The problems with that are:

(A) if all Christians become God, who’s really God?
(B) as we know, Christians have not become God
(C) if Jesus was Almighty like the Father is, he wouldn’t have to ask him for that, he could do it himself.
(D) as mentioned at the end of this verse, part of being “as one” with Christianity means you have to believe that Jesus was “sent”. And somebody an only be “sent” by someone with authority over them.

The Father is Genesis 1

What is a name if you are the only being that exists?

A/B - If God made man in his own image, after his likeness...it just means aesthetically speaking not a true carbon copy.
C - Jesus is almighty, because the word of God is almighty and proceeds from the Father. The word itself is Jesus Christ.
D - To dwell in the scriptures and lean on its understanding is the real meaning of John 15

Consider the myriad of thoughts, emotions, and actions a man can take in his life. Now consider that only the words of Genesis 1 will ultimately survive eternally.

Many vines arise from Gods creation, but the vine of God who is the Lord Jesus Christ is truly eternal. Believe on his words

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

@MMS
For me, it would seem more logical that Jesus Christ, being the great-grandson of Abraham through his maternal line, came to continue the service to God and to teach people to worship the God of Jacob, Isaaac and Abraham as being their one true creator.

Remember that Jesus came as a teacher and as a Rabbi, and it would hardly be fitting for a Rabbi who came to teach the law and to infuse it with love, to teach people that he was God all along.

Rather, the Rabbi would tell them be sincere scholars and protectors (Rabbis) for the sake of the Lord rather than for the sake of Baal, for the sake of the demons from the time of Solomon, or for the Sake of Rome.

This much is evidenced by the fact that not only is Jesus a human being but the fact that in multiple places, he evidences the fact that he is inferior to God by praying to him and pleading to him - showing that he in fact worshipped God as his Lord and that he taught Israel that their lord was One.

It would seem mind-boggling to Me or to those descedents of Israel before Christ to tell them that Mary was worshipping her son her entire life before his birth, that Abraham was worship his Great grandson, that Zachariah was worshiping his nephew and that John the Baptist was actually worshipping his cousin.

Rather, it makes more sense that Jesus - like his mother, like his great grandfather, his uncle and his cousin - were all sincere knowers of God, people inspired by God, and people who titled people towards God - but that none of them - Including Jesus himself - were God.

 

[MMS]

@MMS
For me, it would seem more logical that Jesus Christ, being the great-grandson of Abraham through his maternal line, came to continue the service to God and to teach people to worship the God of Jacob, Isaaac and Abraham as being their one true creator.

Remember that Jesus came as a teacher and as a Rabbi, and it would hardly be fitting for a Rabbi who came to teach the law and to infuse it with love, to teach people that he was God all along.

Rather, the Rabbi would tell them be sincere scholars and protectors (Rabbis) for the sake of the Lord rather than for the sake of Baal, for the sake of the demons from the time of Solomon, or for the Sake of Rome.

This much is evidenced by the fact that not only is Jesus a human being but the fact that in multiple places, he evidences the fact that he is inferior to God by praying to him and pleading to him - showing that he in fact worshipped God as his Lord and that he taught Israel that their lord was One.

It would seem mind-boggling to Me or to those descedents of Israel before Christ to tell them that Mary was worshipping her son her entire life before his birth, that Abraham was worship his Great grandson, that Zachariah was worshiping his nephew and that John the Baptist was actually worshipping his cousin.

Rather, it makes more sense that Jesus - like his mother, like his great grandfather, his uncle and his cousin - were all sincere knowers of God, people inspired by God, and people who titled people towards God - but that none of them - Including Jesus himself - were God.

you are only viewing Jesus from the lense of his fleshly being

consider the paper and the ink of his gospels as also his flesh

Indeed Abraham worshipped Jesus when you consider this this way

imagine if all of your words were guided by scripture? How would the world perceive you

Consider Mary...allegorically with respect of Genesis 1. The waters are eternal despite what has been formed from them



as I said earlier...what does dwelling in the Lord truly mean?

Hathor - Wikipedia

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

you are only viewing Jesus from the lense of his fleshly being

consider the paper and the ink of his gospels as also his flesh

Indeed Abraham worshipped Jesus when you consider this this way

imagine if all of your words were guided by scripture? How would the world perceive you

Consider Mary...allegorically with respect of Genesis 1. The waters are eternal despite what has been formed from them



as I said earlier...what does dwelling in the Lord truly mean?

