Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I said that it would have been possible for Moses to use echad/achod/aichod/ehad to mean unity if that had been his point, but it wasn’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No, that is not what you said. What you said was, ''If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhood, or unification with the people he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point.'
I’m sorry, this is exactly the same point worded differently. It’s called a paraphrase. I wasn’t “quoting” myself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And Moses DID use the word echad in Deut. 6:4.
Of course He did, you are fully aware that that was not my point. How he used echad is the entire point of this exchange, not if.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Furthermore, you didn't realize that 'echad' and 'ehad' were the same word as indicated by the fact that you replied to my use of ’e·ḥāḏ by saying in post #229, ''If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhood, or unification with the people he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point.’'
That’s ridiculous. Don’t be so asinine. Why would I immediately use the word echad if I didn’t understand that it was the same word as your spelling of ehad. I used echad to correct your phonetic spelling because the ch in echad has a hard h sound found in Semitic tongues but not English. This is not reflected in this phonetic spelling you chose. This (and the Hebrew characters for the word found next to your phonetic spelling) is a pretty good indication that you got this spelling by cutting and pasting material. I realized this, and this is why I corrected your spelling. My point in #229 was that I never said that using echad/achod/aichad to mean unity wasn’t allowed in a general sense. The word is used that way in a very small number of cases, but there is no evidence that Moses used the word in this way in Deuteronomy 6:4.
As I have said unity as a meaning for the word "one" demands a context in which someone or something is identified as the one being unified to. There is no such context to this verse, and the actual point of the verse is to warn Israel against returning to any affiliation with the false gods they knew of in Egypt, and that is why singularity not unity is the context. Unfortunately, you cannot brush off the need for specific mention of the person or persons supposedly being united to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
In other words, you are now contradicting your earlier statement in which you implied that you didn't think that anything forbids Deut. 6:4 from implying a plurality in the Godhead.
You don’t read very carefully and make completely unwarranted assumptions. Whether or not there is anything that forbids Deut. 6:4 from implying a plurality in the Godhead has never been the point. The point, as I keep having to repeat, is that there is nothing in the text to suggest that this is the meaning Moses intended to convey by using the word echad which in the vast majority of cases simply means a numerical one. When a word is used in a certain way in an overwhelming majority of cases, there needs to be a specific context to indicate its usage in another way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
At the beginning of post #229 you said, ''I didn't say there was anything that forbids it did I?'' in reply to my statement in post #227 ''There is nothing in the context of Deuteronomy 6 that forbids the word ’e·ḥāḏ from referring to a plurality of 'Persons' within the Godhead in which that plurality is one God in a united sense.''
The redundancy of my having to make this point over and over is really getting irritating. It is not a matter of forbidding! I made this statement because YOU kept implying that I said it was forbidden when I never said any such thing. I said that there was no indication FROM THE TEXT that Moses was using the word echad to mean unity. This is a biased presumption that does not come from what the text says. Nothing in the text indicates that echad in this verse deviates from its normal numeric meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
It is not that the word ’e·ḥāḏ in Deut. 6:4 could be implying that God is united to someone or something apart from Himself, but that there is a plurality within the Godhead in which the three 'Persons' within the Godhead are united as one God.
There is nothing in the text of this verse to indicate such an understanding.
Quote:
You are citing information not entered into evidence. The Jews knew of no other persons in the Godhead, and therefore they couldn't have been expected to have this as knowledge with which to guide their understanding of echad in this verse. Therefore, since the Almighty God would certainly have been aware that the Jews had no prior knowledge of His supposed three person status, what you are saying is that God, knowing that the Jews were not possessed of the knowledge necessary for them to come to the conclusion that He was speaking of Unity and not singularity, decided to leave them in the dark even though His being clear about what He was getting at would have ended their confusion and given them a clear understanding of him. You make God out to be a trickster who is going to punish them for not knowing information about Himself that He never gave them! This is asinine!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Actually, you don't know the degree to which Moses himself understood God. Again, Moses, who wrote Genesis implied that God is a plurality in Genesis 1:26 when he wrote, ''Then God said, ''Let Us make man in our own image, according to Our likeness. . .’'
