The Holy Trinity

[Toms777]

If the pantheon of Genesis 1 is referring to angels, which is entirely feasible with what we know of ancient Jewish theology, then Genesis 1:26 is your prooftext. However, like I said, it could simply refer to 'gods' (unknown). Either way, the account in no way speaks of a trinity. That is unhistorical and philologically unsound.

There is nothing to suggest that it refers to angels. That is entirely a matter of opinion. The fact that it refers to God is backed up by scripture.

Col 1:15-18
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
NKJV

I could provide many more passages. It was God and God alone who created everything that exists.

Lol, the bible says a pantheon of gods was involved in the creation of Genesis 1. And an important rule of exegesis is to grasp the intent of the author/s. If the author's intent was to include gods and/or angels in the creation, then that is what the bible says.

Just because you say so does not make it so.

Echad does not mean 'unity'. Echad is the Hebraic word for numerical one.

It can mean the first (ordinal one) and it can mean a unity.

OT:259
'echad (ekh-awd'); a numeral from OT:258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:
(Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

"first" means one as in the first one on the list, not as a singularity.

That echad means 'compound unity' is only postulated by trinitarian scholars, but it carries no weight and is simply a theological special plea, irrelevant to the actual Hebrew language.

I verified it's usage and meaning with Hebrew sources, including one in Israel. If God meant a singularity, "yachid" would have been a better word to use. A friend of mine was speaking to a local rabbi, and discussing Deut 6:4. The rabbi brought up this verse and said that this says that God is one. My friend asked him, "Isn't the word "echad", and doesn't it mean "a unity"?. The rabbi paused and finally responded "oy vey".

[quote:bce99]I'd be interested in your view as to who the three persons are in Isaiah 48:16-17

A simple matter of punctuation (placed in light of trinitarian reasoning). The one being sent is the author, or alternatively, the author and God's spirit (the Hebrew allows either).[/quote:bce99]

Please provide specific answers. there are three persons mentioned - who are they?

[quote:bce99]Ah, why do some folk choose to resort to ad hominems when their opinions are challenged

Lol, you have in no wise presented a challenge to my 'opinion'. You have only demonstrated further that this is out of your league. Your theological sentiments are irrelevant to the irrefutable grammatical and literary evidence.[/quote:bce99]

In my view, you are avoiding my questions (i.e. Is 48:16-17), however please note that I have managed to treat you respectfully and have not made any demaning comments about you at all. I expect the same treatment from you. If you feel that your argument is so strong and that you are so good at ahndling the word of God, then you shold be able to demonstarte that in your ably handling of the discussion, rather than needed to report to personal put-downs. Demeaning personal comments, from my observation, are typically the refuge of those who cannot deal with the challenge.

 

[wavy]

There is nothing to suggest that it refers to angels. That is entirely a matter of opinion. The fact that it refers to God is backed up by scripture.

It is not 'entirely' opinion. It has historical, traditional, and linguistic support. The fact that angels are identified in the bible as 'gods' and the fact that historically the Hebrews believed God counseled with the heavenly host is entirely consistent with Genesis.

It is also consistent about what the evidence shows about the origins of Genesis, that it is myth similar to the surrounding cultures of ancient Israel who all were polytheists, like the Israelites once were. Afterwords they were henotheists (YHWH = greatest God) and down the line, monotheists. The bible reveals an evolutionary model of Israelite religion.

But whether angels (who were viewed as 'gods') or gods in general, the Hebrew is in the plural and literally means 'gods', just as in the Hebrew of Gen.35.7.

Col 1:15-18...
I could provide many more passages. It was God and God alone who created everything that exists.

Again, for the umpteenth time, you are assuming the bible is consistent on the matter, but the texts I have presented to prove my claims have been ignored in favor of your inerrantist special pleas. (I think you need to look up what 'special pleading' is)

Just because you say so does not make it so.

Lol, so you do not have any counter-evidence to support yourself...Gotcha. Ignoring the counter-evidence (another named logical fallacy) will not make it disappear.

It can mean the first (ordinal one) and it can mean a unity.

OT:259
'echad (ekh-awd'); a numeral from OT:258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:
(Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

"first" means one as in the first one on the list, not as a singularity.

Quoting Strong hasn't in any way denied anything I have said. Echad is not a special vocabulary word entailing some mystery 'multiplicity/plurality' made up of 'parts'. Just as 'one' means 1 in our language, so does echad mean 1 in Hebrew. Elementary Hebrew knowledge. That does not mean it cannot be used in other ways, just like our 'one' (eg. in English we can say 'one' in reference to rank, as in 'number one'; or in reference to a unity, as in we are of 'one purpose'), but the facts are that in both languages the primary definition of echad/one is numerical 1.

All Hebrew children learn that the first numeral is echad. It's as easy as ABC, and you've provided nothing to prove otherwise.

I verified it's usage and meaning with Hebrew sources, including one in Israel. If God meant a singularity, "yachid" would have been a better word to use.

Yachid fundamentally means 'only'. You cannot explain the meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4 by what it does not say. You, dude, have 'verified' nothing and have done nothing to disconfirm the irrefutable textual evidence of Gen.1.26 alone (there are many such examples of polytheism/henotheism in the Hebrew bible). If you'd like to be educated we can discuss them.

A friend of mine was speaking to a local rabbi, and discussing Deut 6:4. The rabbi brought up this verse and said that this says that God is one. My friend asked him, "Isn't the word "echad", and doesn't it mean "a unity"?. The rabbi paused and finally responded "oy vey".

Lol, personal experiences based on hear-say which cannot be verified are irrelevant. This is not scholarship and doesn't count as 'proof' or 'evidence'.

Please provide specific answers. there are three persons mentioned - who are they?

I said the one being sent is the author of the text (presumably Isaiah, although I don't believe Isaiah wrote the book, which is another matter). The Holy Spirit is sent with him (as in Isa.61.1, where the author speaks in first person).

[quote:c561a]Ah, why do some folk choose to resort to ad hominems when their opinions are challenged

In my view, you are avoiding my questions (i.e. Is 48:16-17), however please note that I have managed to treat you respectfully and have not made any demaning comments about you at all. I expect the same treatment from you. If you feel that your argument is so strong and that you are so good at ahndling the word of God, then you shold be able to demonstarte that in your ably handling of the discussion, rather than needed to report to personal put-downs. Demeaning personal comments, from my observation, are typically the refuge of those who cannot deal with the challenge.

[/quote:c561a]

Lol, I have directly answered your questions.You haven't provided anything to disprove what I have said here, and I have not 'rather...needed to "report" to personal put-downs'. My arguments, most of which you haven't even touched, stand on their own.

Thank you for cooperating, as you have shown how flimsy your arguments are and helped in supporting the facts.

 

[Toms777]

It is not 'entirely' opinion. It has historical, traditional, and linguistic support. The fact that angels are identified in the bible as 'gods' and the fact that historically the Hebrews believed God counseled with the heavenly host is entirely consistent with Genesis.

I keep asking you where in the Bible angels are identified as gods. Please give a specific reference.

It is also consistent about what the evidence shows about the origins of Genesis, that it is myth similar to the surrounding cultures of ancient Israel who all were polytheists, like the Israelites once were. Afterwords they were henotheists (YHWH = greatest God) and down the line, monotheists.

Again you made claims with no validation. The Bible shows a clear promotion of sole monotheism.

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Were there some who disobeyed and worshiped other gods? Yes. But where do we find promotion of other gods in scripture? It is completely absent. As for the meaning of YHWH, the closest that we get to this is what God says Himself:

Ex 3:13-15
13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
NKJV

YHWH is the self-existent one, the only one who can make that claim.

But whether angels (who were viewed as 'gods') or gods in general, the Hebrew is in the plural and literally means 'gods', just as in the Hebrew of Gen.35.7.

That is circular reasoning. You believe in gods, and because you believe that it means gods, you read this plural to mean gods. The problem is that your argument is inconsistent.

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Throughout scripture we are told that there is only one God. That is made abundantly clear. We have a plurality here, yes, but it does not necessarily mean "gods", anymore than "flock" because it is plural means "flocks". It means one flcok with many birds, in the same sense that God, when referred to as a unity in Deut 6:4 and elsewhere refers to a single God with a plural composite (i.e. trinity). When we find elohim referring to God, we must consider it in the context of what scripture says elsewhere about God, and these comments must all be in harmony.

Col 1:15-18...
I could provide many more passages. It was God and God alone who created everything that exists.

Again, for the umpteenth time, you are assuming the bible is consistent on the matter, but the texts I have presented to prove my claims have been ignored in favor of your inerrantist special pleas. (I think you need to look up what 'special pleading' is)

For the umpteenth time, you are assuming that the Bible is inconsistent, and so far all I have seen you do is give your opinion on the topic. You have assumed that there are many gods, so you read that into the text, and then you have given your interpretation based upon that premise. That is circular reasoning. We need to look at what scripture says and then build the argument. Remember, just because there are things that you find hard to reconcile does not mean that there are inconsistent if there is a way in which all that it says can be simultaneous true. And you start off rejecting that option.

Lol, so you do not have any counter-evidence to support yourself...Gotcha. Ignoring the counter-evidence (another named logical fallacy) will not make it disappear.

I have validated each one of my points and am still waiting for your response on a few. Now, unless you are prepared for a serious discussion, we are not likely to move forward.

Quoting Strong hasn't in any way denied anything I have said. Echad is not a special vocabulary word entailing some mystery 'multiplicity/plurality' made up of 'parts'. Just as 'one' means 1 in our language, so does echad mean 1 in Hebrew. Elementary Hebrew knowledge. That does not mean it cannot be used in other ways, just like our 'one' (eg. in English we can say 'one' in reference to rank, as in 'number one'; or in reference to a unity, as in we are of 'one purpose'), but the facts are that in both languages the primary definition of echad/one is numerical 1.