Hathor - Wikipedia

My Brother MMS, the entire situation comes down to the essential attributes of God and whether claims that are made with respect to him are valid or not.

Now, we both have discarded atheism - Alhamdulillah - because we see that there is no way that there can be a world of such order that came about without a necessary existent that produced that order in the first place.

So this places us with the first essential attribute, in that he is Living and that He Exists. Because a God by definition, is a being that has control over all outcomes and all possibilities. God not existing would mean, by definition, that he is not God and that is opposed to the rational proofs that we have in this world with respect to his existence.

We reject Polytheism as a general idea because of the fact that the existence of two Gods means that whenever the possibility of disagreement occurs, the one who is predominant over the other would be the true God while the other one is not able to impose his say on the other. That means the first is God and the other is something other than God.

These same rational proofs extend to God being Knowing, Hearing, Seeing, Being Embedded with Power, Being Eternal and Being Free of Need. Because a God that is ignorant is unaware of possibilities and therefore does not have complete dominion over all things; likewise, a God that does not have hearing or sight (in a way that is different from created hearing or Sight) would not be able to perceive all that occurs. A God that does not have Power is a God that is not a God, since all of his actions stem from that essential attribute. Being Eternal means that there is no possibility for a point in time where he is not god, so therefore he is the First without beginning and without end. And he is Free of Need, because needing something to occur implies that he cannot do without that Thing.

Now having established those fundamental elements of God, the claim that God has Sons indicates that there is something in the creation that God has taken for himself, as an emergence from need, to term as something being his sons. The idea of having a son is based on the notion that a human being and an animal is a finite being in terms of Power, Life, Knowledge, Will and Sight, and Hearing . The human being gets old, so his son carries out his work for him with his inherited power. A human being dies, and his son carries forward his legacy. A human being does not know and sense everything, so his son fills the gap for him. God, however, being infinite in Power, Life, Knowledge and Senses has no need that a son can fulfill for him.

So that means that the idea of a seperate being asides from God being his son is already flawed from the Get-go, since - first - God is free of the need that makes us have children as a biological drive. And, two, since the son repesents a potential rival that is either lesser to or Greater than God. This means that the "son" is either not God, in which case he is a creation of God since everything other than God necessarily emerges from his creative Power. To claim that something outside of God emerged outside of his Power, means that he does not have power over all things. Or it means that the Son is Greater than God, which is paradoxical because his annoitnment stems from the creative power of the original God.

Then, what you can claim - and what many of you claim - is that God's essence is triune and has been seperated into a so called Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The father/son split is already criticized above, but the general split of the Essence of God is flawed for multiple reasons. The first is that you have given physical forms to that which you claim is the Essence of God. As we established, Everything other than God is creation and therefore to attach God to Creation by saying that Jesus, supposedly being God, dwelt in the creation, is to take away the transcendence of his Godhood. The same is said for the Angel of the Lord/The Holy Spirit/Gabriel. God is transcendent above his creation and to place him in the midst of his creation as a being of Form, knowing that he created form as a means of his creation's activity, is highly dubious. Then, to add to that, the one you claim is part of God's essence is the son of the creation of God who have form. Moreover, he ate food and relied on the same human activities that preserve human beings in terms of food, social interaction, and learning - thereby showing that he has need. Thirdly, there were times in which he was prevented - despite his most arduous desires - from being able to attain that which he wanted and protect himself from harm. Finally, the idea that God would wait to reveal his essence as being triune after having revealed himself to be one (The Lord Thy God is ONE) and after having been worshpped as One for thousands of years - is a highly strange claim.

In my view, the reality is that God is and always has been one, Unique, Individisble, and Transcendent in his Substance. He is endowed with Life without Beginning or End, Power that can do all, Will that overrides all, Sight that Sees all, Hearing that hears all, and Speech that he reveals whenever he wants. His Angel and the Holy Spirit are creations that he sends down upon his servants to inspire them to teach them the words and the actions that earn his Divine pleasure or Divine wrath. Jesus and all of his messnegers, from Enoch to Mohamed, were messengers of human flesh and human soul who came to teach people that God is One, that he has decreed his worship, and that Righteous action will lead us back to Him. This is the message that is consistent with the Scriptures before Jesus, with what Jesus himself taught, with what the early church fathers preached, and with what intellect dictates.

