This paper was done for a Jehovah’s Witness at another site… we were debating the topic of the Trinity, but he kept misinterpreting the doctrine (referring to it in a modalistic viewpoint), so this paper was written to clarify terms and understanding as Orthodox Christianity views them… I end with an example for this JW to chew on.

• The Trinity

What I am attempting to do: I am going to try to define the doctrine of the Trinity. I will do this by isolating examples, analogies, and statements by (for the most part) modern Christian theologians. Why modern? Because this doctrine isn’t the easiest to comprehend, so modern language and examples seem fitting for the modern mind. Also, I will define other theologies commonly mistaken with the concept of the Trinity.

What I am not attempting to do: I will not defend this doctrine wholly; I want merely to define it. The reader must enter into the following posts not to attack what is here, but to accept these definitions as they represent mainstream Christian understanding of the Trinity, and then use these definitions in later posts, either to disprove or to support the doctrine. I want to stress that this doctrine isn’t 100% explainable either. A strong element of mystery (and an equally strong possibility of misunderstanding) will always be present when considering God’s “threeness” because we have no adequate word in English to express the nature of the different existences within the Godhead. This is not a cop-out, by far, instead, it recognizes that trying to reduce God to finite concepts is an exercise in futility. But I will define all this in the following paper.

The Shema
This is probably thee most known verse to the religious Jew. It comes from Deuteronomy 6:4, and simply reads: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (NKJV). I will come back to this verse, but I want to throw the proverbial cog into this statement. In Isaiah 6:8 we find the prophet Isaiah was commissioned to his ministry by non-other than God. Isaiah heard God say, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” Likewise in Genesis we find man being made in the image of God, but God specifically states, “in our image… in our likeness.”

So what about this Shema then? Doesn’t this verse in Deuteronomy make it plain and simple that the concept of the Trinity is the invention of man? It would seem that way, but lets pick this verse apart a little more, and then we’ll move on. This verse may seem to contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, but in fact, it does exactly the opposite. The word “one” used to express this fundamental doctrine is the Hebrew word “ehad,” [or, echad – “compound unity; united one] which means not one in isolation but one in unity. The word “stresses unity while recognizing diversity within the oneness.” (Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p.30) James Montgomery Boice tells us that “It is never used in the Hebrew Bible of a stark singular entity.” (Foundations of the Christian Faith, “The Sovereign God,” p.139). As a good example of its use, the Bible says that in God’s plan for interpersonal relationships within marriage, “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” ( Genesis 2:24), a statement which could hardly mean that they become one person. Okay, now that I sparked some interest in this matter (hopefully), I will move on.

The Trinity Defined?

• God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one what in God, but there are three whos. There is one it, but three “I”s. (When Cultists Ask, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes)

This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contrary for Jesus to say that God was only one person but was also three persons, or that God is only one nature but that he had three natures. But to declare, as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence eternally revealed in three distinct persons is not a contradiction.

The three personal “substances” (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being “I” in relation to who are “you” and each partaking of the full divine essence (the “stuff” of deity, if we may dare call it that) along with the other two. They are not three roles played by one person (that is modalism), nor are they three gods in a cluster (that is tritheism); the one God (“He”) is also, and equally, “they,” and they are always together and always cooperating, with the Father initiating, the Son complying, and the Spirit executing the will of both, which is also His will (Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs, by J. I. Packer).

Those were some attempts at formulas that go beyond the traditional “three in one, one in three” that Thomas Jefferson looked forward to seeing thrown out. So when Jesus is praying to the Father, He is not praying to Himself, but he is praying to God, in his human nature (I feel I have adequately explained the incarnation and the dual nature-ship of Christ in a previous few posts with John Noo). Keep in mind that in Trinitarian thought, The Son is not the Father or Spirit, The Father is not the Son or Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son or Father.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau even picked up on this fact when he said, “Can the Person whose history the Gospels relate be himself a man?… Yes, if the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.” I will now give some analogies that may help conceptualize this concept – I will save the best (e.g., my favorite) for last. Keep in mind that these are interesting, but are not to be thought as providing a rationale of the divine being

Analogies

1. “Perhaps a better illustration of the Trinity is the illustration of light, heat and air. If you hold your hand out and look at it, each of these three things is present. There is light, because it is only by light that you can see your hand. In fact, even if the darkness of night should descend, there would still be light. There would be infrared light. Although you couldn’t see it, it could be picked up by special equipment. There is also heat between your head and hand. You may prove it by holding out a thermometer. It will vary as you go a cold from room to a warm room or from the outside to indoors. Finally there is air. You can blow on your hand and feel it. You can wave your hand and thus fan your face.”
   
   “The point is that each of these three – light, heat, and air – is distinct. Each obeys its own laws and may be studied separately. And yet, at the same time it is… impossible to have one without the others. They are three and yet they are one. Together they make up the environment in which we have our being.” (Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensible & Readable Theology, by James Montgomery Boice.)
   
2. “Water may serve as a ‘three-in-one’ illustration since it retains its chemical activity whether solid, gas, or liquid state. There is also a triple point for water, a condition under ice, stream, and liquid water can coexist in equilibrium. All three are water, yet distinct from each other.
   
   The sun, its light, and its power may help illustrate the Trinity…. No one has actually seen the sun just as no one has seen the Father. Yet we learn a great deal about the sun by studying the sunlight just as we learn about the Father through Jesus Christ the Son who is the radiance of His glory (Heb. 1:3). We see the power of the sun as it is involved in the growth of seeds and trees and plants, and when asked what makes things grow, we say the sun does. The Holy Spirit is like the power of the sun and He is God.” (Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth, by Charles C. Ryrie).
   
3. “In thinking about the triunity of God, we need to hold together the unity of the Godhead and its three-ness. Analogies, though always imperfect, are sometimes helpful in explaining difficult concepts. The following analogies show how something or someone can be both one and three at the same time. An example from nature is that of water: if water in a test tube is frozen at one end and heated at the other, the water in the test tube has three different “forms” – it is solid ice at one end, vapor or gas at the other and liquid in the middle. Another example from nature is the sun: it comes to us each day in three different “modes” – as light, as heat, and as energy. An example from human experience is that of a married person with a child: such a person is, at one and the same time, three different “persons” – someone’s son or daughter, a spouse’s husband or wife and a child’s father or mother.” (The Compact Guide to the Christian Faith, by John Schwarz).

This next example is one of my favorites. I will build off of one of its concepts immediately after it. This is one of the best grouping of examples (analogies) that is experienced daily by us. You may have to read it a few times (slowly) to get the subject/object distinctions down, but it is well worth the read:

• “(1) God the Father – the unseen source and cause of all things, (2) God the Son – who tangibly reveals the Father to man and who executes the will of God, and (3) God the Holy Spirit – who is (like the Father) unseen and yet reveals the Son to men, especially through the holy Scriptures that He inspired, making real in the hearts and lives of men the experience of fellowship with the Son and Father. This order, however, is not an order of importance or length of existence. All are equally eternal and equally God – one God…. The remarkable fact is that these relationships are beautifully patterned in the physical universe. Everything in this universe can be understood as functioning as a continuum of space, matter, and time. Space is the invisible, omnipresent background of all things, manifesting itself always and everywhere in phenomena of matter and/or energy, which are then interpreted and experience through time. These are analogous to the relationships in the Godhead between Father, Son, and Spirit; the one is a perfect model of the other.
  
  Note that the universe is a tri-universe. It is not part space, part time, and part matter (that would be a triad) but all space, all time and all matter (where matter includes energy, with matter/energy permeating all space and time). This is a true trinity.
  
  Furthermore, each component of this tri-universe is also a trinity. Space consists of three dimensions, each of which is equally important and occupies all space. There could be no space – no reality – if there were only two dimensions. All dimensions are necessary, yet there is just one space, and each dimension comprises the whole of space. Note that to calculate the amount of a given space, one does not add its three dimensions but multiplies them. Analogously, the mathematics of the divine Trinity is not 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 but rather 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Space is always identified in terms of one dimension but is only seen in two dimensions and experienced in three dimensions.
  Similarly, time is one entity but can also be conceptualized as future, present, and past time. Each involves the whole of time; the present being the “seen,” or manifested; the past is time experienced but no longer seen. The unseen future becomes manifest in the present; the past proceeds from the future through the present into the realm of past experience. Again, the same interrelationships apply as for the Persons of the Godhead.
  
  The central entity in the tri-universe is matter, which is essentially unseen energy manifesting itself in motion and experienced in various phenomena. These phenomena all occur in space through time. Unseen but omnipresent energy generates motion, the magnitude of which (velocity) is the ratio of the space to the time. Depending on the rates and types of motion, various phenomena (e.g., light, sound, texture, hardness) are experienced. For example, light energy generates light waves that are experienced in seeing light. It is always thus: unseen energy generating motion that is experienced in phenomena – this is matter, and each of its three components again comprises the whole [one couldn’t exist without the other].
  
  Thus the physical universe is actually a trinity of trinities, a true tri-universe in the fullest sense. But the same remarkable phenomena can be seen in the realm of human life as well. The Bible says that men and woman were created in God’s image.
  
  Note that each individual is a person with a body that can be physically heard, seen and touched. But inside that body is the person’s nature, which is unseen and yet is the source of all that he embodies. On the other hand, the person is known to others only through his personality, which is unseen and intangible, yet is the means by which he and his nature exert influence on others. Human life consists of three entities – nature, person, and personality – each of which pervades the whole of his life and yet is distinct from the other two. The nature is the unseen source, revealed and embodied in the person. The personality proceeds from the person, invisible yet influencing the lives of others in regard to the person. Nature, person, and personality (or, perhaps equivalently, soul, body and spirit) thus constitute a true trinity, reflecting in minute detail the Triuneness of the God who created the human trinity.” (Science and the Bible, by Henry M. Morris).

If you are in a room right now, you are in a three dimensional box (for lack of a better word). There is height, depth, and width. These are three separate dimensions, but all three make the entirety of the room possible. If you were to take one of these dimensions away, the room would cease to exist. Alternatively, the Trinity makes up the whole of God, if one were to be taken away (which is impossible), God would cease to exist. These aren’t perfect examples, nor proofs of the Trinity, but merely examples to help the layman – like me – conceptualize a doctrine that seems beyond us.

Misinterpretations of the Trinity

1) Tri-theism: In early church history men such as John Ascungas and John Philoponus taught that there were three who were God but they were only related in a loose association as, for example, Peter, James, and John were as disciples. The error of this teaching was its proponents abandoned the unity within the Trinity with the result that they taught there were three gods rather than three Persons within one Godhead.

2) Sabellianism or Modalism: This teaching, originated by Sabellius (c. A.D. 200), erred in the opposite from that of tri-theism. Although Sabellius spoke of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he understood all three as simply three modes of existence or three manifestations of one God. The teaching is thus also known as modalism because it views one God who variously manifests Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Often you will hear people say, “Jesus prayed to the Father, wouldn’t He be praying to himself?” If Sabellianism were true, this would be a valid point. But there are three separate “persons” that are the one God.

3) Arianism: Arian doctrine had its roots in Tertullian, who subordinated the Son to the Father. Origen carried Tertullian’s concept further by teaching that the Son was subordinate to the Father “in respect to essence.” this ultimately led to Arianism, which denied the deity of Christ. Arius taught that only God was the uncreated One; because Christ was begotten of the Father it meant Christ was created by the Father. According to Arius there was a time when Christ did not exist. (#’s 1-3 are from: The Moody Handbook of Theology, by Paul Enns).

The Word “Person,” Straining Our Language
The word persons tend to detract from the unity of the Trinity, and it is readily recognized that persons is an inadequate term to describe the relationship within the Trinity (there is a German word that comes closest and means three-oneness). Some theologians have opted for the term subsistence, hence, “God has three subsistances.” other words used to describe the distinctiveness of the Three are: distinction, relation, and mode. The term persons is nonetheless helpful inasmuch as it emphasizes not only a manifestation but also an individual personality. In suggesting God is three with respect to His Persons it is emphasizes that (1) each has the same essence as God and (2) each possess the fullness of God. “In God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence.” (Sytematic Theology, by Berkoff).

This is an important deviation from modalism, which teaches that one God merely manifests Himself in three various ways. This unity within three Persons is seen in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 48:16 where the Father has sent the Messiah and the Spirit to speak to the restored nation. In Isaiah 61:1 the Father has anointed the Messiah with the Spirit for His mission. These references emphasize both the equality and the unity of the three Persons.

“Person”
Augustine, for example, discussing the propriety of the term “person” in the case of the Trinity, remarked: “When the question is asked: three what? Human language labours altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer however is given ‘three persons,’ not that it might be spoken but that it might not be left unspoken.” How then may we refer to the “three” in the Godhead without endangering God’s unity? The classical formula, “three persons,” has come under increasing strain, since contemporary usage rarely distinguishes “person” from “personality” with the latter’s overtones of distinctiveness and independence. Hence “three Persons” today comes close to denoting three separate gods.

To Conclude ~
As I clearly explained to John Noo [a Jehovah’s Witness] a few posts back [a must read to understand this post fully] about Jesus dual nature (100% man / 100% God), I will once again illustrate the verse that decimated the Jewish leaders and caused them to refrain from asking further questions….

