The Holy Trinity

[wavy]

Personally, I like what Scripture says-

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

According to my knowledge, not necessarily.

'"Let us" could indeed be taken simply as a plural of majesty, for the custom of rulers speaking in the plural appeared with the Persians' (Interpreter's Bible Dictionary, Volume I, p.452 n. G26, New York Abingdon Press Nashville, 1952).

 

[Christian Commando]

Wavy-

I must disagree with you on your examples, as they are spiritualized, not literal meanings. Yet God proves, over and over, how His Word is to be taken literally as spoken for what It means.

Example- "The life of the flesh is in the blood".

The meaning of this Scripture is plain as day. Without blood flowing thru it, a phys. body dies. And for added measure of proof, look at the national to international statistcs of how many people have died, for the loss of blood thier bodies suffered.

Its fine if people want to believe some other far fetched meaning reached thru interpretative methods God does not supply for them to be used. But God does supply a deeper Spiritual meaning for particular Scriptures, when "He"- God, wants it that way. Examples-

The interpretations given to many a Biblical Patriarch, after or as the vision progresses.- Daniel, Ezekiel, Peter, plus many more. But God, not man, supplies this interpretation.

Jesus declares- its easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter Heaven. No need to spiritualize this, as what happened just before that with a young richman and Christ shows the meaning of that statement.

I pray this clarifies this point more. Stay in context to God, or deal with alot of disagreements among others responding to whats claimed, when not having a true biblical foundation to stand on.

God bless!!

 

[Toms777]

First, though some folk may feel that length adds to teh quality of a presentation, I do not share that view, so you may find that I take the liberty of compressing some of these points. This approach is compounded by the fact that I find that in an number of cases, you have failed to validate any rebuttal. So if you find large pieces of your post omittyed, have a gander at those pieces - if they are full of putdowns and unvalidated personal opinion, you know why. the one thing that I will say for your approach - it is very easy to refute.

Okay, let's get into it.

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

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

Ah yes, starting off with the ad hominems. Now, you may not have noticed but the word used in Deut 6:4 is echad, not yachid, so your comment about no distinction between echad and yachid is a strawman argument. You also made a number of claims here, apparently failing to note that i had already addressed and refuted those points with validation from Jewish sources, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian. To save space therefore, I will avoid responding to each fo these claims in detail.

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.

Please read what I said. To help you understand what is being said, I provided a summary of what I was saying regarding echad in a previous message, but it appears that you did not read that summary. I have been consitent throughout and if you wish to claim otherwise, please quote where I said two different things. I would suggest that you take a moment to go back and read what I actually said rather than put words in my mouth.

Your second source specifically denies any trinitarian interpretation, saying:

I specifically told you that I chose three sources, one which was a recignized lexicon, one which was jewish and trinitarian and one which was Jewish and non-trinitarian so you could not say that there was a bias. Indeed I said earlier that many non-trinitarian sources tried to explain away the fact that echad means unity in various ways. Thus regardless of whether they are trinitarian or not, all the sources agree - echad means ordinal one or a unity. You have provided no validation for any other definition.

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

So you don't like one of my sources because it is non-triniatrian and argues against the trinity and you don't like the next one because it is trinitarian. You rejct two sites because they are not authorities, and ignore the one that I put forward with is, even though all three agree.

Do you see why I am not taking a lot of time in responding to your last post? All you give is your opinion without any validation, and no matter what is put forward, you will reject it in favour of your unvalidated opinion.

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

They were not google searches. Maybe you'd be more convincing if you spent the time to actually validate one of your arguments rather than put downs. You may want to consider google searches - they'd be better than having no validation.

even I understand that echad means 'one', as do all Hebrew scholars.

sigh....As I also said, but you appear to choose to ignore anything that you'd rather not deal with.

And if you agree with me that echad means simply 'one',

The problem here is what you are claiming as "simply one" is not in concert with what all other sources say. You need to accept the fact that there different definitions for "one".

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?

The argument for henotheism has more in common with Mormonism than it does with historical evidence and with what scripture says in context. I have seen nothing in favour iof this other than your personal opinion.

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'.

Still no validation for this claim, and it is entirely against either trinitarian or non-trinitarian Hebrew sources, as I showed before. Indeed, I find it astounding that you have even made such a claim. But I am not surprised that you provided no validation.

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.

Your declaration is substantially unconvincing as a one liner of your opinion in response to the context of Is 48.

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

He identifies Himself specific as God and further in Hebrew identifies Himself as YHWH. All I have seen you do is deny and then make arguments that consist of...