 

[Breh Obama]

read Exodus 17 in light of Exodus 20 (Atheism in high places)

Baal just means Lord

Moloch or Melqart or Chermosh etc is the glorification of Death as a deity (And moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness)

many protestants are utterly bamboozled as to what is happening in the OT

biblical poetry and the nature of hebrew is complicated...Consider the power of the words when YOU the reader speak them.

Consider what the writer is trying to tell you...consider which words are from the Lord and which ones are from man.

Why did Joseph/Mary flee to Egypt? Did they flee literally or allegorically or both I strongly encourage more interested seekers to study the Bible with respect to logical questions like:

1. Are children born with bibles? Then what do the written and oral traditions mean with respect to people who will never know or read them?
2. Is reality real? Or do you believe in Gnosticism and that God is in a realm beyond you, and that God made mistakes (don't recommend this route)
3. Furthermore who and what is God? How can one "know" God? What manner has God revealed himself to man?

Consider how a world that is largely illiterate would perceive scripture compared to the very literate today.

Also read the bible with the names as titles as opposed to discreet individuals. You will see different meanings start arising (IE substitute "Jesus Christ" with "The Word of God" when you read the Gospels and see if it still makes sense to you; justified by John 1:1).

No, the word Lord translates to Baal. Baal was an actual "deity ".

Lol the Canaanites/Hebrews/Jews were deceived

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

 

[MMS]

My Brother MMS, the entire situation comes down to the essential attributes of God and whether claims that are made with respect to him are valid or not.

Now, we both have discarded atheism - Alhamdulillah - because we see that there is no way that there can be a world of such order that came about without a necessary existent that produced that order in the first place.

So this places us with the first essential attribute, in that he is Living and that He Exists. Because a God by definition, is a being that has control over all outcomes and all possibilities. God not existing would mean, by definition, that he is not God and that is opposed to the rational proofs that we have in this world with respect to his existence.

Who can define God but God?
Ananke - Wikipedia

We reject Polytheism as a general idea because of the fact that the existence of two Gods means that whenever the possibility of disagreement occurs, the one who is predominant over the other would be the true God while the other one is not able to impose his say on the other. That means the first is God and the other is something other than God.

To whom is their conflict? with Man or with God?

Is God fallen? Or is man fallen?

These same rational proofs extend to God being Knowing, Hearing, Seeing, Being Embedded with Power, Being Eternal and Being Free of Need. Because a God that is ignorant is unaware of possibilities and therefore does not have complete dominion over all things; likewise, a God that does not have hearing or sight (in a way that is different from created hearing or Sight) would not be able to perceive all that occurs. A God that does not have Power is a God that is not a God, since all of his actions stem from that essential attribute. Being Eternal means that there is no possibility for a point in time where he is not god, so therefore he is the First without beginning and without end. And he is Free of Need, because needing something to occur implies that he cannot do without that Thing.

Now having established those fundamental elements of God, the claim that God has Sons indicates that there is something in the creation that God has taken for himself, as an emergence from need, to term as something being his sons. The idea of having a son is based on the notion that a human being and an animal is a finite being in terms of Power, Life, Knowledge, Will and Sight, and Hearing . The human being gets old, so his son carries out his work for him with his inherited power. A human being dies, and his son carries forward his legacy. A human being does not know and sense everything, so his son fills the gap for him. God, however, being infinite in Power, Life, Knowledge and Senses has no need that a son can fulfill for him.

So that means that the idea of a seperate being asides from God being his son is already flawed from the Get-go, since - first - God is free of the need that makes us have children as a biological drive. And, two, since the son repesents a potential rival that is either lesser to or Greater than God. This means that the "son" is either not God, in which case he is a creation of God since everything other than God necessarily emerges from his creative Power. To claim that something outside of God emerged outside of his Power, means that he does not have power over all things. Or it means that the Son is Greater than God, which is paradoxical because his annoitnment stems from the creative power of the original God.

Then, what you can claim - and what many of you claim - is that God's essence is triune and has been seperated into a so called Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The father/son split is already criticized above, but the general split of the Essence of God is flawed for multiple reasons. The first is that you have given physical forms to that which you claim is the Essence of God. As we established, Everything other than God is creation and therefore to attach God to Creation by saying that Jesus, supposedly being God, dwelt in the creation, is to take away the transcendence of his Godhood. The same is said for the Angel of the Lord/The Holy Spirit/Gabriel. God is transcendent above his creation and to place him in the midst of his creation as a being of Form, knowing that he created form as a means of his creation's activity, is highly dubious. Then, to add to that, the one you claim is part of God's essence is the son of the creation of God who have form. Moreover, he ate food and relied on the same human activities that preserve human beings in terms of food, social interaction, and learning - thereby showing that he has need. Thirdly, there were times in which he was prevented - despite his most arduous desires - from being able to attain that which he wanted and protect himself from harm. Finally, the idea that God would wait to reveal his essence as being triune after having revealed himself to be one (The Lord Thy God is ONE) and after having been worshpped as One for thousands of years - is a highly strange claim.

