• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Absolutely wrong.

It is true that God is the only God. But thats not what the sentence is saying. Echad means "One".

So what you said is a made-up story.
Hmmmm... I asked you to read the sentence and statement with intelligence....!

There is no sense in saying ‘one God’.

What would be the alternative to ‘one God’?:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God are many Gods’ (or simply: ‘..... are many’)
Sounds like you are turning trinitarian. Can’t say I didn’t warn you... remember?

Saying ‘...Only God’ leaves no room for misinterpretation. I’m pretty sure Almighty God: YHWH doesn’t make elementary errors like that (or at all) which comes with ‘.... One God’.

However, Trinity has a vested interest in making their God appear to be a UNITY GOD. Echad is as you say, ‘One’... but I notice you don’t express it’s meaning... you do as Trinitarians do and just say, “you’re wrong!”.

When persons say that and similar to me with no further explanations, my whiskers start twitching! You witness this yourself with comments from sojourner. He is a sniper - a hide, shoot, and run assassinator of truth.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Hmmmm... I asked you to read the sentence and statement with intelligence....!

There is no sense in saying ‘one God’.

What would be the alternative to ‘one God’?:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God are many Gods’ (or simply: ‘..... are many’)

Makes sense or not, it says Echadh which means one. So unless you go to the hebrew text and change the text, it will stay as it is.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.”
I think someone’s putting the cart before the horse on this...

Cataway, I like your posts but you got this part wrong. The quote is speaking of humanity. Mankind is Body and Spirit,,, if there is a body then there is a spirit that is in that body - else the body is useless.

[The angels] made the body of the first human Being, Adam. But it was YHWH GOD who put the ENLIVENING SPIRIT into the body to make the ‘man’ a LIVING SOUL. I’m sure you can see what I’m saying (what scriptures is saying) that without if there is a body there must be a spirit. A person is dead if the spirit leaves the body (“it is over... Father, into thy hands I commit my SPIRIT’ and he breathed his last!!”

But the statement is not commutative. A Spirit Being has no need for a body. A body is a restraining container. It limits the Spirit to a limited set of dimensions (e.g. 4 dimensions, such that it can only be at one place at any one time!

God is Spirit... and most certainly is not subject to time and place!

God is not subject to time... he can be anywhere he likes and even multiple places at any time... any everywhere at all times.

It is a human construct that makes us imagine God as a ‘person in a place - a location, stupidly, somewhere in outer space, in the cosmos’

Maybe God instigated evolution. Just that for God 6 million years must be like a day since he may not be time-bound.
Evolution vs Creation... that’s for a totally different thread because it’s a huge subject. I’ll put my penny worth in and finish:
Science, via archeology, finds that there was a breed of humanoid before the present homosapien. I propose that this is true... that there was a pre-human without the ‘image of God’ in it.
I’m proposing that this was the ‘dead/inert body’ (without the human-image-of-God Spirit).
By this, you see that it is perfectly possible for both science and Christian religion to be justified.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Makes sense or not, it says Echadh which means one. So unless you go to the hebrew text and change the text, it will stay as it is.
So you are coming back to the fold. Thank you.

Trinity will try any way it can find to try to justify itself... do not give it through weakness any reason to do so.

Translations are not hard and fast. What happens is that continuous indoctrination forces idealism in one direction or another until it becomes entrenched and the hearers cannot think any other way.

I am an analyst. I look for the evidence and the causation linked to such evidence ... otherwise, what value is my talent and skill and worth as an analyst.

However, some people are seduced by false analysis, such as in the worse aspect: statistics... Why, because they miss salient measures.

‘One’, Echad, has various associated meanings. Jesus said that he and the Father, “are one”... ‘are ECHAD’.

I’ll give you a moment to think about that....

........ ........ .........

Trinity pounces on this Echad and claim that this proves Trinity....!!!! Trinitarians are trying g to prove that Echad means three.

But there are other things to consider. And consider this: they try to say that Jesus IS the Father; for surely if the two are Echad then they are the same .. and clearly that is not so.., absolutely not so...

So what does, ‘I and the Father are ECHAD’ mean?

Intelligent rendering says, ‘I and the Father AGREE’.

So just as ECHAD in Genesis should be properly rendered as ‘Only’, so should ‘Echad’ in Jesus’ revelation also be rendered as it means, ‘AGREE’.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Trinity pounces on this Echad and claim that this proves Trinity....!!!! Trinitarians are trying g to prove that Echad means three.

