What do you think?
Rate this book
Trinity Doctrine Error: A Jewish Analysis
Some trinitarians explain the Trinity doctrine by reference to the three main colors united in one rainbow. Others explain how the understanding, the conscience, and the will blending together in one man illustrate the Trinity. Still others compare the Trinity to three lit candles in one room blending into one light. None of these illustrations satisfactorily offer an analogy of how three distinct almighty and eternal beings make one almighty and eternal being.
The absolute uni-personality of God is the first principle of the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament. Trinitarian Christians do not deny that there is one God, but differ as to the absolute unity of God. They speak of the Godhead as a Trinity composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism maintains that the term God includes not only the Father, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet, even the New Testament shows that Jesus was a person as distinct from God as the disciples were distinct from him.
The absolute uni-personality of God is the first principle of the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament. Trinitarian Christians do not deny that there is one God, but differ as to the absolute unity of God. They speak of the Godhead as a Trinity composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism maintains that the term God includes not only the Father, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet, even the New Testament shows that Jesus was a person as distinct from God as the disciples were distinct from him.
200 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 1, 2015
8 people are currently reading
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 17, 2026
IS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE A ‘CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL EXERCISE GONE OUT OF CONTROL’?
Gerald Sigal is a Jewish researcher who has written probably the most in-depth book-length critiques (‘The Jew and the Christian Missionary’; 'Isaiah 53: Who is the Servant?’; ‘The Seventy Weeks of Daniel’; ‘The Virgin Birth Myth’; 'The Blood Atonement Deception'; ‘Anti-Judaism in the New Testament’) of certain arguments that SOME Christian "missionary" types use against traditional Jews.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2006 book, “For the Jews ‘son of God’ referred to one who obeys God, for the Greeks ‘son of God’ meant from the same substance. The two meanings suggest a possibility for misinterpretation when the Jewish phrase was used among Greek hearers. In the hands of Christianity, the biblical expression ‘son of God’ was influenced by ontological speculations of Hellenistic and Egyptian origins… It was because the Egyptians … believed their king was the ‘son of god’… that the concept of Jesus as the incarnate ‘son of God’ found widespread support in Egypt. Under the further influence of Greek philosophical speculation, the ‘son of God’ became ‘God the Son,’ one part of a trinitarian godhead. By the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, Alexandrian Neoplatonist Christianity was a dominant force. It developed a highly mythologized Jesus, ontologically a supernatural being… What the theologians of the Councils meant by the creedal title ‘Son of God’ was far removed from what it meant to the Jewish proto-Christians who knew Jesus… Thus, under the influence of Greek and Hellenistic speculation, Christianity transformed Hebrew metaphor into Greek ontology.” (Pg. 18-19)
He argues, “The doctrine of the Trinity did not take final shape until the 4th century… it was not mentioned in the New Testament… The need to give a precise definition to the doctrine resulted from several factors… to establish the relation of the so-called ‘Christ’ to God and the necessity of combating what some considered radical views concerning Jesus (‘Christ’). For example, Marcion (c. 100-160) taught that the Creator and the Redeemer were … two gods and Arius (250-336) taught that the Logos [Jesus]… was neither fully human nor fully divine… Monarchians or modalists … claimed that the Father suffered and died… To combat these beliefs some church leaders put great emphasis on … Jesus’ human nature… The development of the trinitarian doctrine stems from the early Christian belief that Jesus was God’s special supernatural agent, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah… he was now at the right hand of God.” (Pg. 13-14)
He points out, “In all [New Testament] passages that mention the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nothing is said of the three being one God. The only passage in which ‘Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’ are spoken of as being one (1 John 5:7) is a later interpolation into the text.” (Pg. 14) He continues, “The formula of baptism ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt 28:19) is a later addition to the Gospel of Matthew and a further stage in the developing of the ‘Holy Spirit’ into a person… While this statement is not originally part of Matthew’s text it does point in the direction in which some branches of 2nd century Christian theological speculation were moving…. The struggle between competing Christian theological notions in time led some to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Pg. 15)
