An Appeal to Sincere Believers
This article is written in a spirit of respect and brotherly love. It is not a denial of Yeshua as the Messiah, or the Son of God, nor is it an attack on the sincerity or devotion of Christian believers. Rather, it is an invitation—especially to Protestants who love Scripture—to re‑examine whether certain doctrines commonly assumed today accurately reflect the faith, practice, and worldview of Yeshua and His earliest Jewish disciples.
“For I am zealous for you with the zealousness of God [Elohim], for I have espoused you to a husband, that I may present you as a pure virgin to Messiah. But I am afraid that just as the serpent, through his deceitfulness, misled Eve, so your minds might be corrupted from the perfection that is in Messiah.” 2 Cor 11:2-3
Many believers have inherited theological formulations without ever being encouraged to test them historically or scripturally. This is understandable. Yet Scripture itself repeatedly urges believers to test, examine, and hold fast to what is good (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Paul wrote the above verses when syncretism [mixing God’s faith with different religions and greek philosophy] first crept into the congregations, in a Greek city. Today’s believers inherited the fruit of that seed.
Apostolic Writings as Correction, Not Reinvention
The letters of Paul and the other apostles were written to address specific moral, communal, and doctrinal problems. They were not systematic theology manuals nor attempts to redefine God, Israel, or the nature of Messiah. This is equally true of the seven letters of Yeshua in Revelation 2–3, which exist almost entirely to correct deviation from the truth of the Torah.
Paul himself warned that distortions would arise:
Galatians 1:6–7 (KJV)
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”
Galatians 1:6–7 (Aramaic Peshitta, The Word)
“I am surprised how soon you have turned to another “good news,” away from Messiah, who has called you by His compassion, a good news which does not even exist; howbeit, there are men who have stirred you up and want to pervert The Gospel of Messiah.”
Paul’s concern was not that believers were keeping God’s commandments, but that the message itself was being altered. This was not a prophecy about the coming anti-Messianic faith called Islam, as one popular internet podcaster has asserted. This is a perversion of the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles that Paul is predicting. It is more aptly seen fulfilled in Catholicism and Protestantism, redefining who the God of the Bible is and how we are to live our lives.
Holding Fast to Apostolic Tradition
Paul repeatedly affirms continuity, not rupture, with what he delivered orally and lived out as a Torah‑observant Jew.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV)
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (The Word)
“Henceforth, my brethren, stand firmly established and be strong in The Mitzvot [torah commandments], which you [gentiles] have been taught, either in The Word, or in our letters.”
Likewise:
1 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV)
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
1 Corinthians 11:1-2 (The Word)
“You, then, should imitate me, even as I also imitate Messiah. Now I praise you, my brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the customs as I delivered them to you.”
These statements are difficult to reconcile with the idea that Paul taught the abandonment of Jewish practice or the redefinition of Israel’s God. The word used in Thessalonians 2 and in 1 Corinthians 11 in the greek is ‘paradosis’, and it was used specifically of “Jewish Customs”, which is derived from both ‘khukot’ in the Aramaic 1 Cor reference and ‘mitzvot’ in the 2 Thess 3 reference. It is clear that Paul was teaching gentiles to keep the Torah and the Customs of Israel, and beseeching them to stick with them! Why? Were people already beginning to turn from them?
Paul further attests that he continued to live the Torah, even testifying before judges and kings on oath:
In Acts, Paul repeatedly and publicly testifies that he has not abandoned Judaism. He identifies himself in the present tense as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), affirms belief in everything written in the Torah and the Prophets (Acts 24:14), denies teaching against the Torah or the Temple (Acts 25:8), and willingly participates in Temple rites to demonstrate continued faithfulness (Acts 21:20–24). These are not private claims but legal defenses made under scrutiny, making it impossible that Paul viewed faith in Yeshua as a departure from Judaism.
Sabbath, Synagogue, and Gentile Believers
The book of Acts consistently portrays Gentile believers worshiping alongside Jews in synagogue settings on the Sabbath.
