


  • 18
  • 3
  • Similar: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/40845 – msh210 Jun 29 '14 at 19:21
  • 1
    Trinity might not be the only problem, as Christianity is dualistic in the sense that שָּׂטָן ‎is presented as an evil half god in book of Revelation. – Ben Apr 7 '16 at 8:46

16 Answers 16





  • 4
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
    Alex, can you source that the doctrine of the Trinity is an instance of Shittuf? – Double AA Jan 6 '13 at 2:26



However, the uncensored version states:



ואי ס"ד הן ואידיהן, האיכא ארבעה וחמשה דשרי!‏



Screenshots of manuscripts:








munich with rashi







  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
    Have a look though at Darkei Moshe YD 151 and Pitchei Teshuva YD 147 – Double AA Jan 20 '13 at 16:44




  • 1
  • 2
    What about kaballah that says that sephirot has 7 branch? – user4951 Nov 15 '11 at 4:52
  • 2
  • 2
    @JimThio the sefirot were created by G-d, and are thus His creations, not Him, though they reveal much about his essence in the way l'havdil a beautiful landscape might. – Naftuli Kay Nov 17 '11 at 2:24
  • 4




  • 6
  • 1
  • 6
  • 3



  • 2
  • 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
    Your answer is more of a comment. As a former Christian, I must say it is not "nit-picking" to infer a polytheistic basis behind the Trinity. The concepts of a god fathering a child or visiting earth in human form is little different than the mythology of the Greeks and Romans described in Hamilton's Mythology. Also, the story of Yeshu is very similar to that of the demi-god Attis, who had a big following in Rome and the territories near present-day Syria. See Frazier, The Golden Bough. The Trinity concept was invented to assimilate popular mythology with the Jewish concept of G-d and Messiah. – Bruce James Feb 7 '13 at 17:02

Compare Christian theology with Christian observances As a convert to Judaism, intellectually I have to agree with the sources cited that stated that Christianity is idolatry. In fact, I would add that the belief that some, but not all Christians hold, in a Satan independent of God, who manages all that is evil in the world in conflict with God, is also avodah zara in my humble opinion. But I find it also true that the 200+ variations of Christian denominations, and among the members of each denomination, there is a huge variety of opinion and disagreement on fundamental principles Christianity supposedly teaches in the Bible. Biblical illiteracy explains this to a great degree. If you asked all Christians to list everyone they believe were "true Christians" I suspect that the few names in common would be just enough to play a game of canasta.

Nevertheless, I think within Judaism there is great disagreement as to whether Christianity is avodah zara, and more specifically whether Christians themselves can be considered idolators.

Praying for a Christian When my father was ill and dying, I asked my Rav -- then Rabbi Gedaliah Anemer, zt'l, R"Y of the Yeshiva of Greater Washington, Rav of Young Israel Shomrai Emunah in Silver Spring, Maryland, and the posek ha'ir of the Washington, D.C. area, whether I could add my father's name in the refuah section of the Amidah. He said, "no, but there is no reason why you can't pray for him separately." (My own thought, if we can pray for the welfare of a Christian President, or in England, the Queen of England -- who is also the official head of that nation's church, then there is no broad prohibition on praying for a Christian.)

Christmas sales After his death, I asked Rabbi Anemer's student and successor at YISE, Rabbi Dovid Rosenbaum, shilta, that given the prohibitions of doing business with idolaters before their holidays, I wondered how the rabbis have accepted the practice among Jewish merchants to heavily advertise their wares to Christians during the Christmas season. His response was that it is not clear that Christians are idolaters, and he agreed that if they were, Jewish merchants would certainly be prohibited from having Christmas sales.