He summarizes, “The doctrine of the Trinity is the central and unique doctrine of the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians. Yet, in essence, this doctrine is nothing more than a speculative theory concerning the internal life and being of God… it cannot be regarded as a statement about the ontological divine nature itself. It is a Christian theological exercise gone out of control. Its origins lie in Christians trying to comprehend and relate the relationship that they believe exists between God and Jesus.” (Pg. 18)
Citing John 8:56-58 [‘before Abraham came into being, I am’], he comments, “Trinitarian commentators argue that the Greek words ‘ego eimi’ (‘I am’), allegedly spoken by Jesus, show that Jesus is God… they arrive at their contention by connecting the phrase ‘I am’ with the words spoken by God in Exodus 3:14 and often translated, ‘I AM THAT I AM’… However, the literal and proper translation of this verse is ‘I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE’… Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that John’s Jesus is referring to the words in Exodus 3:14… Jesus’ alleged words in Greek… is not the same as … the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14… ‘I am THE BEING.’…” (Pg. 41-42)
He asserts, “The spirit of God is not a being with its own identity and separate consciences. It is divisible and able to be distributed as God sees fit… The impersonal nature of holy spirit is also reflected in New Testament belief. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, reportedly quoted from Joel 2:28 where God says: ‘[I] will pour out My spirit.’ … Does this sound like coequality or what is being expressed is that the spirit of God is a separate personage within the framework of a triune deity?” (Pg. 64)
He notes. “The New Testament teaches that there is only one Being who is God and that the pre-incarnate Jesus was his first creation. The Gospels’ Jesus in his alleged incarnate form is not part of the Godhead and Jesus always physically separates himself from God in describing their relationship. Moreover, the so-called postresurrection Jesus is always portrayed in the New Testament as a physically separate entity from God. That is, not as one of three persons existing as an indivisible God. The ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are always distinguished with the Father superior to the Son in position and knowledge. In the New Testament, Jesus is never referred to as ‘God the Son,’ but only as ‘the son of God.’ As for the role of the so-called Holy Spirit it simply has none as a separate coequal and eternal entity.” (Pg. 75)
He says of the meaning of the plural word ‘Elohim’: “In Genesis 1:1… the word for God is ‘Elohim,’ having a plural form as though it meant ‘gods.’ Trinitarian commentators have maintained that this is proof that God is a plurality. However, a careful investigation of the actual use of this word in the Jewish Scriptures will unequivocally show that ‘Elohim,’ while plural in form, is singular in concept… The Jewish Scriptures teach us that Elohim is an honorific title, which expresses the plural of majesty. The underlying reason… is to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God’s authority as possessing every conceivable attribute of power… the plural of a noun is sometimes used to signify one person, as a mark of honor and distinction or for emphasis.” (Pg. 92-93)
Sigal’s speculations about the origin of the Trinity doctrine are the weakest part of this book---which is not his best book, either, by the way.
[NOTE: For those interested in other ‘anti-missionary’ books, you might check out Tovia Singer, Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, and Rabbi Stuart Federow.]
Gerald Sigal is a Jewish researcher who has written probably the most in-depth book-length critiques (‘The Jew and the Christian Missionary’; 'Isaiah 53: Who is the Servant?’; ‘The Seventy Weeks of Daniel’; ‘The Virgin Birth Myth’; 'The Blood Atonement Deception'; ‘Anti-Judaism in the New Testament’) of certain arguments that SOME Christian "missionary" types use against traditional Jews.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2006 book, “For the Jews ‘son of God’ referred to one who obeys God, for the Greeks ‘son of God’ meant from the same substance. The two meanings suggest a possibility for misinterpretation when the Jewish phrase was used among Greek hearers. In the hands of Christianity, the biblical expression ‘son of God’ was influenced by ontological speculations of Hellenistic and Egyptian origins… It was because the Egyptians … believed their king was the ‘son of god’… that the concept of Jesus as the incarnate ‘son of God’ found widespread support in Egypt. Under the further influence of Greek philosophical speculation, the ‘son of God’ became ‘God the Son,’ one part of a trinitarian godhead. By the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, Alexandrian Neoplatonist Christianity was a dominant force. It developed a highly mythologized Jesus, ontologically a supernatural being… What the theologians of the Councils meant by the creedal title ‘Son of God’ was far removed from what it meant to the Jewish proto-Christians who knew Jesus… Thus, under the influence of Greek and Hellenistic speculation, Christianity transformed Hebrew metaphor into Greek ontology.” (Pg. 18-19)