Oh, please...

Then you move out of context of Is 48 to other parts of Isaiah, like you did here.

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.

If we are discussing Isaiah 48:16-17, then trying to tell me that I should ignore Is 48:1-15 in favour of Is 52, Is 53 and Is 61 is not convincing. Why don't you do deal with the immediate context? The fact that breaks in the discussion may exist in Is chapter 52 and 53 does not have a bearing on the specifically text of Is 48:1-17.

Stay on track.

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

Maybe in your mind. Now rather than trying to argue with putdowns and personal opinion, let's deal with substance, shall we?

 

[wavy]

Wavy-

I must disagree with you on your examples, as they are spiritualized, not literal meanings.

For the record, I'd like to see what these examples are. It seems to me that I am the only one being literal here...

 

[wavy]

This approach is compounded by the fact that I find that in an number of cases, you have failed to validate any rebuttal.

There are three major false claims you have made in your posts:

1) That I have not logically validated my arguments
2) That I have not utilized sources
3) That I have ignored your arguments despite the fact that my posts are so long because I debunked them point by point.

This discussion is terminated. I have neither the time nor the inclination to beat dead horses. Anyone who reads our correspondence will see what I mean, even if they disagree with me...

 

[Toms777]

This approach is compounded by the fact that I find that in an number of cases, you have failed to validate any rebuttal.

There are three major false claims you have made in your posts:

1) That I have not logically validated my arguments
2) That I have not utilized sources
3) That I have ignored your arguments despite the fact that my posts are so long because I debunked them point by point.

This discussion is terminated. I have neither the time nor the inclination to beat dead horses. Anyone who reads our correspondence will see what I mean, even if they disagree with me...

wavy,

I chose not to spend too much time to respond to you in my last post for basically that reason. You seemed more interested in personal putdowns than in serious discussion. What you have put forward is basically ad hominems and personal opinion mixed together, and in so doing put forward arguments which stand only if you can be considered an authority in your own right. You appear to accept that as adequate - I see no one else who does.

If at any point you are interested in serious discussion, I remain willing. But a key ground rule would be that you put aside the ad hominems and other putdowns. Like someone else suggested, makes your argument appear even weaker.

Tom

 

[wavy]

What you have put forward is basically ad hominems and personal opinion mixed together

Hardly the truth, as any honest person who has read our correspondence will attest to.

Like someone else suggested, makes your argument appear even weaker.

The person in question (Free) tried to disprove my statements by quoting sources which only contradict your view, whilst sustaining mine. That person's suggestions, in truth, only made your argument (whatever that may be) 'appear even weaker'.

Kind regards,

Eric.

 

[Toms777]

What you have put forward is basically ad hominems and personal opinion mixed together

Hardly the truth, as any honest person who has read our correspondence will attest to.

heh heh, Your very response confirms what I said. :-D

 

[Christian Commando]

wavy-

You questioned one Scripture alone it could or not mean plural that God clearly shows is by the Concordance- "US" goes to "WE" which means, ours, us, we, multiple, plus more.

My suggestion? Throw out your useless "interpretors Dictionary" and stick with a good Concordance that goes with your Bible for true Hebrew and Greek translations, rather than personal opinionated meanings of Scriptures that have little "literal interpretive" value towards Scripture so far as I've witnessed from your responces. And will gladly go back and list a whole pile of them if like.

Even God declares a "natural", unsaved person can understand the literal Word of God for meaning, its the spiritual they cannot without the Holy Spirit to enlighten them.

God Bless!!

 

[wavy]

You questioned one Scripture alone it could or not mean plural that God clearly shows is by the Concordance- "US" goes to "WE" which means, ours, us, we, multiple, plus more.

My suggestion? Throw out your useless "interpretors Dictionary" and stick with a good Concordance that goes with your Bible for true Hebrew and Greek translations, rather than personal opinionated meanings of Scriptures that have little "literal interpretive" value towards Scripture so far as I've witnessed from your responces. And will gladly go back and list a whole pile of them if like.

Even God declares a "natural", unsaved person can understand the literal Word of God for meaning, its the spiritual they cannot without the Holy Spirit to enlighten them.

God Bless!!

I suppose a 'good Concordance' would be one that allows for your unschooled interpretation, correct? Anyway, I only quoted the Interpreter's Bible Dictionary to show that one person can speak in the plural (although I personally believe it refers to plural gods, or the angels). This particular bible dictionary was composed by collaborative scholars -- many scholars who have in-depth understanding of the language and history of the bible, and even if I did not agree with them, I would trust the advice of these scholars over 'Christian Commando' on an internet message board.