This is your biased presumption. There is no indication of plurality of persons in this passage, it is a plurality of Majesty as the Majority of scholars have always believed. The reason they know this is true is because in all cases except this very small minority in Genesis, God is always referred to with singular attributes, and referred to as “Him,” and “He.” He refers to himself as “I.” You can’t use a small number of special case passages to override the Majority of passages that show singularity of person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Furthermore, even if Moses himself didn't necessarily understand exactly what that meant, he recorded what God had said. And God spoke of Himself as 'Us' and 'our' which implies a plurality.
Once again. Plurality of Majesty. There’s no indication that Moses didn’t understand what he wrote.
Quote:
That's ridiculous and completely illogical. In order for it to be "ruled out" it would first have to be ruled in. You have provided no evidence that the Jews could have reasonably been expected to have this understanding and thus be able to form this conclusion of unity to anyone, let alone two persons of a godhead they were completely unaware of, which is good since they don't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Refer to my comment immediately above.
I’ll pass. It’s nonsense.
Quote:
Wow, this is getting really redundant. First of all, you have merely asserted that the language of Deuteronomy 6:4 carries the meaning of being united. You have produced no evidence to support this conclusion. Simply continuing to reassert the same point over and over again does not show that it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Actually, what I said in post # 210, in my reply to another poster was simply that Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to argue against the Trinity. And then you replied in argument against what I said in that post, and so I am now explaining to you that Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to argue against the Trinity, but very well could be implying plurality within the Godhead just as Genesis 1:26 does.
In order for any unitarian to want to use this verse to argue against the Trinity, it would normally mean that they were arguing against some Trinitarian who tried to use it to argue in favor of the Trinity. It wouldn’t occur to a unitarian that there was anything in Deuteronomy 6:4 to suggest a Trinity. This is the entire argument. There’s nothing in the passage to make this assumption of a three person God. This idea comes from a preconception that is read into the passage.
Quote:
You also have only asserted, that Moses spoke of God in a plural sense in Genesis 1:26. You have not shown this to be true. The most common understanding of this language (especially since no persons that He is speaking to are identified in the verse) is that this is language spoken in the plural of Majesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
That is only YOUR assertion. The differing opinions are that 1. God was speaking to the angels. 2. God was speaking in plural of Majesty. 3. That God was speaking to the other 'Persons' within the Godhead who are a united one.
Sorry, but this is not my assertion. It’s a scholarly opinion of a large number of Christian and Hebrew scholars. I simply ascribe to it and that is a far cry from claiming it as uncontested fact. We are here trying to show evidence that supports our respective scriptural understanding. You however are trying to show that the position you ascribe to is fact. It is not. I have asked you to show evidence in the Text of Deuteronomy 6:4 that indicates that it speaks of unity rather than singularity. We can argue all the particulars of the Trinity in another discussion. This discussion is about the use and meaning of echad in the text of Deuteronomy 6:4. This is your assertion that you need to support. If you say that Deuteronomy 6:4 cannot be used to defend against the Trinity, then you need to show what it is in THE TEXT that suggests this. Your presumptions are not contained in the plain words of the text. The TEXT says nothing about unity that would argue against the normal numerical meaning of the word one in this Text. If you can’t do that simple thing, then there is no reason to continue this particular discussion. Show me where the text of Deuteronomy 6:4 indicates a deviation from the normal numerical meaning of the word one. Do this from the text, not from your preconceived biased understanding that longs to prove the existence of a Trinity of the Godhead.
Quote:
You must be cutting and pasting, because that is the second time you have misspelled Tertullian. What Tertullian believed is of no consequence to me. Tertullian, just as all the supposed "Church Fathers" was a fallible man and what He wrote was not God breathed. The "Church Fathers" believed many things that have no basis in scripture, and their writings quite often disagree with each other on a wide variety of subjects. I place no stock in what Tertullian or any of the supposed Church Fathers had to say, just as I put no stock in post Biblical creeds. They are men's opinions that I can take or leave, mostly leave!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No kidding? Of course I cut and pasted the quote of Tertullian. Here. I will quote him again. And I didn't misspell Tertullian twice. I accidentally left out the second 't' in Tertullian in post #227. That's one misspelling.
