How does “Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH, our God, is one” prove that YAHWEH is three persons

[Soapy]

No, it does not mean "united as one." It can be used as part of such a phrase, but even within the phrase it refers to a quantity of one in a figurative sense. And at any rate, the Shema does not use the words "united as one;" it simply states "one."

It is so weird that readers of the Bible or parts of it (Old Testament) should ever try to claim that when God spoke to Moses, God told Moses that He (God) was a ‘United’ entity of three persons…. And yet God did not mention three persons whom he is supposed to be nor did Moses ask who these three were. In fact, the scriptures at that point did not even mention TWO persons who could be a United God.

The story at the point of the revelation to Moses was that the Jews were living in slavery to the Egyptians. The Egyptians worshipped many deities they called Gods. Each of their Gods had a name and the Egyptians called on each of these individual Gods for their needs as though these Gods were real.

The Israelites had started to envy the Egyptians because the Egyptians had figureens and names of their Gods that they could see and touch. The Israelite God was ethereal, of course. They simply believed in Him. They started to desire a tangible God like their slave masters.

When Moses turned (back) up, he knew that this was the situation. The tribe of Israel was falling away from the true God. So, when the true God told him to go to the Israelites and tell them that they are to leave, the people would demand to know ‘WHICH GOD’ had told Moses this command.

That request of ‘Which God’ is the poynient aspect. Why did they need to ask which God had commanded this!! When Moses put this to the true God, the true God responded by telling Moses to tell them that the command came from the God of their ancestors (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). And that He is a constant: ‘I am, I was, I will be’, therefore tell them that ‘I Am’ (short form) commanded him.

The whole idea is that the Israelite God is their ONLY God…. And there it is,.. ‘ONLY’…. Unlike the Egyptians many Gods, the Israelites are to believe in ONLY ONE GOD… and since they demand a name for their only God, tell them His name is ‘YHWH’ (the MEANING of which is ‘I am’: ‘I am’ itself is NOT His name… it is just the meaning of it - this is important for later discussion!)

So, no, all who claim that God told of himself as a multiple entity are making dangerously false claims.

 

[allright]

No, it does not mean "united as one." It can be used as part of such a phrase, but even within the phrase it refers to a quantity of one in a figurative sense. And at any rate, the Shema does not use the words "united as one;" it simply states "one."

In this verse also God is in the plural and word one means united as one

The Shema doesnt have God in the plural either

The Shema is a bad translation to fit a theological belief

 

[Windwalker]

Although you say you are not reading any trinitarianism into what you are saying, you don’t seem to understand that you exactly ARE doing so.

I am not reading Trinitarianism into the text. But I am seeing from the text what Trinitarian theologians are drawing from. The language, the context, the intent of the author, etc, all go into what is being read from the text - not into the text from a later date in church history.

The verse(s) are not speaking about Jesus as either pre-incarnate nor of s nature.

It most certainly is. "In the beginning was the Logos with God... and the Logos became flesh. Jn.1:1, 14. The text is speaking of the Logos before becoming flesh, in an active role in creation, prior to becoming flesh, and then taking on flesh. I'm sorry, but that is most definitely "preincarnate". Even the Jehovah's Witnesses understand at least that much. They just see the preincarnate Jesus as a created being, the archangel Michael, or some other subordinate creature created by God.

It is speaking of the glory of God’s word. One such word was that He would send a saviour…. And he would teach that saviour what to say and do.

You made this up. The context of the passage has to take into account John's intended audience, the language he specifically chose and why, and what he audience would have been hearing. What was he directing their understanding to, starting from where? You can't just inject a modern pulled right out of thin air reading into the text, and claim that's what it means without contextual support. That's not good hermeneutics, and not a valid reading of the text.

That is His Word - and his word took on flesh (came to fruition) in the person of Jesus.