As a graduate of a catholic school I would like to elaborate on some fundamentals. Setting aside obvious acts of avodah zara such as worshiping statues, here are some christian concepts that blatantly violate the Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith:

  • Adding intermediaries between men and G-d: "Through jesus christ our l-rd" "through His mother Mary" are common phrases in Protestant and Catholic prayers, depending on the stream of faith. This cannot be consistent with the prohibition of having other gods "before" Hashem. Indeed, in the gospel it is claimed that only through jesus can one go to the father ("I am the gate", etc). As R Aryeh Kaplan explains in his Anthology, the placing such intermediaries is what "having other gods before Me" can be interpreted as.
  • The trinity is commonly (especially in Catholicism) claimed to be a "mystery" that we cannot understand, and thus not in violation of the oneness of Hashem. However, the gospels about jesus dictate that jesus was a spin-off human. The claims of the unity of their G-d are, in my understanding from 10 years of experience studying about the catholics, essentially a fall-back so that the concept of the trinity does not crumble when you argue to them that Hashem should be one. This is one of the times when one must understand that sheker/falsity is more dangerous when it has partially true appearances.
  • It is highly problematic that jesus is put to be a human, the messiah and the son of G-d while also G-d himself. Let us set aside the problems with claiming jesus as the messiah for this post (it violates the prophecies in various aspects, as R Aryeh Kaplan also explains in his Anthology). The idea that Hashem Himself who is Ein Sof is reduced as a human contradicts both the "Oneness" of Hashem and that He cannot be reduced to a "body".

I highly recommend anyone exploring this topic to refer to Aryeh Kaplan's highly logical works that have an accurate understanding of christianity, the Anthology for detailed analysis, and the Maimonides Principles (which includes questions regarding islam and christianity) for a quick idea.



  • Jeff is there any jewish commentary that claim that God doesn't have human form before Plato? This should be another question. Maybe it belongs to history stack. – user4951 Nov 16 '11 at 9:31
  • 1
  • Homoiousios versus homoosious – Wad Cheber Aug 20 '15 at 6:26

Protestantism-based answer, intended to clarify the Christian disposition on the question, and on the idea of the Trinity.


Begin substantial edit:

Secondly, the written teachings. I intepret the question before us as equivalent to asking whether Christian beliefs, the source of which is Yeshua (Jesus) himself, contradict the Shema Yisrael (Deuteronomy 6:4):

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.

Yeshua himself answered this quite directly in Yochannan (John) 10:30. Most English editions have:

I and my Father are one.

The "one" here being usually translated from Greek, or sometimes Latin, but corresponding to echad (אֶחָד) from above. The Aramaic versions used in the Eastern Orthodox tradition have (open license font):

ܐܸܢܵܐ ܘܐܵܒ݂ܝ. ܚܲܕ݂ ܚܢܲܢ

We have ܚܲܕ݂ khad for "one". We know this to be a cognate of Hebrew אֶחָד echad because the Shema Yisrael is directly quoted in Mark 12:29:

ܐܵܡܲܪ ܠܹܗ ܝܼܫܘܿܥ. ܩܲܕ݂ܡܵܝ ܡܸܢ ܟܠܗܘܿܢ ܦܘܼܩܕܵܢܹ̈ܐ ܫܡܲܥ ܝܼܣܪܵܝܼܠ܅ ܡܵܪܝܵܐ ܐܲܠܵܗܲܢ ܡܵܪܝܵܐ ܚܲܕ݂ ܗ̄ܘܼ.

Yeshua said to him, The first of all the commandments is, Shema Yisrael, MARYA [corresponds to YHWH] Aloha is one MARYA...

The khad is the same in both places. So clearly, he teaches that God is one (echad), and he is one (khad) with the Father. And he directly debates this very question in the conversations in the Temple that John / Yochannan and Mark recorded in their gospels.

Of course, a great many people do not believe that Yeshua is one with the Father, but I argue that for those who do, based on the literal text of the teaching itself, that belief cannot possibly be in contradiction to the Shema Yisrael.

End edit

Now to consider today's doctrines.



There are also a number of groups, some of them large, that reject the Trinity.


  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
    @ wberry, Judaism does not consider a "composite" G-d to be "one." There was actually a huge argument when kaballah began to be taught widely, as some people thought that the idea of sefiros meant that G-d had "parts." (He doesn't.) So the whether or not Christians consider it one or three gods, it is definitely, not a Jewish one, and not acceptable to Judaism. I'll leave the discussion on its possible idolatrous nature to those who are more familiar in this subject. – HodofHod Feb 21 '14 at 19:59
  • 1
    @BruceJames, while that view of Satan may be popular piety, doctrine and theology of denominations I am familiar with teach that Satan's works are corruptions of what God has made. (Please preface all of the following with "Likewise in those teachings.") He twists or bends what is meant for good. Satan is under the full dominion of God, he is actively rebelling and seeking to bring others down with him. He will be brought to bear but for now God allows Satan to work. – Frank Luke Mar 27 '14 at 12:53