Thank you.

 

[Devekut]

If I might ask, why are we arguing over what the Hebrews meant by the term "achad"? Whether oneness or unity, I think we can all agree that the Hebrews had no concept, not even a partial one, of the Trinity.

One can only be lead into the Trinity through faith in Christ; God enfleshed. He alone, with the Holy Spirit, can bring us to the personal and communal revelation of God's nature in Himself.

I would say, at the risk of heretically dividing the twin natures of Christ, that we are offered access to Him first through His human nature out of its likeness and sympathy with our own. At least in terms of our perception. As His human nature draws us into Him we are inevitably lead into the quite radical realization of His Divinity.

The Divinity of Christ I do believe is a leap of faith and meant to be realized through a relationship, a kind of Christian "gnosis" if you will. It is not about integrating intellectual information. This is why the gospels and Christ Himself were deliberately vague on the subject.

 

[DM]

Devekut said,

One can only be lead into the Trinity through faith in Christ

This statement excludes the possibility that one can "be lead into the Trinity" through becoming persuaded through dialogue. The reality, however, is that only dialogue can lead one to faith in anything. Hence "Faith comes by hearing".

We believe what we do based on the words used to express the ideas / things we've come to believe. What we believe, essentially, are the words themselves which describe whatever it is that we believe. In this case, "the word was (and indeed is) God".

Devekut said,

The Divinity of Christ I do believe is a leap of faith and meant to be realized through a relationship, a kind of Christian "gnosis" if you will.

On this, I must agree with Devekut. It is this form of "gnosticism" upon which Trinitarianism depends for its survival. The appeal to something as ineffable (beyond words) leaves room only for something "quite radical" (such as gnosticism) as the instrument of interpretation for the biblical texts surrounding this issue.

This is a misunderstanding of biblical "revelation", however. If God "reveals" something, then by very definition, it is a "mystery" no longer. God's revelation on the one hand, corresponds to human understanding on the other. The doctrine of the Trinity must therefore appeal to what is "beyond words", and thus "unrevealed", because it simply doesn't make any sense. And that would make the doctrine of the Trinity "non"-sense.

The far more simple and biblica principal is to adopt Jesus' creed, and by extension Israel's creed, that there is there only one who is "the only true God" - the God and Father of Jesus.

Grace and peace
David

 

[Devekut]

I am sorry if my comments came off as trying to stifle dialouge about the Trinity, which is ceratinly not my intention. What I do firmly believe however is that, as with faith in general, an intellectual understanding of the concepts do not lead to a sufficient understanding of the reality behind those concepts.

This is a misunderstanding of biblical "revelation", however. If God "reveals" something, then by very definition, it is a "mystery" no longer. God's revelation on the one hand, corresponds to human understanding on the other. The doctrine of the Trinity must therefore appeal to what is "beyond words", and thus "unrevealed", because it simply doesn't make any sense. And that would make the doctrine of the Trinity "non"-sense.

God's self revelation is always limited both by His Will and human capacity. Mystery, at least in the Christian sense, is not the kind of empirical mystery that science might encounter as in "a lack of informaiton". Christian mystery is not "a case to be solved". Christian mystery is to be reveled in, to be rejoiced in. The ancient saying has been that the Christian life is "faith seeking understanding". The key point being that this understanding is never quite arrived at. Christians are like the horse pulling the cart that chases after the carrot being dangled infront of his face. The pursuit leads him to all kinds of new landscapes but the prize is never won. Revelation gives us concrete facts. But on the more sublime level, it points us towards the mystery of God and invites us in. The Trinity is not ordered to "make sense" though we can make real strides towards that goal. We can make more sense of it; the great task of theologians and the creeds. But it will never be nailed down, so to speak. To do so would be to sorely over-estimate the capacity of man.

In some way the Sacred Name YHWH prefigures the Trinity. It is too sacred to be spoken because the name of God is connected with His Presence and the proper pronounciation can only be speculated upon. In a similar way the Trinity is too sacred to understand. It is the living, unspeakable Name of God.

To paraphrase the great G.K Chesterton, the wonderful thing about Christianity is that it not only makes sense in all the right places one might expect but that it also makes the proper kind of "non-sense". Christianity is, by essence, a "mystery" or a "mystic" religion because it calls us forth to participate in the divine life of God through faith . It is composed of a mystical, non-empirical and often starkly non-sensical union of God and man. Initiated by the Divine itself, it is God reaching down and pulling up. The presence of this mystery can be detected through visible signs, revelation being one of them. But the essence of it always remains concealed. That is a fact of relationships, even on the human level. We never know the real "essence" of a human being as they themselves know it. Each one of us remains in mystery to the other, even when in the deepest love or friendship. Yet it is that mystery of the person that draws us to one another; we all seek to make just a little bit of sense of the ineffeble between us.