There is a great difference. In English we have one word for all of those, and that is not true in Hebrew. Echad does not mean the same as Yachid, and is God meant a singularity it would have made more sense to use the word that meant a singularity than a word that means unity. Many Hebrew scholars disagree with what you said above, and I have seen a number of Jewish commentaries trying to explain away the use of the word echad in Deut 6:4, knowing that it means "unity".

All Hebrew children learn that the first numeral is echad. It's as easy as ABC, and you've provided nothing to prove otherwise.

Like I said, ordinal one.

Yachid fundamentally means 'only'. You cannot explain the meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4 by what it does not say.

I have seen Jewish scholars who have tried to get around the echad problem by altering the word to yachid.

You, dude, have 'verified' nothing and have done nothing to disconfirm the irrefutable textual evidence of Gen.1.26 alone (there are many such examples of polytheism/henotheism in the Hebrew bible). If you'd like to be educated we can discuss them.

And you have still not showing me any reason to believe that these passages have anything to do with henotheism or polytheism. You again are basing your whole argument on assumptions such as a belief that the Bible is inconsistent.

Lol, personal experiences based on hear-say which cannot be verified are irrelevant. This is not scholarship and doesn't count as 'proof' or 'evidence'.

I was not putting it forward as evidence, but showing yet another example of how a Jewish scholar clearly understood the meaning of echad.

I said the one being sent is the author of the text (presumably Isaiah, although I don't believe Isaiah wrote the book, which is another matter). The Holy Spirit is sent with him (as in Isa.61.1, where the author speaks in first person).

Finally an answer, but not a complete one. You addressed only two persons, who you identify as the author, possibly Isaiah, and the Holy Spirit. So let's look at this in more detail.

Isa 48:16
16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."
NKJV

Note that it is a third person who is speaking, since the Lord God, and His spirit, identified as two separate persons, sent the third person. Going on to the next verse, we see more about this third person:

Isa 48:17
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, Who teaches you to profit,
NKJV

He is the Redeemer (Jesus), and he the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and is God. It would be blasphemy for a human author (i.e. Isaiah) to make such claims. It is interesting to note that in verse 17, when he says "I am the Lord", the word Lord is “YHWH†in the original language, therefore this third person is YHWH, our Redeemer. Here you have Jesus claiming to be YHWH God and explaining the trinity in two short verses.

Thank you for cooperating, as you have shown how flimsy your arguments are and helped in supporting the facts.

It would bring more credit to your argument if you spent more time on validating what you say than on attempts at put downs and "political" responses. If you are trying to appear scholarly, this approach definitely undermines that effort.

 

[cyberjosh]

It is not 'entirely' opinion. It has historical, traditional, and linguistic support. The fact that angels are identified in the bible as 'gods' and the fact that historically the Hebrews believed God counseled with the heavenly host is entirely consistent with Genesis.

It is also consistent about what the evidence shows about the origins of Genesis, that it is myth similar to the surrounding cultures of ancient Israel who all were polytheists, like the Israelites once were. Afterwords they were henotheists (YHWH = greatest God) and down the line, monotheists. The bible reveals an evolutionary model of Israelite religion.

But whether angels (who were viewed as 'gods') or gods in general, the Hebrew is in the plural and literally means 'gods', just as in the Hebrew of Gen.35.7.

Angels are less refered to as elohim (I'd actually be curious to see references inthe Bible that call them straight-up "elohim") than bene elohim. And infact "God" is a quite inacurate translation of "elohim" though of course when applied to God it sums up the idea. El literally means "Power", and Eloah (the singular of Elohim) though the etymology is uncertain either is a variation of El and carries on the idea of power (though no doubt El is the root of Eloah) or a more interesting theory that the verb form of Eloah (alah - to swear an oath) denoted the covenant nature of the Elohim, as one who makes oaths and covenants (a ruler, who has power). And certainly the context of Elohim in the OT as it applies to God consistantly is used in covenant contexts, especially in Genesis. The ideas are unified linguistically though because it is always the stronger (more powerful - El) that makes the covenant (as Hebrews tells us: that the lesser swears by the greater).

But Elohim is in a few rare cases applied to man (once in Judges) and once to Moses ("you will be elohim to Aaron") and also a few other places. In that case it refers to the literal ruler or El (the power holder) of a nation. So when Yahweh said "You shall have no other elohim before me" it refers equally to Pharaoh as to false gods/idols, thus why God wanted them to go into the wilderness to worship - to get away from Pharaoh's influence & captivity over them which led them to idolatry. And in Isaish Israel was rebuked many times for depending on Egypt rather than Yahweh (Isaiah 30 & 31).

However elohim is not a proper name. As applies to Yahweh, elohim is a title of a covenant God, an the -im plural is largely qualitative since it is accompanied by singular verbs, the great God. We cannot claim that any evolution in Israelite theology occured because of the different applications of "elohim", you must rather understand how it was used and what it literally means. Yahweh is God's true name.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

I keep asking you where in the Bible angels are identified as gods. Please give a specific reference.

We're not lying now are we? You never asked me this.

Anyway, here's one openly henotheistic passage where angels are called 'gods':

Gen.35.7
He built an altar there, and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed Himself to him when he fled from his brother.

The actual verb accompanying the Hebrew elohim is plural (niglu) thus demanding that plural 'gods' be meant. The particular place in view is from Gen.28.11-12 where Jacob sets up stones and sees in a dream angels descending and ascending on a ladder to heaven. The angels were the 'gods' he saw.

Later in the narrative, he names it and the Hebrew should read:

Gen.35.7
He built an altar there, and called the place El-Bethel because the gods exposed themselves to him there when he ran away from his brother's face.

In the Samaritan Pentateuch, all traces of this stark poltheism were erased, and the Hebrew reads with the singular verb (niglah). All English translators make it monotheistic, although the underlying Masoretic text is actually in the plural and thus polytheistic. So, just like the Samaritan Pentateuch, they have intentionally changed the text.

Irrefutable proof.

Again you made claims with no validation. The Bible shows a clear promotion of sole monotheism.

Isa 44:8...

Are you so obtuse? For the last time, the bible is not consistent on the subject. You cannot override clear henotheistic expressions by appealing to monotheistic ones. The bible was not written as a unit, but by authors and schools of authors and editors writing at different times with different views. The bible itself bears this out by what it says -- uncontrovertible evidence that you have not even begun to address.

If I have to repeat myself, I see no reason for me to continue beating a dead horse and will immediately terminate this discussion.

Were there some who disobeyed and worshiped other gods? Yes. But where do we find promotion of other gods in scripture? It is completely absent. As for the meaning of YHWH, the closest that we get to this is what God says Himself:

That's because the earliest portions of the bible are henotheistic. You need to look up that word. That is the meaning of the first commandment: 'You shall have no other gods before me'. It teaches the supremity of a single deity: YHWH, although it does not deny the existence of other deities (as in Ex.15.11 of the same book). Here's another one:

Ex.18.11
"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against the people."

The 'I am that I am' statement to validate YHWH as Israel's God only validates YHWH as Israel's God. It does not deny that the gods of other nations did not exist, like in Ex.12.12.

Again, you are reinterpreting the bible in light of monotheism, but the bible is not itself monotheistic consistently. Monotheism is more vehement in post-exilic literature (though I am in doubt as to whether you know anything about source criticism).

That is circular reasoning. You believe in gods, and because you believe that it means gods, you read this plural to mean gods. The problem is that your argument is inconsistent.

Sorry, bud. Your attempt at imputing a logical fallacy is futile. I do not believe 'in gods'. I believe there is one God. But the actual text says otherwise in certain henotheistic places in the earliest Israelite literature. It is not a matter of opinion. The text says 'gods' because that is grammar. Grammar which you have as of yet ignored because of your special pleas.

For example, does elohim accompanied by plural verbs not mean 'gods' in 2Kin.18:35?

Your recriminatory statement that my argument is inconsistent only further proves you: A) cannot read, B) have no rebuttal, C) are desperate for something to save yourself, since you have been thoroughly refuted.

Make your pick.That you are a trinitarian and so the bible must accord with your view in spite of the evidence against you is not an option.

Throughout scripture we are told that there is only one God. That is made abundantly clear. We have a plurality here, yes, but it does not necessarily mean "gods", anymore than "flock" because it is plural means "flocks". It means one flcok with many birds, in the same sense that God, when referred to as a unity in Deut 6:4 and elsewhere refers to a single God with a plural composite (i.e. trinity). When we find elohim referring to God, we must consider it in the context of what scripture says elsewhere about God, and these comments must all be in harmony.

Right, nice try, but you have ignored the Hebrew and pretty much everything I have stated. Naturally, a 'flock' would include many sheep. But elohim does not essentially mean 'plural' beings. That depends on, in accord with Hebrew grammar, whether or not it is accompanied by plural verbs. And when it is accompanied by plural verbs, it means 'gods'.

Until you acknowledge this, there is no point in you posting, because all you are doing is incurring chagrin everytime you deny this, making yourself look silly.

For the umpteenth time, you are assuming that the Bible is inconsistent, and so far all I have seen you do is give your opinion on the topic. You have assumed that there are many gods, so you read that into the text, and then you have given your interpretation based upon that premise. That is circular reasoning. We need to look at what scripture says and then build the argument. Remember, just because there are things that you find hard to reconcile does not mean that there are inconsistent if there is a way in which all that it says can be simultaneous true. And you start off rejecting that option.

The bible is inconsistent because the text makes it so. The text reads 'gods'. Plain and simple. That is not up for debate. I have read nothing into it. It's simple Hebrew grammar, thus there is no circular argument.

Your inability to address that grammar only shows your tenuous position.

I have validated each one of my points and am still waiting for your response on a few. Now, unless you are prepared for a serious discussion, we are not likely to move forward.

Yes, we are not likely to move forward considering you have not addressed the core issues, whilst I have touched on every single one of your points. The record speaks for itself.