In my view, the reality is that God is and always has been one, Unique, Individisble, and Transcendent in his Substance. He is endowed with Life without Beginning or End, Power that can do all, Will that overrides all, Sight that Sees all, Hearing that hears all, and Speech that he reveals whenever he wants. His Angel and the Holy Spirit are creations that he sends down upon his servants to inspire them to teach them the words and the actions that earn his Divine pleasure or Divine wrath. Jesus and all of his messnegers, from Enoch to Mohamed, were messengers of human flesh and human soul who came to teach people that God is One, that he has decreed his worship, and that Righteous action will lead us back to Him. This is the message that is consistent with the Scriptures before Jesus, with what Jesus himself taught, with what the early church fathers preached, and with what intellect dictates.

please read my posts, I have explained these things already. You must meditate on the words and let them be like food for you. You need to dismantle what platform you believe and just meditate on the words.

The "definitions" and the "descriptions" of God are purely the work of man. However, the tripart nature of God is indisputable because of Genesis 1.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

God as the entity
God as the mode of action
God as the mode of receipt (The word)

A conscious entity (the father), that acts (the holy spirit), and is recorded and transcribed (Jesus Christ)

 

[MMS]

No, the word Lord translates to Baal. Baal was an actual "deity ".

Lol the Canaanites/Hebrews/Jews were deceived

There are many baals

or do you mean Bel?

Spoiler

Bel (mythology) - Wikipedia
Belus (Egyptian) - Wikipedia
Min (god) - Wikipedia

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

Who can define God but God?
Ananke - Wikipedia



To whom is their conflict? with Man or with God?

Is God fallen? Or is man fallen?



please read my posts, I have explained these things already. You must meditate on the words and let them be like food for you. You need to dismantle what platform you believe and just meditate on the words.

The "definitions" and the "descriptions" of God are purely the work of man. However, the tripart nature of God is indisputable because of Genesis 1.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

God as the entity
God as the mode of action
God as the mode of receipt (The word)

A conscious entity (the father), that acts (the holy spirit), and is recorded and transcribed (Jesus Christ)

@MMS reflect on what I have posted above without any bias; just the rational proofs that I have provided.

The "definitions" are not "definitions" but that which, without doubt, must apply to God. For example, God can be called the Knowing, because the logical opposite of knowledge is ignorance, which goes against what - by definition - God is.

If we do not work on the basis of such rational proofs, then whoever wants to say what they want can say what they want.

We have to establish what is meant by God, based on logic and what is authentically reported from him, and then examine the claims made about him.

One such claim, which you have put forward, is the novel idea that Jesus is the Son of and simultaneously God. The ones who first had the source for what this is based on do not agree with this, so the rational proofs for this claim must be examined to see whether it makes sense or not.

If you go back and look towards the breakdown that I have made, then you will see that it does not make sense and what makes the most sense is that Jesus was a teacher, scholar, prophet, and miraculous human being sent from God as a proof of his existence and to guide back to God.

If we were comparing Jesus to a vessel and God to an ocean, the purpose of the vessel is to make you drink from the ocean, not for you to turn away from the ocan towards the vessel or for you to obfuscate the vessel with the ocean.
Likewise, if you compare Jesus to a map. The map points to a destination; no one sees the map as the destination despite the fact that representing the destination leaves traces of the destination upon the map.

The obfuscation of Jesus with God is the great misfortune of Christianity that arose from the Pauline Trinity and it is that which, in my opinion, drove Christians away from the pristine belief that they were on.

Jesus came to reinfuse the law with love, to make it lighter, and to soften the hearts of men so they could see (not physically) their creator in all that they did. He came so that they could love the lord thy god with all your heart by showing them where they had went wrong in the past.

He did not come to tell them to take him as an essential part of God or to obfuscate him with God. The very fact that supporting this obfuscation requires mental gymnastics, most of which do not support each other, is proof that this was a later invention of the Christians rather than something that Christ came to teach himself.

 

[MMS]

@MMS reflect on what I have posted above without any bias; just the rational proofs that I have provided.

The "definitions" are not "definitions" but that which, without doubt, must apply to God. For example, God can be called the Knowing, because the logical opposite of knowledge is ignorance, which goes against what - by definition - God is.

If we do not work on the basis of such rational proofs, then whoever wants to say what they want can say what they want.

We have to establish what is meant by God, based on logic and what is authentically reported from him, and then examine the claims made about him.

One such claim, which you have put forward, is the novel idea that Jesus is the Son of and simultaneously God. The ones who first had the source for what this is based on do not agree with this, so the rational proofs for this claim must be examined to see whether it makes sense or not.

If you go back and look towards the breakdown that I have made, then you will see that it does not make sense and what makes the most sense is that Jesus was a teacher, scholar, prophet, and miraculous human being sent from God as a proof of his existence and to guide back to God.

If we were comparing Jesus to a vessel and God to an ocean, the purpose of the vessel is to make you drink from the ocean, not for you to turn away from the ocan towards the vessel or for you to obfuscate the vessel with the ocean.
Likewise, if you compare Jesus to a map. The map points to a destination; no one sees the map as the destination despite the fact that representing the destination leaves traces of the destination upon the map.

The obfuscation of Jesus with God is the great misfortune of Christianity that arose from the Pauline Trinity and it is that which, in my opinion, drove Christians away from the pristine belief that they were on.

Jesus came to reinfuse the law with love, to make it lighter, and to soften the hearts of men so they could see (not physically) their creator in all that they did. He came so that they could love the lord thy god with all your heart by showing them where they had went wrong in the past.

He did not come to tell them to take him as an essential part of God or to obfuscate him with God. The very fact that supporting this obfuscation requires mental gymnastics, most of which do not support each other, is proof that this was a later invention of the Christians rather than something that Christ came to teach himself.

it is utter truth because for you to know of God you must know Jesus Christ (his word)

what is man without language? how do you think?

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

Moreover, with respect to the attributes of God - since you have made the distinction of making Jesus and the Holy Spirit as representative of God's attribute of Will and Speech - you have to recognize that the Attributes of God have always been his - not as a seperate entity - but as part of his Essence before there was anything that could bear witness to this.

So, for example, God did not become Eternal (Al Qadeem) by discovery since this indicates that there was a possibility of his shortcoming.

Likewise, God did not become Merciful (Ar Rahman) once he created human beings to show mercy to nor did he become the Creator (Al Khaaliq) once he created. Rather, these were essential attributes of his Godhood that were not acquired, discovered or created.

Therefore, to then separate the different attributes of God such as his Will and his Speech, and make them contingent upon the bodies of different CREATED entities, is to affirm a sort of soft polytheism as saying that Jesus is the God of Action, God is the God of Being, and the Holy Spirit is the God of his Divine Speech. Rather, what is sound is to understand that the actions of God eminate from his eternal attribute of having Power and his eternal attribute of having Wisdom. They are not something that he has separated into a filial body and into an angelic body because then, we could all claim to be God by virtue of being the product of the Creative Will and Power of God. But yet, no one makes this claim. And even more so, no one tilts their worship to other men among our Christian bretheren.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

With Jesus and The Holy Spirit alongside Elohim

Or did they worship Elohim by himself without any additions or break down?

God in the Old Testament is expressed in many manifestations. You read about the spirit of God moving across the waters, the angel of God giving messages to the people, the body of God moving past Moses, the manifested "wisdom" of God in the Book of Wisdom. God counsels among himself in the first-person plural too.

This isn't any different than how God is referred to in the New Testament. He manifests in different ways. The "Triune God" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible and is simply a human model to describe something that is really beyond description.

The extreme Jewish focus on monotheism as a "God is only one not three!" developed later as a reaction to Christianity, in the Biblical period Jews believed in monotheism in that they didn't follow any other gods and didn't believe that different gods competed with each other, that the one true God was alone and supreme. But they had no problem with God being expressed and manifesting in many different ways.

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

it is utter truth because for you to know of God you must know Jesus Christ (his word)

what is man without language? how do you think?