"Word" is only one possible translation of the word Logos. Historically, in context, Logos suggests far more than a simply, rather trite understanding than a mere vocalization or promise. In the context of John, Logos is more of the intention of the Divine, acting as an Agent of creation. The "word" is that which is emanating from God, manifesting God. Logos is best understood as Manifestor. That which eternally manifests the Divine. It that Agent which "reveals" God, makes the invisible God known, etc.

That is not Trinitarian theology. That is scripture. I used to be a Modalist myself, and have a great deal of understanding of it (and can still understand it that way). And even we understood that much, as non-Trinitarians.

John did not Aidan of a pre-incarnate nature… that is trinitarian twisted terminology.

"The Logos became flesh." The Logos clearly is spoken of as existing before becoming, or "incarnating", or "taking on" flesh. Trinitarians and Modalists alike, and even Arians (JWs), understand this. Calling it "twisted" isn't making a case. It's name-calling as a substitute for an actual case to be made.

The scriptures teaches clearly that Jesus was born of a woman (Mary the virgin).

Of course. This is how the Logos took on human flesh, through Mary. That flesh, was named Jesus. The Logos did not have the name Jesus, before becoming Jesus, or becoming flesh (Jn. 1:14). But Jesus according to John, is clearly the Logos become flesh. Not some vocalization from heaven, but the Divine Logos, which manifested God in and through creation, continuing that role or function of Manifestor, in manifesting the Divine in the flesh.

That is what John's entire prologue is about. That's what he was communicating to his audience using terms they were already familiar with. Terms which you don't have the benefit of awareness of in your trying to guess at what that prologue is saying.

Who is Philo? Was he’s trinitarian? If so, then there is your answer!!!

And this is the answer as to why you do not understand John 1:1-14, nor the whole gospel of John for that matter. Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who lived prior to Jesus. He was NOT as Trinitarian. It's Philo who used the term Logos to speak about God, and how that the Logos was an Agent of the Divine in manifesting the invisible, unknowable God, making God seen and knowable. That is the starting point for John's Logos, which starts with a concept his audience as already familiar with, and then taking that concept to introduce Jesus of Nazareth to them with!

If you don't understand what Philo's Logos was, then you can't begin to understand what John was attempting to communicate. You can't just inject your modern, uninformed idea of "word" as a vocalization and try to build a theology around that.

Here's a brief comparison between Philo's Logos and John's Logos. There are clear parallels, and differences. You need to deal with this if you are going to try to understand John's gospel. And then from there, you can begin to see where Trinitarian theologians draw their understanding from, for right or for wrong. It's not just blind twisting of scriptures, where they had no awareness of the context of the texts to work from and just pulling ideas out of thin air, as the modern lay person does when relying simply on their surface reading of the texts.

Philo’s Logos as Divine Mediator – Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

This presentation focuses on the divine mediator figure of Philo’s Logos and discusses how it is related to the early Christian understanding of Jesus.

I. Categorization of Philo’s Logos

1) The Logos as Plato’s or a Middle Platonic model: It is described as a ‘divine model’ (PARADEIGMA), ‘divine plan,’ or ‘thought’ which is placed in God’s mind (YUXH (e.g. Op Mund 24, 25; Plant 18-19; Fug 94-102). The parallel correspondences between Timaeus and Philo are as follows: ‘model or plan for God’s creation’ (NOHTOS ZWN) (Tim 30c-31a) // ‘God’s ideas or model’ (KOSMOS NOHTOS) (e.g. Op Mund 24); ‘cosmic soul’ (YUXH) (Tim 36-37) // ‘God’s mind’ (YUXH) (Op Mund 18, 20); ‘the logos as God’s thought’ (LOGOS KAI DIANOIA) (Tim 38c) // ‘the logos’ (Leg All 1:24); and ‘the reason as God’s plan’ (LOGISMOS QEOU) (Tim 34a) // ‘the reason as the laws’ (LOGISMOS) (Op Mund 24).