There is a great difference. In English we have one word for all of those, and that is not true in Hebrew. Echad does not mean the same as Yachid, and is God meant a singularity it would have made more sense to use the word that meant a singularity than a word that means unity. Many Hebrew scholars disagree with what you said above, and I have seen a number of Jewish commentaries trying to explain away the use of the word echad in Deut 6:4, knowing that it means "unity".

Ah, so because trinitarians wish to reinterpret the text, the actual Jewish scholars who have known their own language since they first uttered it millenia ago are explaining it away on the basis of your trinitarian reinterpretation. Right. So you favor one over the other because of your theology and the special plea that the bible is inerrant and consistent. Not sound scholarship or exegesis. Again the record speaks for itself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and it exudes from every desperate sentence you type.

I have seen Jewish scholars who have tried to get around the echad problem by altering the word to yachid.

Again, your personal experiences which cannot be verified are irrelevant. Who are these 'scholars'? Do you have counter-evidence to simple Hebrew grammar and language? Do you know any rules of the Hebrew language?

Exactly. Again, the fat lady sings. Your argument is over.

I was not putting it forward as evidence, but showing yet another example of how a Jewish scholar clearly understood the meaning of echad.

Your scholar is unnamed. Your experience is personal, and therefore has no basis in this discussion, as it could very well be a lie. It means nothing. It's as substantial as if I said I met Barney on the moon.

And if is was not adduced as 'evidence', why bring it up? Is it because you have no 'evidence'?

Finally an answer, but not a complete one. You addressed only two persons, who you identify as the author, possibly Isaiah, and the Holy Spirit. So let's look at this in more detail.

:o

I said Isaiah and the Spirit were sent. Obviously I assume God sent them, thus all three, though the Spirit is viewed as impersonal throughout the Tanach, and thus not a 'person'. Where the author speaks in the first person again (ch.61) he directly says the 'Spirit of the Lord is upon me'. That is all your 'prooftext' means. You are reinterpreting it in light of your trinitarian convictions, and that is not sound exegesis.

You have yet to prove anything, much less debunk anything I have said.

Note that it is a third person who is speaking,

Trinitarian assumptions. The text does not definitively say one way or the other. Your assumption remains unproven. It's how you punctuate the sentence and whether or not you want this 'third person' to speak.

It would bring more credit to your argument if you spent more time on validating what you say than on attempts at put downs and "political" responses. If you are trying to appear scholarly, this approach definitely undermines that effort.

Lol, okay. It would make your argument an actual argument if you presented any contrary literary evidence for your claims instead of 'hey, my friend told me about this one scholar'...

Anyway, next. Anybody else want to tackle it?

 

[wavy]

Angels are less refered to as elohim (I'd actually be curious to see references inthe Bible that call them straight-up "elohim") than bene elohim.

See preceding post. And the fact that 'angels of the Lord' appeared who were identified as 'god' disprove your claim.

And infact "God" is a quite inacurate translation of "elohim" though of course when applied to God it sums up the idea.

Not necessarily. What it literally means and what it connotes are different things. Just like the word 'canon' when applied to the 'canon' of the bible. It means 'reed', but connotes the complete scriptures.

El literally means "Power", and Eloah (the singular of Elohim) though the etymology is uncertain either is a variation of El and carries on the idea of power (though no doubt El is the root of Eloah) or a more interesting theory that the verb form of Eloah (alah - to swear an oath) denoted the covenant nature of the Elohim, as one who makes oaths and covenants (a ruler, who has power). And certainly the context of Elohim in the OT as it applies to God consistantly is used in covenant contexts, especially in Genesis. The ideas are unified linguistically though because it is always the stronger (more powerful - El) that makes the covenant (as Hebrews tells us: that the lesser swears by the greater).

That's nice and all, but the fact is that elohim just connotes our English equivalent, 'god'.

So when Yahweh said "You shall have no other elohim before me" it refers equally to Pharaoh as to false gods/idols, thus why God wanted them to go into the wilderness to worship - to get away from Pharaoh's influence & captivity over them which led them to idolatry.

It is true that the Pharaohs were viewed as the sons of the gods, the images of the gods, and thus were gods. But that does not in any way mean the bible does not assume the 'gods' (plural) did not exist. The Pharaoh was a manifestation of the supreme deity, while there were many gods of Egypt.

However elohim is not a proper name. As applies to Yahweh, elohim is a title of a covenant God, an the -im plural is largely qualitative since it is accompanied by singular verbs, the great God.

Elohim is a proper name in certain contexts. It is a descriptive noun in portions of Israelite literature, but is applied as God's name in the E and P sources of the Pentateuch. And it has little to do with covenants specifically.

We cannot claim that any evolution in Israelite theology occured because of the different applications of "elohim", you must rather understand how it was used and what it literally means. Yahweh is God's true name.

Sadly, there is overwhelming evidence against your view, and absolutely nothing you have stated here shows that Israelite religion did not evolve from polytheism/henotheism into polytheism. The textual evidence displays otherwise.

 

[Free]

Ah, so because trinitarians wish to reinterpret the text, the actual Jewish scholars who have known their own language since they first uttered it millenia ago are explaining it away on the basis of your trinitarian reinterpretation. Right. So you favor one over the other because of your theology and the special plea that the bible is inerrant and consistent. Not sound scholarship or exegesis. Again the record speaks for itself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and it exudes from every desperate sentence you type.

Please quit with the ad hominems and address the arguments in a mature manner. Not only is this against the TOS, it makes you look bad because you are more ignorant than you think.

Unless you are a Hebrew scholar yourself, your above "rebuttal" is meaningless. Especially since there are scholars like Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish Christian who has his Ph.D. in Semitic languages. His 4 volume series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus demolishes most of the arguments you have used so far, including the supposed polytheism shown in Scripture's use of "gods".

To address the above argument about the uses of yachid and 'echad, Dr. Brown is in complete agreement with Toms777 as seen in vol. 2, pgs 4-7 -- "'echad simply means "one"....While it can refer to compound unity...it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand, 'echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity". (p 4)

Again, your personal experiences which cannot be verified are irrelevant. Who are these 'scholars'? Do you have counter-evidence to simple Hebrew grammar and language? Do you know any rules of the Hebrew language?

Exactly. Again, the fat lady sings. Your argument is over.

Ignorance once again rears it's ugly head. Moses Maimonides was one of the most influential Jewish thinkers in history and he used verses in Scripture which use 'echad and stated that in those instances it was equivalent to yachid. So, yes, Toms777's argument is perfectly right and can be verified.

When all is said and done, theologically and philosophically the doctrine of the Trinity is the most rational position regarding the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.

http://mosesmaimonides.com/
http://www.icnministries.org/about/about.htm

 

[cyberjosh]

Wavy,

This may be long, but so were your posts. I noticed you said (snidely?) to Toms777 that he probably didn't know anything about source criticism. Well I do. If you are looking for someone to intellectually and scholastically spar with, I'm your person. Not to say we'll necessarily get anywhere after it's all said and done, because I've done this time and again over the years and it always seems to end in a stalemate, a major fallout, or an odd respect between opposites though we strongly disagree. I have (luckily) mostly found my previous arguements fallen in the latter category and now I have a interesting friendship (over the internet - however friendly you can be ;) ) with a staunch atheist who is impassively as hard as rock, yet sharp as a tack. It's sad yet amusing, and I also have her ear now when I speak. I can only hope for such a 'good' outcome here.

Now,

See preceding post. And the fact that 'angels of the Lord' appeared who were identified as 'god' disprove your claim.

Disprove what claim? I merely said that angels are more often refered to as bene elohim than elohim. I never left out the possibility of them being elohim. If Moses can be elohim and the Psalms say to men, "Are ye not elohim?" then certainly it can apply to Angels as well. However we shall discuss elohim and its usage further here.

Not necessarily. What it literally means and what it connotes are different things. Just like the word 'canon' when applied to the 'canon' of the bible. It means 'reed', but connotes the complete scriptures.

That's nice and all, but the fact is that elohim just connotes our English equivalent, 'god'.

I'm sorry but if you insist on paying attention to the Hebrew (which you most adamantly and apparently do) you must think within the context of Hebrew culture and language. The Hebrew people and infact almost all early Semitic peoples used very practical political and economical terms, often intermixing. Thus why a ruler or king can also be called a "Shepherd" of a people, the Creator as a potmaker (a common profession), and also a superior/leader (not necessarily related) called a "father" and an apprentice or follower a "son". Hebrew is a concrete language and has no abstract words to speak of (Greek introduced abstract words mostly). "Love" in Hebrew is almost always some variation of the Hebrew words for heart, kidneys, bowels, intestines, etc. and even Paul keeps with the literal idiom up to his own day ("For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ" - refering to the love of Christ - Phillipians 1:8), and anger (an abstract idea) is literally nose, 'aph, because the nostrils flare and the nose turns red when one is angry.

In the same line of concrete thought the Hebrews did not think of "God" as the Greek idea theos (as used mostly in the NT) in the same terms. The primary function of an el/eloah/elohim was a powerful law-giver, and it was the rulers and law givers back then that made covenants. We have hundreds of Semitic tablets which verify the importance of covenants in everyday life back then. Covenants were a way of life, and a way of thinking. Marriage was covenant, borrowing and lending was a covenant, your word was your bond and not keeping it was purgury. Now as El or Eloah (plural elohim) one is a power that is to be reckoned with for something. Thus why when Moses was negotiating with Pharaoh, Yahweh said to him that Aaron would be the mediator between Moses and Pharoah (as Moses' mouth piece) and Moses would be mediator between Aaron and Yahweh. "Moreover, he [Aaron] shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God (elohim) to him" (Exodus 4:16). Even the plural is used here but singular in meaning. It is a proven fact that Hebrew plural endings can refer to qualitative as well as quantitative meanings.