What i accuse you of has nothing to do with the trinity but its about you making things up. You made up a story that echad does not mean 'one'.

You were wrong. And you made that up for argument's sake. Accept it like a gentleman. Thats it.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So just as ECHAD in Genesis should be properly rendered as ‘Only’, so should ‘Echad’ in Jesus’ revelation also be rendered as it means, ‘AGREE’.

Mate. yhwh echad means God is one. God is singular. God is alone. A single unified entity. One. Thats it.

A sentence means something. When you put two people together, it makes a different meaning like when you say "I and my wife are one" that has a different context. That does not change the meaning of an English word "One". It has a dictionary meaning. What it implies maybe different.

And according to your own false logic, are you saying that when one says "I and my father are one" it means they are alone? Because you made that meaning of Echad into "Alone". So is Jesus saying that "He and his father are alone"?

Later when Jesus says that he and his disciples are one, is he saying that he and his disciples are alone?

You are making nonsensical logic, and you are changing the linguistic meanings of words on the fly.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
What i accuse you of has nothing to do with the trinity but its about you making things up. You made up a story that echad does not mean 'one'.

You were wrong. And you made that up for argument's sake. Accept it like a gentleman. Thats it.
I think you are blind minded by your stricture. You can read that ‘Echad’ makes no sense if read as ‘One’ as ‘unified’ in the statement:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, [a] Unified God’
‘Unified’? Unified...???:
  • unified. When people or groups are all on the same page, working for the same goals and doing the same thing, they are unified. Just like the word United in Unified States, unified is a word that means being together. Unified is the opposite of divided.”
I told you that your were turning trinitarian - ‘seduced by the dark side’.

Unified..,! A unified God? Come on, Firedragon, you are better than that!

Now look at this:
  • “I and the Father are unified”
We know, because we are not trinitarian, not trying to be disingenuous, deceived, underhanded, or misled, that Jesus is claiming that he and the Father, YHWH, were ‘unified’ in agreement of Truth:
  • Revelation 1:1 tells us that YHWH gave Jesus the testament about himself (the Father) and about things that must shortly (in God’s time frame) come to pass
  • Jesus was taught by YHWH: Jesus told us this himself
  • Jesus was always subservient to the Will of the Father
  • They are ‘Echad’ in Truth
But you insist that YHWH told the Israelites that HE is a UNION OF ONE?

You see why I say that it leaves the door open for Trinitarians to say that YHWH (though trinitarians do not call him YHWH) is UNION OF THREE!

Fortunately, there is no such structure in our language. Thus, it is clear that the translators erred in writing, ‘... one God’ (‘.... Echad God’)

The only credible rendering, considering the context, is that it should be translators as, ‘Only’.

YHWH was telling the Israelites that they must see Him as their ‘ONLY GOD’. That, yes, they had:
  • ‘ONLY ONE GOD’.
((In that bullet point, the ‘one’ is necessary because I changed the specificity of the statement))

Pagan: ‘We worship many Gods. How about you?’
Israelite: ‘We worship one God’
Pagan: ‘Our Gods tells us they are many Gods’
Israelite: ‘YHWH, our God, tells us that he is our only God’.

Firedragon, listen... the purpose of my offering here is to show you how words have context that can be and are exploited by Trinitarians to try to prove their wrongful thinking.

Echad does Not have a ‘Echad’ (mathematical base integer) meaning ONLY... context counts.

No one writes a sentence as related in ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH your God is ONE’. That is not a valid anglicised sentence!

Consider a Father talking to his children:
  • ‘Hear, o children, your Father is one Father’
  • ‘Hear, o children, your mother is one mother’
What say you? Could the children’s Father or mother be more than one Father or mother?
  • “Hear, o children, your father is many fathers!”
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Firedragon, I’m posting the extract below which is from someone who is obviously more Jewish than myself (obviously!! Definitely!!). Please read it and see what you see:

[Note 1]

"One"
By far, the most common meaning of echad (600+x) is the simple cardinal number "one."

Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place
[maqom echad]. (Gen 1:9)


He took one of the man's ribs [achat mitzalotayv]. (Gen 2:21)

The man has become like one of Us [ke-achad mimmennu]. (Gen 3:22)

We are all sons of one man [ish echad]. (Gen 42:11)

The youngest is with our father today and one is no more. (Gen 42:13)

"First"
In its first appearance in the Bible echad is an ordinal number and means "first":

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day
[yom echad]. (Gen 1:5b)
Some expositors say "yom echad" alludes to the composite nature of the day, since it consists of an evening and morning. Yet subsequent days here in chapter 1 are also made of an evening and a morning, and they are numbered the "second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth" days of the week (Gen 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This pattern shows that echad in v. 5b means "first," not "compound (day)."

The ordinal echad occurs elsewhere in Genesis:

The name of the first [ha-echad] is Pishon. (2:11)


On the first day [be-echad] of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible. (8:5b)

In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up. (8:13)

[Top]

"Same"
Echad can signify "the same" or "one and the same."

Behold, they are one people [am echad] and they all have the same language [safah achat, fem.]. (Gen 11:6)


They both had a dream the same night [layelah echad]. (Gen 40:5)

Pharaoh's dreams are one and the same [halom echad hu]. (Gen 41:25)

"Singularity"
Echad can denote oneness as "singleness." [The Passover] is to be eaten in a single house [bayit echad].
(Exod 12:46a)


The [menorah] was a single [achat] hammered work of pure gold. (Exod 37:22b)

They...cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes
[eshkol anavim echad]. (Num 13:23)

Not a single word [davar echad] has failed of all He promised,
which He promised through Moses His servant. (1 Kgs 8:56b)

Look to Abraham your father,
And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain;
When he was one [single man] I called him,
Then I blessed him and multipled him. (Isa 51:2)

I will remove the iniquity of that Land in a single day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b] (Zech 3:9)

[Top]

"Undivided Oneness"
At times, echad denotes a unity of purpose or effort, or a shared condition.

The people answered with one voice [kol echad]. (Exod 24:3)


Then I will give to the peoples purified lips,
That all of them may call on the name of YHVH,
To serve him with one shoulder [shechem echad]. (Zeph 3:9)

The Hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart[lev echad].
(2 Chron 30:12)

Genesis 2:24
This passage is a common focus of attention in discussions of the Shema.[Adam and Eve] shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)Some expositors propose that our First Parents' oneness of flesh is a compound unity consisting of each other's physical being. But the verse points to the opposite. Before her creation, Eve was "in" Adam (Gen 2:22). Upon creation, she became a separated, though obviously related, distinct person.


Then God reversed the operation and rejoined them in a new way, in marriage. They are no longer apart: they are one single body. Eve is not now "in" Adam, but "with" him as his counterpart [kenegdo, v. 20b]. Their unity is not composite, but singularly whole. The two, as male and female, are now one Human—one, single "Adam" (Gen 3:22, 24).



Ezekiel 37
Similarly, in Ezekiel 37 God plans one day to bring together the two rebellion-split houses of Israel and Judah. There will not be a king in the Northern Kingdom Israel and a king in the Southern Kingdom Judah. God will take their two "sticks" or "rods" (symbols of their authority) and rejoin them as one scepter under "David," the future Messiah.

I will make them an undivided nation [goy echad] in the Land . . .
One single King [melech echad] will be king for all of them,
And they will no longer be two nations,
And they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms. (Ezek 37:22)
Some believe this union of the two kingdoms is also a compound or composite unity of two parts. But that's precisely not the point here. Their once individual, self-willed identities will disappear; they will become one nation, indivisible, under God.

As originally intended, the one people will be ruled by Messiah, The One King [melech echad].

[Top]

"Uniqueness"
Finally, echad has another nuance of meaning that sheds light on the Shema.

We saw above that echad usually denotes the number "one" (as opposed to two, three, or 10 million). There is something about one thing that is like no other — a solitary "one-ity" that highlights uniqueness, one-of-a-kind-ness. Several things are unique in the Bible.

King David, in overwhelmed prayer, after being given the privilege of leading God's redemptive program on earth, asks the Lord:

Who is like Your people Israel,
a unique nation [goy echad] on earth? (2 Sam 7:23)In the future, God will return to Har Zetim with his armies and radically change Jerusalem's geography. And that will be a unique day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b]
which is known only to the LORD.... (Zech 14:7)
And on that Yom Echad, Unique Day . . .