This is why I think Chesterton loved Christianity so much and saw in it a salvation from modernism. This is what I think he means by "the right kind of non-sense". Christianity, by embracing all kinds of "non-sense" and mystery happens to make much more sense of the human person and his many dimensions than does the strictly empirical or stictly logical mindset.

 

[Toms777]

The Divinity of Christ I do believe is a leap of faith and meant to be realized through a relationship, a kind of Christian "gnosis" if you will. It is not about integrating intellectual information. This is why the gospels and Christ Himself were deliberately vague on the subject.

Vague? I do not agree.

John 1:1-2
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
NKJV

Heb 1:8
8 But to the Son He says:
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
NKJV

John 20:27-29
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV

Christ was not vague either - we have examples of cases where He was so clear about stating His divinity that the Jews went to stone Him for blasphemy.

John 10:28-32
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 I and My Father are one."
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
NKJV

Also have a look at how often Jesus is worshiped in scripture, and not once does He reject the worship. I would go so far as to suggest that the trinity is one of the clearest stated doctrines in the Bible, OT and NT.

 

[Devekut]

Well, you are open to your own interpretation of course. I happen to think that the divinity of Christ could have been made more clear by the New Testament Christians, specifically in the Synoptics, John being the major execption to this.

John is a theological gospel by nature and by far the most advanced. I could only accept it on faith when I had, through the other gospels, arrived at that same encounter with Christ. It was only when I realized this person teaching, healing, confounding and turning over the presumptions of society was somehow the God of the Old Testament breaking through in time, flesh and individuality, that I could give the Gospel of John a real consideration.

I do think it is true that one must be a Trinitarian to do justice to the theology of the Gospel of John. To deny the dvinity of Christ is to reject this gospel, and by consequence, the inspirtation of scripture.

 

[wavy]

I'm bored, Tom, and I feel like running circles around your last post:

Ah yes, starting off with the ad hominems. Now, you may not have noticed but the word used in Deut 6:4 is echad, not yachid, so your comment about no distinction between echad and yachid is a strawman argument.

Obviously you are unacquainted with what a straw man is. Let me repeat the first point I made:

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!).

This was in response to this:

If God meant a singularity, "yachid" would have been a better word to use.

and this:

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.

You're trying to make the claim that echad means 'compound unity' based off of the fact that it does not say yachid. That is an argument from silence. There is no distinction between echad and yachid in the text. Why, because the text has nothing to do with what echad means in contradistinction to what yachid means.

My point (which you misunderstood) was that there is no contrast between echad and yachid (which is what you're trying to make out) because yachid is not in the text!

I wasn't saying yachid and echad meant the same thing in Deut.6.4 because that would require that yachid is present in the verse -- which it isn't, which was my point. You cannot fabricate the definition of the word echad just because it does not say yachid.

It is you who have attacked a straw man which, if you don't know, is refuting an attenuated argument that your opponent has not made -- exactly what you have done above.

My second point was:

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.

This ties also into the third point:

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'.

You asked me if I knew what the difference was between an ordinal number and a cardinal number, to which I answered 'yes'. The problem is that neither 'ordinal' nor 'cardinal' mean 'compound unity' so why that is relevant to your case (that echad means 'compound unity') simply eludes me.

You also made a number of claims here, apparently failing to note that i had already addressed and refuted those points with validation from Jewish sources, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian. To save space therefore, I will avoid responding to each fo these claims in detail.

Let us read what you actually wrote. You quoted one [non authoritative] 'source':

“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.

Although you did not provide the link (which is from http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/bt/trinity.html), it is clear it is has a trinitarian bias, having no Hebrew authority. In fact, this group quotes the statements above out of context, since the citation is not from 'Dr. Philips' (it is apparently a translation of 'Dr. Philips') but is one of the thirteen principles of the famed Maimonides.

Maimonides goes on to write: 'It is not like the oneness of a pair and not one like a species. And not like man that has many individual [parts] nor like a body that divides into many different parts until no end (every part being divisible). Rather, God is one and there is no other oneness like His.' (taken from a translation by Marc Mermelstein at http://www.mesora.org/13principles.html). This quote is also found in your second 'source'.