But elohim is used in the sense of a powerful person to be reckoned with for an agreement of some sort or to be obeyed/revered. That is the historical and literal sense of the word. And even though the LXX or Septuagint bridged a gap between words, the translation is always to be looked at in light of its source. Otherwise many things in the Septuagint don't make sense. So just because the LXX translates elohim as theos/theon it does by no means then take on an all Greek abstract connotations. And as I have already showed with Paul, Hebrew terminology and idioms are littered all throughout the NT, which would not make sense in the Greek world of themselves - that is because they are rooted in their source Semitic culture - from the Hebrews - and the distintions of their language and speech.

Also we are almost absolutely certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that his words were copied or translated into Greek. We have an early testimony from a Church Father that says this is the case with Matthew (which he says was originally penned in the Hebrew tongue). Not to mention all through out Mark and even John we see untranslated Aramaic transliterations of phrases like talitha cumi, ephatha, cephas, and "eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani". So in light of the Hebrew meaning of elohim and its usage in Psalm 82, Jesus would have repeated the same word Elohim (Aramaic is not all that different -and is functionally equivalent nonetheless as a Semitic/concrete language and is witnessed in Daniel and Ezra). So it makes sense that when Jesus asked:

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)

that he could rightfully make a play on words and not be blasphemous. Jesus plays on elohim as plural (refering to the people) and then elohim as singular (refering to God Almighty, Yahweh, "the word of God [elohim]") and put them side by side to show them that they shouldn't flip out that a 'man' should be called elohim if the rulers in Psalm 82 were called elohim. But in all these cases this does not refer to an abstract spiritual diety nor connote such a definition intrinsically (though obviously it can be and is applied also to spiritual entities), but fundamentally a definition rather of a power holder, and law-giver as a covenant keeper/enforcer.

This is what elohim means in the Hebrew Semitic culture, and how it is used in the OT.

It is true that the Pharaohs were viewed as the sons of the gods, the images of the gods, and thus were gods. But that does not in any way mean the bible does not assume the 'gods' (plural) did not exist. The Pharaoh was a manifestation of the supreme deity, while there were many gods of Egypt.

I've already showed the human side of "elohim", and you make no point really that Egypt had many gods. Egypt was indeed polytheistic, and Yahweh sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt for the explicit purpose of going into the desert to worship Him only and to take them away from such polytheistic idolatry (and that idolatry which Yahweh rebukes through his prophets is a major theme in the OT).

Elohim is a proper name in certain contexts. It is a descriptive noun in portions of Israelite literature, but is applied as God's name in the E and P sources of the Pentateuch. And it has little to do with covenants specifically.

Perhaps if we get time we can discuss the pit-falls of the JEDP theory, the Documentary Hypothesis. It is largely based on a misunderstanding that began over 100 years ago before "scholars" had good source material and archeaological finds that have been made in the last 75-50 years. The Amarna Letters, the Hittite tablets found in Bogazkoy, Turkey (ancient Hattusus - and secular scholars didn't even think the Hittites existed - ha!), the Ugaritic tablets, the Mari tablets, Lachish (one of Israel's own cities) letters, the Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele), Sennacherib's Hexagonal Prism (the Taylor Prism), etc. etc. etc. and much more have now been unearthed, yeilding massive amounts of information about Semitic writing style, idioms, lexography, culture, and much more. The redundancy found in Hebrew text and especially parallelism was an ancient literary technique used for emphasis, not an 'oversight' which the western mind can rightfully claim proves multiple authorship. A faulty understanding of Hebrew and Semitic prose in general gave rise to the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis.

I have a great and very pretty bible called the Archaeological Bible (NIV) and I highly suggest you buy it. It is the most detailed and ornate Bible you will ever see in relation to historical and archaeological data as it applies to the Bible and its times. It is not shy to compare mythology and pagan texts (which it often quotes in boxes off to the side) and has hundreds of articles that compare and contrast and show how the Bible's integrity comes out on top in light of, not in spite of, all the recently turned up evidence. When I bought it it was $40 dollars (at Books-a-Million) but now it is much cheaper (and often on sale because of its popularity). Later I can partially quote an article to you it has on JEDP.

Sadly, there is overwhelming evidence against your view, and absolutely nothing you have stated here shows that Israelite religion did not evolve from polytheism/henotheism into polytheism. The textual evidence displays otherwise.

We'll see about that. I'm well acquainted with all such post-exilic, and "Josiah's reform additions" type theories, but I have yet to see a convincing systematic support for such theories. It appears to make sense on the surface but it does not stand up under close scrutiny. We may discuss this also if you like.

Until later,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Please quit with the ad hominems and address the arguments in a mature manner. Not only is this against the TOS, it makes you look bad because you are more ignorant than you think.

Well, I can calm down. It's not personal, but I think I hit a nerve here. Obviously you have something to offer...

Unless you are a Hebrew scholar yourself, your above "rebuttal" is meaningless.

Not true. I have many books and many resources. I do not have to graduate from a seminary with a degree in theology to make points. Neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

Especially since there are scholars like Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish Christian who has his Ph.D. in Semitic languages. His 4 volume series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus demolishes most of the arguments you have used so far, including the supposed polytheism shown in Scripture's use of "gods".

I would love to see that argument. And it's nice to see you picked a biased scholar (trinitarian) to support your view. That's fine. Let's see his evidence.

To address the above argument about the uses of yachid and 'echad, Dr. Brown is in complete agreement with Toms777 as seen in vol. 2, pgs 4-7 -- "'echad simply means "one"....While it can refer to compound unity...it does not specifically refer to compound unity.

Uh, this agrees perfectly with what I said, not Toms777. I am the one who stated echad simple means 'one'.

On the other hand, 'echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity". (p 4)

True. However, it in now way implies 'plurality'. For instance, in Gen.10.25, Peleg is called 'one [son]'. In the very next chapter, for another example off the top of my head, it says the earth was of 'one [echad] speech'.

Ignorance once again rears it's ugly head. Moses Maimonides was one of the most influential Jewish thinkers in history and he used verses in Scripture which use 'echad and stated that in those instances it was equivalent to yachid. So, yes, Toms777's argument is perfectly right and can be verified.

I think you have myself and Toms777 confused. In such a case, I think I've been wrongly incriminated here for 'ignorance', especially when no one has addressed my arguments.

Toms777 is the one who is making the dichotomy between echad and yachid.

When all is said and done, theologically and philosophically the doctrine of the Trinity is the most rational position regarding the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.

When all is said and done, you will find that most critical (including many Christian) scholars disagree and and that you have in fact, rebutted only Toms777's arguments, not mine.

8-)

P.S., one of your links denies the trinity and states God is not a multiplicity (i.e. as in trinitarianism)

 

[wavy]

If you are looking for someone to intellectually and scholastically spar with, I'm your person.

Great, where shall we start? The Pentateuch and its authorship?

Disprove what claim? I merely said that angels are more often refered to as bene elohim than elohim. I never left out the possibility of them being elohim. If Moses can be elohim and the Psalms say to men, "Are ye not elohim?" then certainly it can apply to Angels as well. However we shall discuss elohim and its usage further here.

Well, my apologies. I was just fired up! You know how it gets.

I'm sorry but if you insist on paying attention to the Hebrew (which you most adamantly and apparently do) you must think within the context of Hebrew culture and language.

Yes, but any super-cultural meaning is not applied to the text. While the word elohim has roots (as do all words) in the Hebrew bible what it connotes in its literal context is important. You're trying to appeal to it's 'human side' to lessen the meaning when plural elohim are in view. I guess because you are afraid of the implications.

But it's solecism. Despite its etymology, it has definite connotations, and in the ancient world those mystical beings who presided over nations and were the patron protectors of tribes etc, were, for all intents and purposes, 'gods'.

It's like trying to take the Greek word 'canon' back to the word 'reed' when it has come to connote the complete scriptures. It just doesn't make sense.

In the same line of concrete thought the Hebrews did not think of "God" as the Greek idea theos (as used mostly in the NT) in the same terms. The primary function of an el/eloah/elohim was a powerful law-giver, and it was the rulers and law givers back then that made covenants.

Yes, law-givers, sovereigns, kings, masters of nature, all of that. But they are higher beings of a different nature and these higher beings of a different nature are called elohim and for all intents and purposes the meaning connoted is 'god/s'.

Even the plural is used here but singular in meaning.

At least some one understands.

It is a proven fact that Hebrew plural endings can refer to qualitative as well as quantitative meanings.

And that is true. I don't see how any of this denies anything I have said. It is a standard rule of Hebrew grammar that plural verbs modify singular nouns to make them, most naturally, plural.

But elohim is used in the sense of a powerful person to be reckoned with for an agreement of some sort or to be obeyed/revered. That is the historical and literal sense of the word.

Yes, indeed, a 'god'.

We have an early testimony from a Church Father that says this is the case with Matthew (which he says was originally penned in the Hebrew tongue).

Quite right, but it was more than one father. Papias, Irenaeus, Origen and Eusebius testify to an Aramaic primary for the gospel of Matthew.

But in all these cases this does not refer to an abstract spiritual diety nor connote such a definition intrinsically (though obviously it can be and is applied also to spiritual entities), but fundamentally a definition rather of a power holder, and law-giver as a covenant keeper/enforcer.

This is true, however it is rare, and elohim usually never refers to humans. In ancient culture humans can represent them, and even be called elohim, but the underlying meaning, if we can transmit the concept over into english, is 'god'. Otherworldy beings who resided on mountains in the heavens or just in the heavens. They were not of human origin generally.

And none of this addresses anything I have said.

I've already showed the human side of "elohim", and you make no point really that Egypt had many gods. Egypt was indeed polytheistic, and Yahweh sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt for the explicit purpose of going into the desert to worship Him only and to take them away from such polytheistic idolatry (and that idolatry which Yahweh rebukes through his prophets is a major theme in the OT).