YHVH will be king over all the earth;
in that day YHVH will be Echad [the only one],
and his name Echad [the only one]. (Zech 14:9)
In the Song of Songs, the young man describes his singularly peerless, inimitable, incomparable beloved:

My dove, my perfect one, is unique [achat; fem.] (Song 6:9a)


Yachad — The Real Word for Unity
When commentators declare (without making qualifications) that "echad means compound, composite unity," they haven't done the thorough lexical study. For example, the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad.



yachad-ivrit.jpeg

He was King in Yeshurun,
When the heads of the people were gathered,
The tribes of Israel together [yachad]. (Deut 33:5)

My heart is turned over within Me,
All together [yachad] my compassions are kindled. (Hosea 11:8b)

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity [gam yachad]! (Ps 133:1)

In the Dead Sea Scrolls document The Community Rule (1QS, The Manual of Disciple), the group of priests and their disciples abiding at Qumran is called The Yachad: the Union, the Comm-Unity.

This is the rule for the men of the Yachad... (5:1)
...the Yachad of the eternal covenant (5:5)
Whoever enters the council of the Yachad enters the covenant of God (5:7-8)
[Top]

How to Translate the Shema
In light of these multiple uses of echad, we must be open to reading the Shema with an open mind about what it denotes. What are our options? What makes most sense, within the Bible?

The LORD is first.
The LORD is one [God].
The LORD is the same [as whom?]
The LORD alone.
The LORD is a single [Being, Deity, Elohim].
The LORD is a unified [Being, Deity, Elohim].
The LORD is unique, the one and only [God].


Given the theme of YHVH's centrality in Deuteronomy (see below), and given the command aspect of the Shema ("and you shall love YHVH your God"), the sense of uniqueness seems most appropriate in this verse.


Here is how some Jewish versions render the Shema:

Isaac Leeser: Hear, O Israel! The Lord, our God, is the One Eternal Being.
Jewish Publication Society (1917): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Joseph Hertz: Hear, O Israel, The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.
Jewish Publication Society (1985): Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Firedragon, I’m posting the extract below which is from someone who is obviously more Jewish than myself (obviously!! Definitely!!). Please read it and see what you see:

Well, your Jewish cut and paste said the same thing - "By far, the most common meaning of echad (600+x) is the simple cardinal number "one.""

YOu said - "Echad does not mean one. "

Whats wrong mate? Why are you providing evidence to prove you were making things up?
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Ha! No, I did not say that Echad did not say ‘one’. I said that it did not have a single meaning of ‘one’ only... I said it should have been translated as ‘only’ which is a kind of ‘one’ but implies not other than one’.

I also said it meant, ‘unity’, as in what Jesus said about himself and the Father... and added that it’s strange that Jesus only claimed that he and the Father are echad but not include a third ‘person’ as would be if trinity were true.

It seemed strange to me that someone should imply that a ‘person’ of deity should be stated as being ‘one’ in person when it is easier and clearer to say ‘he’ is an ‘only’ person. This is what I declared to you.

And I not deducing from the extract but that I stated what I said before I found the extract. I merely use it as support... I don’t need it because I am sure of what I said.

‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is your only God....Beside Me there is no other God....You must worship me as your only God...’

The reason is this:
The Jews lived among tribes and nations who worshipped more than one Deity as their Gods. YHWH God was most emphatic that his nation, the Israelites, should worship Him alone, together as their only God. It is by no means sentential to claim that they should worship Him as ‘one God’!!

Thus, if someone were trying to prove a multiplicity of deities (plural) as their God (single) then it is completely plausible that they should misrepresent their belief in the most learnt verse in the Torah and say, ‘one God’... ‘only God’ would destroy their doctrine line of thought seeing that they are really try to say, ‘unity God’:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH your God, is a unity God’!!!
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Well, it does not mean unity. Because echad mens one. Singular.

Unity is Yachad. Not Echad.

So dont make things up.
I think you are the Echad who has no Echad with the truth.

I ask you to say what is wrong with:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH your God is your only God’
What is not right and proper with that...? And you see that even another person says the same and they are well versed in the Jewish language. And, we did not collaborate with the conclusion.

What is it you are trying to hide from.., in any language, every word has more than one meaning... the context defines the understanding.

