If Jesus was around back then..

[Elijah John]

If the Trinity is real, and Divine revelation and not simply a theological construct, and if Jesus is also God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, why is there no mention of the notion in

-The Shema, (Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".)

-And in the first Commandment (I am YHVH thy God, ….thou shalt have no other gods before me)

After all, according to Trinitiarian doctrine and theology, Jesus was around back then. It's not as though he was undifferentiated. He was supposed to have existed in the days of Moses, and supposedly even before Abraham ever existed. Co-eternal with the Father.

So why wouldn't Jesus or the Father have explained the Trinity (or affirmed it) in those days of Shema (oneness) revelation?

That is, if the doctrine is real, and if the doctrine is so important to our salvation.

[dakoski]

If the Trinity is real, and Divine revelation and not simply a theological construct, and if Jesus is also God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, why is there no mention of the notion in

-The Shema, (Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".)

-And in the first Commandment (I am YHVH thy God, ….thou shalt have no other gods before me)

After all, according to Trinitiarian doctrine and theology, Jesus was around back then. It's not as though he was undifferentiated. He was supposed to have existed in the days of Moses, and supposedly even before Abraham ever existed. Co-eternal with the Father.

So why wouldn't Jesus or the Father have explained the Trinity (or affirmed it) in those days of Shema (oneness) revelation?

That is, if the doctrine is real, and if the doctrine is so important to our salvation.

The Shema (Deut 6:4) and the first commandment are teaching to worship YHWH rather than the gods of the surrounding nations.


The context is important in understanding Deuteronomy 6:4:

1) We have to try to discern what is the author teaching us in this section of Deuteronomy (6-11)

2) The Hebrew word �ֶחָד (echad) can mean numerical one but it can also mean unity between persons. For example Gen 2:24 uses the word �ֶחָד:

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

1) The context of this passage seems to be laws that delineate the first five of the ten commandments. The focus is on worshipping Jehovah alone and not the neighbouring gods of the 'nations'. So the aim here isn't to talk about YHWH's essence as a single person god, its about worshipping YHWH alone and not the gods of the nations. Hence it can be translated:
"Israel, remember this! The LORD--and the LORD alone--is our God."

2) We must also take the rest of the Pentateuch as context - since Deuteronomy is the final book of the Pentateuch. A sermon on the edge of the Jordan recapping all that they hard learnt previously before entering the promise land.

What they had learnt as I've established in the other thread 'For which Jehovah should we witness?' is that no one may see YHWH in the heavens and live (Exodus 33:20). Yet another person (the angel of YHWH) who Scripture also calls YHWH and God multiple times (Genesis 18, Genesis 19, Exodus 3, Exodus 33:11 etc) reveals and does the will of YHWH in the heavens. These persons are distinct and yet in union bear the divine name YHWH.

Given this background when we read Deuteronomy 6:4 we cannot interpret the verse as saying YHWH is a single person God. Because we know full well from the rest of the Pentateuch that this is not true. In this context, �ֶחָד (echad) must mean unity of persons in a similar way to Genesis 2:24 rather than numerical oneness.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by dakoski]

Then why isn't the "compound unity" explained? It is an easy assumption to make that one means one, and no Jew could be blamed for not affirming a hidden "Trinity" disguised as One.

Your arguments seem a stretch. Linguistic gymnastics.

Yes, the Shema seems intended to distinguish YHVH from every other god. But also eliminate the need for pantheons. The one, almighty YHVH is God of every facet of existence. Doesn't even need a Trinity to help Him. Not even to help with the task of salvation. (Isaiah 43.11) YHVH is more than sufficient according to the Hebrew Scriptures for all our needs.

[ttruscott]

why is there no mention of the notion in

-The Shema, (Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".)

There is a strong mention of the trinity in the Sh`mah: Hear O Israel, YHWH is God, YHWH is A UNITY".

The word one is also a unity in Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become ONE ie a unified flesh....WE can see and have practical experience that the flesh of two does not become one flesh but by the fleshly connection we can posit that they achieve a unity that characterises the unity of marriage.

[Elijah John]

why is there no mention of the notion in

-The Shema, (Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".)

There is a strong mention of the trinity in the Sh`mah: Hear O Israel, YHWH is God, YHWH is A UNITY".

The word one is also a unity in Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become ONE ie a unified flesh....WE can see and have practical experience that the flesh of two does not become one flesh but by the fleshly connection we can posit that they achieve a unity that characterises the unity of marriage.

Do you honestly think that is the way Moses understood it? The way modern Jews understand it? Sounds like you are engaging in a bit of revisionism and wordplay.

Why are we to assume compound unity as opposed to the far more likely absolute singularity? Especially when the no diverse "elements" or persons of that unity had yet been introduced?

Remember, YHVH introduces himself at the start of the Decalogue. "I am YHVH,..." Not "I am YHVH, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit".

When one introduces oneself by name, it is assumed one is speaking about one's self alone. "I am", as opposed to "we are".

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

There is the whole Elohim thing. I believe its a plurality of majesty, ie, God of hosts. Others argue its showing plurality of God. Which I think is eisegesis, not exegesis. I think we should read ancient scripture and draw from it. Not input our thought into it. Who knows? I have been wrong at least once.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

There is the whole Elohim thing. I believe its a plurality of majesty, ie, God of hosts. Others argue its showing plurality of God. Which I think is eisegesis, not exegesis. I think we should read ancient scripture and draw from it. Not input our thought into it. Who knows? I have been wrong at least once.

It's my understanding that Jews favor the position that Elohim is the plural of majesty. And Trinitarian Christians, of course, the plurality of Divine Persons.

I'll go with Jews and Judaism on this one. As well as the original Christians, who were also absolute Monotheists and not Trinitarians.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

"Why not when 'x' and not when 'y'" are fatally subjective questions. After all, if God had revealed his triune nature on the 10th of May in 1244 B.C., we could ask, "Why not on the 9th?!" This in fact is a repeated fallacy on the part of skeptics in multiple topics. Thus one skeptic will ask, "If God is so loving, why doesn't he cure the world now?" But even if God rid the world of all pain three seconds after Adam (or at whatever theoretical point pain entered the world) a skeptic could still cry out "Yeah! What was God doing at 2 seconds!"

The debate becomes rather silly.

Thus we can only hazard guesses as to the introduction to various lessons about God; and the inability to provide a proof should not be taken as a proof (against).

I hazard one guess on historical grounds:

The world in which God spoke to Abraham was polytheistic and had been for a very, very long time. Anthropologists also note that the era (in fact, almost everything pre Greek) was pre-philosophy: that is, the analytical power that creates systems of thought was largely dormant in ancient societies, and only came to full activity among the Greeks.

Hence, the technical nuances of systematic theology would have, at best, meant nothing to the ancient Jews; at worst, it would have led them to polytheism.

A flat monotheism (Trinitarianism is a dynamic monotheism) was the immediate treatment for polytheism and idolatry. Only after the Jews had finally come to abhor idols and acknowledge YHWH as the one true God, could God reveal more about His inner nature.

[StuartJ]

Posted in wrong forum

[dakoski]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Then why isn't the "compound unity" explained? It is an easy assumption to make that one means one, and no Jew could be blamed for not affirming a hidden "Trinity" disguised as One.

Your arguments seem a stretch. Linguistic gymnastics.

Yes, the Shema seems intended to distinguish YHVH from every other god. But also eliminate the need for pantheons. The one, almighty YHVH is God of every facet of existence. Doesn't even need a Trinity to help Him. Not even to help with the task of salvation. (Isaiah 43.11) YHVH is more than sufficient according to the Hebrew Scriptures for all our needs.

Simply insisting that echad means numerical oneness isn't enough. Words in Hebrew, as in English, can have different meanings as I've already shown. We infer the meaning based on the context. You have to show that elsewhere in the Bible that YHWH is one person. I've shown this is unlikely to be the case based on what the Hebrew Scriptures teach in the other thread 'For which Jehovah should we witness'.

There are many passages in the Pentateuch as I've quoted both in my previous reply to you and in more detail in the other thread that show YHWH is not one person. Therefore taking into account that context 'echad' here most likely means unity rather than numerical oneness. No linguistic gymnastics required just interpreting the words in context.