None of this rebuts anything I said. It only further proves my claim that the Israelites were henotheistic. YHWH was their national God. That does not deny that they believed other beings (of other-wordly origin) called elohim existed. They treated one as supreme.

The 'gods of Egypt' for example, were not human. Whatever you're trying to do is futile.

Perhaps if we get time we can discuss the pit-falls of the JEDP theory, the Documentary Hypothesis. It is largely based on a misunderstanding that began over 100 years ago before "scholars" had good source material and archeaological finds that have been made in the last 75-50 years.

Lol, and that is why virtually all scholars, with the exception of inerrantists/fundamentalists accept it as the foundation for studying the Pentateuch.

The Amarna Letters, the Hittite tablets found in Bogazkoy, Turkey (ancient Hattusus - and secular scholars didn't even think the Hittites existed - ha!), the Ugaritic tablets, the Mari tablets, Lachish (one of Israel's own cities) letters, the Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele), Sennacherib's Hexagonal Prism (the Taylor Prism), etc. etc. etc. and much more have now been unearthed, yeilding massive amounts of information about Semitic writing style, idioms, lexography, culture, and much more. The redundancy found in Hebrew text and especially parallelism was an ancient literary technique used for emphasis, not an 'oversight' which the western mind can rightfully claim proves multiple authorship. A faulty understanding of Hebrew and Semitic prose in general gave rise to the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis.

These archaeological finds shed light, but they in no way discredit the DH. And there is massive irrefutable literary evidence in support of it. For example the Nuzi Tablets are misapplied to find some direct correlation between its contents and the [supposed] patriarchal period (Labans idols, Abraham's heir, etc.) But these must be forced upon the biblical text, and most scholars realize this. The Nuzi tablets reflect conditions down to the Iron Age, and cannot be used to 'prove' a 2nd millenium viewpoint of the patriarchal narratives. The major ancient customs of the ancient Semitics hardly changed through the centuries. For example the Code of Hammurabi stele (18th century) sheds light on the common origin of many of the laws found in the Pentateuch (hardly divine, and hardly from God, filled with contradictions and confused traditions).

I have a great and very pretty bible called the Archaeological Bible (NIV) and I highly suggest you buy it. It is the most detailed and ornate Bible you will ever see in relation to historical and archaeological data as it applies to the Bible and its times. It is not shy to compare mythology and pagan texts (which it often quotes in boxes off to the side) and has hundreds of articles that compare and contrast and show how the Bible's integrity comes out on top in light of, not in spite of, all the recently turned up evidence. When I bought it it was $40 dollars (at Books-a-Million) but now it is much cheaper (and often on sale because of its popularity). Later I can partially quote an article to you it has on JEDP.

No thanks. If you want to discuss the DH, let us discuss it. We'll start with authorship. We can privately debate it or I can make a thread here. Do you want to discuss the terms?

 

[cyberjosh]

Great, where shall we start? The Pentateuch and its authorship?
....
No thanks. If you want to discuss the DH, let us discuss it. We'll start with authorship. We can privately debate it or I can make a thread here. Do you want to discuss the terms?

Well first I want to know exactly what your target is. I refuse to just jump into a Documentary Hypothesis discussion with no aim for practical application. I've told other people this before, and I'll say it again: let's not be naive and think we could win or solve an arguement that has been debated for decades if not centuries. Infact scholars may always perpetually disagree on Biblical Criticism in general.

To keep an eye on where this sprung from (and I'd like to use this as our focusing lens for now), you said, that elohim was "applied as God's name in the E and P sources of the Pentateuch". Now you'll have to justify to me why you think Yahweh and Elohim could not possibly have been simultaneously held titles for the Hebrew's God, and thus why one must hypothesize two distinct sources. And you will also have to justify your proposed date for the antiquity of the Elohist (but I know P is said to be the Priestly post-exilic view). So let's deal with what we can of that here and if it gets too broad then perhaps we can start another thread.

Yes, but any super-cultural meaning is not applied to the text. While the word elohim has roots (as do all words) in the Hebrew bible what it connotes in its literal context is important. You're trying to appeal to it's 'human side' to lessen the meaning when plural elohim are in view.

No I'm not. Please don't make presumptions on my intentions. I was laying the ground-work for a further discussion of elohim. The post was getting long as it was and I couldn't speculate on any other points you might try to make of it, so as to preempt them, so I left off where I did until you could reply - which you have now. So please, now that we are to this point, give me several Scriptures (verses) and show me how in context they of necessity refer to other gods that existed, and perhaps how angels fit in, and take into view the context and even theological arguement being made in the text (if you need to dicern the intention of your J E D or P).

Despite its etymology, it has definite connotations, and in the ancient world those mystical beings who presided over nations and were the patron protectors of tribes etc, were, for all intents and purposes, 'gods'.

Looking back on your posts to understand the thrust of your "connotations" argument, I think I finally understand where you are coming from. You seem to draw your definition of such connotations from other cultures which were around Israel at various times, but I would argue that Israel's beliefs need first to be looked at in context of themselves, as shown in the OT. We have thus far been fairly general and vague in our definition of God (though I tried to broach that a bit by emphasizing the power, ruler, and covenant connotations of the word itself - from its etymology). But since you want to look at cultural definitions, I must first ask you for justifiable grounds in which to look outside of the Bible for the connotation rather than in the Bible's own pages first.

Hebrew parallelism is very valuable. For example one verse might say (and I'm making this up, but not with out precedent): "Strong is Jehovah, and mighty is the righteous one." Thus strong an mighty are paralleled, and obviously similar in meaning apart from one another, however a less discernable connection, less obvious connotation untill paralleled is "Jehovah" with "righteous". And infact Jehovah is paralleled with righteous many times in the OT. So I say you need to look at the OT's own theology and parallelism first before you presumptously just pull a definition from another culture, no matter how similar.

It's like trying to take the Greek word 'canon' back to the word 'reed' when it has come to connote the complete scriptures. It just doesn't make sense.

I get your point, but that's not at all what I'm trying to do. I hope I explained myself a little better above about how to look at connotations in the Scriptures themselves.

Yes, law-givers, sovereigns, kings, masters of nature, all of that. But they are higher beings of a different nature and these higher beings of a different nature are called elohim and for all intents and purposes the meaning connoted is 'god/s'.
.....
This is true, however it is rare, and elohim usually never refers to humans. In ancient culture humans can represent them, and even be called elohim, but the underlying meaning, if we can transmit the concept over into english, is 'god'. Otherworldy beings who resided on mountains in the heavens or just in the heavens. They were not of human origin generally.

I do not want to spend too much time any longer on the human aspect of this (though I want it to be acknowledged for cultural purposes) since it was only a stepping stone for us to advance the discussion, but I must once again caution you to drawing connotations from other sources, such as your "mountain gods" reference. Yes I do acknowledge that other nations believed in a pantheon of gods that sat upon the mountains in a divine council (sort of like Olympus) but you should not automatically import such an idea to Israel's God and assume that he evolved from that.

None of this rebuts anything I said. It only further proves my claim that the Israelites were henotheistic. YHWH was their national God. That does not deny that they believed other beings (of other-wordly origin) called elohim existed. They treated one as supreme.

Show me where under YHWH's law or rule that other gods could be served (that it was a allowed or even suggested), even if secondary, tirtiary, etc. etc. to Him at all. Even secular textual critics of the Bible acknowledge the Bible in and of itself is strictly monotheistic. Only cultural interpolations or juxtapositions from other cultures to be imposed on the Bible's text could show a henotheistic view. Thus why I challenge the necessity of such external appeals intrinsically.


~Josh

 

[Free]

Unless you are a Hebrew scholar yourself, your above "rebuttal" is meaningless.

Not true. I have many books and many resources. I do not have to graduate from a seminary with a degree in theology to make points. Neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

My point was more specifically to your comment: "You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about". You have not exhaustively researched the subject matter nor written any scholarly material on it so to think that you have more of an idea of what is being said than anyone else who can read books is meaningless.

Especially since there are scholars like Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish Christian who has his Ph.D. in Semitic languages. His 4 volume series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus demolishes most of the arguments you have used so far, including the supposed polytheism shown in Scripture's use of "gods".

I would love to see that argument. And it's nice to see you picked a biased scholar (trinitarian) to support your view. That's fine. Let's see his evidence.

And the scholars you read are all unbiased I suppose. Everyone is biased in theology, everyone.

To address the above argument about the uses of yachid and 'echad, Dr. Brown is in complete agreement with Toms777 as seen in vol. 2, pgs 4-7 -- "'echad simply means "one"....While it can refer to compound unity...it does not specifically refer to compound unity.

Uh, this agrees perfectly with what I said, not Toms777. I am the one who stated echad simple means 'one'.

Toms stated: "Echad does not mean the same as Yachid, and is God meant a singularity it would have made more sense to use the word that meant a singularity than a word that means unity." In response you stated: "Ah, so because trinitarians wish to reinterpret the text, the actual Jewish scholars who have known their own language since they first uttered it millenia ago are explaining it away on the basis of your trinitarian reinterpretation. Right. So you favor one over the other because of your theology and the special plea that the bible is inerrant and consistent. Not sound scholarship or exegesis."

The two words have different meanings and it makes a big difference which one is used. So, yes, it agrees with Toms777.

On the other hand, 'echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity". (p 4)

True. However, it in now way implies 'plurality'. For instance, in Gen.10.25, Peleg is called 'one [son]'. In the very next chapter, for another example off the top of my head, it says the earth was of 'one [echad] speech'.

I agree. It is simply "one", the same as the English "one".

Ignorance once again rears it's ugly head. Moses Maimonides was one of the most influential Jewish thinkers in history and he used verses in Scripture which use 'echad and stated that in those instances it was equivalent to yachid. So, yes, Toms777's argument is perfectly right and can be verified.

I think you have myself and Toms777 confused. In such a case, I think I've been wrongly incriminated here for 'ignorance', especially when no one has addressed my arguments.

Toms777 is the one who is making the dichotomy between echad and yachid.

I am quite sure I don't have your arguments confused but that is a possibility. You made this comment: "Again, your personal experiences which cannot be verified are irrelevant. Who are these 'scholars'?" in response to Toms argument: "I have seen Jewish scholars who have tried to get around the echad problem by altering the word to yachid".

'Echad and yachid are two different words, obviously, the latter meaning "only one"; that is, an absolute unity or at least the next closest thing.

I simply gave one Jewish scholar who proves your rebuttal wrong. That is all I set out to do and that is what I did. That is what I meant by ignorance -- if someone as unlearned as myself can come up with one scholar to prove you wrong, then you don't know as much as you think.

When all is said and done, theologically and philosophically the doctrine of the Trinity is the most rational position regarding the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.

When all is said and done, you will find that most critical (including many Christian) scholars disagree and and that you have in fact, rebutted only Toms777's arguments, not mine.

No, no I rebutted yours. Is that how you deal with scholars you disagree with -- relegate them to the realm of the uncritical? At least, that is what your statement implies.

P.S., one of your links denies the trinity and states God is not a multiplicity (i.e. as in trinitarianism)

I didn't give either link to prove or disprove the Trinity. I gave them just for references to back up what I was saying.

 

[Toms777]

I keep asking you where in the Bible angels are identified as gods. Please give a specific reference.

We're not lying now are we? You never asked me this.

Actually, I asked you to validate your claims about angels in a variety of ways. I figured that you were likely thinking of elohim, but I wanted to draw out why you were assuming that it solely meant "gods". However, it appears that others are dealing with you on this question now and have helped to refute your mis-understandings regarding this portion of the discussion.

Ah, so because trinitarians wish to reinterpret the text, the actual Jewish scholars who have known their own language since they first uttered it millenia ago are explaining it away on the basis of your trinitarian reinterpretation. Right. So you favor one over the other because of your theology and the special plea that the bible is inerrant and consistent. Not sound scholarship or exegesis. Again the record speaks for itself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and it exudes from every desperate sentence you type.

Let's have a look at some of the evidence. BTW, I noted elsehwere that you took it upon yourself to speak for me. please don't do that. Before we go on, here is my position on the words Echad and Yachid:

Echad means two things, ordinal "one" and a compound "one" or a unity. To determine which it is, one need to look at the context. It does not mean a plurality, i.e. more than as in multiple gods.

Yachid means a cardinal "one" or a singularity.

Let's look at what other sources have said about this:

“I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is a Unity, and there is no Unity in any manner like unto His, and that He alone is our God, who was, is and is to come.†Daily Prayer Book, Dr. A. Th. Philips, Hebrew Publishing Company. 77-79 Delancey Street New York, (no date of Publication given) Page 165.

“He is one, and there is no Unity like unto His Unity; Inconceivable is He, and unending in His Unity. “ Ibid. page 17.

Now, though I hestitate to post this, here is a site which appears to promote Jewish Kabbalah, and tries to explain the usage of the word echad (unity):

http://www.kolel.org/zohar/mod5.1.html

Kaballah has some strange beliefs and rather than accepting that God is a trinity, they try to say that God is a unity with the community of Israel. The only reason that I post this is to show how some Jewish sources knowledgeable with Hebrew try to address the fact that echad means "unity".

Here is another Jewish site which explains echad:

http://www.shemayisrael.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1100

This is an excerpt:

Congregation Shema Yisrael

echad (united one)

Multiple Hebrew words can be translated "one". If the emphasis is on a "one" that is a composite of parts, echad is used. Some commonly known verses using echad to refer to a "one" that is made of composite parts are:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were one day. (Genesis 1:5)

The day has two parts, Day and Night

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

The flesh has two parts, the man and the woman
And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. (Genesis 27:38)

Isaac's blessings each had multiple parts The word echad also can refer to people. Scripturally, how are people made up of parts? They have soul, body, and spirit.

You can argue your opinion as you wish, but let's get past this business about echad. the meaning is quite clear.

Now as for Isaiah 48:16-17

I said Isaiah and the Spirit were sent. Obviously I assume God sent them, thus all three, though the Spirit is viewed as impersonal throughout the Tanach, and thus not a 'person'. Where the author speaks in the first person again (ch.61) he directly says the 'Spirit of the Lord is upon me'. That is all your 'prooftext' means. You are reinterpreting it in light of your trinitarian convictions, and that is not sound exegesis.

Your claim that Isaiah and the Spirit were sent. But that is not what Is 48 says. Let's read:

Isa 48:16
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."
NKJV

So first God (YHWH) and His Spirit were the senders. The Holy Spirit was not sent. The person sent identifies Himself:

Isa 48:17
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
"I am the LORD your God,
NKJV

I pointed this out to you begfore. It would have been blasphemy for Isaiah to claim to be God. You did not deal with this point.Going forward to chapter 61 (13 chapters away), and taking a verse entirely out of context does not address the context of chapter 48. If you want to look at the wider context as to who is speaking, look just prior to this passage:

Isa 48:12
12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:
I am He, I am the First,
I am also the Last.
NKJV

Who is the first and the last? Look throughout scripture, and you will find that it is God. For example:

Isa 41:4
4 Who has performed and done it,
Calling the generations from the beginning?
'I, the LORD, am the first;
And with the last I am He.'"
NKJV

Isa 44:6
6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
NKJV

I look forward to your respectful response.

 

[wavy]

Toms stated: "Echad does not mean the same as Yachid, and is God meant a singularity it would have made more sense to use the word that meant a singularity than a word that means unity." In response you stated: "Ah, so because trinitarians wish to reinterpret the text, the actual Jewish scholars who have known their own language since they first uttered it millenia ago are explaining it away on the basis of your trinitarian reinterpretation. Right. So you favor one over the other because of your theology and the special plea that the bible is inerrant and consistent. Not sound scholarship or exegesis."

The two words have different meanings and it makes a big difference which one is used. So, yes, it agrees with Toms777.

Uh, but one of your quotes states echad means simply 'one', which is what I have been saying all along, thus agreeing with me. :-?

Your other quote demonstrates how echad and yachid mean the same thing in certain instances, thus even further nullifying Toms777's argument, who is trying to make some huge distinction as to discount that Deut.6.4 is saying God is one (1).

I agree. It is simply "one", the same as the English "one".

Great. Please tell this to Toms777.

I am quite sure I don't have your arguments confused but that is a possibility.

It is a demonstrable fact, as seen above, lol.

'Echad and yachid are two different words, obviously, the latter meaning "only one"; that is, an absolute unity or at least the next closest thing.

The distinction is irrelevant to Deut.6.4. It is only relevant if echad meant 'compound unity', which it doesn't.

I simply gave one Jewish scholar who proves your rebuttal wrong. That is all I set out to do and that is what I did. That is what I meant by ignorance -- if someone as unlearned as myself can come up with one scholar to prove you wrong, then you don't know as much as you think.

Lol, but you haven't proved anything I have said wrong. In fact you have further supported my view. The scholar you quoted supported my view.

Now, you may be saying that a trinitarian scholar agrees with me in rebuttal to my statement that trinitarian scholars are disposed to define echad as some time of composite. But I did not say all trinitarian scholars. It's a simple commutation of conditionals.

I didn't give either link to prove or disprove the Trinity. I gave them just for references to back up what I was saying.

My point was that Toms777 is trying to make echad into 'compound unity' and is using an argument from silence (that Deut.6.4 does not say yachid) to boost his claim that YHWH is a plurality. But your link states directly that God is not a multiplicity/compound unity.

 

[wavy]

Well first I want to know exactly what your target is. I refuse to just jump into a Documentary Hypothesis discussion with no aim for practical application.

You denied an evolutionary model of Israelite religion as the Pentateuch (and the rest of the Hebrew scriptures) reveals. Obviously this is based off an assumption that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as a unit, and therefore allows for no such evolution.

But if the Pentateuch is shown to have been written at different periods, in agreement with my statement that pre-exilic/post-exilic literature was henotheistic/monotheistic, then it lends me credence.

Now you'll have to justify to me why you think Yahweh and Elohim could not possibly have been simultaneously held titles for the Hebrew's God, and thus why one must hypothesize two distinct sources. And you will also have to justify your proposed date for the antiquity of the Elohist (but I know P is said to be the Priestly post-exilic view).

Ah, I see what you're saying. However, the distinction of the sources is based off of more evidence than the nominal differences. The fact that these distinct sources consistently employ the same literary style (J always writes like J, P always writes like P, etc...) in whole sections is evidence of multiple authorship. Then there are doublets, then there are the many anachronisms, then there are the ciphers, the many contradictions and the confused traditions, etc, etc.

But for the record all the Priestly material was not written during the same period (not all of it is post-exilic). And did I propose an early date for the E source?

So please, now that we are to this point, give me several Scriptures (verses) and show me how in context they of necessity refer to other gods that existed, and perhaps how angels fit in, and take into view the context and even theological arguement being made in the text (if you need to dicern the intention of your J E D or P).

Just off the top of my head:

Henotheistic scriptures: Gen.1.26 (P), Ex.12.12.;15.11; 18.11 (J).

Monotheistic ones: Those in the latter half of Isaiah, since they've been mentioned here by Toms777 (belonging to Isaiah #2), and interpolations in the D source that reduce the gods to non-entities (eg. Deut.4.28).

Angels are viewed throughout pre-exilic literature as 'gods' (or separate manifestations of YHWH) due to the various appearances of angels, identified as 'YHWH' or 'God', until, I believe, the time of Josiah (when the D source was written), and Deut.6.4 is a polemic against angelic manifestations being encounters with YHWH. So it reads 'YHWH is one [that is, not many]'.