2) The Logos as the word of YHWH (and wisdom of God): In the context where Philo goes back to the Bible, it shows the figure of God’s utterance in accordance with the Jewish creation account in Genesis (e.g. Sacr 8; Fug 95) and the figure of the word of YHWH (Leg All 3:204; Post 102). The wisdom motif as ‘divine thought’ may correspond to Philo’s Logos as ‘divine plan’ (cf. Quis Rer 199; Leg All 1:43, 65; Leg All 2:86; Fug 97; Somn 2:241-242); and since Philo’s theological model of the divine Logos can involve the notion of ‘wisdom’ (of the Second Temple Period), Philo does not need to employ the wisdom motif for his theological argument.

3) The Logos as the allegorical application to the mediatorial figures in the biblical context: Philo takes several appropriate texts in the books of Moses, and places the Logos in each context. He is interested in the angelic figure (Leg All 3:177-178; Fug 5-6; Quaest Exod 2:13) or other mediator figures, such as Aaron (Heres 205), ‘manna’ (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191), or ‘water’ (Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246]). Philo also takes up other texts which sound polytheistic (e.g. the LXX rendering of Gen 31:13 and 9:6) and contends that the divine Logos should be placed beside God instead of other autonomous substances, so that the monotheistic view is not reduced at all (Somn 1:227-230; Quaest Gen 2:62).

II. Philo’s Logos and Its Divine Mediator Figures

In the context where the Logos is understood as personal figures, it comes to appear as a divine mediator. In these contexts, the Logos is called ‘healer of the soul’ (Leg All 3:177-178), ‘comforter’ (Fug 5-6), ‘mediator’ (Quaest Exod 2:13), and ‘ambassador’ (Heres 205), etc. It is also assigned a divine task to increase and to nourish the souls of the people (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246). Philo also argues that God (the invisible supreme cause) can have a real relation to the world (visible), by developing the idea of ‘the divine Logos’ as the divine mediator who can be a link between them.

III. Philo’s Logos and Its Relation to the Early Christian Understanding of Jesus

1) Text: Paul describes Jesus as ‘the image (EIKWN) of the invisible (AORATOU) God,’ ‘the firstborn (PRWTOTOKOS) of all creation’ (Col 1:15), ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘the mediator’ through whom all things were made (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17). Hebrews describes Jesus as ‘the reflection (APAUGASMA) of God’s glory’ and as ‘the exact imprint (XARAKTHR) of God’s very being,’ as well as the mediator for the creation (Heb 1:2-3). The comparison between John and Philo are as follows: 1) the pre-existence of the Logos (John 1:1); 2) the intimate relation of the Logos to God the Father (John 1:1-2, 18; Philo: Fug 101); 3) the mediatorial work for the creation (1:3, 10); 4) the life motif (John 1:4, cf. 12; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-246; Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Rer 79, 191); 5) the light motif (John 1:4; Philo: Op Mund 31; Abr 47; Leg All 3:45); 6) the water motif (John 4:17; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-246); and 7) the manna motif (John 6:35; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Rer 79, 191).

2) Context: In the context where Philo considers an ontological subject, the Logos takes the meaning of ‘God’s model,’ ‘plan,’ or ‘thought.’ When Philo goes back to the biblical context, it regains the feature of God’s utterance in accordance with the traditional Jewish creation account in Genesis (e.g. Sacr 8; Fug 95) and the word of YHWH (Leg All 3:204; Post 102). When it is applied to mediator figures (e.g. plurality of creators in the Genesis creation account, angels, and Aaron), the Logos evolves into a more personal mediator figure. Likewise, John’s Logos evolves into a personal figure in the course of the prologue, because of the association with the event of Jesus and with the personal figure as an incarnate Logos (John 1:14). Therefore, I do not think that the Platonic idea or its worldview provides the Logos (of both Philo and John) with a personal divine mediator figure, but rather each application of the Logos to the personal figure and its biblical context.