Your non authoritative 'source' has taken this quote from Dr. Philips out of context. You have not quoted a lexiconical definition of the word echad, as you claim, that somehow supports your 'compound unity' trip. That was a deliberate lie, or more likely, a misunderstanding of what you have Googled. 8-)

You have claimed 'validation' from 'Jewish sources' that somehow make echad mean 'compound unity', but a swift investigation of your 'sources' proves otherwise.

Please read what I said. To help you understand what is being said, I provided a summary of what I was saying regarding echad in a previous message, but it appears that you did not read that summary. I have been consitent throughout and if you wish to claim otherwise, please quote where I said two different things. I would suggest that you take a moment to go back and read what I actually said rather than put words in my mouth.

Let us read what you wrote:

Note that in Deut 6:4 where it stated that God is one God, the word "one" is "echad" which means a "unity" (one composed of more than one constituent parts).

I replied:

Echad is the Hebraic word for numerical one.

To which you countered by using the SEC:

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)

However, Strong specifies what 'united' means, by saying 'i.e. one', which is what I had been saying all along (although I do not deny it means 'first'). However, neither of these mean 'compound unity'.

I specifically told you that I chose three sources, one which was a recignized lexicon,

Sadly, this is a lie, as the aforementioned first quote was obviously taken from http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/bt/trinity.html word for word, which has a trinitarian bias which in turn misquotes a Dr.

one which was jewish and trinitarian

Yes, indeed. This was your third source, which was trinitarian biased and lacks authority. Just because it says it is 'Jewish' does not mean it is authoritative. In fact, quoting it only goes to prove my statement that:

'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.'

and one which was Jewish and non-trinitarian

I need only to repeat my response to this claim:

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.

Indeed I said earlier that many non-trinitarian sources tried to explain away the fact that echad means unity in various ways.

That you believe non-trinitarian sources 'explain away' the meaning of echad is a prerogative beyond your capacity, sir, because you do not know Hebrew, and the 'sources' you have used are really no sources at all.

How you can qualify your own self to make this kind of claim?

Thus regardless of whether they are trinitarian or not, all the sources agree - echad means ordinal one or a unity.

Your 'sources' do not agree. Not only are they non-authoritative, but two of them are trinitarian and one doesn't take a stance. The one is simply commenting on Jewish literature, not giving definitions.You have manipulated what has been written in order to support your dwindling and continually confuted views.

You have provided no validation for any other definition.

On the contrary, you need to read Free's quotes and look up echad in Gesenius' lexicon. I would also advise to go to the experts on B-Hebrew (easy access, a site where qualified scholars of Hebrew discuss the meaning of Hebrew words).

So you don't like one of my sources because it is non-triniatrian and argues against the trinity and you don't like the next one because it is trinitarian.

I dislike your 'sources' because they are not true sources, being unrecognized, and because they amount to zilch.

You rejct two sites because they are not authorities, and ignore the one that I put forward with is, even though all three agree.

It has been proven twice already that your 'sources' do not agree. And the fact that they are not authoritative makes them worthless here, so why appeal them or assert [falsely] that they agree?

Do you see why I am not taking a lot of time in responding to your last post?

Yes, I see why. Because you have no counter-arguments.

All you give is your opinion without any validation, and no matter what is put forward, you will reject it in favour of your unvalidated opinion.

I have given sources. I have given logically validated 'opinions' which you have yet to address. Need I list them?

They were not google searches.

Perhaps yahoo then? Or was it askjeeves?

The problem here is what you are claiming as "simply one" is not in concert with what all other sources say.

Lol, you have no 'sources'.

You need to accept the fact that there different definitions for "one".

None of which mean 'compound unity', especially not in regards to Deut.6.4.

The argument for henotheism has more in common with Mormonism than it does with historical evidence and with what scripture says in context.

Bad Company Fallacy. The arguments for henotheism are based off of the plain reading of the text, which you have as of yet ignored.

Still no validation for this claim, and it is entirely against either trinitarian or non-trinitarian Hebrew sources, as I showed before.

Please look up the word 'unity' to discover that one of the first definitions you will get means 'oneness'.

He identifies Himself specific as God and further in Hebrew identifies Himself as YHWH.

***Sigh***

Then you move out of context of Is 48 to other parts of Isaiah, like you did here.

...

If we are discussing Isaiah 48:16-17, then trying to tell me that I should ignore Is 48:1-15 in favour of Is 52, Is 53 and Is 61 is not convincing. Why don't you do deal with the immediate context? The fact that breaks in the discussion may exist in Is chapter 52 and 53 does not have a bearing on the specifically text of Is 48:1-17.

