- This topic is empty.
- Posts
To All,
There is some here who deny the testimony of all scholarship on the meaning of the Hebrew “echad” which is translated “one.” The word often means a unified one. Please see Strong's #258 & 259.But Moses used the word “echad” in two ways,
Quote Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be ONE flesh (Gen. 2:24) And,
Quote But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed, the people are ONE nad all have ONE language (Gen. 11:5-6) In Genesis 2:24 the word “echad” does not refer to one in the numerical sense but in the unified sense only. But in 11:5-6 it is used both in the unified and the numerical sense. The expression “one people” is obviously the unified sense and “one language” is the numerical sense.
It is clear then that those who deny all the scholars also deny Moses. Deuteronomy 6:4 also uses “echad.” So all the anti-trinitarians need to do now is prove their assumption that “echad” means one in the numerical sense in Deuteronomy 6:4. Let them assume no more. Let them DEMONSTRATE their assumptions.
thinker
I found a really good source that explains it the whole article is here and the source link is at the bottom. I thought I explained it quite well but some need a more thorough explanation so here it is:
The claim is made that the Hebrew word translated “one” [echad] means “composite unity”, and therefore this shows that Yahweh consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It is true that “one” can mean “composite unity”, whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word “one”. There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word “one” as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Yahweh is more than one person.
Echad [Strong's #259 “united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first”] simply means one [whether composite or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: “one door” Ezekiel 41:11); “one reed” (Ezekiel 40:5-8); “one gate” (Ezekiel 48:31); “one saint” (Daniel 8:13) — just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word “one”. Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0259The English word “unit” is defined as:
a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses— Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
http://www.yourdictionary.com/The word composite means “made up of distinct parts.” A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. One grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. The scripture referred to says that there is only one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Yahweh who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 — two separate beings. Jesus is not Yahweh.
Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means “compound unity”. The word “compound” means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as “composite.”
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.
Jay Green's interlinear says: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one.” His translation reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Yahweh, not two – not three.
While it is true the word “one”, whether in English or “echad” in Hebrew, can mean a composite unity, and one can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes, each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. Grape one does not equal the cluster, grape two does not equal the cluster, etc., each grape is only a part of the whole.
Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole boday, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part.
If this idea of composite unity is applied to the three persons in one being story, then you would have the Father is part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian godhead as such, for they claim that Jesus is “fully God.” They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of “composite unity” or “compound unity” as a means to see the trinity in the word “echad” does not, in reality, exist, except in their own realm of trinitarian redefinitions of words and phrases.
Is Yahweh a Unity? We can say that Yahweh is love; but Yahweh is not “all” love and nothing else. “Love” is not equal to the whole of who Yahweh is. It is only one component of who Yahweh is. The many components of Yahweh's being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson's Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard.
Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is not one hint that they believed such. It is only by reading adding the philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find “trinity” in the verse.
The argument is put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists to two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other “illustrations” of composite unity that our trinitarians neighbors come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity.
Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So none of these provide any illustration of the trinity.
Echad corresponds with the Greek heis — one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for “one”.
�He is unique�He is not many, but one�Yahweh is a single unified person..one Lord is also opposite to diffuse�He is single�God�s person and his will are single�Israel is called to concentrate it�s undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique.� — The Broadman Bible Commentary
Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong's #3173). This word corresponds with our English word “only”. It is most commonly used in the expression “only son”. (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning “to join, unite” (Strong's 3161), thus carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basic meaning as “united”, “sole”, and further as “beloved”, “lonely”. The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also “only” and “unique”. The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as “solitary”, in the sense of “lonely”.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03173Although this word (Yachiyd) is not used of Yahweh in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son, we see no reason why it could not have been used of him. It corresponds most closely with the English word “only”, especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Yahweh, since Yahweh is not a son of anyone.
Another word that sometimes means “only” is bad (Strong's #905), “alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone”. It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, which word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the “only true God.” *Bad* is also used of Yahweh in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0905It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state:
At the triple point, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another – vapor sublimates to ice and condenses to liquid at the same rate that the liquid evaporates to vapor and freezes to ice at the same rate that the ice melts to liquid and sublimates to vapor.
http://www.sciencebyjones.com/why_is_water_special.htmTriple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
http://www.learnchem.net/tutorials/som.shtmlNote that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same solid throughout all of its molecules, and the same time gas throughout all of its molecules.
At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states:
The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity…. In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the “persons” can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the “persons”, while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. — a post by Edward Pothier
The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
http://groups.google.com/group….e=UTF-8
Tiny URL for the above:
http://tinyurl.com/ntdn7We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once:
In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
http://onsager.bd.psu.edu/~jircitano/phase.html
Marcy M. Seavey
Education Director
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science
Having shown that this does not give a good illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states all through all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states all through all at once, nothing more. It would not add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures.The “One Lord” Deception
Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is “one Lord Jesus Christ.” There is “one Lord”, they say, and that “one Lord” is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted “LORD” for the divine name. This should not be done, and to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word “kurios”, often rendered “the Lord” in the New Testament, means “Yahweh”, since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Yahweh in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word “kurios” does not mean “Yahweh”, any more than the Hebrew words for “Lord”, such as “adon” or “adonai”**, mean “Yahweh”. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Yahweh of Deuteronomy 8:6.
==========
*See our studies on the divine name:
http://name.reslight.netLikewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the “one Lord” of these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.” By use of the word “LORD” in all caps
, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew, the divine name appears, and that “the LORD” has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: “Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one.” By this we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus.
==========
See:
Jesus is Not Yahweh
http://godandson/reslight.net/jesusnotyhwh.htmlOthers will say that Yahweh is referred to as “Lord” many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the “one Lord”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Yahweh is also “Lord”? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that ther is only “one Lord”. Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young's Literal Translation: “for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him.” What it says is that “to us [to the church] there is one Lord “through whom are all things, and we through him.” Yahweh is “Lord”, but he is not the “one Lord” through whom are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. — John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6.
Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that the idols are nothing. It is these that Paul refers to as those who are “called” gods. On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed “something”, but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are “called” gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special “might, strength”, power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as “God/god”*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called “gods”. The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are “gods”, in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are “nothing”. Yet these have been called “gods” and “lords”. The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word “Adon”, meaning “Lord”. Thus these are “called” gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word “baal” (meaning “the Lord”, “lord”, or “the master”) and its usage regarding false gods.
=========
*See
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”
http://godandson.reslight.net/hebraictitles.htmlBut Paul continues, “as there are gods many and lords many.” The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: “as even are gods many and lords many.” Paul acknowledges that there are those who are “called” gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed “many gods and many lords”. Does the Bible speak of others than Yahweh as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god — a mighty one — to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 — see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as “gods” (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as “gods” — “the strong” (KJV) — in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed “gods”, and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Yahweh. Likewise, many are indeed “lords” in various capacities. The Hebrew word “adon”, means “lord” or “master”. This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: “aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun”, corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as “'adown”. Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive — the plural form used as a superlative — of “my Lord”) The form “adoni” (“my Lord”) is represented by the Hebrew characters “aleph-dalet-nun-yod” (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called “quamets” (sounds like the English “a” in the word “all”) to form the word “adonai”. They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Yahweh, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Yahweh, they added the vowel point roughly called “hireq”, corresponding to the English letter “i” carrying the English short “i” sound, as in the word “machine”. This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as “adoni”.
Once in a while someone will claim that, while “lord” in the Old Testament may be used of others than Yahweh, in the New Testament the word “kurios” is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true.
The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: “Yahweh says to my Lord [adoni], “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.” This scripture is translated into the Greek as “kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou” [literally, “lord of me”] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David's Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations).
While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word “kurios” applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as “sir” in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as “master(s)” in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as “owners” in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as “Yahweh”, but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed “many lords”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these “lords”, however, is the “one Lord” “through whom” the church receives all things, nor are the members of the church “through” any of these other lords.
Paul further states: “yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him.” Several words are usually ad
ded by translators to the Greek here, and Young's translation above shows two words added by the brackets []. However, it does not show that the word “things” is also added. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has “ta panta” as “the all (things)”, with the word “things” in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase “ta panta” literally means “the all”, pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is “of” or “from” the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. “The all” is “from” any of the other who are indeed “gods”, and certainly not from any of the idols that are “called” “gods”. The believer has offered himself “to” the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. — Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6.The scriptures identify the only true God — the Supreme Being, the “might” of the universe — as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is “the only true God” signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Yahweh, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Yahweh — the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus — who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. — Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.
Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Yahweh, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Yahweh, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.
Last update: October 10, 2006.
Quote (bodhitharta @ July 06 2009,04:48) I found a really good source that explains it the whole article is here and the source link is at the bottom. I thought I explained it quite well but some need a more thorough explanation so here it is: The claim is made that the Hebrew word translated “one” [echad] means “composite unity”, and therefore this shows that Yahweh consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It is true that “one” can mean “composite unity”, whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word “one”. There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word “one” as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Yahweh is more than one person.
Echad [Strong's #259 “united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first”] simply means one [whether composite or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: “one door” Ezekiel 41:11); “one reed” (Ezekiel 40:5-8); “one gate” (Ezekiel 48:31); “one saint” (Daniel 8:13) — just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word “one”. Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0259The English word “unit” is defined as:
a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses— Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
http://www.yourdictionary.com/The word composite means “made up of distinct parts.” A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. One grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. The scripture referred to says that there is only one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Yahweh who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 — two separate beings. Jesus is not Yahweh.
Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means “compound unity”. The word “compound” means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as “composite.”
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.
Jay Green's interlinear says: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one.” His translation reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Yahweh, not two – not three.
While it is true the word “one”, whether in English or “echad” in Hebrew, can mean a composite unity, and one can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes, each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. Grape one does not equal the cluster, grape two does not equal the cluster, etc., each grape is only a part of the whole.
Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole boday, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part.
If this idea of composite unity is applied to the three persons in one being story, then you would have the Father is part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian godhead as such, for they claim that Jesus is “fully God.” They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of “composite unity” or “compound unity” as a means to see the trinity in the word “echad” does not, in reality, exist, except in their own realm of trinitarian redefinitions of words and phrases.
Is Yahweh a Unity? We can say that Yahweh is love; but Yahweh is not “all” love and nothing else. “Love” is not equal to the whole of who Yahweh is. It is only one component of who Yahweh is. The many components of Yahweh's being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson's Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard.
Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is not one hint that they believed such. It is only by reading adding the philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find “trinity” in the verse.
The argument is put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists to two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other “illustrations” of composite unity that our trinitarians neighbors come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity.
Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So none of these provide any illustration of the trinity.
Echad corresponds with the Greek heis — one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for “one”.
�He is unique�He is not many, but one�Yahweh is a single unified person..one Lord is also opposite to diffuse�He is single�God�s person and his will are single�Israel is called to concentrate it�s undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique.� — The Broadman Bible Commentary
Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong's #3173). This word corresponds with our English word “only”. It is most commonly used in the expression “only son”. (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning “to join, unite” (Strong's 3161), thus carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basi
c meaning as “united”, “sole”, and further as “beloved”, “lonely”. The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also “only” and “unique”. The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as “solitary”, in the sense of “lonely”. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03173Although this word (Yachiyd) is not used of Yahweh in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son, we see no reason why it could not have been used of him. It corresponds most closely with the English word “only”, especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Yahweh, since Yahweh is not a son of anyone.