3) Theological Theme: Philo’s theological concern is, in particular, directed to both the polytheistic and the atheistic world views. Philo finds the similar thematic framework (including the term Logos) in the Timaeus, and develops his understanding of the Logos, gradually moving from the genuine word of YHWH motif. Then he explains how the invisible and incorporeal God can have an actual relationship with the visible and corporeal world, and how we can place the subordinate existence who appears in the Bible. On the other hand, John attempts to testify to the deity of the historical (incarnate) Jesus within the framework of the monotheistic world view. It is noteworthy that both Philo and John deal with some personal figures beside God, and that both stick to the Jewish monotheistic tradition. Both find their solution in the understanding of the Logos, although the character of their Logos is not necessarily the same.​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is so weird that readers of the Bible or parts of it (Old Testament) should ever try to claim that when God spoke to Moses, God told Moses that He (God) was a ‘United’ entity of three persons

There is simply nothing in the text that shows this. It is nothing more than a christian folktale that a few people subscribe to.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In this verse also God is in the plural and word one means united as one

I stand by what I said. There is absolutely nothing in the verse that implies God is a multiplicity united as one.

 

[TiggerII]

allright posted (again) in #82 above:

“In this verse also God is in the plural and word one means united as one

The Shema doesnt have God in the plural either

The Shema is a bad translation to fit a theological belief"

….…………………………………….

Since you won’t look back at my earlier post as I asked, I will post it again, and follow it with a post concerning the common knowledge by Christians and Jews of the plural Elohim.

Echad (‘Plural’ Oneness)

I have seen Deut. 6:4 - “YHWH [Jehovah/Yahweh] our God, YHWH [Jehovah/Yahweh] one [Echad] in Hebrew]” - rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They often say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.”

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

Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew:

The only definition given for echad in the trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: “a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one”. We find no “plural oneness” there!

The highly respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is “a numeral having the power of an adjective, one.” He then lists the various meanings of echad as:

“(1) The same,”

“(2) first,”

“(3) some one,”

“(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,”

“(5) one only of its kind,”

“(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] ‘one ... another’,”

“(7) [K echad] AS one man.” [The initial consonant of this word, “K” actually means “as” or “like,” so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]

Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word (achadim,) which means “joined in one, united.” This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House. Surely, if God (or Jehovah) were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means “united one” would have been used to describe “Him” repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)!

By using a good Bible Concordance (such as Strong’s or Young’s) we can find all the uses of echad in the Bible. Unfortunately (due to space limitations), Young’s and Strong’s both list the rare plural form (achadim,) and the “AS one” (Kechad) form along with the common singular form (echad) without distinguishing among them.

Nevertheless, since both the plural form and the kechad form are used quite rarely (see Ezek. 37:17 and 2 Chronicles 5:13 for examples), we can see that the overwhelming majority of the uses of echad listed in these concordances (over 500) obviously have the meaning of singleness just as we normally use the word “one” today.

If you should find a scripture listed as using echad in your concordance that definitely has the meaning “plural oneness” or “together,” or “as one,” you should check it out in an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible. If the word in question is really the echad form of the word (as at Deut. 6:4), then it will end with the Hebrew letter “d” in the Hebrew portion of your interlinear. If, however, it is really the plural form of the word (achadim), then it will end in the Hebrew letter “m”. And if the word is really Kechad (“AS one”), it will begin with the Hebrew letter “k” (looks like a backwards "C"). Remember, though, that Hebrew reads from right to left (so the LAST letter of a Hebrew word is really the letter at the extreme LEFT.)

Using your concordance along with an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible in this manner, I don’t believe you will ever find echad (as used at Deut. 6:4) literally meaning “plural oneness”!

Further emphasizing the impropriety of this “plural oneness” interpretation of echad are the many trinitarian renderings of Deut. 6:4. In the dozens of different trinitarian Bible translations that I have examined none of them have rendered Deut. 6:4 (or Mark 12:29) in such a way as to show anything even faintly resembling a “plural oneness”!!

Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders Deut. 6:4 as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.” Notice that there’s not even a hint of a “plural oneness” Jehovah!

The equally trinitarian (and nearly as “freely” translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: “The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God.” - Compare the equally “free-handed” (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible.

And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - New Revised Standard Version.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!” - New American Bible.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).

“Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” - New Jerusalem Bible.

“Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone.” - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).

“The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God.” - A New Transation, Moffatt .

The trinitarian ASV (also the RSV) gives 4 different possible renderings of Deut. 6:4. One of them is identical with The Living Bible, and none of them includes an understanding of a “plural oneness” God!

The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a “trinity” God --- or even just a “plural oneness” God) as: “The Lord our God is the one and only God.” Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. “’... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...’ Realizing this man’s understanding, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’”

Why doesn’t this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a “plural oneness” meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad?

Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = “plural oneness” interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: “Jehovah is a composite unity;” or “Jehovah is the United One;” or “Jehovah is a plural oneness;” etc.

Instead they have clearly shown that God (who inspired it), Moses (who wrote it under inspiration), and even Jesus himself (who taught that it was part of the most important commandment of all - Mark 12:28-29, LB; GNB; etc.) intended this scripture to show God as a single person only!

Similarly, the three annotated trinitarian study Bibles I own would certainly explain any intended “multiple-oneness” meaning for echad at Deut. 6:4 (if there were any possibility of such an interpretation). But the extremely trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., gives no hint of such an understanding of echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., likewise gives no hint of such an understanding in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And that trinitarian favorite: The NIV Study Bible, 1985, also gives no hint of such a meaning for echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). The only possible reason for all these trinitarian study Bibles ignoring this “proof” is that it simply is not true!

 

[TiggerII]

ELOHIM (Plural)

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim, ~yhla , (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ucted] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:


Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159.

“Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew

"The term ‘majestic plural’ or pluralis majestatis refers to the use of a plural word to refer honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the ‘plural of respect’, the ‘honorific plural’, the ‘plural of excellence’, or the ‘plural of intensity’. In the Hebrew Bible such plural forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, e.g., adonim ‘I am a master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Mal. 1.6), although it can also be used when referring to a human, e.g., abraham adonaw ‘Abraham his master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Gen. 24.9), an object, e.g. gibroteka ‘your grave (lit. ‘graves’)’ (2 Kgs 22.20), ...." - Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, p. 145, vol. 3, 2013.


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among [real] scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Echad (‘Plural’ Oneness)

I didn't bother reading your book, because it begins with this incorrect assumption, which means everything that follows it is unwarranted.

 

[Soapy]

ELOHIM (Plural)

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim, ~yhla , (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ucted] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:


Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159.

“Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew

"The term ‘majestic plural’ or pluralis majestatis refers to the use of a plural word to refer honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the ‘plural of respect’, the ‘honorific plural’, the ‘plural of excellence’, or the ‘plural of intensity’. In the Hebrew Bible such plural forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, e.g., adonim ‘I am a master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Mal. 1.6), although it can also be used when referring to a human, e.g., abraham adonaw ‘Abraham his master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Gen. 24.9), an object, e.g. gibroteka ‘your grave (lit. ‘graves’)’ (2 Kgs 22.20), ...." - Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, p. 145, vol. 3, 2013.


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among [real] scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

The simple truth is that because the Jews were living among tribes and nations who worshipped multiple Gods, the true God was telling them that they are to see him as their ONLY GOD… not to be like the other pagan tribes with a multiplicity of Gods but to have him as their sole God.

Can you notice that all other arguments about ‘Hear o Israel ….’ do not give a context, a setting, to which the verse was spoken. There is a reason: they don’t want to spoil their silly argument. As an exercise, ask any opponent to put a context to the verse… take careful note of their answer. Just remember one thing: All opposition is good for building the muscle of truth in yourself: The more you are opposed the greater your strength in researching the truth of a matter… forcing you into deeper detail.

 

[allright]

allright posted (again) in #82 above:

“In this verse also God is in the plural and word one means united as one

The Shema doesnt have God in the plural either

The Shema is a bad translation to fit a theological belief"

….…………………………………….