  • 2
  • @DoubleAA if you believe in more then one thing as being "godly" then there is something comparable to him in addition we believe in a indivisible god (ה אחד) and believing in a god which part of him is jesus is also a different type of god – Math chiller Aug 18 '13 at 15:09
  • @DoubleAA yes but if god has 2 hands he isnt "INDIVISIBLE" – Math chiller Aug 18 '13 at 15:20

Rabeinu Bahya in Chovot Halevavot Gate 1 implies it is not compatible with Judaism's core beliefs.

ch.1 After investigating after what is the most necessary of the cornerstones and fundamentals of our religion, we found that the wholehearted acceptance of the unity of G-d is the root and foundation of Judaism. It is the first of the gates of the Torah, and it differentiates between the believer and the heretic...

ch.7 What we brought here should be enough for the understanding person and this should suffice to answer the believers of dual gods or the trinity gods of the Christians, and others. Since when we establish the unity of the Creator of the world, all those who claim that He is plural will be automatically refuted

  • So is it Avoda Zara or not? – Double AA Jun 3 '16 at 3:06
  • @DoubleAA it is multiple gods so yes – ray Jun 3 '16 at 5:26

I will try and answer the question without mentioning the name of their deity

The Halacha

The verse states, "The names of other gods you may not mention; it should not be heard on your lips" Shemot 23:13. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 147:1) rules that it is prohibited to mention the name of an avodah zarah whether or not there is a reason to do so. Furthermore, the Gemara says that even causing somebody else to mention the name of the avodah zarah would be prohibited. The Maharam Schick (Responsa, Yoreh Deah #171) adds that it would be similarly prohibited to say something that would cause one to think about an avodah zarah. While many leading poskim dispute the Maharam Schick’s stringency on this matter, the actual Torah prohibition of explicitly mentioning the name of an avodah zarah remains intact.

Worship of any being other than that which was revealed to us Har Sinai is prohibited. "You saw no form only heard a voice."

Originally, the Ebionites (or Nazarenes) held that their Messiah was born of natural generation; that is, they did not believe in a "virgin birth" or that their Messiah was equal to HaShem. Now that they (the Nazarenes) worship (sing and pray to) a third part of a trinity, having deified a man, their worship is no different than if they were to pray and offer sacrifices to Julius Caesar.

Of course the members of the Kingdom Hall (the Witnesses) and some Messianics don't worship after the manner of the trinitarians and oneness Pentecostals so they can't be classified as engaging in Avodah zarah except perhaps by mentioning the name of the third part of the trinity while referencing their messiah.

I would make this distinction because many well meaning "witnesses" who worship in the Kingdom Hall and some Messianics do not engage in Avodah Zarah as I understand their manner of worship. (I am not sure if they say the "Our Father" prayer of Matthew 6.9-13 in the Kingdom Hall but that prayer clearly has it's origins in Judaism and was a part of the Apostolic Creed [see the Didache] from the time that their Messiah is said to have commanded them to pray the "Our Father" prayer).

In sum, worship according to the trinitarian or even the oneness belief system would clearly be avodah zarah because one would be required to mention the name of the Nazarene deity; contrary to what the Torah says!

  • 1
    Welcome to Mi Yodeya Yochanan! Thank you for the answer. This answer could be improved with sources; most of them are in the first paragraph and are not really relevant to the answer. – mevaqesh Jun 2 '16 at 21:02
  • 1
    "avodah zarah because one would be required to mention the name ['Jesus']" Sorry, but this is not the definition of Avoda Zara. The only parts of this post which answer the question are just your assertions. Since we have no reason to trust you over any other random person on the internet, this is pretty much useless to us and the OP. – Double AA Jun 3 '16 at 3:04

It should be clarified that bishituf is acknowledging the supreme creator of the world who works in tandem with other divine forces. That is not christianity. Christianity changed the definition of god with their concept of the trinitarian godhead. They claim that all elements of the trinity are equally god, and as such do not believe in a supreme creator being at all. They believe in a collective of supreme beings, all of whom are the Creator in their mind. I think that accordingly everyone would hold that it is straight up idolatry and not bishituf at all. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but this is what comes out from their literature that I have read on the subject.