This is not a contextual issue. It is a literary issue. I have not told you to ignore anything. The fact of the matter is that you are arguing for a 'continuous' quote by God in Isaiah 48 to support your three-person doctrine, when the text does not indicate such a thing. The author could have, and did indeed break off his quote of God and speak in the first person, just as he does in other parts of the book. This has nothing to do with context. This has everything to do with 'Isaiah's' literary style.

You further evidence what I have stated from the very beginning: you're trying to argue out of your league and don't know what you're talking about.

Stay on track.

I have done nothing but this very thing, thus far.

Anyway, that was fun. I have really ceased to take you seriously, Toms777.

 

[Toms777]

I'm bored, Tom, and I feel like running circles around your last post:

It would be an interesting change.

Ah yes, starting off with the ad hominems. Now, you may not have noticed but the word used in Deut 6:4 is echad, not yachid, so your comment about no distinction between echad and yachid is a strawman argument.

Obviously you are unacquainted with what a straw man is. Let me repeat the first point I made:

I guess that university level training in philosophical logic doesn't qualify. :-D

You know wavy, you'd be more inmpressive if, instead of trying to put down others with ad hominems, if you'd demonstrate what you can do. Putting down others, from my observation, is an approach used by those who feel unable to deal with the issue at hand.

I wasn't saying yachid and echad meant the same thing in Deut.6.4 because that would require that yachid is present in the verse -- which it isn't, which was my point. You cannot fabricate the definition of the word echad just because it does not say yachid.

I proved what the meaning of echad is. You have almost entirely depended upon the strength of your personal opinion, which, unless you can prove that you are a world renowned scholar that exceeds the qualifications of the other world renown scholars that I have researched, doesn't cut it with me.

It is you who have attacked a straw man which, if you don't know, is refuting an attenuated argument that your opponent has not made -- exactly what you have done above.

Right - I attacked a strawman - your strawman :-D

My second point was:

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.

Appealing to your personal opinion, as I stated before, doesn't cut it with me. I see no sense in even commenting on your third point, since you posted nothing more in terms of substance.

You also made a number of claims here, apparently failing to note that i had already addressed and refuted those points with validation from Jewish sources, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian. To save space therefore, I will avoid responding to each fo these claims in detail.

Let us read what you actually wrote. You quoted one [non authoritative] 'source':

So you don't think that the Hebrew people know their language, and that your opinion is more valid - an interesting approach, but not one that I buy.

it is clear it is has a trinitarian bias, having no Hebrew authority.

So, if I understand you right, if it disagrees with you you on the matter of the trinity, then you do not consider it to have any authority. If I remember right, in your last response, you disregarded any trinitarian source because it had that bias, and then disreagrded any non-trinitarian source because it did not. So why don't you just tell us that you disregard any source that disagrees with your opinion?

In fact, this group quotes the statements above out of context, since the citation is not from 'Dr. Philips' (it is apparently a translation of 'Dr. Philips') but is one of the thirteen principles of the famed Maimonides.

Maimonides goes on to write: 'It is not like the oneness of a pair and not one like a species. And not like man that has many individual [parts] nor like a body that divides into many different parts until no end (every part being divisible). Rather, God is one and there is no other oneness like His.' (taken from a translation by Marc Mermelstein at http://www.mesora.org/13principles.html). This quote is also found in your second 'source'.

Keep in mind that Maimonides used "yachid" in his version of the shema, not echad. Also, as I stated before, one of the arguments commonly used in Judaism to avoid the acceptance of the trinity is to suggest that this means not unity within Himself, but unity with that which is outside, such as unity with the community of God. For example:

"And we have learned, on the passage "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad -- Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is One": What is "One" (Echad)? It is the Community of Israel clinging (achid) to the Blessed Holiness."
(Source: http://www.kolel.org/zohar/mod5.1.html)

Your non authoritative 'source' has taken this quote from Dr. Philips out of context. You have not quoted a lexiconical definition of the word echad, as you claim, that somehow supports your 'compound unity' trip. That was a deliberate lie, or more likely, a misunderstanding of what you have Googled. 8-)

tsk, tsk tsk, you know, if you cannot behave with civility on here, maybe your mother ought to cut off your internet access. :-D Seriously though, I expect people who participate in discussions with me to behave like adults.

[quote:96eb5]
OT:259
'echad (ekh-awd'); a numeral from OT:258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:
(Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)[/i][/color]

However, Strong specifies what 'united' means, by saying 'i.e. one', which is what I had been saying all along (although I do not deny it means 'first'). However, neither of these mean 'compound unity'.
[/quote:96eb5]

This is why I keep asking if you understand what the difference is between an ordinal and cardinal one. Your comments suggest that you do not.

