It is commonly accepted that Islam is not Avodah Zarah (idolatry) since Islam has a clear monotheistic theology with a belief in Allah that parallels our view of "kail" or Hashem. It is even permissible for Jews to enter and pray (Jewish prayer) in a mosque. The views of Christianity and their Trinity are more clouded. Entering a Church is a questionable act. Do we group Christians as one? Would we paskun differently for Catholicism vs Protestantism?

I know there are opinions on both sides. Are those who say that Christianity is Avodah Zara just not being open-minded enough to their explanation of how the Trinity equals monotheism? Are those who say it's not Avodah Zara just looking to appease the Christian majority in the countries where they live?

  • 20
    Just for clarification, practicing any religion that is not Judaism constitutes "foreign worship" for Jews. The question here is limited to defining permissible and forbidden practices for non-Jews. The ramifications include whether a Jew may contribute monetarily, benefit from, or possibly even encourage those practices.
    – WAF
    Dec 22 '09 at 23:33
  • see this question as well: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/6004/…
    – Menachem
    Jun 28 '11 at 18:07
  • 3
    "Would we paskun differently for Catholicism vs Protestantism?" It's probably worth clarifying that "Protestantism" is by no means a unified belief system. (Also, Anglo-Catholics, known also as Anglicans, are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). It gets a bit confusing.)
    – TRiG
    Jun 23 '12 at 21:36
  • 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

19 Answers 19


In Jewish law, the idea of the Trinity falls under the catchall term of "shittuf" - worshipping G-d along with some other being.

Shittuf is prohibited for Jews. This means that a Jew would be prohibited to acknowledge the Christian savior as part of the G-dhead, or to participate in Christian worship, even at the cost of his or her life.

There is a dispute among the posekim as to whether shittuf is permitted to non-Jews. (This has ramifications, for example, concerning the laws of yayin nesech, doing business with them on their holidays, etc.). The Rambam (Laws of Idolatry 9:4) states that Christians are considered idolaters under Jewish law - i.e., according to him, shittuf is not a Jewishly acceptable belief for non-Jews either. The Meiri, on the other hand (commentary to Avodah Zarah 2b and 6b), says that present-day Christianity is not considered idol worship, and the Rema (Darchei Moshe 2 to Orach Chayim 156) spells out that shittuf is permitted for them.

  • 4
    Welcome to mi.yodeya! Thank you very much, too, for tackling this sensitive topic. You could make your post even better by editing it to include citations of your sources.
    – Isaac Moses
    Dec 30 '09 at 18:46
  • 1
    Although non-Jews are permitted (according to some authorities) to worship "b'shittuf", this is where the actual worship is directed towards all of the Gods. If a non-Jew believes in the existence of all 3, but today he worships (e.g. prays to) just one of them, he is guilty of A"Z. In other words, it is prohibited for a non-Jew to pray to Jesus for anything, even if he believes that Jesus constitututes just 1/3rd of the full God (or however that should be phrased, I'm wording this loosely just to capture my point).
    – Barry
    Jun 18 '10 at 14:45
  • 2
    see my comment where I bring a the Nodeh Be'Yehuda, who says that even the Remah holds that Shituf is forbidden to Non-Jews: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/6004/…
    – Menachem
    Jun 28 '11 at 18:09
  • 2
    It would seem fairly clear to most that worshiping any person or thing, living or dead, as a god or as G-d would be assur. From my experience, it's much more than just worshiping G-d along with another being, it's worshiping that other being as G-d. (I have a bit of experience, being a former Christian.) Nov 17 '11 at 2:22
  • 1
    Alex, can you source that the doctrine of the Trinity is an instance of Shittuf?
    – Double AA
    Jan 6 '13 at 2:26

The Talmud, in discussing whether the practice of refraining from engaging in business with worshipers of Avoda Zara (lest they offer thanks to their Avoda Zara) three days prior to (and according to R Yishmael also: following) their holidays (cf. Mishna AZ 1:1) includes the day of the holiday itself in the count of three days, states (AZ 6a and 7b):

אמר רב תחליפא בר אבדימי אמר שמואל: יום א' לדברי רבי ישמעאל לעולם אסור
R Tachlifa bar Avdimi said in the name of Shemuel: the first day [of the week] is always forbidden according to the opinion of R Yishmael.