  • One problem with this statement is that there appear to be a number of different ideas as to what this means. Some seem to be shituf and some seem to be more like the pagan idea of a tribe of powers and all variations in between. It also appears that they do not really understand what they actually mean. – sabbahillel Jun 29 '17 at 11:54
  • I am open to that. But I just asked a pastor for confirmation and he reiterate what I wrote - that each part of the trinity is equally the Creator. They do not distinguish between the father and the son regarding divine roles. And if that is the case then they have completely reinvented the concept of God rather than it being bishituf. – user11308 Jun 29 '17 at 18:34
  • This post could be improved with references to the literature you have read, and specifically to some sources about the definition of Avoda Zara. – mevaqesh Jul 2 '17 at 7:16

It may be that later in life the RAMBAM decided that Christianity was not idolatry.

There is a responsum where he seems to me to be saying that it's OK to teach Torah to Christians, but not to Muslims. Though Fred who mentioned this responsum, is not sure whether it means after they convert or not.

Since it's not allowed to teach torah to idolators, and the RAMBAM allows it to be taught to Christians, it suggests that the RAMBAM might've changed his view on Christianity later in life and decided that it was not idolatry. (his view in hilchot avodah zarah is clear that it is idolatry. The responsum/letter was written at a later time in his life).

To any novice reader, i'd point out that "liable for the death penalty", isn't to be taken too seriously / how it appears.. Firstly some things in Judaism, if Jews do the sin, they're "liable for the death penalty" like breaking the sabbath. It doesn't mean that's enforced and even the biggest extremist won't try to enforce it because there are fundamental reasons why it can't be enforced e.g. there has to be a sanhedrin sitting in the court of the temple, and we don't have that.. and other reasons too. As for death penalty to gentiles, that's also something not even the biggest extremist even dreams of enforcing.. and one reason is theological.. which is that it doesn't seem to make sense if gentiles are treated with a stricter law than Jews e.g. decapitation for breaking any of the 7 laws. So see liable for the death penalty, whether ot Jews or non-jews, as just meaning very seriously/strongly forbidden.

The RAMBAM's responsum follows below

Teaching Written Torah to Christians

(http://www.responsa.co.il/searchg/%D7%A9%D7%95%22%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D%20%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%9F%20%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%98_h.aspx)), where the Rambam writes:

השאלה הל"א שאלה מאמר ר' יוחנן גוי שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה, האם זה הלכה והחייב כל בר ישראל להמנע (מללמדו) דבר מן המצות חוץ משבע מצות או להעמידו עליהן, אם לאו? התשובה היא הלכה בלא ספק. וכאשר יד ישראל תקיפה עליהם, מונעים אותו מתלמוד תורה עד שיתגייר. אבל לא יהרג, אם עסק בתורה, לפי שאמר חייב מיתה ולא אמר נהרג כמו שאמרו על שבע מצות בן נח נהרג. ומותר ללמד המצות לנוצרים ולמשכם אל דתנו, ואינו מותר דבר מזה לישמעאלים, לפי מה שידוע לכם על אמונתם, שתורה זו אינה מן השמים, וכאשר ילמדום דבר מן כתוביה (וימצאוהו) מתנגד למה שבדו הם מלבם לפי ערבוב הסיפורים ובלבול העניינים אשר באו להם, (הרי) לא תהיה זו ראיה אצלם, שטעות בידיהם, אלא יפרשוה לפי הקדמותיהם המופסדות ויוכלו להשיב עלינו בזה בטענתם ויטעו כל גר וישראל, שאין לו דעת, ויהיה זה מכשול לישראל האסורין ביניהם בעונותם. אבל הנוצרים מאמינים בנוסח התורה שלא נשתנה, ורק מגלים בה פנים בפרושם המופסד ומפרשים זאת בפירושים, שהם ידועים בהם, ואם יעמידום על הפרוש הנכון, אפשר שיחזרו למוטב, ואפילו לא יחזרו, כשרוצים שיחזרו, לא יבוא לנו מזה מכשול ולא ימצאו בכתוביהם דבר שונה מכתובינו.


