Echad - Shema Trinity

[Wootah]

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/echad_259.htm

When the Bible says God is one it uses the word Echad.

A quick search for the word Echad comes up with other uses.

Scanning through that first link which example convinced you that 'one' can mean complex unities such as one flesh or one people.

Does this end the debate for you that the shema can encompass the Trinity?

[Overcomer]

tigger2 wrote:

First, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising to find that some noted trinitarian authority of Biblical Hebrew had written somewhere that echad means “united or plural oneness.� but I haven’t found one yet!

Then you haven't looked in the right place.

Here is one which points out that "the key word 'one' (Hebrew achad) is often used to denote unity in diversity. For example, when Eve was united to Adam in marriage, they were said to be 'one flesh' (Genesis 2:24). See here:

https://bible.org/illustration/deuteronomy-64

Then there's this one that notes that, "in 2 Chronicles 30:12, we read that God gave the people 'one heart' (lev echad)." See here:

https://crossexamined.org/the-trinity-i ... ent-part1/

It is also used to describe a cluster of grapes in Num. 13:23. See here:

https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/13-23.htm

tigger2 wrote:

We have already seen the falsity of the “echad-means-’plural-oneness’� idea.

No, we haven't. We have only seen that you ignored that fact.

With regard to the word "yachid", tigger2 wrote:

Here is how it was presented to me by one trinitarian:

“The word for ‘one’ in this great declaration [Deut. 6:4] is not Yachid which is an absolute oneness but rather echad which means ‘united one.’ Had the Holy Spirit desired to state absolute mathematical oneness in this all-important declaration, He could have easily used the word yachid, couldn’t He?�

What Trinitarian? Here's how the word is defined in Strong's:

Sole; by implication, beloved; also lonely; (feminine) the life (as not to be replaced) -- darling, desolate, only (child, son), solitary. See here:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3173.htm

tigger2 wrote:

We find yachid is never used to describe God anywhere in the entire Bible!

That is absolutely true, but it has nothing to do with the fact that echad can indeed refer to a "plural oneness" as it does in several O.T. passages including the Shema.

You would do well to research these things rather than just cut and paste information from a JW web site. I say that, knowing full well, that JWs are discouraged from reading anything that isn't approved by the Watchtower Society. They don't want you to find out that the things they teach you are wrong.

And the material you cite is largely from obscure sources such as the one by Gesenius. I expect that's because you can only use sources that agree with JW theology. You ignore the ones that don't, pretending that they aren't out there. Or else you provide quotations that you often don't reference at all such as the one about the trinitarian's comment on the word "yachid". You present a supposed quotation and then attempt to knock it down. That smacks of a strawman argument to me.

[brianbbs67]

Here's and interesting read on Echad.

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/echad.html

[ttruscott]

It seems to me pointing out different individuals can be united is like saying grass is green and my my car is also green, so I hope that puts to rest any discussion whether my car is grass!

This quote seriously misses the idea of GOD, unity and persons with this sillygism.
I don't see this quote anywhere but I'll work with it. There is no unifying feature in the colour green. But there ARE indeed unifying features between things. IF a cat has cat dna and a dog has dog dna then they are distinguished apart. If an unknown animal has cat dna that proves that a new found animal is a cat not a dog.

The dna blueprint (so to speak) for GOD is the Godly attributes which differentiate God from non-God and defines the being as God. Any being who has the attributes of a person (over the attributes of a non-person) and the attributes of Deity then is a Divine Person, a God.

ImhCo:
In this way the concept of the Trinity can be built up:
God the Father is an intelligent, creative, self aware Person capable of pure love and true free will and who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

God the Son is another intelligent, creative, self aware Person capable of pure love and true free will and who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. God the Son is also the one we know as God incarnate, the man Jesus.

God the Holy Spirit is a third intelligent, creative, self aware Person capable of pure love and true free will and who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

These Divine attributes form a complete and unique unity, ECHAD, called The ONE TRUE LIVING GOD, a singular DIVINE UNITY, not a group, due to the unifying nature of the Godly attributes.

This GOD (in the fullness of DIVINE UNITY, not singling out any one individual) is our Creator and the sum goodness of all life. God the Son is also the one we know as God incarnate, the man Jesus.

When you meet One of the Trinity, you meet a Divine Individual (as many people have) but you are also in the presence of the full DIVINE UNITY called GOD and named YHWH.

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 13 by ttruscott]

Ttruscot said: God the Son is another intelligent, creative, self aware Person capable of pure love and true free will and who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. God the Son is also the one we know as God incarnate, the man Jesus.

First thing first: this is not a thread to address the trinity, but if the Jewish Shema has anything to do with that dogma. The answer is NO. The Jewish Shema speaks about Jehovah, and Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ exclusively.

John 8:54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God; 55 and yet YOU have not known him. But I know him. And if I said I do not know him I should be like YOU, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word. ..."

Second: there is no such thing as God the Son in the entire Bible; It is a total distortion of the phrase that really is in the Scriptures: Son of God, something quite different from the first.

Thirdly: GOD as taugh in the Bible is ONE PERSON who occupies an exclusive position. It is not a word that refers to a group, to a whole company, to a family, etc ... It refers to ONE PERSON who is OVER everything and everybody in the whole Universe. That position is not shared, it is exclusive of the Father of Jesus, as he taugh frequently:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’�

Fourth: Jesus is not omniscient, omnipresent nor omnipotent:

Matt. 24:36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. (Compare with Rev. 14:14-16 and Acts 1:7).

John 5:19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel.

You have an idea of Jesus Christ that has absolutely nothing to do with what Scripture says, with what Jesus taugh, with what his first-century followers believed, or what is considered in heaven, where no one is Trinitarian:

Rev. 5:9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.�

[ttruscott]

First thing first: this is not a thread to address the trinity, but if the Jewish Shema has anything to do with that dogma. The answer is NO.

So glad to have a strong opinion about interpretation ... but that doesn't make it the word of GOD, eh?

[otseng]

[Replying to post 12 by brianbbs67]

Moderator Comment

Please avoid debating by just posting a link and expecting others to read it. Instead, quote the relevant parts from the source and provide the link to let others know what you got it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.