However, the uncensored version states:

אמר רב תחליפא בר אבדימי אמר שמואל: נוצרי לדברי רבי ישמעאל לעולם אסור
R Tachlifa bar Avdimi said in the name of Shemuel: Christians [lit. נ[ו]צרי Nazarenes] are always forbidden according to the opinion of R Yishmael.

[Not only is the uncensored version upheld by manuscripts (see below), it also flows better in the Talmud, which goes on to ask:

ואי ס"ד הן ואידיהן, האיכא ארבעה וחמשה דשרי!‏
If you think [the day itself is included in the count of three days] then the fourth and fifth [days of the week] should be permitted!

The Talmud is clearly understanding Shemuel's statement as forbidding all the days of the week, a read borne out by the uncensored text (which still ends up counting days from Sunday). (One could reread this into the censored text, by understanding לעולם to refer to the whole week, with the claim being that the whole week is forbidden because of the aforementioned holiday on the first of the week (such indeed is Soncino's rendering). This sounds unnecessarily forced IMHO.)]

The Meiri (Ta'anit 27b) is clear that he had the uncensored text in front of him, though he understands נוצרי to refer to the people mentioned in Jeremiah 4:16. This explanation is troubling because I haven't found anyone else (after checking Rashi, Radak and both Metzudot) who understands נצרים in that verse as a nationality as opposed to a job description, and secondly it seems odd for Shemuel (~750 years after Jeremiah) to reference such an obscure people who may not even have been around anymore. (See Christians, Noṣerim, and Nebuchadnezzar's Daughter Lawrence Zalcman, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 3/4 (Jan. - Apr., 1991), pp. 411-426 who identifies the Meiri's group as the Mandaeans.)

Screenshots of manuscripts:




It's interesting to note while this censorship is not noted in Mesoret haShas in the classic 1880 Vilna edition of the Talmud (link), it is mentioned in the new 'redone' Mesoret haShas in the 2008 Neharda' edition of the Talmud (link, note 3).

Additionally the new Mesoret haShas brings a variant of Rashi to the censored sv. יום א'‏ which accords with the uncensored text of the Talmud, and takes a clear stance against the Meiri's understanding of the word:

נוצרי: ההולך בטעותו של אותו האיש שצוה להם לעשות להם יום איד בא׳ בשבת.‏
A Christian: who follows in the mistake of that man [a common euphemism for Jesus] who commanded them to make themselves a holiday on the first day of the week.

This variant is attested to by Dikdukei Soferim and in a manuscript:

munich with rashi


One: the Rema does not rule that goyim are permitted shituf, but merely rules that for them swearing in the the name of a shituf is not an act of avodah zarah (as only Jews are prohibitted from swearing in anything but HaShem's name). As explained in the Nodah Beyahudah, Yoreh Deah 148: "The intention of the Tosefos and the Rama is that combining the Name of Heaven with something else in an oath does not constitute the actual worship of idolatry; rather he is combining the Name of Heaven with something else, but he is not calling in the name of Elokim and he is not saying 'you are my g-d.' Instead, he is merely mentioning him in his oath with the Name of Heaven in a manner of honor, regarding which we find a prohibition upon Israel, as it is written 'and in His Name shall you swear'; this is a warning to Israel not to swear except in His Name (blessed be He) and not to combine the Name of Heaven and something else, as the Rambam wrote in 11:2 of Hilchos Shevuos —and the gentiles are not warned regarding this shittuf. However, regarding the service of avoda zarah with shittuf, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile!