One may ask how can I say the D source has interpolated monotheistc material (e.g 4.28) while it is pre-exilic and should be henotheistic. Well, one point I'd like to make on that is that the LXX version of Deut.9.26 reads:

And I prayed to God and said: “O YHWH, king of the gods, do not destroy your people or your inheritance that you rescued, that which you brought forth from Egypt with your greatness and your mighty hand.â€Â

Such a henotheistic expression suggests originality, for the Seventy were of course monotheistic, and likely slipped up here. All traces of this were eliminated in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the text of the Masoretes.

So I say you need to look at the OT's own theology and parallelism first before you presumptously just pull a definition from another culture, no matter how similar.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm simply saying that the Hebrew bible generally uses elohim like 'god/s', despite its etymology. And I don't see how parallelisms are in any way relevant.

Show me where under YHWH's law or rule that other gods could be served (that it was a allowed or even suggested), even if secondary, tirtiary, etc. etc. to Him at all. Even secular textual critics of the Bible acknowledge the Bible in and of itself is strictly monotheistic. Only cultural interpolations or juxtapositions from other cultures to be imposed on the Bible's text could show a henotheistic view. Thus why I challenge the necessity of such external appeals intrinsically.

That's the point of the strict henotheism in pre-exilic Israelite literature: YHWH alone was to be worshipped ('no other gods before me'). That does not deny that other gods existed. They were just not the national God of Israel, who was supreme (in the Israelite view).

 

[wavy]

Toms777, I will 'deal' with your post later. Expect a reply.

 

[wavy]

However, it appears that others are dealing with you on this question now and have helped to refute your mis-understandings regarding this portion of the discussion.

Words. Actions. Two very disparate things. 8-)

Echad means two things, ordinal "one" and a compound "one" or a unity.

Echad can subsume the meaning of compound subjects, just like our 'one', but it does not inherently mean 'compound unity'. That is your fundamental mistake. It means 1.

For example, in Gen.2.24, it is not echad that is of composite nature. It is 'flesh' because two 'flesh's' are combined into a single concept of one. Same thing with all other echad prooftexts.

Yachid means a cardinal "one" or a singularity.

And echad can mean the same thing (Job23.13; Ez.7.5, see Gesenius), as one of Free's quotes also proves.

If the emphasis is on a "one" that is a composite of parts, echad is used. Some commonly known verses using echad to refer to a "one" that is made of composite parts are:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were one day. (Genesis 1:5)

The day has two parts, Day and Night

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

The flesh has two parts, the man and the woman

And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. (Genesis 27:38)

Isaac's blessings each had multiple parts The word echad also can refer to people. Scripturally, how are people made up of parts? They have soul, body, and spirit. [/i]

You can argue your opinion as you wish, but let's get past this business about echad. the meaning is quite clear.

Again, this stuff is parroted in circles either 1) ignorant of Hebrew, or 2) wishfully trying to support the trinity in the OT, or 3) both.

Your examples are meaningless, because the composite nature is in whatever the conjoined subjects are, not in the word echad. For example, evening and morning = one day (yom echad). That does not mean the day in view is not a single day.

It's just as silly as arguing that the whole earth had 'one language, one speech' (Gen.11.1) because languages are made up of words, or that one rock refers to some compound unity because it is made up of atoms, lol. In that case, nothing is yachid because everything is made of parts, unless they are subatomic particles, too small to tell whether they are made up of smaller material. The fatal flaw in your position.

And the argument begs the question in Deut.6.4. In order for YHWH to be some type of 'composite', according to your reasoning, you would have to already know YHWH was a composite, which you don't. The text does not say 'YHWH and YHWH and YHWH are echad'. Therefore your argument makes no sense and surely is not the general view of Hebrew scholars -- only those supporting the trinity. Kabbalah is irrelevant and the fringe groups you quote are irrelevant, and then you only assert that they are explaining away the meaning of echad without proof. Your only proof is that you disagree.

Your claim that Isaiah and the Spirit were sent. But that is not what Is 48 says. Let's read:

Isa 48:16
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."

You quoted out of the KJV. The NASB, for example, reads 'has sent me and his Spirit'. Either meaning is viable. The Hebrew, as I said before, allows either rendering.

[quote:2bde7]The person sent identifies Himself:

Isa 48:17
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
"I am the LORD your God,
NKJV

[/quote:2bde7]

You assume the person speaking here is the one who is sent. That remains to be proven. I am of the opinion that the author is quoting God, just as he does some 7755434399739598 times throughout the book, and just as other books, prophetic and non-prophetic alike, do the same thing. There is nothing to suggest that the one being sent is the speaker here calling himself 'God'. Rather consistency requires that the author is just doing what he always does: quoting the Lord. After stating that the Lord has sent him, he merely quotes the Lord. It's common sense.

Anyway, I have no time for these arguments. They carry no weight, and you have scarcely addressed mine.

 

[Toms777]

Echad means two things, ordinal "one" and a compound "one" or a unity.

Echad can subsume the meaning of compound subjects, just like our 'one', but it does not inherently mean 'compound unity'. That is your fundamental mistake. It means 1.

wavy, do you understand the difference between an ordinal and a cardinal 1? Yes, echad means "1", Istated that myself, but unlike English where we have only one word which means "1", in Hebrew there are two words which means "1" and Hebrew (Greek also) are far more precise languages than English. If we want to truly understand what is being said, we need to take into account the precise definition for these words in the original language. That Is why I gave you references which demonstrate what the meanings for echad are, and I gave them to you from the lexicon, from a trinitarian perspective and from a non-trinitarian Jewish perspective - all agree. That leaves you and you provided no third party validation for your definition.

Now let's look at the references that you gave.

For example, in Gen.2.24, it is not echad that is of composite nature. It is 'flesh' because two 'flesh's' are combined into a single concept of one. Same thing with all other echad prooftexts.

Your point? We have in the trinity three persons of the Godhead who are one God.

Yachid means a cardinal "one" or a singularity.

And echad can mean the same thing (Job23.13; Ez.7.5, see Gesenius), as one of Free's quotes also proves.

We could go through many passages and I have in the past in similar discussions on this point, but you are distracting away from Deut 6:4 which is understood by trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike as referring to unity.

Again, this stuff is parroted in circles either 1) ignorant of Hebrew, or 2) wishfully trying to support the trinity in the OT, or 3) both.

Really? So the Hebrew sources that I gave you are ignorant of Hebrew? Upon what basis do you make that claim that they do not know their own language?

Your examples are meaningless, because the composite nature is in whatever the conjoined subjects are, not in the word echad. For example, evening and morning = one day (yom echad). That does not mean the day in view is not a single day.

No one said such a thing. It is indeed a single day - made up of two parts, day and night. That does not mean that it is not single. Just as God, being Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not cease to be a single God.

That is exactly the point.

And the argument begs the question in Deut.6.4. In order for YHWH to be some type of 'composite', according to your reasoning, you would have to already know YHWH was a composite, which you don't.

Well, let's have another look at Deut 6:4.

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
NKJV

Note the first part "Hear O' Israel" - shema Yisrael. The passage is called the shema because of that. But why would God make it such a dramatic statement - "shema Yisrael" - it is something akin to someone coming over the television, breaking into a TV show and saying "We have a Bulletin", or in German "Achtung!". And then if God simply repeats what He always told Israel - "I am one God". Seems strange to draw eveyone's attendtion for a dramatic announcement only to tell them what they understood all along.

But if God was saying, "look everyone, Yesd, I am one God, but I am a unity - hear this O' Israel, your God is a unity".

Now that gives them something to think about. So claiming that it means a non-compound singularity in this context would make no senzse, and even Jewish scholars acknowledge that.

Your claim that Isaiah and the Spirit were sent. But that is not what Is 48 says. Let's read:

Isa 48:16
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."

You quoted out of the KJV. The NASB, for example, reads 'has sent me and his Spirit'. Either meaning is viable. The Hebrew, as I said before, allows either rendering.

Actually, I quoted from the NKJV, not the KJV. As for the NASB, but it is of no consequence with respect to what we are discussing since that still leaves us with three persons, and I do not wish to unecessarily distract you from that point.

The person sent identifies Himself:

Isa 48:17
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
"I am the LORD your God,
NKJV

You assume the person speaking here is the one who is sent. That remains to be proven.

I accept the text for what it says. If you claim that it says something different, then the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

I am of the opinion that the author is quoting God, just as he does some 7755434399739598 times throughout the book, and just as other books, prophetic and non-prophetic alike, do the same thing. There is nothing to suggest that the one being sent is the speaker here calling himself 'God'. Rather consistency requires that the author is just doing what he always does: quoting the Lord. After stating that the Lord has sent him, he merely quotes the Lord. It's common sense.

Your argument has a problem. I agree that Isaiah is relaying God's message, but you try to claim that somehow there is a break point in the speech from vs 12-16 where it becomes Isaiah talking about being sent. Let's look at it again:

Isa 48:16
16 "Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."
NKJV

It is a continguous quote. From who?

Isa 48:17
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
NKJV

Isa 48:17
"I am the LORD your God,
Who teaches you to profit,
NKJV

Indeed, if you claim that the first half is a different speaker, then we should look at it in context with the preceeding verse:

Isa 48:12-15
12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:
I am He, I am the First,
I am also the Last.
13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth,
And My right hand has stretched out the heavens;
When I call to them,
They stand up together.

14 "All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him;
He shall do His pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken;
Yes, I have called him,
I have brought him, and his way will prosper.
NKJV

Note that this is clearly God speaking, and this moves, as a continguous speech right into verse 16. I could have even gone back to the first few verses of Isaiah 48 and you find that it is still God speaking:

Isa 48:2-3
2 For they call themselves after the holy city,
And lean on the God of Israel;
The LORD of hosts is His name:
3 "I have declared the former things from the beginning;
They went forth from My mouth, and I caused them to hear it.
NKJV

Further, notice the consistency in the speech that God is giving between verses 3, 5 and 16:

Isa 48:3
3 "I have declared the former things from the beginning;
NKJV

Isa 48:5
5 Even from the beginning I have declared it to you;
NKJV

Isa 48:16
16 "Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
NKJV

There is a consistency in this message given by one person, one contiguous, continuous speech.

