While that may certainly be your perception of the Triumvirate, I don’t think it is accepted as orthodox by most Christian denominations. I beleive most Christian theologies (not just “casual lay Christains”) claim that God is three separate beings (yet somehow still one), not that God is only one person with three different roles, or that we perceive Him as three beings but really He is only one. Polycarp described it as a perfectly functioning multiple personality; three personalities but they all inhabit the same being. (Personally, I’ve never quite figured out how God can be said to be three “different” beings if none of the beings can be lacking in even the slightest way some attribute the other being has, nor are any of the beings different in spatial/temporal positioning. Simply calling Him by different names doesn’t seem to make God a different person, any more than calling me Shannon makes me different than Gaudere in any “real” way)
Libertarian said…
Very well said - I let that slide because I couldn’t think of how to express the “One God, Three Aspects” concept without starting a flame war. Heck, real wars have started over that argument…
Gaudere,
I would point to the most famous of all explanations of the Trinity: St. Patrick showed people a shamrock and noted that one shamrock had three leaves.
Neil Gaiman once illustrated the same concept in his “Sandman” graphic novels when a character (who was supposed to be the literal personification of an idea) showed a person a jewel and noted how one facet was sparkling in the light.
His point (and the analogy to himself) was that even though that one facet was drawing attention to itself, it shouldn’t be confused with the whole gem.
Sorry to throw in the Hillel hijack, I just though it was a interesting to point out that Jesus’ “Golden Rule” wasn’t necessarily his own idea. But I do think that Jesus two rule approach works for summing up the law. If you can’t apply a law to loving your neighbor, you can fall back on “well, it’s done because I love God and want to follow his rules”. But enough of that.
I would point out another important difference in the two is the idea of Satan and evil.
In Christianity’s dualistic nature, Satan was an angel who rebelled against God, was banished from heaven into hell and now stands in opposition to him as the personfication and source of evil.
Judaism has Satan merely as an agent of God whose job it is to try and seduce man away from God. There is no dualistic nature, both good and evil are presented to man by God for man to choose as he will, Satan is merely doing the job God created him for. No rebellion, no heavenly battle, no angelic opposition to God.
Yes, these are both over-simplified (feel free to explain further) but an important enough difference to seperate the two even further.
Technically, God is one being in Three Persons. And while St. Patrick’s explanation is quite famous, it is also not entirely orthodox. The Persons of the Trinity are each distinct in nature, but one in being. The three parts of the shamrock have the same nature (unless he was talking about leaves, roots and the stem, but I’ve always been told he was referencing the leaves being separate but equal).
But a leaf isn’t a shamrock, and a facet isn’t a jewel. They are just parts of something. But Jesus is (as I understand it) supposed to be fully God, not just a part of God or a particular perception of God. Your explanation makes sense, but I don’t think the Trinity is really supposed to make sense, not in the way that it is supposed to be beleived by standard Christian theology.
Thunderbug,
Don’t be sorry. Many Christians forget (or never really realized) that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi, after all, and well versed in the law. He certainly knew the law and was careful (if creative) to always obey it. Many of his lessons began with words to the effect of “look, you guys, you already know this - you just don’t want to admit it”.
The only real change I can point to between Jesus’ teachings and those of other rabbis of the day was his inclusivity - deliberately reaching out to various sinners and bringing them into the fold instead of proudly announcing that God would punish them.
There are about a hundred analogies to how distinct Persons can be part of one God in the Trinity; all suffer from appearing to subscribe to one heresy or another.
One of my favorites is the one depicting one man with his mother and his son on the telephone and a coworker at his desk – he is at one time a son (to his mother), a father (to his son), and a colleague (to his coworker) without ever ceasing to be a single person in the process. (This supports the heresy of Modalism.)
Three persons working towards exactly the same end, telepathic and able to know what each other thinks, feels, and does, would have a single will and purpose. (This supports a completely contrary heresy.)
Portmanteauing these two analogies gives some concept of what the Christian Church attempts to say.
Gaudere, you seem to be intent on drawing a man/god dichotomy – totally reasonably, I suppose. But to say that Jesus was “truly and totally God, and truly and totally man” is like saying that this apple is truly and totally red and at the same time truly and totally round. Different frames of reference.
I’m afraid I’ve got to disagree with you there porkchop_d_clown.
Jesus’ teachings were very different from the teachings and rulings of the other rabbis of the day.
In the NT, you will find that Jesus violated the Sabbath. There was no major rabbinic figure of the day who would have advocated doing what Jesus did.
He taught that eating non-kosher food is permissible. Again, no major rabbinic figure of the day would have advocated doing so.
Zev Steinhardt
Gaudere,
Well, like I said, wars have been fought over the nature of the Trinity (and similar questions) so I doubt we’re gonna resolve it here. 
Next thing you know we’re gonna be hammering on the whole “Jesus: God or Man” problem.
In the end, my personal attitude is that when I get There, I’ll ask someone to explain it to me.
Um, where did I do that? I was more concerned with trichotimies. 
Interesting; I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to get deep into this subject here, but while I remember something about whether or not it was permissible to heal the sick on the Sabbath (and Jesus’ response was that it was always permissible to do God’s work) I don’t recall an occassion when Jesus violated the dietary laws.
Could you point me in the right direction?
You are right porkchop. I must retract that portion of my statement.
I had recalled Matthew 15:11 goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but did not remember the whole story. Upon rechecking, I found that he simply did away with hand-washing, not dietary law. As such, I apologize and retract.
However, the matter of his Sabbath violation still stands.
In addition, having re-read Matthew 12, I can further bolster my point.
Jesus compared his Sabbath violation to David’s eating sacrificial foods in Samuel. The two cases, however, are no comperable. Among the differences are that:
(1) David’s life was in danger. He was running from Saul (who wanted to kill him). He stopped in the city of Nob (where kohanim lived. It certainly made sense that in such a place, there would be food that only a kohen could eat. However, since he was on the run and his life was in danger, he was not only permitted to, but, under Jewish law, required to eat to save his life. Jesus had no such excuse. His life was not in danger. Merely being “hungry” does not give one the right to violate the Sabbath.
(2) David’s eating of sacrificial foods, even if done in violation of the law is not a capital offense. Sabbath violation, however, is a capital offense.
Zev Steinhardt
[Sigh] All that pontificating in the last post and I didn’t get to the point. [/Sigh]
The point is that Jesus did differ with the leading rabbinic authorities of the day.
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks, Zev.
I’ll have to reread that myself.
Actually, according to Paul, Jesus did say that kosher laws were no longer in effect–but He did it in a vision to Paul, not something He said outright prior to being crucified. So, um, the cynical sorts might question this ;), but Christianity accepts that they are no longer bound by kosher laws.
Well, Paul threw out Jewish law pretty much in toto by saying that they were “freed from the curse of the Law.”
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, it was Peter who had the vision, not Paul.
zev:
What they disagreed with was the concept of reward and punishment in the afterlife. Recall that the source of their beliefs was a misunderstanding of Antigonus of Socho’s teaching in Avos 1:3.
DSeid:
Well, as we (Orthodox Jews) see them, transmitters, not originators.
jsleek:
I think so.
D’oh! Thanks for the correction.