Two: The Meiri ruled that because it did not engage in the degenerate immorality generally associated with avodah zarah, christianity must be a corrupted form of Judaism. This is a conclusion he reaches without consideration of the actual beliefs of christianity and determing whether or not those beliefs contitute avodah zara. Meaning no disrespect, c"v, I would seriously dispute the Meiri's reasoning and submit that the opposite is true: that christianinty is a "Judaized" form of idolatry.

Three: In more modern times, various gedolei hador have ruled that christianity is avodah zarah. In 1964, Rav Soleveichik zt"l ruled that, despite Vatican II, it was still forbidden to teach Torah to christians. He further forbade teaching them how to learn Torah or even to teach them lashon hakodesh. As it is prohibitted to teach idolators Torah, This can only mean that he considered them ovdei avodah zara: there is not other reasonable explanation.

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l ruled at least twice that christians were idolators: he ruled that if one is in the middle of a shiur and a christian walks in, even though it is forbidden to teach them Torah, it is not neccessary to interrupt the shiur. As above, the only reason it would be forbidden to teach christians Torah would be if they were idolators; he also wrote a teshuva to a shailah whether it was permitted to teach a class to a group of reform children (since some of them would obviously be gentiles) that it was permitted because since those children attended a reform "temple" it was unlikely that they were idolators and that the need to teach Jewish children the Emess outweighed the (in this case) unlikely violation of the prohibition against teaching idolators. I can't imagine that Reb Moshe was concerned about an Indianapolis "temple" being overrun by, say, buddhist or hindu children. Clearly he considered christians to be ovdei avodah zara.

More recently, within the past few years, Maran HaRav Yosef Sholom Eliyashiv zt"l has ruled on at least two seperate occasions, in very clear language, that christianity is avodah zara: A Jew planning a trip to Israel was asked by a christain bussiness associate if he would pray for him in Jeruslam. He wrote a shailah to Rav Eliyashiv to ask if this was permitted. Rav Eliyashiv respponded with one sentence: it is prohibiited to pray for an idolator. He also ruled that it was forbidden for Mosdos to accept money from the "International Fellowship of christians and Jews" (an organization almost entirely funded by christian churches) under the prohibition of accepting tzedaka from idolators.

  • 2
    TorasMosheEmess, welcome to the site and thank you for the well-written and informative answer. Citations to sources would make it even more valuable. You may also wish to register your username: this will give you a better site experience.
    – msh210
    Nov 17 '11 at 17:40
  • 1
    You use "A Jew… asked by a christain… if he would pray for him… wrote… to Rav Eliyashiv to ask if this was permitted. Rav Eliyashiv respponded with one sentence: it is prohibiited to pray for an idolator." as proof R' Elyashiv "has ruled… in very clear language, that christianity is avodah zara"? Sounds to me like he's saying "it's forbidden if Christianity is avoda zara".
    – msh210
    Jun 24 '12 at 18:16
  • 1
    @msh210 So you think Rav Elyashiv thinks it's a safek? Do you have any basis for that?
    – Double AA
    Jun 27 '12 at 17:03
  • @DoubleAA, I have only what he's quoted as saying to go by. I was commenting only that that's not "very clear language, that christianity is avodah zara".
    – msh210
    Jun 27 '12 at 17:51
  • 1
    Have a look though at Darkei Moshe YD 151 and Pitchei Teshuva YD 147
    – Double AA
    Jan 20 '13 at 16:44

In the original version of the Rambam in Sefer Qedusha, Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 11:7 (compare the censored version and the uncensored version) he rules that xian are idol worshipers.


I have much experience with Christianity in its many forms and denominations. I can tell you absolutely that their beliefs are not uniform throughout the denominations. One may worship Yushka as the physical incarnation of G-d (outright Idolatry) and another may pray to him as the son of G-d (arguably Shituf). The point that they don't actually believe in what they are doing is also not uniform as some believe 100% and are willing to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs while others hold it all lightly. The trinity is a very complex idea believing that "the one God exists in three Persons and one substance."(G-d forbid). This is not three faces of one but each unit is equally the whole perhaps like a three headed hydra. It is part of Judaism to know as Rambam did the nature of other religions and how to properly interact with their proponents.