Take note from the extract:
    1. Trinitarians can be confident that the word "echad" used to describe God's oneness, is exactly what we would expect to find. Jews, anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians are nervous about the fact that the most direct and important statements in the Old Testament about God's oneness (Deut 6:4) use the unified one [echad] instead of a words that always mean numeric oneness like "yachid" and "bad".
    2. There isn't a single Jew or anti-Trinitarian today who, given the chance, would not go back in time and tell Moses his choice of ECHAD instead of YACHID in Deut 6:4 will cause them grief in the future.
This is exactly what I’m saying to you. The implied ‘Echad’ one implies a unified (unity of) one - which is absolutely whag opens the doorway to Trinitarians claiming their God is a unit (unified group) of three.. yet why three - why not four, six, twenty, 100, etc? All these would fit ‘unified’/‘unity of’...

But what is your objection to a truth? Yhwh is not ‘one God’ to the Israelites... he is the ‘only God’ to them, and to Christians.

Notice that Muslims, who believe in the exact same God as Jews and Christians, do not claim Him as ‘one God’. In fact this point of argument is never an issue with them... why do we make it an issue.., God is not ‘one God’ ... he is the ‘only God’.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
I think you are the Echad who has no Echad with the truth.

I ask you to say what is wrong with:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH your God is your only God’
What is not right and proper with that...? And you see that even another person says the same and they are well versed in the Jewish language. And, we did not collaborate with the conclusion.

What is it you are trying to hide from.., in any language, every word has more than one meaning... the context defines the understanding.

Take note from the extract:
    1. Trinitarians can be confident that the word "echad" used to describe God's oneness, is exactly what we would expect to find. Jews, anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians are nervous about the fact that the most direct and important statements in the Old Testament about God's oneness (Deut 6:4) use the unified one [echad] instead of a words that always mean numeric oneness like "yachid" and "bad".
    2. There isn't a single Jew or anti-Trinitarian today who, given the chance, would not go back in time and tell Moses his choice of ECHAD instead of YACHID in Deut 6:4 will cause them grief in the future.
This is exactly what I’m saying to you. The implied ‘Echad’ one implies a unified (unity of) one - which is absolutely whag opens the doorway to Trinitarians claiming their God is a unit (unified group) of three.. yet why three - why not four, six, twenty, 100, etc? All these would fit ‘unified’/‘unity of’...

But what is your objection to a truth? Yhwh is not ‘one God’ to the Israelites... he is the ‘only God’ to them, and to Christians.

Notice that Muslims, who believe in the exact same God as Jews and Christians, do not claim Him as ‘one God’. In fact this point of argument is never an issue with them... why do we make it an issue.., God is not ‘one God’ ... he is the ‘only God’.
Jehovah is actually the only ''true'' God. there are many false gods
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
I think someone’s putting the cart before the horse on this...

Cataway, I like your posts but you got this part wrong. The quote is speaking of humanity. Mankind is Body and Spirit,,, if there is a body then there is a spirit that is in that body - else the body is useless.

[The angels] made the body of the first human Being, Adam. But it was YHWH GOD who put the ENLIVENING SPIRIT into the body to make the ‘man’ a LIVING SOUL. I’m sure you can see what I’m saying (what scriptures is saying) that without if there is a body there must be a spirit. A person is dead if the spirit leaves the body (“it is over... Father, into thy hands I commit my SPIRIT’ and he breathed his last!!”

But the statement is not commutative. A Spirit Being has no need for a body. A body is a restraining container. It limits the Spirit to a limited set of dimensions (e.g. 4 dimensions, such that it can only be at one place at any one time!

God is Spirit... and most certainly is not subject to time and place!

God is not subject to time... he can be anywhere he likes and even multiple places at any time... any everywhere at all times.

It is a human construct that makes us imagine God as a ‘person in a place - a location, stupidly, somewhere in outer space, in the cosmos’

