One and Triune God.

[JunChosen]

Segment Number 2..... continue from post #139

Now the diabolical sons of Arius who deny that the one God subsists as three different persons, loves to quote Deuteronomy 6:4 in defense of their heresy.. Apparently they’re unaware that Elohim is used with reference to the three persons to the Godhead. Remember, it’s a uni-plural noun. And , also they fail to recognize that Jehovah is a sublime title to Him who is one God. So they quote, “Hear, O Israel; JEHOVAH our ELOHIM is one JEHOVAH.” When “LORD: is spelled with all capital letters in the Old Testament in the King James Version, the printer is telling the English reader that the Hebrew word behind LORD is YHWH or JEHOVAH.

Please observe certain things which is quite plain in the English and even more clearer in the Hebrew texts. “Jehovah [singular] our Elohim [plural] is one Jehovah [singular].”

The one God Jehovah is seen as subsisting in the plurality of three or more because the “im” ending of Elohim means three or more and yet it declares He is one Jehovah, even as over in Deuteronomy 4:35.

Anther thing to observe in this passage plainly declares the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in such a dynamic way, is the little word “one.” This word speaks of a compound unity. The Hebrew word is “echad” and is declared a “oneness” in a plurality.

Now there are several examples of this in the Old Testament which openly displays what I mean. For example, look at Genesis 11:6 where we read: “Behold the people is one” and here, the Hebrew word is “echad” where it says over in Deuteronomy 6:4 that Jehovah is one. Now people refers to a plural number. But the predicate the “is” is singular and the “one” “echad” speaks of the unity of the plurality. In other words, there is a unity among the people that binds them together as one people. Therefore we discover that the plural is spoken of as being actually a unity or singular.

Now this same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 2:24. This is a beautiful illustration here where “echad” is used and translated as “one.” “The two shall be one flesh. Now, “The two [plural] shall be [plural] one [singular] flesh.” Obviously, the word of God does NOT mean that when a man knows his wife that there shall after be only one body, only one personality and no longer two people. No. The idea is that the plurality of persons shall continue to exist as separate and distinct personality but they will share a “oneness” that will result in their intimate knowledge of one another.

We might also observe here that there is a technical term for “one only” or “one alone” and that is “yahid.” But that’s not the term used in Deuteronomy 6:4 or in these other passages noted where it speaks of unity or it’s plurality or that God subsist in three persons is one God.

More to come....

To God Be The Glory

 

[DavidB]

Well, you yourself said, "2 distinct persons," which I've been saying all along.

"The Alpha and the Omega" are titles. The title "Lord" is also applied to both God and Jesus as well as several humans.

Then there is this: if you look carefully at Revelation 22 you will see that is was actually an angel who uttered the words, "I am the Alpha and the Omega." Look at verses 6 and 8.

"Jesus" is the Greek form for "Yeshuwa." There are no less than 10 different people called "Yeshuwa" in the Hebrew language. There is also a place called by that name (To be honest, I forget where, but it can be found if you look). I don't know your name, but undoubtedly there are other people called by that name. Still, none of them are actually you.

Besides that, have you seen any of my posts where I enumerated many verses that would make it quite impossible for Jesus to be God?

• Jesus was tempted. God can not be tempted.
• God knew things Jesus didn't know.
• Jesus has the same God and Father as we have.
• God is the head of Jesus.
• Jesus will be subject to God in the end.
• God is greater than Jesus.
• God gave Jesus power. God just has power. Nobody gave it to Him.

There are many more I quoted, but 1 Corinthians says it like nothing else;

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

So even if there was a God the Son in the scriptures, he still wouldn't be the one true God. Of course there is no such phrase as "God the Son" in the scriptures. There is however many places where Jesus is called "The Son of God." A son can in no wise be his own father. A son and his father are not the same person. At least not if words have any meaning. If words don't have meaning we are left with nothing. Anybody could make any claim they dreamed up. God could be a Martian which I think is pretty close to what the Urantia claims.

If both God and Jesus being called "The Alpha and Omega" makes them one and the same person, we need to make all the verses I quoted fit with that. I don't see how that could possibly be done.

I do not understand why you need to explain the Alpha and Omega in Revelation to be able to understand the meaning of the words father and son. I am both a father and a son so I know enough about the subject to know for a certainty that I am not the same age as my father and my son is younger than me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

...............................................
Alpha and Omega and the speaker confusion trick

To use the “speaker confusion trick” to “prove” that John is the Lord Almighty we would point to the fact that John was definitely speaking at Rev. 1:7, and then (by using our own punctuation or the KJV’s lack of quotation marks) we merely say that John continued speaking in Rev. 1:8 and identified himself as “the Lord,” “Alpha and Omega,” and “the Almighty”!! Finally we would point to Rev. 1:9 and say that John continues speaking and positively identifies himself as “John, also” or, in other words, “John, in addition to [his titles of Rev. 1:8]”!!

So if modern Bible translators belonged to (or at least worked for) churches that taught that John was equally God (“Johnitarians”?), they would simply have punctuated this scripture in a way that showed that. For example they might put quotation marks starting at verse 8 and ending after verse 9.

There is another thing that helps show the intended meaning here. Although it is very common that the words of one speaker slide right into those of another speaker (e.g., Is. 10:4, 7), it also happens that sometimes the writer identifies the new speaker. As we see in Daniel, for example, Daniel nearly always identifies himself as the new speaker when he uses the words “I, Daniel” whenever it might be confusing to the reader (especially after a different person has been speaking) - Dan. 7:15, 28; 8:15, 27; 12:5. If we then examine Revelation (which is recognized as being similar to, patterned after, and frequently referring to, the Book of Daniel), we find that John also uses this technique. “I, John” identifies a new speaker in every instance John uses it: Rev. 1:9; 22:8. So Rev. 1:9 is merely the statement of a new speaker.

Is Jesus ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 22?

Now look again at Rev. 22:8-16. (The SC trick doesn’t work nearly as well here, but some trinitarians insist on using it anyway.) John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in verse 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in 10). The angel may be still speaking in 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB,1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It’s entirely a matter of translator’s choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millenium Bible, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).

Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other respected trinitarian translations do not!

The RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV show (by quotation marks and indenting) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words.

(The Jerusalem Bible and the NJB show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.) Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of “I, John” indicated a new speaker in Revelation, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - “I, Jesus” also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement (“I am the Alpha and Omega”) was made by someone else!

Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word “his” in verse 14 that they didn’t mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing “His Commandments” (not “My Commandments”)! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text, e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young’s Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa’s translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses “him.“

So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.

Nice try, JW - and quite the performance of Scriptural acrobatics at that.

However, only a complete Scriptural illiterate would thinbk that anybody OTHER than Jesus is speaking heere. Allow me to edicate you . . .

Rev. 22:12-17
12“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

WHO is coming soo?
Answer: Jesus (Heb. 9:28, Rev. 3:11)

WHO is the one who will "give to each person according to what they have done"?
Answer: Jesus (Matt. 25:31-46) - The SAME one who is the Alpha and the Omega.

WHAT are the robes of those in the Tribulation "washed" in?
Answer: The blood of the Lamb (Jesus) (Rev. 7:14).

It is JESUS who is sp[eaking through His Angel.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, you yourself said, "2 distinct persons," which I've been saying all along.

"The Alpha and the Omega" are titles. The title "Lord" is also applied to both God and Jesus as well as several humans.

Then there is this: if you look carefully at Revelation 22 you will see that is was actually an angel who uttered the words, "I am the Alpha and the Omega." Look at verses 6 and 8.

"Jesus" is the Greek form for "Yeshuwa." There are no less than 10 different people called "Yeshuwa" in the Hebrew language. There is also a place called by that name (To be honest, I forget where, but it can be found if you look). I don't know your name, but undoubtedly there are other people called by that name. Still, none of them are actually you.

Besides that, have you seen any of my posts where I enumerated many verses that would make it quite impossible for Jesus to be God?

• Jesus was tempted. God can not be tempted.
• God knew things Jesus didn't know.
• Jesus has the same God and Father as we have.
• God is the head of Jesus.
• Jesus will be subject to God in the end.
• God is greater than Jesus.
• God gave Jesus power. God just has power. Nobody gave it to Him.

There are many more I quoted, but 1 Corinthians says it like nothing else;

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

So even if there was a God the Son in the scriptures, he still wouldn't be the one true God. Of course there is no such phrase as "God the Son" in the scriptures. There is however many places where Jesus is called "The Son of God." A son can in no wise be his own father. A son and his father are not the same person. At least not if words have any meaning. If words don't have meaning we are left with nothing. Anybody could make any claim they dreamed up. God could be a Martian which I think is pretty close to what the Urantia claims.