Another word that sometimes means “only” is bad (Strong's #905), “alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone”. It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, which word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the “only true God.” *Bad* is also used of Yahweh in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0905It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state:
At the triple point, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another – vapor sublimates to ice and condenses to liquid at the same rate that the liquid evaporates to vapor and freezes to ice at the same rate that the ice melts to liquid and sublimates to vapor.
http://www.sciencebyjones.com/why_is_water_special.htmTriple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
http://www.learnchem.net/tutorials/som.shtmlNote that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same solid throughout all of its molecules, and the same time gas throughout all of its molecules.
At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states:
The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity…. In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the “persons” can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the “persons”, while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. — a post by Edward Pothier
The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
http://groups.google.com/group….e=UTF-8
Tiny URL for the above:
http://tinyurl.com/ntdn7We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once:
In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
http://onsager.bd.psu.edu/~jircitano/phase.html
Marcy M. Seavey
Education Director
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science
Having shown that this does not give a good illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states all through all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states all through all at once, nothing more. It would not add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures.The “One Lord” Deception
Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is “one Lord Jesus Christ.” There is “one Lord”, they say, and that “one Lord” is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted “LORD” for the divine name. This should not be done, and to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word “kurios”, often rendered “the Lord” in the New Testament, means “Yahweh”, since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Yahweh in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word “kurios” does not mean “Yahweh”, any more than the Hebrew words for “Lord”, such as “adon” or “adonai”**, mean “Yahweh”. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Yahweh of Deuteronomy 8:6.
==========
*See our studies on the divine name:
http://name.reslight.netLikewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the “one Lord” of
these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.” By use of the word “LORD” in all caps, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew, the divine name appears, and that “the LORD” has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: “Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one.” By this we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus.
==========
See:
Jesus is Not Yahweh
http://godandson/reslight.net/jesusnotyhwh.htmlOthers will say that Yahweh is referred to as “Lord” many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the “one Lord”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Yahweh is also “Lord”? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that ther is only “one Lord”. Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young's Literal Translation: “for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him.” What it says is that “to us [to the church] there is one Lord “through whom are all things, and we through him.” Yahweh is “Lord”, but he is not the “one Lord” through whom are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. — John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6.
Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that the idols are nothing. It is these that Paul refers to as those who are “called” gods. On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed “something”, but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are “called” gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special “might, strength”, power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as “God/god”*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called “gods”. The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are “gods”, in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are “nothing”. Yet these have been called “gods” and “lords”. The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word “Adon”, meaning “Lord”. Thus these are “called” gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word “baal” (meaning “the Lord”, “lord”, or “the master”) and its usage regarding false gods.
=========
*See
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”
http://godandson.reslight.net/hebraictitles.htmlBut Paul continues, “as there are gods many and lords many.” The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: “as even are gods many and lords many.” Paul acknowledges that there are those who are “called” gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed “many gods and many lords”. Does the Bible speak of others than Yahweh as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god — a mighty one — to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 — see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as “gods” (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as “gods” — “the strong” (KJV) — in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed “gods”, and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Yahweh. Likewise, many are indeed “lords” in various capacities. The Hebrew word “adon”, means “lord” or “master”. This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: “aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun”, corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as “'adown”. Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive — the plural form used as a superlative — of “my Lord”) The form “adoni” (“my Lord”) is represented by the Hebrew characters “aleph-dalet-nun-yod” (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called “quamets” (sounds like the English “a” in the word “all”) to form the word “adonai”. They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Yahweh, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Yahweh, they added the vowel point roughly called “hireq”, corresponding to the English letter “i” carrying the English short “i” sound, as in the word “machine”. This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as “adoni”.
Once in a while someone will claim that, while “lord” in the Old Testament may be used of others than Yahweh, in the New Testament the word “kurios” is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true.
The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: “Yahweh says to my Lord [adoni], “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.” This scripture is translated into the Greek as “kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou” [literally, “lord of me”] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David's Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations).
While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word “kurios” applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as “sir” in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as “master(s)” in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as “owners” in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as “Yahweh”, but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed “many lords”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these “lords”, however, is the “one Lord” “through whom” the church rec
eives all things, nor are the members of the church “through” any of these other lords.Paul further states: “yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him.” Several words are usually added by translators to the Greek here, and Young's translation above shows two words added by the brackets []. However, it does not show that the word “things” is also added. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has “ta panta” as “the all (things)”, with the word “things” in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase “ta panta” literally means “the all”, pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is “of” or “from” the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. “The all” is “from” any of the other who are indeed “gods”, and certainly not from any of the idols that are “called” “gods”. The believer has offered himself “to” the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. — Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6.
The scriptures identify the only true God — the Supreme Being, the “might” of the universe — as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is “the only true God” signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Yahweh, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Yahweh — the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus — who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. — Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.
Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Yahweh, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Yahweh, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.
Last update: October 10, 2006.
Hello Godhitharta;VERY good post.
I wonder if part of the problem with those who do not see this, is the use of words that are not properly defined with the parameters that apply in the example. For example, the use of “united one” might be considered as a verb “united” instead of an adjective “united one.”
Since “Unit” is a noun referencing a single person or thing; and “unite” is a verb referencing the bringing together of several units of one into a combination of units as a united
plurality; and “united” is an adjective meaning “made into or caused to act as a single entity; Since the expression adopted by the trinitarian community is “plural unity” – it looks to me as though it is just another in a long list of invented terms, used to serve the purpose of veiling a deeper problem.Since “echad” does NOT mean “Plural Unity” but may be used to reference many things that in fact are units grouped into one functioning capacity, i.e., cluster – singular, as in “there is only one cluster of grapes on the vine. The fact remains
there is only one unit called a cluster in the example.“Clustery” is an adjective I expect to see most any day now as trinitarians begin to attempt to consilidate their hold on the terminology, or even the adverb “clusteringly.”
Echad remains as the most used term in Hebrew scripture to mean “one,” “first,” “once,” and etc. regardless of how many are individual items and how many are fleshes (one flesh) or clusters, or armies. A soldier may well be a part of an army, but a soldier is not an army as the term is generally understood. And a grape is not a cluster, no matter how many claims are made to the contrary. And a member of a triunity is not a God, regardless of what claims may be made to the contrary.
I think your article, though gathered from others, is one of the best, most concise I have seen. And I thank you for publishing it.
Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2009,10:14) Quote (bodhitharta @ July 06 2009,04:48) I found a really good source that explains it the whole article is here and the source link is at the bottom. I thought I explained it quite well but some need a more thorough explanation so here it is: The claim is made that the Hebrew word translated “one” [echad] means “composite unity”, and therefore this shows that Yahweh consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It is true that “one” can mean “composite unity”, whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word “one”. There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word “one” as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Yahweh is more than one person.
Echad [Strong's #259 “united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first”] simply means one [whether composite or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: “one door” Ezekiel 41:11); “one reed” (Ezekiel 40:5-8); “one gate” (Ezekiel 48:31); “one saint” (Daniel 8:13) — just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word “one”. Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0259The English word “unit” is defined as:
a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses— Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
http://www.yourdictionary.com/The word composite means “made up of distinct parts.” A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. One grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. The scripture referred to says that there is only one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Yahweh who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 — two separate beings. Jesus is not Yahweh.
Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means “compound unity”. The word “compound” means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as “composite.”
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.
Jay Green's interlinear says: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one.” His translation reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Yahweh, not two – not three.
While it is true the word “one”, whether in English or “echad” in Hebrew, can mean a composite unity, and one can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes, each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. Grape one does not equal the cluster, grape two does not equal the cluster, etc., each grape is only a part of the whole.
Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole boday, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part.
If this idea of composite unity is applied to the three persons in one being story, then you would have the Father is part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian godhead as such, for they claim that Jesus is “fully God.” They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of “composite unity” or “compound unity” as a means to see the trinity in the word “echad” does not, in reality, exist, except in their own realm of trinitarian redefinitions of words and phrases.
Is Yahweh a Unity? We can say that Yahweh is love; but Yahweh is not “all” love and nothing else. “Love” is not equal to the whole of who Yahweh is. It is only one component of who Yahweh is. The many components of Yahweh's being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson's Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard.
Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is not one hint that they believed such. It is only by reading adding the philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find “trinity” in the verse.
The argument is put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists to two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other “illustrations” of composite unity that our trinitarians neighbors come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity.
Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So none of these provide any illustration of the trinity.
Echad corresponds with the Greek heis — one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for “one”.
�He is unique�He is not many, but one�Yahweh is a single unified person..one Lord is also opposite to diffuse�He is single�God�s person and his will are single�Israel is called to concentrate it�s undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique.� — The Broadman Bible Commentary
Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong's #3173). This word corresponds with our English word “only”. It is most commonly used in the expression “only son”. (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jere
miah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning “to join, unite” (Strong's 3161), thus carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basic meaning as “united”, “sole”, and further as “beloved”, “lonely”. The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also “only” and “unique”. The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as “solitary”, in the sense of “lonely”. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03173Although this word (Yachiyd) is not used of Yahweh in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son, we see no reason why it could not have been used of him. It corresponds most closely with the English word “only”, especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Yahweh, since Yahweh is not a son of anyone.
Another word that sometimes means “only” is bad (Strong's #905), “alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone”. It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, which word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the “only true God.” *Bad* is also used of Yahweh in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0905It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state:
At the triple point, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another – vapor sublimates to ice and condenses to liquid at the same rate that the liquid evaporates to vapor and freezes to ice at the same rate that the ice melts to liquid and sublimates to vapor.
http://www.sciencebyjones.com/why_is_water_special.htmTriple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
http://www.learnchem.net/tutorials/som.shtmlNote that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same solid throughout all of its molecules, and the same time gas throughout all of its molecules.
At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states:
The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity…. In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the “persons” can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the “persons”, while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. — a post by Edward Pothier
The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
http://groups.google.com/group….e=UTF-8
Tiny URL for the above:
http://tinyurl.com/ntdn7We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once:
In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
http://onsager.bd.psu.edu/~jircitano/phase.html
Marcy M. Seavey
Education Director
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science
Having shown that this does not give a good illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states all through all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states all through all at once, nothing more. It would not add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures.The “One Lord” Deception
Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is “one Lord Jesus Christ.” There is “one Lord”, they say, and that “one Lord” is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted “LORD” for the divine name. This should not be done, and to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word “kurios”, often rendered “the Lord” in the New Testament, means “Yahweh”, since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Yahweh in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word “kurios” does not mean “Yahweh”, any more than the Hebrew words for “Lord”, such as “adon” or “adonai”**, mean “Yahweh”. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Yahweh of Deuteronomy 8:6.
==========
*See our studies on the divine name:
http://name.reslight.netL
ikewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the “one Lord” of these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.” By use of the word “LORD” in all caps, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew, the divine name appears, and that “the LORD” has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: “Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one.” By this we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus.
==========
See:
Jesus is Not Yahweh
http://godandson/reslight.net/jesusnotyhwh.htmlOthers will say that Yahweh is referred to as “Lord” many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the “one Lord”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Yahweh is also “Lord”? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that ther is only “one Lord”. Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young's Literal Translation: “for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him.” What it says is that “to us [to the church] there is one Lord “through whom are all things, and we through him.” Yahweh is “Lord”, but he is not the “one Lord” through whom are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. — John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6.
Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that the idols are nothing. It is these that Paul refers to as those who are “called” gods. On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed “something”, but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are “called” gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special “might, strength”, power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as “God/god”*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called “gods”. The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are “gods”, in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are “nothing”. Yet these have been called “gods” and “lords”. The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word “Adon”, meaning “Lord”. Thus these are “called” gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word “baal” (meaning “the Lord”, “lord”, or “the master”) and its usage regarding false gods.