Obviously I wasn’t referring to the quote being cut and pasted. The quote wouldn’t have been misspelled! You cut and pasted your own words from a previous post and that produced two misspellings. It’s really not important. It was an off the cuff remark.
Stick to the discussion of our current topic of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4. I hate having to jump back and forth, especially since it allows you to ignore proving your assertion about this text.
As I pointed out in post #210 it is not that the word ’e·ḥāḏ in Deut. 6:4 proves the Trinity, but that Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to argue against the Trinity.
Really? You're going to pretend that you have not been trying to say that Deuteronomy 6:4 is directly referring to the persons of the supposed Trinity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
As was also stated, the word ’e·ḥāḏ does not always refer to a united one, but it is at times used that way as it is in Gen. 2:24.
This is pathetic. How pretentious can you possibly be? You're going to pretend that echad/one is not used in a numeric sense in the overwhelming majority of cases? Echad can only be shown to be used to imply unity in a very small number of cases in scripture, and Deuteronomy 6:4 is not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Repeating post #10 which was a reply to a different poster than Nivram,
While you are correct that Jesus is God, your appeal to Deuteronomy 6:4 to support a non-Trinitarian view is invalid.
Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one (’e·ḥāḏ)!
The word 'one' is the Hebrew word אֶחָֽד׃ - ’e·ḥāḏ.
While there are instances in which ’e·ḥāḏ may carry the meaning of 'one' in a numeric absolute sense, there are instances in which ’e·ḥāḏ is used in a united sense, in which two or more are united as one, as in Genesis 2:24 in which the man and woman are one flesh.
Gen. 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 (’e·ḥāḏ) flesh.
Since ’e·ḥāḏ is also used in the sense of a united one, you can't argue against the trinity based on Deut. 6:4's proclamation that God is one.
The doctrine of the Trinity is based upon the fact that while God is one (in terms of His essence or nature), and that there is only one true God, yet three distinct 'Persons' are identified as God, with the three being a united One.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And so, again, Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to argue against the Trinity.
The corollary of this is that it also may not be used to argue for the Trinity! The use of echad to mean "unity" has nothing to do with this passage. No unitarian would see any reason why Deuteronomy 6:4 has anything to do with the Trinity.
Actually, I said that it would have been possible for Moses to use echad/achod/aichod/ehad to mean unity if that had been his point, but it wasn’t.
I’m sorry, this is exactly the same point worded differently. It’s called a paraphrase. I wasn’t “quoting” myself
Of course He did, you are fully aware that that was not my point. How he used echad is the entire point of this exchange, not if.
That’s ridiculous. Don’t be so asinine. Why would I immediately use the word echad if I didn’t understand that it was the same word as your spelling of ehad. I used echad to correct your phonetic spelling because the ch in echad has a hard h sound found in Semitic tongues but not English. This is not reflected in this phonetic spelling you chose. This (and the Hebrew characters for the word found next to your phonetic spelling) is a pretty good indication that you got this spelling by cutting and pasting material. I realized this, and this is why I corrected your spelling. My point in #229 was that I never said that using echad/achod/aichad to mean unity wasn’t allowed in a general sense. The word is used that way in a very small number of cases, but there is no evidence that Moses used the word in this way in Deuteronomy 6:4.
As I have said unity as a meaning for the word "one" demands a context in which someone or something is identified as the one being unified to. There is no such context to this verse, and the actual point of the verse is to warn Israel against returning to any affiliation with the false gods they knew of in Egypt, and that is why singularity not unity is the context. Unfortunately, you cannot brush off the need for specific mention of the person or persons supposedly being united to.
You don’t read very carefully and make completely unwarranted assumptions. Whether or not there is anything that forbids Deut. 6:4 from implying a plurality in the Godhead has never been the point. The point, as I keep having to repeat, is that there is nothing in the text to suggest that this is the meaning Moses intended to convey by using the word echad which in the vast majority of cases simply means a numerical one. When a word is used in a certain way in an overwhelming majority of cases, there needs to be a specific context to indicate its usage in another way.
The redundancy of my having to make this point over and over is really getting irritating. It is not a matter of forbidding! I made this statement because YOU kept implying that I said it was forbidden when I never said any such thing. I said that there was no indication FROM THE TEXT that Moses was using the word echad to mean unity. This is a biased presumption that does not come from what the text says. Nothing in the text indicates that echad in this verse deviates from its normal numeric meaning.
There is nothing in the text of this verse to indicate such an understanding.
Quote:
You are citing information not entered into evidence. The Jews knew of no other persons in the Godhead, and therefore they couldn't have been expected to have this as knowledge with which to guide their understanding of echad in this verse. Therefore, since the Almighty God would certainly have been aware that the Jews had no prior knowledge of His supposed three person status, what you are saying is that God, knowing that the Jews were not possessed of the knowledge necessary for them to come to the conclusion that He was speaking of Unity and not singularity, decided to leave them in the dark even though His being clear about what He was getting at would have ended their confusion and given them a clear understanding of him. You make God out to be a trickster who is going to punish them for not knowing information about Himself that He never gave them! This is asinine!
This is your biased presumption. There is no indication of plurality of persons in this passage, it is a plurality of Majesty as the Majority of scholars have always believed. The reason they know this is true is because in all cases except this very small minority in Genesis, God is always referred to with singular attributes, and referred to as “Him,” and “He.” He refers to himself as “I.” You can’t use a small number of special case passages to override the Majority of passages that show singularity of person.
Once again. Plurality of Majesty. There’s no indication that Moses didn’t understand what he wrote.
Quote:
That's ridiculous and completely illogical. In order for it to be "ruled out" it would first have to be ruled in. You have provided no evidence that the Jews could have reasonably been expected to have this understanding and thus be able to form this conclusion of unity to anyone, let alone two persons of a godhead they were completely unaware of, which is good since they don't exist.
I’ll pass. It’s nonsense.
Quote:
Wow, this is getting really redundant. First of all, you have merely asserted that the language of Deuteronomy 6:4 carries the meaning of being united. You have produced no evidence to support this conclusion. Simply continuing to reassert the same point over and over again does not show that it is true.
In order for any unitarian to want to use this verse to argue against the Trinity, it would normally mean that they were arguing against some Trinitarian who tried to use it to argue in favor of the Trinity. It wouldn’t occur to a unitarian that there was anything in Deuteronomy 6:4 to suggest a Trinity. This is the entire argument. There’s nothing in the passage to make this assumption of a three person God. This idea comes from a preconception that is read into the passage.
Quote:
You also have only asserted, that Moses spoke of God in a plural sense in Genesis 1:26. You have not shown this to be true. The most common understanding of this language (especially since no persons that He is speaking to are identified in the verse) is that this is language spoken in the plural of Majesty.
Sorry, but this is not my assertion. It’s a scholarly opinion of a large number of Christian and Hebrew scholars. I simply ascribe to it and that is a far cry from claiming it as uncontested fact. We are here trying to show evidence that supports our respective scriptural understanding. You however are trying to show that the position you ascribe to is fact. It is not. I have asked you to show evidence in the Text of Deuteronomy 6:4 that indicates that it speaks of unity rather than singularity. We can argue all the particulars of the Trinity in another discussion. This discussion is about the use and meaning of echad in the text of Deuteronomy 6:4. This is your assertion that you need to support. If you say that Deuteronomy 6:4 cannot be used to defend against the Trinity, then you need to show what it is in THE TEXT that suggests this. Your presumptions are not contained in the plain words of the text. The TEXT says nothing about unity that would argue against the normal numerical meaning of the word one in this Text. If you can’t do that simple thing, then there is no reason to continue this particular discussion. Show me where the text of Deuteronomy 6:4 indicates a deviation from the normal numerical meaning of the word one. Do this from the text, not from your preconceived biased understanding that longs to prove the existence of a Trinity of the Godhead.