If both God and Jesus being called "The Alpha and Omega" makes them one and the same person, we need to make all the verses I quoted fit with that. I don't see how that could possibly be done.

I suggest you READ post #183 and rethink your position . . .

 

[DavidB]

Segment Number 2..... continue from post #139

Now the diabolical sons of Arius who deny that the one God subsists as three different persons, loves to quote Deuteronomy 6:4 in defense of their heresy.. Apparently they’re unaware that Elohim is used with reference to the three persons to the Godhead. Remember, it’s a uni-plural noun. And , also they fail to recognize that Jehovah is a sublime title to Him who is one God. So they quote, “Hear, O Israel; JEHOVAH our ELOHIM is one JEHOVAH.” When “LORD: is spelled with all capital letters in the Old Testament in the King James Version, the printer is telling the English reader that the Hebrew word behind LORD is YHWH or JEHOVAH.

Please observe certain things which is quite plain in the English and even more clearer in the Hebrew texts. “Jehovah [singular] our Elohim [plural] is one Jehovah [singular].”

The one God Jehovah is seen as subsisting in the plurality of three or more because the “im” ending of Elohim means three or more and yet it declares He is one Jehovah, even as over in Deuteronomy 4:35.

Anther thing to observe in this passage plainly declares the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in such a dynamic way, is the little word “one.” This word speaks of a compound unity. The Hebrew word is “echad” and is declared a “oneness” in a plurality.

Now there are several examples of this in the Old Testament which openly displays what I mean. For example, look at Genesis 11:6 where we read: “Behold the people is one” and here, the Hebrew word is “echad” where it says over in Deuteronomy 6:4 that Jehovah is one. Now people refers to a plural number. But the predicate the “is” is singular and the “one” “echad” speaks of the unity of the plurality. In other words, there is a unity among the people that binds them together as one people. Therefore we discover that the plural is spoken of as being actually a unity or singular.

Now this same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 2:24. This is a beautiful illustration here where “echad” is used and translated as “one.” “The two shall be one flesh. Now, “The two [plural] shall be [plural] one [singular] flesh.” Obviously, the word of God does NOT mean that when a man knows his wife that there shall after be only one body, only one personality and no longer two people. No. The idea is that the plurality of persons shall continue to exist as separate and distinct personality but they will share a “oneness” that will result in their intimate knowledge of one another.

We might also observe here that there is a technical term for “one only” or “one alone” and that is “yahid.” But that’s not the term used in Deuteronomy 6:4 or in these other passages noted where it speaks of unity or it’s plurality or that God subsist in three persons is one God.

More to come....

To God Be The Glory

Post #141 has quotes from several reference works that disagree with your view. Please respond to that post.

 

[EloyCraft]

baffles me when someone would ignore that while accepting that a son and his father are one and the same person. I gues

Either your posts are littered with misrepresentation and logical fallacies of trinitarian theology because you don't grasp it
Or you are being deceptive.
If the latter you are being an enemy of truth
If the former you aren't equipped to debate the subject.
Either way....

 

[michaelvpardo]

Yes, I understand, but any comment on the actual material in the post?

Does Ephesians 3:19 say God worked through Jesus, or does it say God did the work Himself?

Does 2 Timothy 2:15 tell us to study the Church Fathers and Catechism, or does it say to study the scriptures?

Just telling me to come out of the darkness does not address those two scriptures, thus not increasing my understanding. But showing me where I'm misquoting scriptures would be most helpful. I would think God would inspire you to make any corrections to my quotations if they are wrong. That way, I'd actually benefit from your post.

God bless

With regard to Ephesians 3:9, yes.
All I've ever done was study the scriptures.

 

[Rich R]

I do not understand why you need to explain the Alpha and Omega in Revelation to be able to understand the meaning of the words father and son. I am both a father and a son so I know enough about the subject to know for a certainty that I am not the same age as my father and my son is younger than me.

Lot's of people are both fathers and sons but nobody is their own father as the trinity claims.

 

[Rich R]

Either your posts are littered with misrepresentation and logical fallacies of trinitarian theology because you don't grasp it
Or you are being deceptive.
If the latter you are being an enemy of truth
If the former you aren't equipped to debate the subject.
Either way....

Then stop debating with me. Problem solved.

 

[Rich R]

With regard to Ephesians 3:9, yes.
All I've ever done was study the scriptures.