[quote:96eb5]I specifically told you that I chose three sources, one which was a recignized lexicon,

Sadly, this is a lie,[/quote:96eb5]

Please, lets see some civil behaviour from you.

Yes, indeed. This was your third source, which was trinitarian biased and lacks authority. Just because it says it is 'Jewish' does not mean it is authoritative. In fact, quoting it only goes to prove my statement that:

'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.'[/color]

Yeah, I get the picture - if it disagrees with you, it lacks authority and is wrong. Still based on your opinion.

That you believe non-trinitarian sources 'explain away' the meaning of echad is a prerogative beyond your capacity, sir, because you do not know Hebrew, and the 'sources' you have used are really no sources at all.

I cannot imagine that it would be possible to find any source, not if Moses himself came on here, that would satisfy you, because you would just claim your opinion is more authoritative.

How you can qualify your own self to make this kind of claim?

Perhaps this is a question that you ought to answer.

[quote:96eb5]So you don't like one of my sources because it is non-triniatrian and argues against the trinity and you don't like the next one because it is trinitarian.

I dislike your 'sources' because they are not true sources, being unrecognized, and because they amount to zilch.[/quote:96eb5]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so we should just accept your opinion over any sources once you declare all sources that disagree with you to be non-authoritative, and every source that disagrees with you must be automatically wrong. I am growing tired of that approach.

[quote:96eb5] give is your opinion without any validation, and no matter what is put forward, you will reject it in favour of your unvalidated opinion.

I have given sources. I have given logically validated 'opinions' which you have yet to address. Need I list them?[/quote:96eb5]

Exactly my point. I am not sure if you have any background in logic (I presume not), but a premise to be valid must be validated, and an opinion is not considered to be a validated premise, therefore all your " logically validated 'opinions' " are therefore only as good as your opinion is authoritative. So far, I would put no value in the authority of your opinion, which is why I put no value in your" logically validated 'opinions' ".That is exactly the problem.

You ignore any sources given because they disagree with you, you claim that they are not authoritative, and put your opinion above the sources. I don't buy it, and neither would any scholar accept such an approach.

[quote:96eb5]The argument for henotheism has more in common with Mormonism than it does with historical evidence and with what scripture says in context.

Bad Company Fallacy. The arguments for henotheism are based off of the plain reading of the text, which you have as of yet ignored. [/quote:96eb5]

Sigh - again you mis-use logic references. Such a reference would be a fallacy if I were using it to disprove what you were saying by including it in a syllogism as a premise. I have not done so. I stated a fact. Mormon apologists defend their polytheiostic appropach by claiming it to be henotheism. You have failed entirely to provide any basis for believeing that hentheism in found in scripture other than using your own personal opinion, and thus my point that the henotheism argument belongs with Mormon apologists, not a serious study of scripture, until or unless you can validate this approach with something other than your opinion.

[quote:96eb5]
If we are discussing Isaiah 48:16-17, then trying to tell me that I should ignore Is 48:1-15 in favour of Is 52, Is 53 and Is 61 is not convincing. Why don't you do deal with the immediate context? The fact that breaks in the discussion may exist in Is chapter 52 and 53 does not have a bearing on the specifically text of Is 48:1-17.

This is not a contextual issue. It is a literary issue.
[/quote:96eb5]

No, my friend, we do in fact need to consider the context. I know that it blows your argument out of the water, but I will not let you walk away from the facts. Deal with the issue. Deal with the context.

wavy, if you cannot demonstrate a more mature attitude, and demonstrate that you are capable of carrying on a civil discussion, then please do not bother continuing. I have no interest in playground fights. I am interested in serious, respectful, adult discussions.

Tom

 

[Christian Commando]

wavy-

Thank you so much for those wonderful compliments, you certainly know how to uplift others. And thank you as well for seperating me from others who are so called- "scholars", yet have trouble understanding simply written and plainly spoken Scriptures that are too literal to be misunderstood.

Goes to prove just what I've always believed, field experience and learning will always be far better than schooling.

BTW- I have been to Bible School hehe, two of them for that matter. And thier Old Test Teachers got to dislike me to a point when they could not explain the discrepancies I brought up in thier teachings, from Scripturally based references that confirmed other than what they taught.

God Bless!!