Evolution vs Creation... that’s for a totally different thread because it’s a huge subject. I’ll put my penny worth in and finish:
Science, via archeology, finds that there was a breed of humanoid before the present homosapien. I propose that this is true... that there was a pre-human without the ‘image of God’ in it.
I’m proposing that this was the ‘dead/inert body’ (without the human-image-of-God Spirit).
By this, you see that it is perfectly possible for both science and Christian religion to be justified.
Throughout the Scriptures it is evident that there is no “immaterial soul” separate and distinct from the body. The soul dies when the body dies. Even of Jesus Christ it is written that “he poured out his soul to the very death.” His soul was in Sheol. He had no existence as a soul or person during that time. (Isa 53:12; Ac 2:27; compare Eze 18:4; see SOUL.) Consequently, in the resurrection there is no joining again of soul and body. However, whether spiritual or earthly, the individual must have a body or organism, for all persons, heavenly or earthly, possess bodies. To be again a person, one who has died would have to have a body, either a physical or a spiritual body. The Bible says: “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.”—1Co 15:44.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Jehovah is actually the only ''true'' God. there are many false gods
Cataway, that is not the point of the dispute. I know and agree entirely - and YHWH stated it’s himself, what you said. But it’s not what Firedragon and I are disputing.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Throughout the Scriptures it is evident that there is no “immaterial soul” separate and distinct from the body. The soul dies when the body dies. Even of Jesus Christ it is written that “he poured out his soul to the very death.” His soul was in Sheol. He had no existence as a soul or person during that time. (Isa 53:12; Ac 2:27; compare Eze 18:4; see SOUL.) Consequently, in the resurrection there is no joining again of soul and body. However, whether spiritual or earthly, the individual must have a body or organism, for all persons, heavenly or earthly, possess bodies. To be again a person, one who has died would have to have a body, either a physical or a spiritual body. The Bible says: “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.”—1Co 15:44.
Cataway, ‘Soul’ is the person. Body and Spirit makes a Soul:
  1. The body of Adam was made
  2. The breath (Spirit) was put into the (unenlivened) body
  3. The man became a LIVING SOUL
When a person dies — when the spirit in the body leaves the body — “the spirit returns to God who gave it”.

The body dies, but the spirit - which then cannot interact in the flesh world - lies dormant with almighty God - creator of the Spirit.

All of this is in the scriptures ... it’s there for all to read.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
Cataway, ‘Soul’ is the person. Body and Spirit makes a Soul:
  1. The body of Adam was made
  2. The breath (Spirit) was put into the (unenlivened) body
  3. The man became a LIVING SOUL
When a person dies — when the spirit in the body leaves the body — “the spirit returns to God who gave it”.

The body dies, but the spirit - which then cannot interact in the flesh world - lies dormant with almighty God - creator of the Spirit.

All of this is in the scriptures ... it’s there for all to read.
you are preaching to the choir . nothing new here
 

ClimbingTheLadder

Up and Down again
I think you are the Echad who has no Echad with the truth.

I ask you to say what is wrong with:
  • ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH your God is your only God’
What is not right and proper with that...? And you see that even another person says the same and they are well versed in the Jewish language. And, we did not collaborate with the conclusion.

What is it you are trying to hide from.., in any language, every word has more than one meaning... the context defines the understanding.

Take note from the extract:
    1. Trinitarians can be confident that the word "echad" used to describe God's oneness, is exactly what we would expect to find. Jews, anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians are nervous about the fact that the most direct and important statements in the Old Testament about God's oneness (Deut 6:4) use the unified one [echad] instead of a words that always mean numeric oneness like "yachid" and "bad".
    2. There isn't a single Jew or anti-Trinitarian today who, given the chance, would not go back in time and tell Moses his choice of ECHAD instead of YACHID in Deut 6:4 will cause them grief in the future.
This is exactly what I’m saying to you. The implied ‘Echad’ one implies a unified (unity of) one - which is absolutely whag opens the doorway to Trinitarians claiming their God is a unit (unified group) of three.. yet why three - why not four, six, twenty, 100, etc? All these would fit ‘unified’/‘unity of’...

But what is your objection to a truth? Yhwh is not ‘one God’ to the Israelites... he is the ‘only God’ to them, and to Christians.

Notice that Muslims, who believe in the exact same God as Jews and Christians, do not claim Him as ‘one God’. In fact this point of argument is never an issue with them... why do we make it an issue.., God is not ‘one God’ ... he is the ‘only God’.

The obvious answer in Islamic theology though is that God is a Unity of Tanzih and Tashbih - aka, transcendent and close to everything, The Absolute, The All, The Ultimate.
It is a Oneness of ineffability, which is why God overcomes what would be otherwise be a paradox of dualism.

The Trinity itself as commonly understood, is dualism.

If Christians really understood the meaning of ongoing metaphors like:

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."
(1 Corinthians 12:27)

They would be able to move out of polytheism and really correlate Jesus' words properly.
 
Top