Quote:
You must be cutting and pasting, because that is the second time you have misspelled Tertullian. What Tertullian believed is of no consequence to me. Tertullian, just as all the supposed "Church Fathers" was a fallible man and what He wrote was not God breathed. The "Church Fathers" believed many things that have no basis in scripture, and their writings quite often disagree with each other on a wide variety of subjects. I place no stock in what Tertullian or any of the supposed Church Fathers had to say, just as I put no stock in post Biblical creeds. They are men's opinions that I can take or leave, mostly leave!
Obviously I wasn’t referring to the quote being cut and pasted. The quote wouldn’t have been misspelled! You cut and pasted your own words from a previous post and that produced two misspellings. It’s really not important. It was an off the cuff remark.
Stick to the discussion of our current topic of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4. I hate having to jump back and forth, especially since it allows you to ignore proving your assertion about this text.
It's going to get even more redundant. Feel free to get as irritated as you wish.
Everyone can read what you said in post # 229. You said, ''If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhood, or unification with the people he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point.''
The fact that you said that Moses could have used echad means that you thought that he didn't use it. There's no getting around that fact. And you didn't correct anything. You didn't know that echad is the same word as ’e·ḥāḏ.
And my point which I will repeat, is that Deuteronomy 6:4 cannot be used to argue against the Trinity as I clearly stated in my first post on this thread which is post #210.
Furthermore, as I will again repeat, you do not know the degree to which Moses understood the meaning of what God had said.
You have also avoided addressing the fact that as was clearly shown, the New Testament shows a plurality within the Godhead, as any honest and objective reading of passages such as Hebrews chapter one, Romans 8:26-27, and John 1:1 shows. And the fact that the New Testament writers recognized a plurality within the Godhead means that Moses could have recognized that fact as well, although he may not have.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-19-2016 at 05:22 PM..
Really? You're going to pretend that you have not been trying to say that Deuteronomy 6:4 is directly referring to the persons of the supposed Trinity?
Read what I said in post #210 which I repost here.
Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one (’e·ḥāḏ)!
The word 'one' is the Hebrew word אֶחָֽד׃ - ’e·ḥāḏ.
While there are instances in which ’e·ḥāḏ may carry the meaning of 'one' in a numeric absolute sense, there are instances in which ’e·ḥāḏ is used in a united sense, in which two or more are united as one, as in Genesis 2:24 in which the man and woman are one flesh.
Gen. 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 (’e·ḥāḏ) flesh.
Since ’e·ḥāḏ is also used in the sense of a united one, you can't argue against the trinity based on Deut. 6:4's proclamation that God is one.
As I made clear to that poster, Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to argue against the Trinity. It very well could be referring to a united one as it does in Gen. 2:24. Deut. 6:4 can't be used as proof of the Trinity, but neither can it be used to deny the Trinity.
Quote:
This is pathetic. How pretentious can you possibly be? You're going to pretend that echad/one is not used in a numeric sense in the overwhelming majority of cases? Echad can only be shown to be used to imply unity in a very small number of cases in scripture, and Deuteronomy 6:4 is not one of them.
I never implied the degree to which echad is used in the sense of a singular one as opposed to being used in the sense of a united one. And Deut. 6:4 certainly could be referring to God as a united one.
Quote:
The corollary of this is that it also may not be used to argue for the Trinity! The use of echad to mean "unity" has nothing to do with this passage. No unitarian would see any reason why Deuteronomy 6:4 has anything to do with the Trinity.
I already stated that Deut. 6:4 can't be used as proof of the Trinity. It simply can't be used as an argument against the Trinity.
And again, you have avoided addressing the fact that New Testament passages such as Hebrews chapter one, Romans 8:26-27, and John 1:1 clearly show plurality within the Godhead.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-19-2016 at 05:30 PM..
It's going to get even more redundant. Feel free to get as irritated as you wish.
Everyone can read what you said in post # 229. You said, ''If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhood, or unification with the people he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point.''
Yes everyone can read, and probably everybody else but you will get it!! Obviously not you though!!
You keep quoting this same statement over and over as if I won't recognize it, or will somehow disavow it.