 

[wavy]

I guess that university level training in philosophical logic doesn't qualify. :-D

Apparently not. If I claimed yachid was contrasted with echad in the text because yachid was in the text, (which you thought I was doing), I'd just be wrong. It would not be a straw man. A straw man would be if I said you believed yachid was in the text and disproved it, which I did not.

You have almost entirely depended upon the strength of your personal opinion, which, unless you can prove that you are a world renowned scholar that exceeds the qualifications of the other world renown scholars that I have researched, doesn't cut it with me.

Well, until you can produce those 'world renowned scholars' who support your view, these statements remain worthless. You Google searches to fringe-group websites are hardly 'world-renowned'. Rather, as I suggested, there is easy access to a site called B-Hebrew where those qualified scholars discuss the meaning of Hebrew words with each other and prospective Hebrew students (just as B-Greek does with Greek). I suggest you also read academic books on the subject (not theological books).

So you don't think that the Hebrew people know their language, and that your opinion is more valid - an interesting approach, but not one that I buy.

What 'Hebrew people' did you quote?

So, if I understand you right, if it disagrees with you you on the matter of the trinity, then you do not consider it to have any authority.

An authority is an authority because it has collegiate and erudite credentials.

If I remember right, in your last response, you disregarded any trinitarian source because it had that bias

I disregarded your 'source'. I do not deny that there are trin scholars who believe echad means compound unity, but that is only wishful thinking and isn't what the majority of Hebrew scholars believe. As I said before, so I say again, there was no 'compound unity' definitions imposed on Deut.6.4 until the trinity became an issue.

and then disreagrded any non-trinitarian source because it did not.

I disregarded your 'source'. Your 'source' is not a source at all. I did not say I reject non-trinitarian sources. I reject your non-trinitarian non-authoritative Google nonsense.

Keep in mind that Maimonides used "yachid" in his version of the shema, not echad.

Perhaps, as Free said a while back, because he understood that echad and yachid can mean the same thing.

Also, as I stated before, one of the arguments commonly used in Judaism to avoid the acceptance of the trinity is to suggest that this means not unity within Himself, but unity with that which is outside, such as unity with the community of God. For example:

"And we have learned, on the passage "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad -- Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is One": What is "One" (Echad)? It is the Community of Israel clinging (achid) to the Blessed Holiness."
(Source: http://www.kolel.org/zohar/mod5.1.html)

As I have already pointed out twice, this site is showing how this particular belief system (Zohar) contradicts itself. The site in this particular portion is not saying echad means one thing or another.

And the Zohar is hardly representative of Judaism, nor does Judaism have to fight what they never believed in -- indeed which never existed until it was invented in code at Nicea.

Perhaps you expected me not to read your link?

I cannot imagine that it would be possible to find any source, not if Moses himself came on here, that would satisfy you, because you would just claim your opinion is more authoritative.

I suggests you hit the books and start studying. None of this is merely my 'opinion'.

You ignore any sources given because they disagree with you, you claim that they are not authoritative, and put your opinion above the sources. I don't buy it, and neither would any scholar accept such an approach.

Again, what 'sources' have you provided?

Sigh - again you mis-use logic references. Such a reference would be a fallacy if I were using it to disprove what you were saying by including it in a syllogism as a premise.

Oh please. Don't try to get technical with me to make yourself sound 'smarter'. The very fact that you would even bring it up suggests you are trying to refute my argument on the basis that it resembles Mormonism (while Mormonism is theology, and my argument is coming from a strictly historical perspective).

You have failed entirely to provide any basis for believeing that hentheism in found in scripture other than using your own personal opinion,

Plain. Reading. Of. The. Text.

No, my friend, we do in fact need to consider the context. I know that it blows your argument out of the water, but I will not let you walk away from the facts. Deal with the issue. Deal with the context.

[/quote]

Lol, the 'context' is obviously that you wish to read the trinity into it. You can't be serious.

 

[Toms777]

wavy,

I read your post and noted that you have failed to refute any of my comments or validate yours, but since the majority of the post is simply abusive, I have no further interest in discussing this with you. My observation over the years is that when someone resorts to abuse, they do so out of the inability to refute the arguments. That says all that needs to be said in response to your comments in the post.

If you feel that your behaviour somehow makes you look like a big man or a scholar, I honestly feel very sorry for you. Should you at any point wish to conduct yourself in a civil and respectful manner, and are willing to actually validated any of your arguments, I would be more than willing to take up this debate again, but until such time, I would ask you to simply refrain from responding to me at all.

I signed up to christianforums.net for the purposes of discussing theological topics, I did not sign up on a site for flaming other users. I am not sure what your purpose is for being on here.

Tom