The Speech of God, if you will, is the command of God that cannot be described in terms of sounds, letters or anything that a human being recognizes as being created. God speaks, as he spoke to Moses, without a howness that we can describe or conceive. Whereas, when we say the Word of God, moreover, it means the command of God that whenever he wills for something he says Be and it Is. That means that, from a figurative sense, everything around you is the Word of God. The reason why Christ is called the Word of God and a Spirit from God, is because - unlike human beings who were born from the medium of having a father and a mother, Christ was born through the Command (i.e. the Word) of God and from a Spirit that the Angel of the Lord (Gabriel) blew into Mary, in much the same way as the Spirit (Ruh) was breathed into Adam when he was formed from Clay. The titles of Word of God and Spirit of God refer to his miraculous conception without a father and the lack of normal intermediaries in his birth. It does not mean that he is part of the Uncreated Essence of God.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Why dont the Jews, who were the first inheritors of the book, have this understanding of God?

They view the ascription of God as such to be blasphemous

I dont see any evidence in the old Testament that shows that the patriarchs understood God to be anything other than the single, unitary Lord of All.

It seems strange that 2000 years after Abraham, that suddenly the claim that the essence of God is composed of three entities began to appear.

Its a veru strange thing historically and one that contradicts the single foundational truth that the first inheritors of the book had.

You're vastly oversimplifying Jewish thought on the matter. Jewish monotheism in Biblical times was never about this, in fact they described God manifesting in many different ways. NT Wright explains it better than me:


Jesus and the Identity of God

"This monotheism was never, in our [1st century] period, an inner analysis of the being of the one God. It was always a way of saying, frequently at great risk: our God is the true God, and your gods are worthless idols. It was a way of holding on to hope. We can see the dynamic of this monotheism working its way out in the manifold crises of second-temple Judaism, with the Maccabees, Judas the Galilean, and above all the two wars of the late 60s and early 130s A.D. revealing how the creational and covenantal theology and worldview remained at work through the period and in different groups.

This God was both other than the world and continually active within it. The words “transcendent” and “immanent,” we should note, are pointers to this double belief, but do not clarify it much. Because this God is thus simultaneously other than his people and present with them, Jews of Jesus’ day had developed several ways of speaking about the activity of this God in which they attempted to hold together, because they dared not separate, these twin truths. Emboldened by deep-rooted traditions, they explored what appears to us a strange, swirling sense of a rhythm of mutual relations within the very being of the one God: a to-and-fro, a give-and-take, a command-and-obey, a sense of love poured out and love received. God’s Spirit broods over the waters, God’s Word goes forth to produce new life, God’s Law guides his people, God’s Presence or Glory dwells with them in fiery cloud, in tabernacle and temple. These four ways of speaking moved to and fro from metaphor to trembling reality-claim and back again. They enabled Jews to speak simultaneously of God’s sovereign supremacy and his intimate presence, of his unapproachable holiness and his self-giving compassionate love.

Best known of all is perhaps a fifth. God’s Wisdom is his handmaid in creation, the firstborn of his works, his chief of staff, his delight. God’s Wisdom is another way of talking about God present with his people in the checkered careers of the patriarchs and particularly in the events of the Exodus. Wisdom becomes closely aligned thereby with Torah and Shekinah.[12] Through the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs 1-8, the creator has fashioned everything, especially the human race. To embrace Wisdom is therefore to discover the secret of being truly human, of reflecting God’s image.[13]

I still find it extraordinary that nobody ever taught me all this when I was in seminary. The word “god” was a given, its meaning assumed, just at the moment when the word was going to explode in our faces. Nor can we look to Jewish scholars for help at this point, since they, by and large, have not been interested in the topic as such. So NT scholars have just assumed that, if first century Jews were monotheists, they could not in any way have anticipated trinitarian thinking. This I believe to be a huge category mistake at both ends. First, as systematic theologians would of course remind us at once, the point of trinitarian theology is precisely that it is monotheistic, not tri-theistic. Second, as I seem to be one of the only people, who keep on saying, first century Jewish monotheism was never in any case a numerical analysis of the being of the one God. Rather, as I have set out extremely briefly here, there were five ways (not to be confused with Aquinas’ five Ways!) in which second-Temple Jews could and did speak of the activity of the one God within the world, and particularly within Israel, without of course compromising their monotheism. I cannot stress too strongly that first century Judaism had at its heart what we can and must call several incarnational symbols, not least the Torah, but particularly the Temple. And, though this point has been routinely ignored by systematic theologians from the second century to the twentieth, it is precisely in terms of Torah and Temple that the earthly Jesus acted symbolically and spoke cryptically to define his mission and hint at his own self understanding."