Since you won’t look back at my earlier post as I asked, I will post it again, and follow it with a post concerning the common knowledge by Christians and Jews of the plural Elohim.

Echad (‘Plural’ Oneness)

I have seen Deut. 6:4 - “YHWH [Jehovah/Yahweh] our God, YHWH [Jehovah/Yahweh] one [Echad] in Hebrew]” - rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They often say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.”

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

Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew:

The only definition given for echad in the trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: “a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one”. We find no “plural oneness” there!

The highly respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is “a numeral having the power of an adjective, one.” He then lists the various meanings of echad as:

“(1) The same,”

“(2) first,”

“(3) some one,”

“(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,”

“(5) one only of its kind,”

“(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] ‘one ... another’,”

“(7) [K echad] AS one man.” [The initial consonant of this word, “K” actually means “as” or “like,” so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]

Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word (achadim,) which means “joined in one, united.” This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House. Surely, if God (or Jehovah) were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means “united one” would have been used to describe “Him” repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)!

By using a good Bible Concordance (such as Strong’s or Young’s) we can find all the uses of echad in the Bible. Unfortunately (due to space limitations), Young’s and Strong’s both list the rare plural form (achadim,) and the “AS one” (Kechad) form along with the common singular form (echad) without distinguishing among them.

Nevertheless, since both the plural form and the kechad form are used quite rarely (see Ezek. 37:17 and 2 Chronicles 5:13 for examples), we can see that the overwhelming majority of the uses of echad listed in these concordances (over 500) obviously have the meaning of singleness just as we normally use the word “one” today.

If you should find a scripture listed as using echad in your concordance that definitely has the meaning “plural oneness” or “together,” or “as one,” you should check it out in an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible. If the word in question is really the echad form of the word (as at Deut. 6:4), then it will end with the Hebrew letter “d” in the Hebrew portion of your interlinear. If, however, it is really the plural form of the word (achadim), then it will end in the Hebrew letter “m”. And if the word is really Kechad (“AS one”), it will begin with the Hebrew letter “k” (looks like a backwards "C"). Remember, though, that Hebrew reads from right to left (so the LAST letter of a Hebrew word is really the letter at the extreme LEFT.)

Using your concordance along with an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible in this manner, I don’t believe you will ever find echad (as used at Deut. 6:4) literally meaning “plural oneness”!

Further emphasizing the impropriety of this “plural oneness” interpretation of echad are the many trinitarian renderings of Deut. 6:4. In the dozens of different trinitarian Bible translations that I have examined none of them have rendered Deut. 6:4 (or Mark 12:29) in such a way as to show anything even faintly resembling a “plural oneness”!!

Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders Deut. 6:4 as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.” Notice that there’s not even a hint of a “plural oneness” Jehovah!

The equally trinitarian (and nearly as “freely” translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: “The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God.” - Compare the equally “free-handed” (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible.

And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - New Revised Standard Version.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!” - New American Bible.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).

“Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” - New Jerusalem Bible.

“Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone.” - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).

“The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God.” - A New Transation, Moffatt .

The trinitarian ASV (also the RSV) gives 4 different possible renderings of Deut. 6:4. One of them is identical with The Living Bible, and none of them includes an understanding of a “plural oneness” God!

The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a “trinity” God --- or even just a “plural oneness” God) as: “The Lord our God is the one and only God.” Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. “’... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...’ Realizing this man’s understanding, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’”

Why doesn’t this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a “plural oneness” meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad?

Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = “plural oneness” interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: “Jehovah is a composite unity;” or “Jehovah is the United One;” or “Jehovah is a plural oneness;” etc.

Instead they have clearly shown that God (who inspired it), Moses (who wrote it under inspiration), and even Jesus himself (who taught that it was part of the most important commandment of all - Mark 12:28-29, LB; GNB; etc.) intended this scripture to show God as a single person only!

