Purity: Shema is the Backbone of OT AND NT, Agree?

[Floyd]

From Purity:

Now it wont take a scientist to work out the Shema is consistent with Unitarianism, that's obvious. While we are being honest :) it could well be consistent with Trinitarianism for anyone who bothers to understand Trinitarian theology correctly.

The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Yahweh is one Yahweh, one God, one divine being. There are not three Yahweh's , or three Gods, or three divine beings. If you are a Mormon you would believe the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are three Gods, but Trinitarians do not.

I affirm and believe that there is only one God, known in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH, and that this Lord God is one eternal divine being.

The fact is that Deuteronomy 6:4 does not address the issue of whether Yahweh is a “unipersonal” or “triune” being. It is just as much a mistake to read into the Hebrew echad that Yahweh is unipersonal (as
all non‐Trinitarians I have read do) as it is to read into it that Yahweh is a “composite unity” (as some Trinitarians have fallaciously argued). The word echad is the common, garden‐variety, ordinary Hebrew
word for the cardinal number “one” (1). It occurs hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible and just means “one,” period. It does not specify one what; in what sense Yahweh is “one” we must learn from the
context or from other statements. The word is consistent with Yahweh as a unipersonal being or as a triune being. Yet critics of the doctrine of the Trinity often lean hard on this statement as supposedly an
obvious disproof of the Trinity, as Nothead is currently doing. Now his conviction is not misguided, certainly not! Shortly we will review the evidence which supports Notheads passionate view of the Shema one which I have held for many years of thoughtful study and meditation.

From Floyd:
Many people are confused on the precise definition of the Entity we commonly call "God".
Most true Christians accept without understanding the Definition of "God" (who can understand Him?) that He manifests as is His Will; for the purpose of His Eternal Plan, of salvaging as many people as possible from the design and whiles of the enemy Satan!
The multitude of Bible texts affirm His unfettered Power in that regard.
Floyd.

PS: Purity, what is your take on the comment from Jesus, that He had to leave His Disciples, so that "the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth can come" (my paraphrase).

 

[Purity]

PS: Purity, what is your take on the comment from Jesus, that He had to leave His Disciples, so that "the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth can come" (my paraphrase).

Can we take of to another thread? This one is clearly for the Shema.
Purity

 

[Floyd]

Can we take of to another thread? This one is clearly for the Shema.
Purity

You have got to read it all Purity.
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

You have got to read it all Purity.
Floyd.

It "was" read Floyd...can we take it to another thread?
Nothead and others

One such piece of evidence we have is the long history of the Jewish people. They historically, both in Jesus’ day and to this day, understand the Shema as we do today. So historically speaking our argument on this basis is not an exegetical one, but rather looking into the history of the Jewish people and witnessing their personal and intimate knowledge of Yahweh. Here is a problem for Trinitarian scholars and don't underestimate the dilemma this causes honest theologians.

What if the understanding in Judaism is incomplete or imperfect at this point? I recall an honest Trinitarian once stating that no one who held the Torah, or in fact the entire OT, could arrive at the complexity found in Trinitarian teaching today.

This challenges us all to consider the relationship God experienced with the forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - what was their "world view" of Yahweh and how does Jesus represent those relationships in his teachings and personal relationship with his God and Father?

This historical consideration is further amplified when we see Jesus referring back to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 and his citation of that text in Mark 12:29.

Of course it would be different if he cited an expansion of the Shema to included Trinitarian teaching but not a hint.

This historical evidence must be given your sincere consideration through sound Bible reading, meditation and prayer.

Purity

 

[Floyd]

It "was" read Floyd...can we take it to another thread?

Nothead and others

One such piece of evidence we have is the long history of the Jewish people. They historically, both in Jesus’ day and to this day, understand the Shema as we do today. So historically speaking our argument on this basis is not an exegetical one, but rather looking into the history of the Jewish people and witnessing their personal and intimate knowledge of Yahweh. Here is a problem for Trinitarian scholars and don't underestimate the dilemma this causes honest theologians.

What if the understanding in Judaism is incomplete or imperfect at this point? I recall an honest Trinitarian once stating that no one who held the Torah, or in fact the entire OT, could arrive at the complexity found in Trinitarian teaching today.

This challenges us all to consider the relationship God experienced with the forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - what was their "world view" of Yahweh and how does Jesus represent those relationships in his teachings and personal relationship with his God and Father?

This historical consideration is further amplified when we see Jesus referring back to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 and his citation of that text in Mark 12:29.
Of course it would be different if he cited an expansion of the Shema to included Trinitarian teaching but not a hint.

This historical evidence must be given your sincere consideration through sound Bible reading, meditation and prayer.

Purity


From Floyd:

I will quote all of Dr. Ginsburg's comment on the ("sham'a") as his work is unchallenged, and only an Hebrew reader will understand his comments in context.
I have not found a single Jew so far that is able to dispute his scholarly credentials, and that is after debate in USA and Australia.
What they all say to a man/woman; is that he is a "turncoat", in the mode of Paul.
They are universally versed in their response; which can only mean they have a well honed "propaganda" for teaching their populations in each country.

Quote by Dr. David (Christian) Ginsburg; Hebrew and Greek scholar, Jewish academic and antiquities expert. For Encyclopaedic Ref. see: Dr. David Ginsburg: (Hebrew scholar, Jewish academic, Jewish language scholar for the British Library, and Museum.)

Deut. 6:4: (KJV) " Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
The corrected to manuscript is: " Hear (observe, heed) O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah:"
Ginsberg comment: Hear " in the Hebrew text this word (sham'a) has the last letter majuscular (i.e. larger than the others) as also the last letter of the last word (echad), to emphasis "the first and great commandment" (Matt.22:33; Mark 12:29-30). These two letters taken together make (ed= "a witness", because God is a witness and "looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7)."

One: "Hebrew (ehad= a compound unity ; i.e. one made up of others" ; Gen. 1:5; 2:11; 2:21; 2:24; 3:22 one of the Trinity (capital U "Us" ); 49:16; Num.13:23; Psm.34:20;"
These are some of the incidents of the use of (ehad) "compound unity"

"If it was intended to be understood as singular or unique, the Hebrew word is (yahid)".

So Purity; the original hand written shows that God was pointing to "a witness", by the use of the majuscular, giving (ed=a witness).
A witness to what? To correct understanding of the given phrase; especially the compound word (ehad)!

Floyd.

 

[nothead]

It "was" read Floyd...can we take it to another thread?

Nothead and others

One such piece of evidence we have is the long history of the Jewish people. They historically, both in Jesus’ day and to this day, understand the Shema as we do today. So historically speaking our argument on this basis is not an exegetical one, but rather looking into the history of the Jewish people and witnessing their personal and intimate knowledge of Yahweh. Here is a problem for Trinitarian scholars and don't underestimate the dilemma this causes honest theologians.

What if the understanding in Judaism is incomplete or imperfect at this point? I recall an honest Trinitarian once stating that no one who held the Torah, or in fact the entire OT, could arrive at the complexity found in Trinitarian teaching today.

This challenges us all to consider the relationship God experienced with the forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - what was their "world view" of Yahweh and how does Jesus represent those relationships in his teachings and personal relationship with his God and Father?

This historical consideration is further amplified when we see Jesus referring back to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 and his citation of that text in Mark 12:29.
Of course it would be different if he cited an expansion of the Shema to included Trinitarian teaching but not a hint.

This historical evidence must be given your sincere consideration through sound Bible reading, meditation and prayer.

Purity


From Floyd:

I will quote all of Dr. Ginsburg's comment on the ("sham'a") as his work is unchallenged, and only an Hebrew reader will understand his comments in context.
I have not found a single Jew so far that is able to dispute his scholarly credentials, and that is after debate in USA and Australia.
What they all say to a man/woman; is that he is a "turncoat", in the mode of Paul.
They are universally versed in their response; which can only mean they have a well honed "propaganda" for teaching their populations in each country.

Quote by Dr. David (Christian) Ginsburg; Hebrew and Greek scholar, Jewish academic and antiquities expert. For Encyclopaedic Ref. see: Dr. David Ginsburg: (Hebrew scholar, Jewish academic, Jewish language scholar for the British Library, and Museum.)

Deut. 6:4: (KJV) " Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
The corrected to manuscript is: " Hear (observe, heed) O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah:"
Ginsberg comment: Hear " in the Hebrew text this word (sham'a) has the last letter majuscular (i.e. larger than the others) as also the last letter of the last word (echad), to emphasis "the first and great commandment" (Matt.22:33; Mark 12:29-30). These two letters taken together make (ed= "a witness", because God is a witness and "looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7)."

One: "Hebrew (ehad= a compound unity ; i.e. one made up of others" ; Gen. 1:5; 2:11; 2:21; 2:24; 3:22 one of the Trinity (capital U "Us" ); 49:16; Num.13:23; Psm.34:20;"
These are some of the incidents of the use of (ehad) "compound unity"

"If it was intended to be understood as singular or unique, the Hebrew word is (yahid)".

So Purity; the original hand written shows that God was pointing to "a witness", by the use of the majuscular, giving (ed=a witness).
A witness to what? To correct understanding of the given phrase; especially the compound word (ehad)!

Floyd.

I seen his video where he claims ECHAD is a compound unity...

...echad is the number one. THIS is his shirk, his fork-in-the-road misdirection and his deception of Gentile gullibles...

...you are GULLIBLE if you believe him. Don't take no HEBREW GENIUS to know he is MISINTERPRETING the main basic meaning of Echad, Amen.

Goooollly. Jim Nabors is turning over in his grave. Can you spell G u l l e b u l ?

Strong's Meaning by priority

1. 
   one (number)
   
   one (number)
   
2. 
   each, every
   
3. 
   a certain
   
4. 
   an (indefinite article)
   
5. 
   only, once, once for all
   
6. 
   one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
   
7. 
   first
   
8. 
   eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
   

 

[Purity]

The second point in confirming validity of a pure Shema is further enhanced by those Trinitarian apologists who try to argue that the word echad means a composite unity, or that the plural form for “God” (elohim) implies a plurality of divine persons, are linguistically fallacious.

Linguistic fallacies, or fallacies in the language, are due to the ambiguity of or lack of preciseness in the words or phrases used to express ideas. It is this ambiguity that leads one into making wrong conclusions or inferences.

It is well understood these efforts to wrest the Word echad are in vain because point 1 stands against them as does the use and context of this Hebrew word throughout Scrpiture - effectively a Trinitarian must infer all Jewish history was ignorant of the Godhead - i.e. that God is unipersonal.

I am yet to find a Trinitarian so arrogant as to infer Abraham, Moses and David did not know the One true God of Israel.

Lets hope we have none of them in our midst.

Purity

 

[nothead]

The second point in confirming validity of a pure Shema is further enhanced by those Trinitarian apologists who try to argue that the word echad means a composite unity, or that the plural form for “God” (elohim) implies a plurality of divine persons, are linguistically fallacious.

Linguistic fallacies, or fallacies in the language, are due to the ambiguity of or lack of preciseness in the words or phrases used to express ideas. It is this ambiguity that leads one into making wrong conclusions or inferences.

It is well understood these efforts to wrest the Word echad are in vain because point 1 stands against them as does the use and context of this Hebrew word throughout Scrpiture - effectively a Trinitarian must infer all Jewish history was ignorant of the Godhead - i.e. that God is unipersonal.

I am yet to find a Trinitarian so arrogant as to infer Abraham, Moses and David did not know the One true God of Israel.

Lets hope we have none of them in our midst.

Purity

Exactly. If the Jews knew God to be an undefined UNITY of something, the biggy question in every age up to the God incarnate supposedly come, would be WHAT this unity of a plural God is?

The number is never defined until 381 A.D. or so. Three-in-unity. So until that time, God is just an undefined unity of something ambiguous this way comes...

...not the One True God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. NO OTHER standing in his presence.

 

[justaname]

nothead,

Do you still believe God is a number? Hear Israel the Lord is our God the Lord is the #1...just silly! Perhaps Moses had a big foam finger too...

259. אֶחָד echad (25c); a prim. card. number; one:—151,450*(1), 41,500*(2), 61*(1), 61,000*(1), 621*(2), 721*(1), alike(1), all at once(1), alone(2), altogether(1), another(23), another into one(1), any(15), any one(2), any*(1), anyone*(1), apiece(1), certain(11), certain man(1), each(48), each one(4), each other(1), each*(4), eleven*(9), eleventh*(4), every(1), everyone(1), few(3), first(38), forty-first*(1), forty-one*(4), numbered(1), once(14), once*(4), one(586), one and on another(1), one and the other(2), one at the other(1), one can him who(1), one the other(1), one to another(1), one will to another(1), one another(4), one thing(2), one thing to another(1), one-tenth(1), one-tenth for each(1), only(2), other(27), other was one(1), outermost*(1), same(25), same one(1), single(15), some(2), thirty-first*(1), thirty-one*(3), together(3), twenty-first*(4), twenty-one*(4), uniformly*(2), unique(4), unison(1), unit(4), united(1), whom(1).​

 

[Purity]

Exactly. If the Jews knew God to be an undefined UNITY of something, the biggy question in every age up to the God incarnate supposedly come, would be WHAT this unity of a plural God is?

You did not read my post correctly....do you know what " God is unipersonal" means?

unipersonal - adjective
adjective: unipersonal
comprising or existing as ONE person only

Israel and in fact Islam worship a unipersonal God and as you sadly reveal below this concept or idea was introduce through philosophers which derived their understanding from a melting pot of mythologies stemming back to Egypt.

Sadly you are but one of the victims ensnared with such false doctrines.

The number is never defined until 381 A.D. or so. Three-in-unity. So until that time, God is just an undefined unity of something ambiguous this way comes...

So you admit your doctrine was formed in human councils by theologians / philosophers and you are comfortable with that? Even though you have an entire race of people in covenant relationship with a single all powerful God and you would choose defiled teachers of knowledge over Israel's Holy covenant?

I am continually amazed by men such as yourself who place their trust in the kingdoms of this world and their councils and do so with pride.

Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus Christ all worshipped a God comprising of ONE person only.

I must be patient with you.

Purity

 

[nothead]

Nothead,

I have been so engrossed in our discussions with wormwood, Floyd, old jack and justaname that I was oblivious to this thread.

Before I begin to discuss this subject it is essential we stand back and take an honest look at ourselves before we begin to fight and wrestle with each other and the Shema.

As wormwood may attest (though I am yet to see any humility from him) there are different nuances (or connotations) in the way we might read the Shema and hey are all consistent with one another, yes? They are also consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity as well as with Unitarian forms of non‐Trinitarian theology.

Now it wont take a scientist to work out the Shema is consistent with Unitarianism, that's obvious. While we are being honest :) it could well be consistent with Trinitarianism for anyone who bothers to understand Trinitarian theology correctly.

The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Yahweh is one Yahweh, one God, one divine being. There are not three Yahweh's , or three Gods, or three divine beings. If you are a Mormon you would believe the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are three Gods, but Trinitarians do not.

I affirm and believe that there is only one God, known in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH, and that this Lord God is one eternal divine being.

The fact is that Deuteronomy 6:4 does not address the issue of whether Yahweh is a “unipersonal” or “triune” being. It is just as much a mistake to read into the Hebrew echad that Yahweh is unipersonal (as
all non‐Trinitarians I have read do) as it is to read into it that Yahweh is a “composite unity” (as some Trinitarians have fallaciously argued). The word echad is the common, garden‐variety, ordinary Hebrew
word for the cardinal number “one” (1). It occurs hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible and just means “one,” period. It does not specify one what; in what sense Yahweh is “one” we must learn from the
context or from other statements. The word is consistent with Yahweh as a unipersonal being or as a triune being. Yet critics of the doctrine of the Trinity often lean hard on this statement as supposedly an
obvious disproof of the Trinity, as Nothead is currently doing. Now his conviction is not misguided, certainly not! Shortly we will review the evidence which supports Notheads passionate view of the Shema one which I have held for many years of thoughtful study and meditation.

God bless your reading.

I've hit on websites about the Shema, even Jewish ones which claim 5 or 6 subtle differences in meaning of the Shema.

All the so-called majority opinion ones include a composite unity of 'one.'

But this is self-defeating. Calling God ONE is calling Him the singular unique alone numerical unit of ONE. Peshat Law requires the Plain Meaning to be the one God means.

And Peshat Law was the Command in Deut 6:4.

Deut 30

[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Of course this refers probably to the second half of Shema primarily, yet the two commandments make one Commandment (Shema) for this very reason: The One True God, YHWH Elohim is the one which is worshiped and loved with all of one's heart soul and might.

Also the Peshat Law was even understood by children, just as the Ten are easily assimilated:

[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear theLord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

So then Deuteronomy explicitly says the Ten and the Shema are to be taught plainly the meaning of God.

 

[justaname]

You did not read my post correctly....do you know what " God is unipersonal" means?

unipersonal - adjective
adjective: unipersonal
comprising or existing as ONE person only

Israel and in fact Islam worship a unipersonal God and as you sadly reveal below this concept or idea was introduce through philosophers which derived their understanding from a melting pot of mythologies stemming back to Egypt.

Sadly you are but one of the victims ensnared with such false doctrines.


So you admit your doctrine was formed in human councils by theologians / philosophers and you are comfortable with that? Even though you have an entire race of people in covenant relationship with a single all powerful God and you would choose defiled teachers of knowledge over Israel's Holy covenant?

I am continually amazed by men such as yourself who place their trust in the kingdoms of this world and their councils and do so with pride.

Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus Christ all worshipped a God comprising of ONE person only.

I must be patient with you.

Purity

Now this is interesting...

 

[nothead]

You did not read my post correctly....do you know what " God is unipersonal" means?

unipersonal - adjective
adjective: unipersonal
comprising or existing as ONE person only

Israel and in fact Islam worship a unipersonal God and as you sadly reveal below this concept or idea was introduce through philosophers which derived their understanding from a melting pot of mythologies stemming back to Egypt.

Sadly you are but one of the victims ensnared with such false doctrines.


So you admit your doctrine was formed in human councils by theologians / philosophers and you are comfortable with that? Even though you have an entire race of people in covenant relationship with a single all powerful God and you would choose defiled teachers of knowledge over Israel's Holy covenant?

I am continually amazed by men such as yourself who place their trust in the kingdoms of this world and their councils and do so with pride.

Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus Christ all worshipped a God comprising of ONE person only.

I must be patient with you.

Purity

You ain't my hero no more, Purity. I'm sorry but your head will be off before we are done. Don't exactly know what you are saying but the beans are in the stomach. Now all
hail is gonna break loose. Soon as I figure out what your are yapping about.

Oh I think I figured it out. You didn't understand my point. IF God was a UNITY of one THEN he is somehow multi-personal, and this was what nothead was getting at. I said IF God is a unity, THEN the big question would up until 0 AD would be WHAT this undefined unity IS. Which would naturally be TWO not THREE if they decided right away Jesus was also God.

Two-in-one, so to speak. I was conjecturing what would happen if the Jews MISUNDERSTOOD Shema to be what the Trins and JisG were saying true terp was. Since there was NO conjecture as to what this 'unity' is of God, then the UNITY OF ECHAD was never a theological consideration among Jews.
And since the context of Shema was ALWAYS that no other stood next to the SINGULAR PRONOUNED God, and SINGULAR VERBED God, then
the obvious, clear and unambiguous orthodox interpretation and INTENT of Author has always been that He is yes, unipersonal and ALONE in His stature.

Sorry about the beans analogy. I know you can eat 'em and STILL smell sweet as a rose.

nothead,

Do you still believe God is a number? Hear Israel the Lord is our God the Lord is the #1...just silly! Perhaps Moses had a big foam finger too...

259. אֶחָד echad (25c); a prim. card. number; one:—151,450*(1), 41,500*(2), 61*(1), 61,000*(1), 621*(2), 721*(1), alike(1), all at once(1), alone(2), altogether(1), another(23), another into one(1), any(15), any one(2), any*(1), anyone*(1), apiece(1), certain(11), certain man(1), each(48), each one(4), each other(1), each*(4), eleven*(9), eleventh*(4), every(1), everyone(1), few(3), first(38), forty-first*(1), forty-one*(4), numbered(1), once(14), once*(4), one(586), one and on another(1), one and the other(2), one at the other(1), one can him who(1), one the other(1), one to another(1), one will to another(1), one another(4), one thing(2), one thing to another(1), one-tenth(1), one-tenth for each(1), only(2), other(27), other was one(1), outermost*(1), same(25), same one(1), single(15), some(2), thirty-first*(1), thirty-one*(3), together(3), twenty-first*(4), twenty-one*(4), uniformly*(2), unique(4), unison(1), unit(4), united(1), whom(1).​

What you mean God IS a number?

God is DEFINED by the holistic adjective, one. The NUMBER one. This means he is unipersonal as his PERSON is One and His BEING is One.

This ain't TWO ones, this is ONE ONE.

One is one. One is as One does. God is not divided by wills minds, consciousnesses or heads. Eyes, probably two. Ears, probably two. Mouths probably one. How does nothead know?

Because I resemble him, sorta. Made in His image, kinda.

 

[Purity]

I agree with you Nothead, however a Trinitarian has not been raised to appreciate a "salvation is of the Jews" Christology or their language (heck I am no Hebrew scholar!) rather they have their roots in apostate Christianity with all their gods and soulish knowledge etc. We know from Romans 11 the Jews can be grafted back into their own olive tree and that does not mean they need to be taught Trinitarian doctrine but acceptance of Jesus the Son of God. Actually, Paul expressly teaches its easier for the Jew to be grafted back into their own tree than the grafting of a Gentile (Rom 11:24) - the reason why; its easier for a Jew to come to God once they accept Jesus Christ as theirs was the promises and the covenants and prophecies.

Personally, I think we need to appreciate a macro view of this subject and while its good to drop into the micro, we can get lost in the detail. What's sad for them is they are forced to fallback on Nicene councils for their wisdom and not the Word of God...this is already beginning to surface.

I am enjoying your Shema thoughts.

Purity

You ain't my hero no more, Purity. I'm sorry but your head will be off before we are done. Don't exactly know what you are saying but the beans are in the stomach. Now all
hail is gonna break loose. Soon as I figure out what your are yapping about.

Oh I think I figured it out. You didn't understand my point. IF God was a UNITY of one THEN he is somehow multi-personal, and this was what nothead was getting at. I said IF God is a unity, THEN the big question would up until 0 AD would be WHAT this undefined unity IS. Which would naturally be TWO not THREE if they decided right away Jesus was also God.

Two-in-one, so to speak. I was conjecturing what would happen if the Jews MISUNDERSTOOD Shema to be what the Trins and JisG were saying true terp was. Since there was NO conjecture as to what this 'unity' is of God, then the UNITY OF ECHAD was never a theological consideration among Jews.
And since the context of Shema was ALWAYS that no other stood next to the SINGULAR PRONOUNED God, and SINGULAR VERBED God, then
the obvious, clear and unambiguous orthodox interpretation and INTENT of Author has always been that He is yes, unipersonal and ALONE in His stature.

Sorry about the beans analogy. I know you can eat 'em and STILL smell sweet as a rose.

Let me spell this out very clear.

God, Yahweh, Almighty God, Father, Abba Father is only ONE person who is called God...he is not One made up of three; He is ONE God manifested through sinners (us) through angels; through Jesus Christ His Son...so even while God (single) has placed all power and authority in the Son the Son is still subordinate and subject to a single Person in the Father.

In order of authority.

Yahweh
Christ
Angels
Man
Woman

Capesh!

 

[nothead]

I agree with you Nothead, however a Trinitarian has not been raised to appreciate a "salvation is of the Jews" Christology or their language (heck I am no Hebrew scholar!) rather they have their roots in apostate Christianity with all their gods and soulish knowledge etc. We know from Romans 11 the Jews can be grafted back into their own olive tree and that does not mean they need to be taught Trinitarian doctrine but acceptance of Jesus the Son of God. Actually, Paul expressly teaches its easier for the Jew to be grafted back into their own tree than the grafting of a Gentile (Rom 11:24) - the reason why; its easier for a Jew to come to God once they accept Jesus Christ as theirs was the promises and the covenants and prophecies.

Personally, I think we need to appreciate a macro view of this subject and while its good to drop into the micro, we can get lost in the detail. What's sad for them is they are forced to fallback on Nicene councils for their wisdom and not the Word of God...this is already beginning to surface.

I am enjoying your Shema thoughts.

Purity

Okay then big guy. Glad I won't have to let you swim wit da fishes. We are still good.

Hard to get people to view it simply as it was meant. Or to give it any consideration at all for that matter.

You still my hero and the man who has his own head on his shoulders. Right good head for God at that.

 

[Purity]

Ok so we are back on the same page; singing from the same hymn sheet?

God is NOT a triune god, but a “unipersonal” Being Who is ONE person alone.

Great - I am sure everyone present understands this now? Floyd? Justaname? Old Jack?

Lets hope so.

More to come on the Shema...but first I must go and take some rubbish to the tip so my wife does not think I have been discussing the Shema all day ;)

God bless.

 

[justaname]

Purity and nothead,

So then if God is not the #1, you must understand the meaning of one then.

One "ecad" as a compound unity...
Not one "yahid" singular or unique...

Simple refusal to admit the plain truth does not disprove the truth. Your entire basis is overthrown in Shem'a. Again the wording supports the Trinitarian view, otherwise it would have never been changed. If Jewish rabbis recognized this and agreed to change the sacred scriptures, something that goes against their entire view of the scriptures, then your limited understanding of the Hebrew language is void. This also invalidates Purity's point of history and nothead's point of Peshat Law. The wording throughout the scriptures plainly describe God as plural with "ehacd" seen as a compound unity.

You have no leg to stand on in this discussion. The Jewish rabbis saw that, thats why they desecrated the holy scriptures.

God is a triune God. Father, Son, HolySpirit.

 

[Purity]

Purity and nothead,

So then if God is not the #1, you must understand the meaning of one then.

One "ecad" as a compound unity...
Not one "yahid" singular or unique...

Simple refusal to admit the plain truth does not disprove the truth. Your entire basis is overthrown in Shem'a. Again the wording supports the Trinitarian view, otherwise it would have never been changed. If Jewish rabbis recognized this and agreed to change the sacred scriptures, something that goes against their entire view of the scriptures, then your limited understanding of the Hebrew language is void. This also invalidates Purity's point of history and nothead's point of Peshat Law. The wording throughout the scriptures plainly describe God as plural with "ehacd" seen as a compound unity.

You have no leg to stand on in this discussion. The Jewish rabbis saw that, thats why they desecrated the holy scriptures.

God is a triune God. Father, Son, HolySpirit.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20082-purity-shema-is-the-backbone-of-ot-and-nt-agree/?p=226183
Would you like me to list all the verses where Echad is clearly #1 ?

 

[justaname]

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20082-purity-shema-is-the-backbone-of-ot-and-nt-agree/?p=226183
Would you like me to list all the verses where Echad is clearly #1 ?

You can refer to post #69

If you look at the translation (which is what we are discussing) it is translated as "one" currently in the Shemah. It is the meaning of "echad" the Hebrew rabbis understand, as well as the renowned PHD. Ginsburg.

Are you a Hebrew language scholar?

 

[Purity]

Justaname, do you acknowledge the Christian God is the Jewish God and everything that we know about Him through the Bible was already known to the Jews through Judaism?

A yes or no will suffice.

Do you believe the NT writers have presented God and his character any differently than the OT writers?

Can you take me to a passage in the NT which asserts an attribute of Gods person which cannot be found in the OT?

If all Israel worship the One true God, who reveals Himself as One Person and spoke as One person why would you change Him?

Purity