Question: Regarding the statement of R' Yochanan [Sanhedrin 59a] that a non-Jew who delves into Torah study is chayav misa [lit. "liable for death"], is this the law, and are all Jews obligated to avoid teaching a non-Jew anything from the commandments, besides for the seven Noahide laws, or to avoid bringing him to understand them, or not?

Answer: This is undoubtedly the law. And when Jews would have dominion over a non-Jewish population, the Jews would prevent a non-Jew from Torah study until he would convert. But he is not killed if he studied Torah, since it says he is "liable for death" and it doesn't say "he is killed" as it does with respect to transgression of the seven Noahide laws.1

And it is permitted to teach Christians the commandments, and to attract them towards our religion. But this thing is not permitted with Muslims, as is known to you regarding their faith, that this Torah is not from heaven, and when you teach them something from its scriptures, if they find it contrary to that which they have imagined from the muddled stories and warped ideas that have reached them, the scripture will be no proof to them, for they maintain this mistaken view. Rather, they will interpret the scripture according to their preconceived misconception, and they will be able to respond with this claim. And any convert2 or Jew who lacks knowledge may thereby err, and this would be a stumbling block to the Jews who are trapped amongst them (due to their sins).

However, the Christians accept that our version of the Torah is unchanged, except that they misrepresent it with their deficient interpretations, and they explain it with interpretations that are known to them. And if they would be corrected with the proper interpretation, they might return to the right way. And even if they don't recant, if they want us to recant3 we will not have a stumbling block from this, since nothing found in their scriptures [of the Old Testament] is different from our scriptures.

Fred who posted about that writes

Fred Wrote: When the Rambam writes, "וכאשר יד ישראל תקיפה עליהם מונעים אותו מתלמוד תורה עד שיתגייר", I'm not sure if the Rambam meant that we don't teach non-Jews Torah until the conversion process is complete, or if he meant that we don't teach them Torah until they come seeking to convert. In any case, it appears likely from this responsum, and from the the Rambam's ruling in Hil. M'lachim 10:9, that even a ben Noach who accepts the divinity of the Torah (see Hil. M'lachim 8:11) may not study Torah other than as pertains to him (however, the scope of what Torah pertains to a non-Jew may be quite broad - see this answer).

some discussion on this answer from chat https://web.archive.org/web/20170626005748/https://pastebin.ca/raw/3835666

  • IIRC Rashi in his commentary on the talmud, and based on the verse in the shema, says the torah is our inheritance and our betrothed, and for somebody not jewish to study it would be theft and adultery. There was a rabbi that considered islam to be idolatry. – barlop Feb 12 '16 at 9:37
  • 1
    Your inference that Christians are not idolaters since we may teach them Torah is based on a mistaken text. In reality, it is not merely idolaters who may not learn Torah, but all non-Jews, as is evident in a non- censored Rambam: גוי שעסק בתורה, חייב מיתה; לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצוות שלהן בלבד – mevaqesh Jun 3 '16 at 0:32
  • @mevaqesh Your quote from mishneh torah hilchot melachim chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188355/jewish/… is, since it's from mishneh torah, still something that I understand was written before his responsa, and you haven't shown that his responsa was an incorrect text. I said that based on hilchot avoda zara, it's idolatry, but that his responsa suggests or implies that it is not idolatry. – barlop Jun 3 '16 at 1:12
  • Also, I didn't quote directly from mishneh torah so you can't say i'm using an incorrect text.. and we both agree on the conclusion on mishneh torah. Fred gave a quote without english, and you haven't shown that his text was wrong, Though the whole question of correct or incorrect text of mishneh torah doesn't change the fact , since i'm saying it's idolatry there in mishneh torah, but i'm talking not about mishneh torah but about the responsa.. So nothing you've brought to the table disputes what I wrote and I quoted the responsa. – barlop Jun 3 '16 at 1:16
  • 2
    There is nothing in the responsum alone that implies that it is not idolatry. Just that they may be taught Torah. If this is limited to non-idolaters as the text you cite states, then you have an inference. Since that text is corrupt, all we are left with is the fact that we may teach them Torah, but not Muslims. Does this have anything to do with idolatry. No. He states nothing about idolatry in the responsum, and this answer is therefore not an answer. – mevaqesh Jun 3 '16 at 1:28

You must log in to answer this question.

protected by Shmuel Brin Oct 31 '13 at 5:04


Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .