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.

[Elijah John]

[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.

Do you think Jews today see the word "echad" as meaning a compound unity? Do you think they misunderstand the language of their own ancestors? I don't know Hebrew, but I think I will go with Jews to interpret this, as opposed to Christian revisionists.

You realize that the ancient Hebrews emerged from a polytheistic past, and that accounts for some references to plurality found in their Scriptures? Such references are allusions and vestiges of that past. From the monaltry of YHVH worship found in the Pentateuch, to the pure, absolute Monotheism found in the writings of Isaiah.

I've also addressed the "Angel of Jehovah" issue on your other thread. Whether transcendant in Heaven or immanent on earth, YHVH is one Person. Divine singularity, absolutely One. "They" are the same Jehovah in spite of the mythic language employed to convey the various encounters with the Deity.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Do you think Jews today see the word "echad" as meaning a compound unity? Do you think they misunderstand the language of their own ancestors? I don't know Hebrew, but I think I will go with Jews to interpret this, as opposed to Christian revisionists.

You realize that the ancient Hebrews emerged from a polytheistic past, and that accounts for some references to plurality found in their Scriptures? Such references are allusions and vestiges of that past. From the monaltry of YHVH worship found in the Pentateuch, to the pure, absolute Monotheism found in the writings of Isaiah.

I've also addressed the "Angel of Jehovah" issue on your other thread. Whether transcendant in Heaven or immanent on earth, YHVH is one Person. Divine singularity, absolutely One. "They" are the same Jehovah in spite of the mythic language employed to convey the various encounters with the Deity.

Its not quite as clear cut as you think. Segal a Rabbinical scholar traces the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought back to the 2nd Century BC but argues it was only seen as heretical in Jewish theology from the 2nd Century CE. So its debatable what is considered the original and revisionist interpretations of these passages. Early Jewish thinkers saw the plurality of the divine persons but didn't see this as contradictory with Deuteronomy 6:4 as both persons were YHWH not separate gods.

If Isaiah is teaching 'pure monotheism' - why does he in Isaiah 6 claim to see YHWH face to face? Clearly this contradicts the 'pure monotheism' that YHWH may not be seen face to face?