 

[Christian Commando]

Personally, I like what Scripture says-

1- "Let Us make man in Our Image." (Kinda hard to be talkin to Himself here)

2- All things did God create thru His Son-

3- the Son is from old, from everlasting.

4- Not by His Power or by His Might, but by the Holy Spirit were all things created.

5- "I and My Father are one".

5- In the beginning, God's Word was with Him, in Him and was Him, made manifest in the flesh.

God Bless!!

 

[wavy]

wavy, do you understand the difference between an ordinal and a cardinal 1?

Yes, intimately. The problem is you don't understand three things:

1) That you are making a false distinction by introducing something into the text which it does not say. There is no contrast between echad and yachid in Deut.6.4 (sad to see you are still stuck on disputing this without addressing any of the relevant points that got us into this discussion!).

2) The text says 'one' and the Hebrews have always understood it to mean one in this verse and not 'compound unity' or anything else. And I don't see how appealing to an ordinal/cardinal sense helps your dwindling case.

3) Ordinal/cardinal differences do not conduce to any 'plurality' or 'compound unity'. Your appeal to it demands that it mean 'YHWH is first' or 'YHWH is numero uno'.

If we want to truly understand what is being said, we need to take into account the precise definition for these words in the original language.

None of which is 'compound unity' despite your attempt to change what you've been saying this whole time, although now you are trying to make it seem you were saying it meant 'one' all along, and that some ordinal/cardinal distinction changes the meaning of the text, or makes it mean 'plurality'.

That Is why I gave you references which demonstrate what the meanings for echad are, and I gave them to you from the lexicon, from a trinitarian perspective and from a non-trinitarian Jewish perspective - all agree.

You,Toms777, are not consistent. First you dispute that echad means 'one', appealing to some 'plurality' meaning, then you change to some 'ordinal/cardinal' meaning, none of which has anything to do with 'plurality' or 'compound unity', then you quote 'Jewish references' whom you claim are non-trinitarian which are not non-trinitarian, and also a source which denies your view.

I don't know the context of your first source. It simply says God is a 'unity', which could mean complete unity, or compound unity in theological context.

Your second source specifically denies any trinitarian interpretation, saying:

'God is one; not two and not more than two, but one. This oneness is not like any of the onenesses that exist in the world -- not like the oneness of a category which includes many other ones, and not like the oneness of a body which is divided into parts and dimensions'

You have completely referenced it out of context. It does not support your view. The site, which seeks to educate on Jewish literature, is actually showing how this Jewish belief system employs different meanings, which are contradictory. How quoting a non-authoritative site supports your view is beyond me.

The third reference you provide is a Messianic Jewish (who are trinitarian, for the most part) site. Read one of their statements of faith:

'We believe that God is echad, as declared in the Shema, a "united one" or "compound unity", eternally existent in three persons.'

This [non-authoritative] site believes in the trinity, and thus of course to them echad is going to mean 'compound unity'. None of this means it is an authoritative Hebrew source just because it says it is 'Jewish'.

Google searches are not valid means of scholarship, Toms. :wink:

That leaves you and you provided no third party validation for your definition.

Wrong, I quoted at least one (Gesenius, one of the most respected Hebrew scholars of his day, and his influence remains pervasive). Free also provided some quotes that agreed with me (although it was mistakenly thought at first that they agreed with you). But even I understand that echad means 'one', as do all Hebrew scholars. There are just some who try to make it seem like it is more than 'one' in support of the trinity. There were no 'compound unity' interpretations of God until trinitarianism was superposed onto Deut.6.4.

And if you agree with me that echad means simply 'one', why are you disputing here that I have 'provided no third party validation'? And you fail to explain how ordinal/cardinal distinctions dovetail with your argument.

But I guess, in your head, somehow it must all work out to mean YHWH is some type of 'composite' in Deut.6.4, right? And that this somehow refutes the arguments I have made about earlier Israelite henotheism, right?

Wishful thinking, sir.

Now let's look at the references that you gave.

For example, in Gen.2.24, it is not echad that is of composite nature. It is 'flesh' because two 'flesh's' are combined into a single concept of one. Same thing with all other echad prooftexts.

Your point? We have in the trinity three persons of the Godhead who are one God.

My point is that echad does not mean 'compound unity'. If I said, ' I have one pair of socks', that does not make the English 'one' here = 'compound unity'. It is the pair that is compound, because we understand that a 'pair' is two. 'One' in English would still mean 'one' in this sentence. That is, one pair and not two or more pair. Same with every alleged 'compound unity' echad reference. None of it changes the fact that echad means 'one'.

And what does 'one' mean, what does it signify? It separates everything that is 'one' from all that is not 'one', that is, one and not two or three, or any number beyond one. The simplicity is self-explanatory. You're trying to fabricate false definitions because of your trinitarian convictions since you don't understand the base meaning in Hebrew here (even though you're trying to make it seem like you know something about it, and you don't, and I can say that because it shows in your posts). I would venture to say that you cannot count to five in Hebrew without Googling it, and probably don't know the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

Your post is inconsistent, fails to be relevant, and doesn't count for anything because it is theologically driven and is not based on any of the facts.

We could go through many passages and I have in the past in similar discussions on this point, but you are distracting away from Deut 6:4 which is understood by trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike as referring to unity.

What? I have not deviated in any way from anything. It is you who are still stuck on the clear meaning of Deut.6.4, as you can't even decide for yourself a definition. You only hope I'm silly enough to believe somehow what you've posted substantiates your argument.

No one said such a thing. It is indeed a single day - made up of two parts, day and night. That does not mean that it is not single. Just as God, being Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not cease to be a single God.

That is exactly the point.

That is exactly the point. Here you have provided a public record for the vaccuity of your argument. Deut.6.4 says nothing about a trinity. It cannot be deduced from the passage that 'YHWH' somehow is a 'compound unity', because echad does not mean a 'compound unity' and nothing indicates that YHWH is plural in the passage. You have read your doctrine into the text, as you so aptly and inadvertantly just admitted here.

Well, let's have another look at Deut 6:4.

Oh brother...

But why would God make it such a dramatic statement - "shema Yisrael" - it is something akin to someone coming over the television, breaking into a TV show and saying "We have a Bulletin", or in German "Achtung!". And then if God simply repeats what He always told Israel - "I am one God". Seems strange to draw eveyone's attendtion for a dramatic announcement only to tell them what they understood all along.

That's really -- shall I say -- cute and all but it is irrelevant to anything the text says, and it does not say 'I am one God'. It says 'YHWH is one', that is, 'one' as opposed to all that is not one (two or more). Even if it meant 'I am one God' that is something definitely needed to be inculcated in the Israelite mind. They were polytheists and idolaters.

That you feel it is 'dramatic' and therefore must agree with your view is not substantial argumentation. I'm sorry.

But if God was saying, "look everyone, Yesd, I am one God, but I am a unity - hear this O' Israel, your God is a unity".

I think I understand your mistake now (in addition to your many other mistakes). You believe 'unity', as in your [unauthoritative] 'Jewish sources', means 'compound'. 'Unity' simply means 'oneness'. In theology, 'unity' can mean complete oneness (Unitarinism, Oneness Pentecostals, etc., which deny multiplicity in the godhead) or it can mean 'composite unity' (as in trinitarianism). You have assumed 'unity' in your Jewish sources (at least the first one) means 'composite unity', failing to realize this distinction, notwithstanding that your [non-authoritative] sources do not support your view.

Now that gives them something to think about. So claiming that it means a non-compound singularity in this context would make no senzse, and even Jewish scholars acknowledge that.

Ah, so he made a random statement about his 'compound unity' without explaining it?! 'Just contemplate it, and years from now, when the trinity doctrine is formulated, you'll understand and reject it, okay?'

Lol. But anyway, contextually it makes equal (to no) sense for him to be saying he is a 'compound unity' as opposed to a singularity. There is no such dichotomy provided by the text. That is why I believe, based on earlier literature in the Hebrew bible, that it is a polemic against angels being manifestations of YHWH. Or, I will concede that it can equally mean 'unique' (as in 'YHWH is unique') or 'alone' (as in YHWH is alone [our God]), as some scholars believe.

Actually, I quoted from the NKJV, not the KJV. As for the NASB, but it is of no consequence with respect to what we are discussing since that still leaves us with three persons, and I do not wish to unecessarily distract you from that point.

NKJV/KJV, same difference. It's still an equally valid translation in the NASB, and I quoted it to prove that it can read just as I said it can read, which you denied by appealing to the NKJV. And I am not distracted from the point. You are. There is no hint of some three-person entity in Isaiah 48.

I accept the text for what it says. If you claim that it says something different, then the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Lol, and it does not say the one being sent is God.

Your argument has a problem. I agree that Isaiah is relaying God's message, but you try to claim that somehow there is a break point in the speech from vs 12-16 where it becomes Isaiah talking about being sent. Let's look at it again:

...

It is a continguous quote.

There is a consistency in this message given by one person, one contiguous, continuous speech.

Oh, please...

Isaiah is full of quotes and it is sometimes difficult to tell who is speaking, and yes, there are random breaks in quotational sequences, just as in Is.53.1, when Isaiah clearly speaks, yet it is a random interposition from the previous quotes in ch.52. It all depends on how you punctuate the sentence. Reading it in Hebrew it is not so clear. There are no punctuations, no original spaces, no "quotes", no commas, nothing.

You have been refuted. I suggest you just stop. Or, of course, you can continue to embarrass yourself.