=========
*See
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”
http://godandson.reslight.net/hebraictitles.htmlBut Paul continues, “as there are gods many and lords many.” The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: “as even are gods many and lords many.” Paul acknowledges that there are those who are “called” gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed “many gods and many lords”. Does the Bible speak of others than Yahweh as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god — a mighty one — to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 — see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as “gods” (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as “gods” — “the strong” (KJV) — in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed “gods”, and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Yahweh. Likewise, many are indeed “lords” in various capacities. The Hebrew word “adon”, means “lord” or “master”. This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: “aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun”, corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as “'adown”. Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive — the plural form used as a superlative — of “my Lord”) The form “adoni” (“my Lord”) is represented by the Hebrew characters “aleph-dalet-nun-yod” (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called “quamets” (sounds like the English “a” in the word “all”) to form the word “adonai”. They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Yahweh, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Yahweh, they added the vowel point roughly called “hireq”, corresponding to the English letter “i” carrying the English short “i” sound, as in the word “machine”. This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as “adoni”.
Once in a while someone will claim that, while “lord” in the Old Testament may be used of others than Yahweh, in the New Testament the word “kurios” is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true.
The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: “Yahweh says to my Lord [adoni], “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.” This scripture is translated into the Greek as “kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou” [literally, “lord of me”] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David's Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations).
While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word “kurios” applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as “sir” in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as “master(s)” in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as “owners” in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as “Yahweh”, but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek
word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed “many lords”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these “lords”, however, is the “one Lord” “through whom” the church receives all things, nor are the members of the church “through” any of these other lords.Paul further states: “yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him.” Several words are usually added by translators to the Greek here, and Young's translation above shows two words added by the brackets []. However, it does not show that the word “things” is also added. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has “ta panta” as “the all (things)”, with the word “things” in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase “ta panta” literally means “the all”, pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is “of” or “from” the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. “The all” is “from” any of the other who are indeed “gods”, and certainly not from any of the idols that are “called” “gods”. The believer has offered himself “to” the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. — Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6.
The scriptures identify the only true God — the Supreme Being, the “might” of the universe — as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is “the only true God” signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Yahweh, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Yahweh — the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus — who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. — Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.
Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Yahweh, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Yahweh, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.
Last update: October 10, 2006.
Hello Godhitharta;VERY good post.
I wonder if part of the problem with those who do not see this, is the use of words that are not properly defined with the parameters that apply in the example. For example, the use of “united one” might be considered as a verb “united” instead of an adjective “united one.”
Since “Unit” is a noun referencing a single person or thing; and “unite” is a verb referencing the bringing together of several units of one into a combination of units as a united
plurality; and “united” is an adjective meaning “made into or caused to act as a single entity; Since the expression adopted by the trinitarian community is “plural unity” – it looks to me as though it is just another in a long list of invented terms, used to serve the purpose of veiling a deeper problem.Since “echad” does NOT mean “Plural Unity” but may be used to reference many things that in fact are units grouped into one functioning capacity, i.e., cluster – singular, as in “there is only one cluster of grapes on the vine. The fact remains
there is only one unit called a cluster in the example.“Clustery” is an adjective I expect to see most any day now as trinitarians begin to attempt to consilidate their hold on the terminology, or even the adverb “clusteringly.”
Echad remains as the most used term in Hebrew scripture to mean “one,” “first,” “once,” and etc. regardless of how many are individual items and how many are fleshes (one flesh) or clusters, or armies. A soldier may well be a part of an army, but a soldier is not an army as the term is generally understood. And a grape is not a cluster, no matter how many claims are made to the contrary. And a member of a triunity is not a God, regardless of what claims may be made to the contrary.
I think your article, though gathered from others, is one of the best, most concise I have seen. And I thank you for publishing it.
Correction –I see I have misspelled your name, for which I apologize.
I mean no disrespect nor would I make such an error intentionally.
Please disregard it.
Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2009,10:16) Correction – I see I have misspelled your name, for which I apologize.
I mean no disrespect nor would I make such an error intentionally.
Please disregard it.
Your welcome! I have explained echad once already this article was one for anyone who really needed a more thorough explanation, it didn't seem to matter though as seeker just made an additional thread using another non-Jewish source to explain the Jewish religion.As far as the name error I already know that you are not disrespectful so I knew it was a misspelling.
God Bless!
bodhitharta said:
Quote The word composite means “made up of distinct parts.” A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. bd,
Your reasoning is circular and is a misrepresentation of what trinitarianism teaches. Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is a composite unity. Trinitarians do NOT teach that each part by itself makes up one total. Trinitarians do NOT teach that one part is the other part. We believe that the Trinity is a composite unity. We have repeatedly given the example from the man and the woman becoming “one” flesh. God said, “Let us make Adam in our image.” Then it says that God made Adam in His image. Both the man and the woman were called “Adam” and each were therefore a part of Adam. Neither one person by himself/herself constituted one total. It was the TWO TOGETHER that made up the composite unity which God called “Adam.”This is an example of what the Scriptures say about God. The Three Persons are each a part of the Godhead. None of Them by Himself equals the sum total of what God is. AND TRINITARIANS DO NOT CLAIM THAT EACH PERSON BY HIMSELF MAKES UP ONE TOTAL. The woman was “Adam” equally as the man was “Adam.” It was both together that made up the one total which God called “Adam.”
Before you can disprove Trinitarianism you must accurately represent it which you have not. We have never said that God is Jesus which is what your misrepresentation implies. We have said that Jesus is God. Adam was not the male. The male was Adam. Adam was not the woman. The woman was Adam. And both together made up one total called Adam. None of the sources you cite in your post disprove Trinitarianism. You misused those sources.
bodhitharta said:
Quote The scripture referred to says that there is only one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Yahweh who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 — two separate beings. Jesus is not Yahweh. You left out verse 5 which has been dealt with here. It says that Adonai is at the Father's right hand. Adonai is the proper name for God.
bodhitharta said:
Quote Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means “compound unity”. The word “compound” means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as “composite.” Exactly! This is what we have been trying to tell you!
Quote Jay Green's interlinear says: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one.” His translation reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Yahweh, not two – not three. You left out the word “elohim” which is plural. It says that the Gods (elohim) are one Jehovah.
Quote Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Gods are one Jehovah. You have NOT proven your Unitarian theories.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 06 2009,20:24) bodhitharta said: Quote The word composite means “made up of distinct parts.” A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. bd,
Your reasoning is circular and is a misrepresentation of what trinitarianism teaches. Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is a composite unity. Trinitarians do NOT teach that each part by itself makes up one total. Trinitarians do NOT teach that one part is the other part. We believe that the Trinity is a composite unity. We have repeatedly given the example from the man and the woman becoming “one” flesh. God said, “Let us make Adam in our image.” Then it says that God made Adam in His image. Both the man and the woman were called “Adam” and each were therefore a part of Adam. Neither one person by himself/herself constituted one total. It was the TWO TOGETHER that made up the composite unity which God called “Adam.”This is an example of what the Scriptures say about God. The Three Persons are each a part of the Godhead. None of Them by Himself equals the sum total of what God is. AND TRINITARIANS DO NOT CLAIM THAT EACH PERSON BY HIMSELF MAKES UP ONE TOTAL. The woman was “Adam” equally as the man was “Adam.” It was both together that made up the one total which God called “Adam.”
Before you can disprove Trinitarianism you must accurately represent it which you have not. We have never said that God is Jesus which is what your misrepresentation implies. We have said that Jesus is God. Adam was not the male. The male was Adam. Adam was not the woman. The woman was Adam. And both together made up one total called Adam. None of the sources you cite in your post disprove Trinitarianism. You misused those sources.
bodhitharta said:
Quote The scripture referred to says that there is only one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Yahweh who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 — two separate beings. Jesus is not Yahweh. You left out verse 5 which has been dealt with here. It says that Adonai is at the Father's right hand. Adonai is the proper name for God.
bodhitharta said:
Quote Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means “compound unity”. The word “compound” means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as “composite.” Exactly! This is what we have been trying to tell you!
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.
Quote Jay Green's interlinear says: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one.” His translation reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Yahweh, not two – not three. You left out the word “elohim” which is plural. It says that the Gods (elohim) are one Jehovah.
Quote Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Gods are one Jehovah. You have NOT proven your Unitarian theories.
thinker
So you no longer believe God is comprised of three persons?Quote
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.So now you agree that to present God as three persons means you worship a false supreme one? “One being represented as three persons?”
Maybe there is hope.
Paladin said:
Quote So you no longer believe God is comprised of three persons? Quote
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.
So now you agree that to present God as three persons means you worship a false supreme one? “One being represented as three persons?”
Maybe there is hope.
Paladin,
It was bodhitharta who made that statement. That was not intended to be a part of my reply.At any rate, bodhitharta misrepresented Trinitarianism.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,03:37) Paladin said: Quote So you no longer believe God is comprised of three persons? Quote
Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three.
So now you agree that to present God as three persons means you worship a false supreme one? “One being represented as three persons?”
Maybe there is hope.
Paladin,
It was bodhitharta who made that statement. That was not intended to be a part of my reply.At any rate, bodhitharta misrepresented Trinitarianism.
thinker
Okay, I don't want to misrepresent your belief.However their are several types of trinitarian beliefs but if I understand you correctly it is your belief that God is the name of a collective of 3 beings, right?
So God is Jesus, God is the Father and God is The Holy Spirit
but
Jesus is not God, The Father is not God and The Holy Spirit is not God
Is this your belief?
So in your belief “God” is never one, right?
Your side note recorded: “We have never said that God is Jesus”
bodhitharta said:
Quote Okay, I don't want to misrepresent your belief. However their are several types of trinitarian beliefs but if I understand you correctly it is your belief that God is the name of a collective of 3 beings, right?
So God is Jesus, God is the Father and God is The Holy Spirit
but
Jesus is not God, The Father is not God and The Holy Spirit is not God
Is this your belief?
So in your belief “God” is never one, right?
Your side note recorded: “We have never said that God is Jesus”
bd,
You say that there are several types of trinitarian beliefs. Please give evidence that some trinitarians say that God is Jesus. I know of none. We believe that Jesus is God. Elohim created Adam male and female and He called them “Adam.” The man and the woman together constituted “Adam.” Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that Adam is the man or that Adam is the woman. The converse is true. The man is Adam and the woman is Adam. The Father is God and Jesus is God. It is NOT true to say that God is Jesus and I have never said this.
thinkerthinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 07 2009,13:12) Hi TT,
So your version does not include the death of God but somehow part of God?
Nick,
You are convoluding things. My wife and I are one flesh. If my wife should die a part of me died. What is so difficult in understanding this? And what do you mean by “death?” Christ died. But He did not cease to exist. He went to hades until the resurrection. His death and resurrection was like Jonah in the whale's belly. Jonah was alive while in the whale's belly. So Jesus was alive while in hades. He would need to have been alive for He said that he would raise up His own body (John 2:19-21).thinker
Hi TT,
Christ Jesus died.
Read acts 2.22, 3.15,1Thess 4.14. etc etcIf scripture says he died why should we listen to you?
And you say he is PART of God.
NaahGod is one and immortal.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 11 2009,20:41) Hi TT,
Christ Jesus died.
Read acts 2.22, 3.15,1Thess 4.14. etc etcIf scripture says he died why should we listen to you?
And you say he is PART of God.
NaahGod is one and immortal.
Jesus said,Quote Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up….He spoke of the temple of His body. After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered what He had said. (John 2:19-21) After Jesus cleared the temple the Jews asked Him by what authority He did it. He replied saying that He would raise the temple of His body.
You did not define death like I asked. God told Adam that in the day he ate of the forbidden tree he would “surely die.” Yet Adam remained alive. Paul said that Christ descended into hades and gave gifts to men (Eph. 4). So it appears as if you must re-think your definition of death. Death means condemnation.
Jesus is a part of God. Hebrews 1 says that He is the “radiance of God's glory.” Just as sun beams are the radiance of the sun and therefore a part of the sun so Jesus as the radiance of God's glory is a part of God. John 1:1 explicitly says that the Word WAS GOD. And Paul said that Jesus Christ is “God and Savior” (Titus 2:13).
The real question is why we should believe you?
thinker
Thinker……….Jesus is not the radiance of GOD's Glory, GOD's Glory radiates (through) Him. big difference. One looks at Jesus the other looks at the FATHER who is doing the WORK through Jesus. “The Father in me does the (WORK)> Trinitarians and Preexistences, turn this around and Make Jesus Himself the WORK stealing Glory from the FATHER. As Jesus stated all that came before me were lairs and thieves. We should not steal the Glory that belongs to the FATHER and give it to Man. This Jesus never did, saying “I have Glorified (YOU) upon the Earth”> IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother……………………gene
Quote (thethinker @ July 06 2009,01:50) To All,
There is some here who deny the testimony of all scholarship on the meaning of the Hebrew “echad” which is translated “one.” The word often means a unified one. Please see Strong's #258 & 259.But Moses used the word “echad” in two ways,
Quote Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be ONE flesh (Gen. 2:24) And,
Quote But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed, the people are ONE nad all have ONE language (Gen. 11:5-6) In Genesis 2:24 the word “echad” does not refer to one in the numerical sense but in the unified sense only. But in 11:5-6 it is used both in the unified and the numerical sense. The expression “one people” is obviously the unified sense and “one language” is the numerical sense.
It is clear then that those who deny all the scholars also deny Moses. Deuteronomy 6:4 also uses “echad.” So all the anti-trinitarians need to do now is prove their assumption that “echad” means one in the numerical sense in Deuteronomy 6:4. Let them assume no more. Let them DEMONSTRATE their assumptions.
thinker
(thinker)Quote To All,
There is some here who deny the testimony of all scholarship on the meaning of the Hebrew “echad” which is translated
“one.”If your reference is to my perspective, you are in error. I do not deny any testimony whatsoever. What I deny is the accuracy of that testimony toward establishing the truth about the meaning of the words. But I do not deny the
“testimony of all scholarship” about anything.It always has to do with whether that testimony establishes what it purports to establish, i.,e., the truth of its assertions.
Testimony is testimony, and is not to be denied if accurately reported. But that about which the testimony speaks, well, that is a different matter all together.For example:
Strong's 258;
'achad; perh.a prim.root; to unify, i.e., (fig.) collect (one's thoughts): – go one way or other.I see nothing here that agrees with your assessment. “Collect one's thoughts” has nothing to do with a “unified one” other than as a container for thoughts, certainly nothing so sophisticated as deity.
Strong's 259;
'echad; a numeral from 258; prop, united, i.,e.,one; or (as an ordinal) first: -a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain, [dai-]ly, each (one), + eleven, every few, first, +highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some , together.Strong is not offering what the word MEANS so much as he is offering every example of how the word is translated into English. There is a difference. Often, with the Hebrew thought proccess, it is not a matter of bringing meaning accross through translation, as it is a matter of getting the closest to a meaning, when English has no 'one-to-one' translation available.
If you understand that the Hebrew use of plural nouns with singular verbs is different than is presented IN ANY OTHER LANGUAGE ON EARTH you will quit trying to assign meaning that is not there in the translation.
I certainly do not see any basis for a trinitarian concept of God in THIS salad of meanings.
You take any of several unexplained word-meaning, apply your own meaning to the word, then plug it into what Strong does NOT say. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
Foe example, you take Strong's meaning “united i.,e., one” and make it mean “United one,” when the reality is, the little term “i,e,” tells you how united is to be understood. “United” as in “one.” is NOT the same as “united one.”
(thinker)
Quote
But Moses used the word “echad” in two ways,Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be ONE flesh (Gen. 2:24)
And,
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed, the people are ONE nad all have ONE language (Gen. 11:5-6)
In Genesis 2:24 the word “echad” does not refer to one in the numerical sense but in the unified sense only. But in 11:5-6 it is used both in the unified and the numerical sense. The expression “one people” is obviously the unified sense and “one language” is the numerical sense.
Well, let's test your assessment. YOU say Moses in Gen 2:24 does not use the word “echad” in the numerical sense.
“Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be ONE flesh” [Gen 2:24]Do YOU understand Moses to be speaking of TWO fleshes? To Moses' way of thinkiing, by inspiration, is that a male is not completely a man; nor is the female completely a man; but the male with his female make one man. Since he is not simply equating two males or two females as one man, but one of each gender is one complete man, how can you say it means two “fleshes?” They two are “one flesh” has nothing to do with how many goes into the completing of the final equation, it is how many final equations result from the addition. They are one flesh to the exclusion of all others. It goes beyond simply identifying society as x number of twos, but as society makes choices as to the identity of who is going to be “two'd” with whom, to the exclusion of all others, which we designate “marriage” in English, NO ONE ELSE has the right to insert themselves into the equation as an equal partner.
It is exactly the same use Moses makes of “one God.” NO ONE ELSE has the right to insert theirself into the equation as an equal. Especially since “Echad” is masculine singular.