If there is anything to whatever it is that you are trying to say, you sure have a great deal of trouble getting your point across.
Let me break it down for you really slowly so maybe you can understand, but probably not. "If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhead...." This clause is a statement of supposition. It's a "what if" statement. I'm willing to bet that most people reading this statement caught that. It's really not that difficult. I might just as easily have worded it, "Just suppose Moses had wanted to say......" Does that compute with you at all? No, of course not! Now for the second part, "he could have used echad/one to mean "unified" if that was his point.'' Put another way, if this had really been his intention" (that he intended to suggest plurality in the Godhead,) he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point. The obvious implied meaning being "but he didn't" which is made plain by the qualifier "if that was his point" in other words "if that had really been his point." In what way does this hurt the point I have been making? Can you answer that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The fact that you said that Moses could have used echad means that you thought that he didn't use it.
Oh my God! Really? Do you actually want to go out on this limb that is about to snap beneath you?
So be it!
What you have just said is intentional obfuscation. You are only using a partial quote of what I said here so that you can misrepresent my meaning! The full quote makes it clear that I did understand the word.
In my post #212 to Michael The Disciple I quoted the entire "Sh'ma in both Hebrew and English:
#212"Jesus was anointed to serve His God (mighty one) and Father Yahweh who is the only one who is Almighty. "Shema Yisrael: YHWH Elohainoo, YHWH aichod", "Here O Israel, The LORD our Elohim, The LORD is One."
I also spoke of the word aichod in a post to you. Post #215. This is well before post #229 that you have been quoting, trying desperately to show where I have supposedly stumbled.
#215 "There is no leaving behind the numeric sense of aichod. Only context can determine whether aichod means "united," and the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 says nothing to give the impression that the meaning would be "united."Aichod in Deuteronomy 6:4 is most certainly a numeric indicator."
By the way you have still never given an answer to show this statement false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
There's no getting around that fact. And you didn't correct anything. You didn't know that echad is the same word as ’e·ḥāḏ.
Really? did you not think of checking my previous posts to see if I had shown an understanding and awareness of the word? Not only was I aware of it, but I was aware of three other separate spellings of the word echad/aichod/achad which is common for a transliterated word where the purpose is to carry the original sound of a word from the original language into another language. I also said that English spellings are not standardized. Your post said:
Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one (’e·ḥāḏ)! The word 'one' is the Hebrew word אֶחָֽד׃ - ’e·ḥāḏ.
אֶחָֽד׃ - ’e·ḥāḏ. is a phonetic spelling like you would find in a lexicon, concordance, or a thesaurus. This is why it is in the form ’e·ḥāḏ with the pronunciation key symbols over the letters and a dot to divide the syllables. This is why I used a non Phonetic spelling using the ch which indicates the Hebrew gutteral hard h sound.
So are you still going to insist that I was unaware of the meaning of the word?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You have also avoided addressing the fact that as was clearly shown, the New Testament shows a plurality within the Godhead, as any honest and objective reading of passages such as Hebrews chapter one, Romans 8:26-27, and John 1:1 shows. And the fact that the New Testament writers recognized a plurality within the Godhead means that Moses could have recognized that fact as well, although he may not have.
I haven't been avoiding anything. This will be addressed after you first show evidence to backup your assertion that Echad means unity in Deuteronomy 6:4.
in full
Yes everyone can read, and probably everybody else but you will get it!! Obviously not you though!!
You keep quoting this same statement over and over as if I won't recognize it, or will somehow disavow it.
If there is anything to whatever it is that you are trying to say, you sure have a great deal of trouble getting your point across.
Let me break it down for you really slowly so maybe you can understand, but probably not. "If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhead...." This clause is a statement of supposition. It's a "what if" statement. I'm willing to bet that most people reading this statement caught that. It's really not that difficult. I might just as easily have worded it, "Just suppose Moses had wanted to say......" Does that compute with you at all? No, of course not! Now for the second part, "he could have used echad/one to mean "unified" if that was his point.'' Put another way, if this had really been his intention" (that he intended to suggest plurality in the Godhead,) he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point. The obvious implied meaning being "but he didn't" which is made plain by the qualifier "if that was his point" in other words "if that had really been his point." In what way does this hurt the point I have been making? Can you answer that?