Yes what? Not sure what you meant. Does Eph 3:9 say God did the work Himself, or did He do it through Jesus? If He did it through Jesus, then Jesus acted as God's agent. I know of no other agent who is the same person as the one who hired the agent.

 

[Rich R]

Hi Rich,
Jesus couldn't just tell them He is God. The Jews got upset about making Himself equal with God.

'born of woman ,is euphemism for being a child of Eve. Mother of all the living.

Jesus says John is the greatest man descended from Adam and Eve

That is Jesus revealing that Adam isn't His generator.

How is this resolved ?
A John is greater than Jesus.
B. Jesus did not descend from Adam.
There what say you Rich? A or B?'.

I think I already told you I don't know everything about the scriptures, Matt 11:11 being one such verse. It's just a little unclear to me.

However, I do understand 1 Cor 8:6;

"But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."
​

That's pretty clear, the Father, not the Son, is the one God. So whatever Matthew 11:11 says, it can't be saying anything contrary to the crystal clear declaration of 1 Corinthians 8:6. It's also perfectly logical in saying a son and his father can in no wise be one and the same person. If we think Matthew 11:11 says a son CAN be his own father, we are throwing all logic to the wind. It can't mean Jesus is God.

Then there's the many other clear verses I've repeatably quoted that make it impossible for Jesus to be God. Nobody seems to address any of them head on, calling me various unsavory appellations instead. I really thought this was a Bible Study Forum. I didn't realize I would end up studying various other writings such as the Catechism. I've been there and done that. Thankfully someone opened my eyes to just how much it contradicts the Bible, not only with regard to the trinity, but many other doctrinal points.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Yes what? Not sure what you meant. Does Eph 3:9 say God did the work Himself, or did He do it through Jesus? If He did it through Jesus, then Jesus acted as God's agent. I know of no other agent who is the same person as the one who hired the agent.

The two are not mutually exclusive. If you were Spiritual, you'd understand this, but you're still lost and without hope in this world.

 

[Rich R]

The two are not mutually exclusive. If you were Spiritual, you'd understand this, but you're still lost and without hope in this world.

If spirituality means throwing logic and the meaning of everyday words to the four winds, then yes, I do have a distinct lack of spirituality.

BTW, I thought Jesus was given the power of judgment of who is lost and who isn't. I didn't realize there were others, such as yourself, given the same privilege. I guess we need to revise John 5:22.

John 5:22,

for neither does the Father judge any one, but has given all judgment to the Son;
​

Here's my suggestion:

John 5:22,

for neither does the Father judge any one, but has given all judgment to the Son and MichaelyPardo;
​

Just kidding around.

But seriously,

1 Cor 4:3-4,

3 But for me it is the very smallest matter that I be examined of you or of man's day. Nor do I even examine myself.​

4 For I am conscious of nothing in myself; but I am not justified by this: but he that examines me is the Lord.
​

God bless

 

[Illuminator]

I think I already told you I don't know everything about the scriptures, Matt 11:11 being one such verse. It's just a little unclear to me.

However, I do understand 1 Cor 8:6;

"But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."
​

That's pretty clear, the Father, not the Son, is the one God. So whatever Matthew 11:11 says, it can't be saying anything contrary to the crystal clear declaration of 1 Corinthians 8:6. It's also perfectly logical in saying a son and his father can in no wise be one and the same person. If we think Matthew 11:11 says a son CAN be his own father, we are throwing all logic to the wind. It can't mean Jesus is God.

Then there's the many other clear verses I've repeatably quoted that make it impossible for Jesus to be God. Nobody seems to address any of them head on, calling me various unsavory appellations instead. I really thought this was a Bible Study Forum. I didn't realize I would end up studying various other writings such as the Catechism. I've been there and done that. Thankfully someone opened my eyes to just how much it contradicts the Bible, not only with regard to the trinity, but many other doctrinal points.

“The Trinity is like how a man can be a Son, a Father, and an uncle at the same time. He’s one and three at the same time, just as God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time.”
Nope. This analogy commits the heresy of modalism. Modalism is the false belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes. Modalism is also called Sabellianism after Sabellius, an ancient theologian whom Pope Callixtus I excommunicated in A.D. 220.

Modalists were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, which taught that God was an ultimate one, or act of unity. While this was a big improvement over Greek polytheism that posited a pantheon of gods who fought each other, it goes too far when it denies that God can be three relationally distinct persons in one being.

Returning to the bad analogy that leads to modalism, though a man may be a son, father, and uncle, he is not three persons as God is but one person who has three titles.

Another popular but false analogy is the following: The Trinity is like how water can be ice, liquid, and steam. This again commits the heresy of modalism. God does not go through three different states. The Persons of the Holy Trinity coexist; the different forms water may take cannot. Water cannot be ice, liquid, and steam at the same time. It may be between two stages such as when ice is melting, but this isn’t coexisting, it’s transforming.

Another analogy—attributed to Sabellius—that lives on today is that of the sun. The Father is the sun, while the Son and Holy Spirit are the light and heat created by the Father. But this analogy also smacks of modalism, because the star is simply present under different forms.

Or it can be seen to express Arianism, which is the heretical view that the Father is superior to the Son and Holy Spirit by being a different and “higher” divine substance than the latter two. In the sun analogy, the light and heat are passive byproducts of the sun and are not true equals in the way that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share equally and completely in the divine nature.

Another heretical byproduct of sabelliansm is patripassianism (try saying that three times fast!): God exists as one “mode” and merely puts on the mask or role of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.” But this would mean that when the Son suffered on the cross, the Father also suffered on the cross (though he was wearing the mask or mode of being the son).

In William Young’s popular novel “The Shack,” the Trinity is illustrated through three people. The Father is an African-American woman named “Papa,” the Son is a Middle Eastern carpenter, and the Holy Spirit is a mysterious Asian woman. At one point Papa says to the main character that at the crucifixion “he and Jesus were there together,” and Papa even has scars just like Jesus (pp. 95-96). However, the Church teaches that God is impassible and that nothing human beings do can cause God to literally suffer like us. Jesus was capable of suffering on the cross only because he assumed a human nature and possessed a human body.

Basically, the main problem with modalism is that it denies that God is three distinct persons. The Catechism states, “’Father,’ ‘Son,’ ‘Holy Spirit’ are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another”(CCC 254). What you are left with is a confusing monotheism where God merely pretends to be three different persons instead of actually being three different persons. Unfortunately, in order to correct this error some analogies overcompensate. This leads to our next bad analogy...
read more here

 

[Rich R]

Since I seem to be upsetting so many of my brothers and sisters, I think I'll bow out of this discussion.

I love you all. Thanks for your stand with our Father!

 

[JunChosen]

Since I seem to be upsetting so many of my brothers and sisters, I think I'll bow out of this discussion.

I love you all. Thanks for your stand with our Father!

Don't go. You make a good argument based on your beliefs. Someone new might come along on this thread and both might have a good rapport with each other where both of you could exchange pleasantries with the word of God.

Remember, all have feet of clay.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Rich R]

Don't go. You make a good argument based on your beliefs. Someone new might come along on this thread and both might have a rapport with each other where both of you could exchange pleasantries according to the word of God.

Remember, all have feet of clay.

To God Be The Glory

I was just thinking of leaving the Bible Study Forum. I think it might be more appropriate to post on the Debate Forum.

Thanks for our support!

 

[EloyCraft]

Then there's the many other clear verses I've repeatably quoted that make it impossible for Jesus to be God.

Aghast! You don't believe in the Incarnation then?

 

[JunChosen]

I was just thinking of leaving the Bible Study Forum. I think it might be more appropriate to post on the Debate Forum.

Thanks for our support!

You are welcome. If you feel you will make a difference at the Debate Forum then go for it.

Our task here on earth is to proclaim the true Gospel to all nations. May God give you wisdom.

To God Be The Glory

 

[tigger 2]

reply to #181 above

Echad (‘Plural’ Oneness) and Yachid (‘Absolute’ 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 usually say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad [1] in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.”

The examples that they cite which are supposed to verify this understanding for echad are usually either Gen. 2:24 - “They [two persons] shall be one [echad] flesh,” or Gen. 1:5 - “the evening and the morning were the first (or one) [echad] day,” or Numbers 13:23 - “one [echad] cluster of grapes.”

In addition to insisting that echad means “plural oneness” some of them also insist that, if God had intended the meaning of “absolute oneness” (singleness, only one individual) at Deut. 6:4, he would have used the word yachid (or yacheed).

So let’s examine the intended meanings of echad and yachid and the scriptures cited above.

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 very 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,”[2]

“(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,” (looks like a backword 'C' in Hebrew) 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, or in Hebrew script) 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, in Hebrew script) 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”. 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!