  • 1
    Yehudah, Welcome to mi.yodeya, and thanks very much for sharing your perspective! Please consider clicking "register," above, to create your account. This will allow you to access all of mi.yodeya's features and to take full credit for your contributions.
    – Isaac Moses
    Jun 17 '10 at 5:10
  • 2
    What about kaballah that says that sephirot has 7 branch?
    – user4951
    Nov 15 '11 at 4:52
  • 3
    @JimThio Sefirot are not G-d. Nov 16 '11 at 6:56
  • 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. Nov 17 '11 at 2:24
  • 5
    I remember explaining to my 94-year-old great aunt -- a true southern belle and devout Methodist -- about why I left Christianity and became a Jew. I said that the Trinity was in conflict with the concept that G-d is One. She said, "I never quite understood that, either." Feb 7 '13 at 16:47

I just heard a great lecture on this subject on YUTorah.org: The Halachic Status of Christianity and its Legal Consequences, by Rabbi Josh Blass.

I don't have the Meiri in front of me, but it was my understanding that he held that "nowadays", Christianity is not A"Z because they don't really take it seriously, which would also hold true to adolescents playing around with sorcery and the like — they don't really believe in the idolatry of it. Regardless of what Christians actually believe, this is an important point for halakhic discourse in general: times change, and so does reality, and halakha reflects this. So even in the Rambam thought Christianity was A"Z, he might think otherwise if he were alive today.

And in passing, do all branches of Christianity believe in the Trinity, or is that specific to Catholicism?

  • 7
    Almost all branches of Christianity believe in the Trinity. (My religious background is one of the few branches that doesn't, and is often regarded as non-Christian by others.) Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Mormons, Arians, and some Gnostics reject the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians accept it (in theory, anyway: I've spoken to a few Catholics who don't really have any idea what the Trinity even is).
    – TRiG
    Aug 5 '11 at 21:11
  • 2
    I thought that the Meiri's ruling that Christians don't really take it seriously only applied to lay-people. Priests (ie, experts in their religion) do take it very seriously and would, therefore, come under the geder of avdei avodah zara.
    – Shemmy
    Jun 24 '12 at 11:11
  • 7
    Unitarians are another Christian sect which does not believe in the trinity. Of course non-trinitarian does not necessarily imply not A"Z. Mormon beliefs are non-trinitarian from the point of view of Nicene Christianity, but in ways that appear to make it more clearly A"Z rather than less. Jun 24 '12 at 18:38
  • I am a non-practicing Catholic and in general, Catholics believe in the Trinity. I have attended services in Methodist, Lutheran and Disciples of Christ and I, personally, haven't heard the Trinity mentioned. I cannot speak for my Christian brethen, but - personally - I don't believe it in. There is one G-d and that's it. I believe that Jesus is His son and the Holy Spirit works for Him, but neither of them are G-d. Now, I usually pray only to G-d, but in times I've trouble, I've been known to pray to Jesus, the Virgin Mary and a dead uncle. But, I don't worship them, like I worship G-d.
    – DataGirl
    Mar 27 '13 at 16:38
  • 3
    Christian here. To answer your last question, virtually all Christians believe in the divinity of the Messiah, which necessitates a theology like the trinity or something like it. This is because the gospels and Paul's letters in the New Testament affirm the elevated status of Messiah. Interestingly, the Orthodox Jewish scholar and talmudist, Daniel Boyarin, writes in his book, the Jewish Gospels, that the idea of a divine messiah was not foreign to 1st century Judaisms. thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/106271/… Sep 30 '13 at 17:59

Inferring polytheism based on the Holy Trinity is a wildly literal interpretation of the concept and totally misses the point. Few Christians think it implies more then one God. In fact, I have never even heard this discussed as a possibility. Not that I'm a theologist or even overly religious, but I think this smacks of nitpicking.