Acts 13:42, 44 (KJV)
“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. … And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”
At the Jerusalem Council, James concludes:
Acts 15:21 (KJV)
“For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”
This statement only makes sense if Gentile believers were expected to continue learning within the synagogue rhythm, not to abandon it. This is where they were beginning to learn The Torah, since they can’t literally hear “Moses’” voice every Sabbath. Moses is another Judaic name for The Torah. Gentiles were expected to hear it and respond to it, in the Synagogue, on the Sabbath, every week.
Yeshua, God, and Later Ontological Language
Scripture consistently presents Yeshua as the Son of God, the Word (Memra/Davar), the image of God, and the Messiah appointed and exalted by God. What Scripture does not do is define God using later Greek ontological categories such as one substance, three co‑equal persons, or co‑sharing a divine body.
Most Protestants instinctively understand God and His Son in biblical, relational terms rather than philosophical ones. Yet many hesitate to question the word Trinity for fear of appearing unorthodox—often without realizing that the formal definition of the Trinity comes not from Scripture, but from later creeds and catechisms.
Scripture never says:
- “God died”
- “Mary is the Mother of God”
- “God is three persons in one substance”
- “God the Son,” or “God the Holy Ghost”
These phrases emerge centuries after the apostles.
Marcion of Sinope birthed the idea that there was a God in the OT who was different from the new God in the NT, even though God said, “I am יהוה , I do not change.” Unfortunately, that still shades people’s thinking today. That is largely because of Tertullian, who in theory opposed Marcion, but nonetheless perpetuated the idea of a difference in God, a CHANGE in God’s character, coinciding with a change in ‘being’.
- “Marcion teaches that there are two gods: one just, the other good; the just one is the creator, the good one is the god of the gospel.”
-Tertullian, Against Marcion, I.2
The early believers rightly rejected Marcion’s conclusion. However, the moral framework he introduced—contrasting Law with Gospel, justice with mercy, severity with goodness—quietly reappears in later theology, even when the language of “two gods” is formally denied.
While Tertullian explicitly rejects Marcion’s claim of two gods and insists on the his version of ‘unity’, he nonetheless frames God’s dealings with humanity in a bifurcated manner that would prove highly influential. In his writings, divine severity is consistently associated with law, judgment, punishment, and God’s earlier dealings with Israel, while divine goodness is emphasized in terms of mercy, forgiveness, and the gospel proclamation in Messiah. Although Tertullian maintains that these qualities coexist within the same God, the repeated rhetorical contrast between severity and goodness effectively maps them onto Old and New Testament categories. This conceptual framework—once introduced—made it increasingly natural for later theology to read the Scriptures through an implicit dichotomy, in which the God revealed in the Torah is functionally perceived as judicial and harsh, while the God revealed in Yeshua is perceived as gracious and gentle. What began as an apologetic strategy against Marcion thus unintentionally laid groundwork for the very Old Testament–New Testament divide it sought to oppose. [One need only read of Yeshua’s return in Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19 to see the sameness of judgment between OT and NT].
One God Revealed Consistently
Yeshua Himself affirms the Shema: [the most important Biblical directive]
Mark 12:29 (KJV)
“Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
Mark 12:29 (The Word)
“Hear, O Yisra’el, יהוה is our Elohim, יהוה is ONE.”
Nothing in Yeshua’s teaching suggests that the God of Israel has changed, been divided, or replaced. The same God who revealed Himself in the Torah is the God whom Yeshua calls “Father”, demonstrating relationship and subordination to Him.
A Loving Invitation
This is not a call to abandon faith, but to examine inherited doctrine in light of Scripture, history, and the original Jewish context of the faith. The Bereans were praised—not condemned—for testing the teaching of the Apostles themselves against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11).
If the earliest believers were Jews who worshiped the God of Israel, kept His commandments, and confessed Yeshua as Messiah, then any later system that divorces faith in Yeshua from that foundation deserves careful, prayerful scrutiny.
May this be received not as an accusation, but as an invitation—to seek truth with humility, courage, and love.