He argues, “The doctrine of the Trinity did not take final shape until the 4th century… it was not mentioned in the New Testament… The need to give a precise definition to the doctrine resulted from several factors… to establish the relation of the so-called ‘Christ’ to God and the necessity of combating what some considered radical views concerning Jesus (‘Christ’). For example, Marcion (c. 100-160) taught that the Creator and the Redeemer were … two gods and Arius (250-336) taught that the Logos [Jesus]… was neither fully human nor fully divine… Monarchians or modalists … claimed that the Father suffered and died… To combat these beliefs some church leaders put great emphasis on … Jesus’ human nature… The development of the trinitarian doctrine stems from the early Christian belief that Jesus was God’s special supernatural agent, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah… he was now at the right hand of God.” (Pg. 13-14)
He points out, “In all [New Testament] passages that mention the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nothing is said of the three being one God. The only passage in which ‘Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’ are spoken of as being one (1 John 5:7) is a later interpolation into the text.” (Pg. 14) He continues, “The formula of baptism ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt 28:19) is a later addition to the Gospel of Matthew and a further stage in the developing of the ‘Holy Spirit’ into a person… While this statement is not originally part of Matthew’s text it does point in the direction in which some branches of 2nd century Christian theological speculation were moving…. The struggle between competing Christian theological notions in time led some to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Pg. 15)
He summarizes, “The doctrine of the Trinity is the central and unique doctrine of the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians. Yet, in essence, this doctrine is nothing more than a speculative theory concerning the internal life and being of God… it cannot be regarded as a statement about the ontological divine nature itself. It is a Christian theological exercise gone out of control. Its origins lie in Christians trying to comprehend and relate the relationship that they believe exists between God and Jesus.” (Pg. 18)
Citing John 8:56-58 [‘before Abraham came into being, I am’], he comments, “Trinitarian commentators argue that the Greek words ‘ego eimi’ (‘I am’), allegedly spoken by Jesus, show that Jesus is God… they arrive at their contention by connecting the phrase ‘I am’ with the words spoken by God in Exodus 3:14 and often translated, ‘I AM THAT I AM’… However, the literal and proper translation of this verse is ‘I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE’… Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that John’s Jesus is referring to the words in Exodus 3:14… Jesus’ alleged words in Greek… is not the same as … the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14… ‘I am THE BEING.’…” (Pg. 41-42)
He asserts, “The spirit of God is not a being with its own identity and separate consciences. It is divisible and able to be distributed as God sees fit… The impersonal nature of holy spirit is also reflected in New Testament belief. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, reportedly quoted from Joel 2:28 where God says: ‘[I] will pour out My spirit.’ … Does this sound like coequality or what is being expressed is that the spirit of God is a separate personage within the framework of a triune deity?” (Pg. 64)
He notes. “The New Testament teaches that there is only one Being who is God and that the pre-incarnate Jesus was his first creation. The Gospels’ Jesus in his alleged incarnate form is not part of the Godhead and Jesus always physically separates himself from God in describing their relationship. Moreover, the so-called postresurrection Jesus is always portrayed in the New Testament as a physically separate entity from God. That is, not as one of three persons existing as an indivisible God. The ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are always distinguished with the Father superior to the Son in position and knowledge. In the New Testament, Jesus is never referred to as ‘God the Son,’ but only as ‘the son of God.’ As for the role of the so-called Holy Spirit it simply has none as a separate coequal and eternal entity.” (Pg. 75)
He says of the meaning of the plural word ‘Elohim’: “In Genesis 1:1… the word for God is ‘Elohim,’ having a plural form as though it meant ‘gods.’ Trinitarian commentators have maintained that this is proof that God is a plurality. However, a careful investigation of the actual use of this word in the Jewish Scriptures will unequivocally show that ‘Elohim,’ while plural in form, is singular in concept… The Jewish Scriptures teach us that Elohim is an honorific title, which expresses the plural of majesty. The underlying reason… is to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God’s authority as possessing every conceivable attribute of power… the plural of a noun is sometimes used to signify one person, as a mark of honor and distinction or for emphasis.” (Pg. 92-93)
Sigal’s speculations about the origin of the Trinity doctrine are the weakest part of this book---which is not his best book, either, by the way.
[NOTE: For those interested in other ‘anti-missionary’ books, you might check out Tovia Singer, Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, and Rabbi Stuart Federow.]
Displaying 1 of 1 review