Of course, I have no idea what basis the Jewish community uses to categorize such things, so I'm just giving an unaffiliated protestant opinion.

  • 2
    Sean R, Thank you very much for bringing an important insider's perspective to this conversation. Please consider clicking on "register," above, to create an account. This will give you access to all of mi.yodeya's features and will allow you to take full credit for your contributions.
    – Isaac Moses
    Mar 19 '10 at 2:30
  • 3
    The doctrine of the Trinity means [at very least] that the Nazarene is identified as divine. Insofar as a Christian is asserting that G-d is G-d, and that so is the Nazarene, they are asserting that two different entities are divine. Whether or not they believe these two entities are one, they are not and to worship both is to worship two different "beings" as G-d. I state this matter of factly not to flippantly dismiss your beliefs, but just in recognition that this is a Jewish site where Jewish beliefs are [at least somewhat] presumed
    – Yirmeyahu
    May 7 '10 at 6:18
  • 1
    Trinity has many different senses and branches, each calling each other heretic. Not sure about the killing that follow (got to check history) given that most laymen don't get it enough to lift their sword to split the difference. But then again, what about kabbalahmadeeasy.com/…
    – user4951
    Nov 16 '11 at 9:34
  • 2
    @Adam Mosheh, No, a proper translation insofar as our discussion would be concerned would be "godly". To use this notion/term as any sort of support for the Trinity is simply equivocation.
    – Yirmeyahu
    Jun 27 '12 at 23:07
  • 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. 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.


Regardless of whether there is any implied 'cohesion' or oneness of the elements of the so-called "trinity," the fact remains that they are 1) three distinct 'beings', and 2) that one of these beings has a human form, is a human body, etc. Therefore, that is clearly avodah zara. Worshipping a human being is the same as worshipping G-d in any other idolatrous form. G-d has no form. Worshipping any form whatsoever is idolatry.

  • jeff rez, Welcome to mi.yodeya, and thanks very much for sharing your perspective on this! We'd love to have you as a fully-registered member, which you can accomplish here: mi.yodeya.com/users/login
    – Isaac Moses
    Apr 1 '11 at 4:23
  • 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
    Even saying "three distinct beings" may not be an accurate description of Christian belief. Most Christians accept the Nicene Creed which in its original Greek said ὁμοούσιον ("of one being"), though this caused later issues as there is no present participle of to be in Latin and the use of consubstantialem led to new debates.
    – Henry
    Dec 15 '11 at 8:20
  • -1 for misunderstanding the Trinity. (Not that anyone actually can understand it, since it's nonsensical, but "three beings" is a fairly basic error.)
    – TRiG
    Sep 26 '12 at 21:23
  • 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.

First demographics. Christianity is a monotheistic faith, meaning simply, believers in it say so. Take a poll of Christians and exclude anyone who says they believe Jesus is now dead, or is/was not a real historical person. Ask those remaining whether the idea of the Trinity means that "there are three Gods", yes or no. I would be shocked if even a single person said yes out of a hundred.

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.

Within Christianity a common analogy for the Trinity is the shamrock: one plant with three distinct leaves. (Another answer here mentions the hydra. That's the same idea I suppose, but you won't hear many Christians use that analogy for the Trinity, for reasons.)

Not all official statements of faith discuss the Trinity explicitly, but here are some that do:

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

Specifically with Catholicism, other questions could be in play, because many Catholics pray to their "Saints" as proxies, asking the Saints to pray to God on their behalf. Many Protestants consider this practice to be idolatry. This is, in fact, one aspect of one of the critical doctrinal divides between Catholics and Protestants. I do not know how most Orthodox traditions treat this particular issue.