(thinker)
Quote It is clear then that those who deny all the scholars also deny Moses. Deuteronomy 6:4 also uses “echad.” So all the anti-trinitarians need to do now is prove their assumption that “echad” means one in the numerical sense in Deuteronomy 6:4. Let them assume no more. Let them DEMONSTRATE their assumptions. To what purpose? I fI demonstrate it are the trinitarians going to become monotheists? Are they going to understand God is numerically one? Are they going to give up on the idea of Jesus being pre-existent deity? Are they actually going to abandon their centuries of dependence upon chatechism, creeds, doctrines of men and of demons?
To what purpose? I have already “DEMONSTRATED” to you, that the Hebrew plural noun requires a plural verb to indicate a plurality of meaning, and that this is further demonstrated by the Septuagint which has a singular noun where the Hebrew has a plural noun. Yet you do not see the demonstration you so desperately call for. What would you c
onsider a demonstration? A voice from heaven? Calling you by name?To what purpose? A battle of egos? A claim of “My authorities are more popular than your authorities?” You have cried loud and long that Paladin has no credentials in Hebrew and Greek, yet you continue to produce your claims of what the Hebrew means, CONTRARY to what the Hebrew means. You speak of me as false, and ignorant, and showy, while all the time you continue to publish your Hebrew and Greek position as though there is a modicum of truth therein.
The plural nouns of the Hebrew are DEMONSTRATED with singular nouns in the Greek parallel account; yet you still call for a demonstration. What will it take for you to understand?
Quote (Gene @ July 12 2009,01:38) Thinker……….Jesus is not the radiance of GOD's Glory, GOD's Glory radiates (through) Him. big difference. One looks at Jesus the other looks at the FATHER who is doing the WORK through Jesus. “The Father in me does the (WORK)> Trinitarians and Preexistences, turn this around and Make Jesus Himself the WORK stealing Glory from the FATHER. As Jesus stated all that came before me were lairs and thieves. We should not steal the Glory that belongs to the FATHER and give it to Man. This Jesus never did, saying “I have Glorified (YOU) upon the Earth”> IMO peace and love to you and yours brother……………………gene
Gene,
You contrqadict the scriptures.Quote …Who BEING the radiance of His glory (Heb. 1:3) Jesus said that He came “out of God'
Quote I proceeded forth and came out of God (John 8:42) Please explain how Christ can be “out of” God without being a part of God. That's like saying that sun beams may come out of the sun without being a part of the sun.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,03:07) Quote (Gene @ July 12 2009,01:38) Thinker……….Jesus is not the radiance of GOD's Glory, GOD's Glory radiates (through) Him. big difference. One looks at Jesus the other looks at the FATHER who is doing the WORK through Jesus. “The Father in me does the (WORK)> Trinitarians and Preexistences, turn this around and Make Jesus Himself the WORK stealing Glory from the FATHER. As Jesus stated all that came before me were lairs and thieves. We should not steal the Glory that belongs to the FATHER and give it to Man. This Jesus never did, saying “I have Glorified (YOU) upon the Earth”> IMO peace and love to you and yours brother……………………gene
Gene,
You contrqadict the scriptures.Quote …Who BEING the radiance of His glory (Heb. 1:3) Jesus said that He came “out of God'
Quote I proceeded forth and came out of God (John 8:42) Please explain how Christ can be “out of” God without being a part of God. That's like saying that sun beams may come out of the sun without being a part of the sun.
thinker
Heb 1:3 also says Jesus is the image of God, not God. And further, it says he is the image of his person, singular, not persons plural, so Jesus cannot BE tha tof which he is an image. If he is the express image, as the KJV suggests, than he would have to be a multiple image to be the express image of a multiple person God.Quote (Paladin @ July 11 2009,12:34) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,03:07) Quote (Gene @ July 12 2009,01:38) Thinker……….Jesus is not the radiance of GOD's Glory, GOD's Glory radiates (through) Him. big difference. One looks at Jesus the other looks at the FATHER who is doing the WORK through Jesus. “The Father in me does the (WORK)> Trinitarians and Preexistences, turn this around and Make Jesus Himself the WORK stealing Glory from the FATHER. As Jesus stated all that came before me were lairs and thieves. We should not steal the Glory that belongs to the FATHER and give it to Man. This Jesus never did, saying “I have Glorified (YOU) upon the Earth”> IMO peace and love to you and yours brother……………………gene
Gene,
You contrqadict the scriptures.Quote …Who BEING the radiance of His glory (Heb. 1:3) Jesus said that He came “out of God'
Quote I proceeded forth and came out of God (John 8:42) Please explain how Christ can be “out of” God without being a part of God. That's like saying that sun beams may come out of the sun without being a part of the sun.
thinker
Heb 1:3 also says Jesus is the image of God, not God. And further, it says he is the image of his person, singular, not persons plural, so Jesus cannot BE tha tof which he is an image. If he is the express image, as the KJV suggests, than he would have to be a multiple image to be the express image of a multiple person God.
Hi PDBut the scriptures do not say is just an “image of God”.
He is “the image of the invisible God“, the firstborn over all creation. Col 1:15
In other words he is God making himself visible!
The problem with ant-trinitarians is they limit God by not believing that he can change his form.
WJ
Paladin said:
Quote Heb 1:3 also says Jesus is the image of God, not God. And further, it says he is the image of his person, singular, not persons plural, so Jesus cannot BE tha tof which he is an image. If he is the express image, as the KJV suggests, than he would have to be a multiple image to be the express image of a multiple person God. It first says that Jesus is the “radiance” of God's glory. The English “radiance” is a compound word in the Greek from “apo” which means “from” or “out of” and “augazo” which means “beam.” Jesus is called the beam which comes out of God. He is the very emanation of God.
Just as sunbeams come out of the sun and emanate from the sun so Jesus came out of God and emanates from Him. Just as the sunbeams which emanate out of the the sun are a part of the sun so Jesus is a part of God. Jesus said, “I proceeded forth and came OUT OF God” (John 8:42).
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