Similarly, the three annotated trinitarian study Bibles I own would certainly explain any intended “multiple-oneness” meaning for echad at Deut. 6:4 (if there were any possibility of such an interpretation). But the extremely trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., gives no hint of such an understanding of echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., likewise gives no hint of such an understanding in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And that trinitarian favorite: The NIV Study Bible, 1985, also gives no hint of such a meaning for echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). The only possible reason for all these trinitarian study Bibles ignoring this “proof” is that it simply is not true!

 

[allright]

try looking at strongs concordance The first meaning given for the Hebrew word translated one is "united"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

try looking at strongs concordance The first meaning given for the Hebrew word translated one is "united"

strong's has a Christian bias. You really need to go to the source of Hebrew, the Jewish people, to ask questions about what a word means.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I just wanted to say have a blessed Trinity Sunday, everyone.

 

[Muffled]

Some strange ideology claims that Moses told the Israelites that Yahweh, the God of their ancestors, is three persons but one God.

Im unable to see how that is expressed in the scriptures (both old and new).

Can someone throw light on this strange matter and show where, how, and why there are three equal almighty beings as the one YAHWEH God?

I believe you are in error . There are not three almighty beings in the Trinity. There is only one.

 

[Muffled]

You are too obsessed with this. Move on. There is more to the Bible then this.

You've proven your point, but, there's come a point when repeating has opposite effect then reminding. It causes people to become immune to your arguments.

I believe I keep trying to show him the light. Of course in New England we have a town on the east coast called Marblehead. So when a person realizes something we say the light has dawned on marble head.

 

[Muffled]

How does "God created everything..." say God is 3 persons?

Which is equally silly question since it says anything about 3 persons.

I believe it does not but the same God who is in three persons created everything.

 

[Link]

I believe I keep trying to show him the light. Of course in New England we have a town on the east coast called Marblehead. So when a person realizes something we say the light has dawned on marble head.

In my view trinity is a lie to distort the clear Prophecies of Mohammad (S) in the Gospels. Otherwise, Gog and Magog would have been long defeated and so they decided to twist the Gospels into trinity and cast spells on minds and souls to not see context of what is in the Gospels that show this to be false and not see what Jesus (a) was really emphasizing on was his position as a king anointed by God.

Same way how people are cast spells and don't see the position of the successors and family of Mohammad (S) in the Quran and are blind to context of verses with respect to each other and take them way outside their place.

 

[Soapy]

I believe you are in error . There are not three almighty beings in the Trinity. There is only one.

The purpose of this thread is for someone to explain how there are three persons who are each almighty God and where it says so in the scriptures…. not just to simply say, ‘It is or is not true!’

For instance, how are you saying that Jesus is almighty God when Jesus clearly states that he is a man (who was empowered by almighty God!)

 

[sojourner]

Some strange ideology claims that Moses told the Israelites that Yahweh, the God of their ancestors, is three persons but one God.

Im unable to see how that is expressed in the scriptures (both old and new).

Can someone throw light on this strange matter and show where, how, and why there are three equal almighty beings as the one YAHWEH God?

First, Moses didn’t tell the Israelites anything. Israel didn’t exist during the time of Moses. Second, Moses is a literary character. Third, nothing in the Hebrew texts alludes to either Jesus or a Trinity. Fourth, the doctrine makes clear that there are not “three … beings.” Yet again, you’ve managed to either willfully or unconsciously misapprehended and misrepresent the doctrine, setting up a straw man to knock down.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

First, Moses didn’t tell the Israelites anything. Israel didn’t exist during the time of Moses. Second, Moses is a literary character. Third, nothing in the Hebrew texts alludes to either Jesus or a Trinity. Fourth, the doctrine makes clear that there are not “three … beings.” Yet again, you’ve managed to either willfully or unconsciously misapprehended and misrepresent the doctrine, setting up a straw man to knock down.

You don't have to have a plot of land to be a people, a nation. The people of Israel existed long before Moses.