  • Thank you for this information. Do any of the Protestant denominations have an "official" written statement on the trinity, or is that considered unnecessary? (If this were Roman Catholicism I would expect a papal decree, but that obviously don't work for Protestants and I don't know what your sources of authority are. Sorry if this question misses the mark.) Feb 5 '13 at 15:05
  • 3
    How do you know that the definition of monotheistic that you use is relevant to this issue?
    – Double AA
    Feb 5 '13 at 16:43
  • 1
    @MonicaCellio Good point, I have found and included some references, including a Catholic catechism.
    – wberry
    Feb 7 '13 at 3:58
  • 2
    @ 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. 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

the trinity churches are avodah zarah because if you believe in that kind of shituff you believe in a different definition of an unlimited g-d we believe in a g-d which none is similar to him "vehu echad veain sheini lehamshil lo" ( "והוא אחד ואין שני להמשיל לו" )(adon olam) and trinity does not support that therefore they belive in a different deity then us

  • 2
    The Trinity doesn't say that Jesus is comparable to God. It says he and God are one. There's no comparing happening.
    – Double AA
    Aug 18 '13 at 8:28
  • @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 Aug 18 '13 at 15:09
  • They believe in only one thing as Godly. It is the Trinity. Jesus is not a part of God; he is God.
    – Double AA
    Aug 18 '13 at 15:18
  • @DoubleAA yes but if god has 2 hands he isnt "INDIVISIBLE" Aug 18 '13 at 15:20
  • OK. Good thing the Trinity doesn't have that.
    – Double AA
    Aug 18 '13 at 15:22

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. 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
  • I made that point to a posek, and he just responded that "Shituf is shituf", which I took to mean that this still qualifies as shituf.
    – N.T.
    Jul 8 '21 at 0:24


According to sources from the shulchan aruch harav's website:


Is Christianity considered Avoda Zarah?

Christianity is considered Avoda Zara for a Jew, and carries all Avoda Zara related prohibitions.[1] However, some Poskim[2] rule that for gentiles, Christianity is considered Shituf and is not prohibited due to Avoda Zara.[3] Other Poskim[4] however rule that Christianity is considered like idolatry even for gentiles.

[1] Rambam Machalos Assuros 11:7; Avoda Zara 9:4; Pirush Hamishnayos Avoda Zara 1:3; Teshuvas Harambam 448; Rama Y.D. 148:12 [in uncensored editions] lists Xmas and New Years as Holidays of idolatry; Likkutei Sichos 37 p. 198; Rebbe in handwritten editing remarks to a letter “Christianity is Avoda Zara, is in contrast to the seven Nohadite laws, as opposed to Islam. However, the Christians of today are simply “Maaseh Avoseihem Beyadeihem”.

The reason: As they believe that Yoshka is one of the three parts of Hashem and they worship him. [In truth however, there are different sects of Christianity with different belief systems. See Haemuna Vehadeios of Rasag 2:7 that there are four groups of Christians and not all are idol worshipers; See here https://www.thoughtco.com/faith-groups-that-reject-trinity-doctrine-700367]

[2] Rama O.C. 156:1 [Omitted in Admur 156]; Darkei Moshe O.C. 156; Y.D. 151; Shach Y.D 151:7; Tosafus Sanhedrin 63b and Bechoros 2b; Ran Sanhedrin 63b, end of first Perek in Avoda Zara; Meiri Bava Kama 113b; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 17:5; Beir Hagoleh C. M. 425 Shin; Aruch Hashulchan 156:4; Reb Yeshaya Berlin, brought in Mishnas Chachomim Yesodei Hatorah Lav Alef and Pischeiy Teshuvah 147:2; See Sefer Hamamarim Rebbe Maharash 5637 “Mi Kamocha”; Melukat 1 p. 323 Mamar Mayim Rabim 5717; Melukat 3 Nissan p. 128 Mamar “Beyom Ashtei Asar” 5731; Toras Menachem 5743 3 p. 1386; See Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 157:2 that so is clearly implied from Rama ibid; See Sdei Chemed Peas Hasadeh Kelalim 3:6

[3] The reason: The definition of Nohadite idolatry according to this opinion: According to this opinion, the form of idolatry prohibited for Nohadites is the belief that Hashem has completely left the earth, and plays no role in it. That it has been left completely to the authority of a deity to whom they pray and worship. In other words, they believe in G-d’s existence, but simply call him “Eloka Dielokaya/The G-d of G-d’s/.” This is prohibited for even a gentile to believe, and he must believe that G-d has direct influence on the world. It goes without saying that denial of G-d’s existence at all, and believe in a foreign deity, is defined as idolatry. However, Shituf, which is permitted for a gentile according to this opinion, believes Hashem interacts with the world, although has given authority to other deities or powers to also have some control in the world, and He is thus not the sole ruler. While Jews are prohibited from believing this due to idolatry, gentiles are not. [See Sefer Hamamarim Melukat 1:323, Mamar Mayim Rabim 5717 Melukat 3 ibid footnote 20]

[4] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 148 [Says that Shituf is Avoda Zara even for gentiles, and the Rama and Ran never intended to say that Shituf is permitted for them, and thus the common statement of people that based on the Rama there is no Issur of Shituf for gentiles, is incorrect; However, see Pischeiy Teshuvah ibid that in truth one must say the Rama holds Shituf is permitted for gentiles, as the Rama Y.D. 151:1 permits selling them items, as explains Shach 151:7]; Mahara Sasson; Vishev Hakohen 38; Meil Tzedaka 22; Shaar Efraim 24; P”M 156; Y.D. 65 S”D end of chapter that is nevertheless Rabbinically prohibited; Binyan Tziyon 1:16; Mishnas Chachomim Yesodei Hatorah Lav Alef; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 147:2 [concludes that Shituf is forbidden also for gentiles]; Rebbe in handwritten editing remarks to a letter “Christianity is Avoda Zara, is in contrast to the seven Nohadite laws, as opposed to Islam. However, the Christians of today are simply “Maaseh Avoseihem Beyadeihem”.


May one say the name Jesus or Yeshu? From the letter of the law, it is permitted to recite the name Jesus or Yeshu.[1] It is likewise permitted to write these names, as we find Gedolei Yisrael who wrote these names in their Sefarim.[2] Nevertheless, despite the letter of the law, the custom of all Jewry dating back many generations is to avoid saying these names and rather the term Oso Ish or Yoshka or Yoshke Pandre is used in its stead. One is not Heaven forefend to break this custom.[3]

May one say the word Christ?[4] One is not to use this term as it connotes a Messiah and savior, and according to some even a deity, and so is the custom of all Jewry to not say this term.[5]

May one say the name Chris-mass? No, and so is the custom. One is rather to use a epithet [i.e. nickname] such as Kratzmacht; Nittel, and the like. Seemingly, however, the term X-mass is not to be used, as the X is short for Ch***, and is used also by Christians as a formal name of the holiday.[6]

May one say the name Mary?[7] From the letter of the law, it is permitted to do so[8], although G-d fearing Jews avoid saying this name [when in reference to the mother of Yoshka].

May one say the name Muhammad or other followers of Islam? Yes, as the religion of Islam is a true monotheistic religion which carries no aspect of idolatry.

[1] The reason: As it is permitted to recite names of people who do not connote a deity and were later turned into a deity. [Yireim brought in Hagahos Maimanis Avodas Kochavim 5/3; Chavos Yair Teshuvah 1 Hasaga 11-12; Biur Hagrâ€ÂÂa 147/3; Teshuvos Rav Ezriel Hildsheimer 180; See Mishneh Halachos 9/169]

[2] See Biur Hagrâ€ÂÂa ibid; This name is mentioned in various places in the Gemara and Rambam end of Mishneh Torah-uncensored version; See Sanhedrin 43; 67; 105; 107; Avoda Zara 27; Yerushalmi Brachos 5/1; Rambam Melachim However see Teshuvos Rav Ezriel Hildsheimer 180 that no proof can be brought from here that these names may be recited as there is no prohibition to write the names, and rather the prohibition is simply to say them.