Oh my God! Really? Do you actually want to go out on this limb that is about to snap beneath you?
So be it!
What you have just said is intentional obfuscation. You are only using a partial quote of what I said here so that you can misrepresent my meaning! The full quote makes it clear that I did understand the word.
In my post #212 to Michael The Disciple I quoted the entire "Sh'ma in both Hebrew and English:
#212"Jesus was anointed to serve His God (mighty one) and Father Yahweh who is the only one who is Almighty. "Shema Yisrael: YHWH Elohainoo, YHWH aichod", "Here O Israel, The LORD our Elohim, The LORD is One."
I also spoke of the word aichod in a post to you. Post #215. This is well before post #229 that you have been quoting, trying desperately to show where I have supposedly stumbled.
#215 "There is no leaving behind the numeric sense of aichod. Only context can determine whether aichod means "united," and the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 says nothing to give the impression that the meaning would be "united."Aichod in Deuteronomy 6:4 is most certainly a numeric indicator."
By the way you have still never given an answer to show this statement false.
Really? did you not think of checking my previous posts to see if I had shown an understanding and awareness of the word? Not only was I aware of it, but I was aware of three other separate spellings of the word echad/aichod/achad which is common for a transliterated word where the purpose is to carry the original sound of a word from the original language into another language. I also said that English spellings are not standardized. Your post said:
Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one (’e·ḥāḏ)! The word 'one' is the Hebrew word אֶחָֽד׃ - ’e·ḥāḏ.
אֶחָֽד׃ - ’e·ḥāḏ. is a phonetic spelling like you would find in a lexicon, concordance, or a thesaurus. This is why it is in the form ’e·ḥāḏ with the pronunciation key symbols over the letters and a dot to divide the syllables. This is why I used a non Phonetic spelling using the ch which indicates the Hebrew gutteral hard h sound.
So are you still going to insist that I was unaware of the meaning of the word?
I haven't been avoiding anything. This will be addressed after you first show evidence to backup your assertion that Echad means unity in Deuteronomy 6:4.
Your statement in post # 229 ''If Moses had wanted to suggest unified plurality in the Godhood, or unification with the people he could have used echad/one to mean unified if that was his point.'', clearly carries the meaning that you think that Moses didn't use the word echad, and your poor attempts at denying that fact really needs no further refutation, or any further attention. If you did not mean it the way it reads then you should have phrased your statement differently. As it stands it means that you don't think that Moses used the word echad.
And I have already stated the while Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to prove the Trinity, neither can it be used to argue against the Trinity.
NOW!!! The fact that the New Testament writers clearly understood a plurality in the Godhead means that passages in the Old Testament such as Genesis 1:26 and Deut. 6:4 cannot be used to argue against a plurality in the Godhead and that God is a united one. And it is time for you to address the fact that the New Testament writers did recognize a plurality in the Godhead, which you have indeed been avoiding.
I have at least twice now mentioned the fact that the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 102:25-27 which refers to Yahweh creating the heavens and the earth, and applies that passage to Jesus.
The writer of Hebrews recognized plurality within the Godhead and demonstrated that fact by applying Psalm 102:25-27 to Jesus.
Psalm 102 is speaking of Yahweh. In Psalm 102:25-27 He is stated to be the creator of the heavens and the earth.
Psalm 102:25 "Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26] "Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27] "But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.
In Hebrews chapter one, the writer of Hebrews quotes several Old Testament passages. In Hebrews 1:10-12 he quotes Psalm 102:25-27.
Hebrews 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11] they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12] like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”
In Hebrews chapter one, God the Father addresses the Son and calls the Son God and states that it is the Son who created the heavens and the earth.
The writer of Hebrews clearly understood that Jesus is Yahweh, just as the Father is Yahweh. That this passage in Hebrews shows plurality in the Godhead cannot be reasonably denied.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-20-2016 at 09:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