Appendix A: What the Trinity Is (According to Later Creeds)
Many Protestants sincerely affirm the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while simultaneously rejecting philosophical speculation. What is often unknown is that the formal doctrine of the “trinity” is not a biblical summary, but a precise metaphysical definition developed centuries after the apostles, taking more than 200 years to fully codify. Thus, God had not only changed, but continued to for 200+ years.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) and later catechetical formulations define God as:
- Existing eternally as three persons (Greek: hypostaseis)
- Each person being fully, co-equally, and co-eternally God
- One essence or substance (Greek: ousia), sharing a body
This language does not come from Scripture itself, but from post-apostolic theological debates that relied heavily on Greek philosophical categories. Scripture never defines God in terms of substance, nor does it explain the relationship between Father and Son using ontological [having to do with the nature of being or existence—what something really is at its core.] formulas.
Many believers affirm the word trinity simply to avoid the appearance of heterodoxy, without ever having examined whether this precise definition is required—or even articulated—by the biblical text.
Importantly, questioning later metaphysical language is not the same as denying:
- The Father
- The Son
- The Spirit
It is instead a question of how Scripture speaks, versus how later theology systematized that speech.
Consider the ‘Great Commission’ in order to understand how the apostles understood Yeshua’s unity with the Father:
“Go, therefore, and make talmidim [disciples, torah students] of all nations, and immerse them in the Name of The Father and The Son and Ru’akh HaKodesh, and teach them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” ~Matt 28:19-20
Now, look how Peter and Paul immersed people:
Acts 2:38 (KJV)
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”
Acts 2:38 (The Word)
Then Shimon said to them, “Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the Name of יהוה Yeshua, for the remission of sins, so that you may receive the gift of The Ru’akh HaKodesh [Breath/Spirit of Sanctification].
Acts 19:5 (KJV)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
“When they heard these things, they were immersed in the name of Adoneinu Yeshua The Messiah.”
Considering that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are not a singular ‘name’ but three titles, and then considering that Peter and Paul were first-hand witnesses to Yeshua’s gospel, one would think we should follow suit, and understand that the Name given for immersion is the one name that represents all of God’s authority on earth, ” יהוה Yeshua The Messiah” [The LORD Jesus Christ], recognizing that יהוה is the proper NAME of “The Father”, and “Yeshua” is the proper Name of the Son”, and “Messiah” is the ‘purpose’ of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we immerse in the Name of One God who manifests Himself to us in His Son, by His Spirit.
Appendix B: Aramaic Thought, Memra, and Relational Language
The apostles and earliest believers thought and taught within a Semitic—specifically Jewish—framework. In that Jewish world, meaning is conveyed relationally and functionally, not through abstract metaphysics.
In the Aramaic Scriptures, the concept of Memra (“Word”) is well established. Memra is the self-expression, action, and authority of God—God reaching outward while remaining one being. This background illuminates passages such as:
John 1:1 (Peshitta, The Word)
“In the beginning was The Word [HaDavar], and He, The Word [HaDavar], was within the form of Elohim, and Elohim was He, The Word [HaDavar].”
In Semitic thought, this does not imply two or even three Gods sharing a substance/body, but God making Himself known and active through His Word. The Word is with God in distinction, yet is God in identity—without fragmenting God into “persons”. The Word left God and became a body of flesh.
Likewise, Scripture consistently speaks of Yeshua as:
- The image of God (Colossians 1:15)
- The sent one of God (John 5:30)
- The Son who receives authority from the Father (Matthew 28:18)
These are relational and covenantal categories, not ontological ones.
When later theology reframed these relationships in terms of shared essence and co-equality, it shifted the conversation away from Scripture’s Hebraic categories and into philosophical abstraction.
Recovering the Aramaic and Jewish context does not diminish Yeshua—it clarifies Him as Scripture presents Him: the uniquely appointed, exalted, and obedient Son through whom the one God of Israel reveals Himself and redeems the world.
Test traditions against Scripture, history, and the Jewish roots of the faith. May we all pursue truth with humility and love, drawing closer to the one God of Israel as revealed in His Messiah Yeshua. Shalom and grace to you in this shared journey.