[3] Teshuvos Rav Ezriel Hildsheimer 180; See Mishneh Halachos 9/169

[4] Teshuvos Rav Ezriel Hildsheimer 180; See Mishneh Halachos 9/169

[5] Although we find Sefarim that write this term as well, nevertheless one cannot learn from them that it is permitted to say the names, as writing is more lenient than saying, as well as that it is permitted to write the names for learning purposes. [ibid]

[6] See here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Xmass

[7] Chavos Yair Teshuvah 1 Hasaga 11-12

[8] The reason: In addition to all the reasons of allowance mentioned above regarding Yoshka, this woman is not worshiped or considered a G-d by even the Christians, and hence it has no relation to idolatry. [ibid

  • 1
    Hi @bluejayke - I don't think the second quote is necessary about saying the name Jesus - it has not bearings on the question.
    – Dov
    Mar 7 '21 at 11:23
  • @dov it adds meaning to it being idolatry, since idolatry names aren't mentioned, as it discuss in the notes Mar 7 '21 at 14:55

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
  • 1
    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

According to Rambam, yes. However, some rabbis feel that Christianity is not idolatry but merely a heresy of Judaism (Ramban).

  • You've answered the title question but not the specifics the OP is actually talking about. Also, it would be great if you could quote and/or link your sources.
    – Harel13
    Mar 7 '21 at 7:02
  • The Rambam has already been mention above - judaism.stackexchange.com/a/11350/22152
    – Dov
    Mar 7 '21 at 11:24
  • @Harel13 Rambam felt that the trinity was philosophically impossible.
    – Turk Hill
    Mar 9 '21 at 0:15
  • @Dov Yes, but not in the way that I answered it.
    – Turk Hill
    Mar 9 '21 at 0:15
  • 4
    You now have 2 answers with the same text. This one should be deleted
    – mbloch
    Jul 8 '21 at 3:20

According to Rambam, yes. However, some rabbis feel that Christianity is not idolatry but merely a heresy of Judaism (Ramban).[1]

Also, Rabbi Meiri felt that Christianity was not idolatry since they are a civilized people, and have systems of courts, law, and an administration of justice.[2] Thus, Meiri felt that Christianity is "shituf", and not idolatry.[3]

[1] Although I agree with the Rambam

[2] See the tractate of Avodah Zarah, Talmud

[3] Although it is prohibited to Jews

  • The Meiri is known and quoted multiple times on this page. But where did you see this Ramban?
    – mbloch
    Jul 8 '21 at 3:20
  • @mbloch I forget the source but the Ramban said it in his debate at Barcelona.
    – Turk Hill
    Jul 8 '21 at 4:12
  • 1
    I have the text of this debate and reviewed it but didn't find that idea. The dispute mostly covers the identity of Mashiach and conflicts between Jewish texts on Mashiach and the life of Jesus. It doesn't address Christianity as a whole. Again I would strongly suggest to check your sources inside to avoid mistakes.
    – mbloch
    Jul 8 '21 at 6:09
  • I would also note that, according to Chabad here, "Christian belief in the Trinity and Yeshu's birth could not be believed by any thinking Jew. The Trinity is outright idol worship" which is the exact reverse of your claim.
    – mbloch
    Jul 8 '21 at 7:19
  • 1
    @TurkHill it doesn't matter what I think, I am nothing. What matters is what the Ramban thinks. As I wrote I don't think he thinks what you wrote. And DoubleAA tells us the Meiri doesn't think what you wrote either. So the only think that remains from your answer is what you think ....
    – mbloch
    Jul 8 '21 at 18:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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