David’s Son and David’s Lord
In Matthew 22:43, citing Psalm 110, Jesus said, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’ [Messiah]?” Jesus stumped his skeptical Jewish questioners by presenting them with a dilemma that blew their own neat calculations about the Messiah “Lord” (as he did in Ps. 110); when the Scriptures also say the Messiah would be the “Son of David” (which they do in 2 Samuel 7:12.)? The only answer is that the Messiah must be both a man (David’s son or offspring) and God (David’s Lord). Jesus is claiming to be both the God of the Old Testament and human, at the same time!

Good analogies! If I may add one from C.S. Lewis' The Joyful Christian...

In Space you can move in three ways, to left or right, backward or foward, up or down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube, a thing like a die or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make up one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways, in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings, just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level, you still find personalities, but up there you find them combined in new ways which wem who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube.

seang200

You wrote,
The word “one” used to express this fundamental doctrine is the Hebrew word “ehad,” [or, echad – “compound unity; united one] which means not one in isolation but one in unity. The word “stresses unity while recognizing diversity within the oneness.”


I think you should check out some lexicons. Strongs says echad is “A numeral.” Brown-Driver-Briggs also says it is a number. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance says it is “a prim. card. number.” I believe that means a prime cardinal number. It is a number by which one counts. To proclaim compound unity as the meaning of the word eliminates any possible usage as a counting number. The concept is patently false. The “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24 is a figure of speech, an analogy. Two people will become as one flesh. If the true meaning of one is really compound, the analogy loses all value. In fact it become circular and really means 3 flesh or more “because it echad is really a compound one.”

I challenge you to find one instance of what you consider “compound unity” where echad is used to describe multiple things, where the word echad modifies is not a “compound” word itself. For example “one company” in Genesis 32:8 does refer to many people, but one defines company. Company defines many people, not one. Genesis 34:16, 22 uses the phrase “one people.” One defines people; people speaks of multiples, not echad.

Ron

[Strongs has quite a few meanings underneath echad. And while I agree two becoming one flesh is physically an analogy physically. Spiritually, it is more than that¡K an analogy that is.

"together," is what #259 in the Hebrew/Aramaic section of Strongs says. Besides just the few articles below, one of the best I have found is at the Jews For Jesus site, and is at: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/...-08/jewish.htm

and

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/qa/karoltrinity.htm

.

Ref: http://philologos.org/bpr/files/t011.htm

The word echad/one used in the Shema (Deut 6:4 which seems to be the proof text used when trying to discourage the Trinity) is just like the English use of the word. The word echad/one *can* refer to a plurality so I'm not quite sure why it is brought up. Elsewhere in the OT it is used as a plural like when Adam and Eve become one/echad; Israel is called "goy echad" in some places which translates as "one nation" yet there are many, many individuals in that one nation, etc. If a nation can be one and made up of many people, then I don't see why God can't be?

Ref: http://www.geocities.com/stat23mj/theology/trinity.html

The word echad means one in English. Another word for one is yachid which means only or one and only one. Basically yachid denotes absolute singularity. But echad is a compound-unity noun.

• DEFINITION: A compound-unity noun = A noun, which demonstrates oneness or unity while containing several entities at the same time.

Some examples would be Genesis 1:5 where the first in first day is echad. The one-day, which God created, consisted of both light and darkness - evening and day. A day, which is ONE, consists of 2 PARTS but its still ONE day. In Genesis 2:24, the one in one flesh is echad. God joined man and woman in perfect harmony as a unit. Two become one (Not the Spice Girls song but its the same theme) flesh in marriage. So 2 PEOPLE (Male & Female) come together and join as ONE. In Numbers 13:23, a cluster of grapes is echad. ONE cluster of grapes consisted of more than one grape. ONE cluster, many grapes. In Ezra 2:64, the whole congregation is derived from echad. ONE congregation consisted of more than one individual (42,360 Israelites in fact). In Jeremiah 32:38,39, the one heart and one way is echad. One heart & one way represents the entire nation of Israel. Again, many are seen as ONE.

Ref: http://www.freewebs.com/theology/thetrinity.htm

It seems to me that the doctrine of the Trinity is becoming increasingly challenged in America's churches, particularly among the youth. There are many so-called Christians I have met who reject the notion of the Triune God as absurd. I have also met many Bible-believing Christians who fail utterly when trying to defend their beliefs against the skeptical world. This page contains simple, powerful biblical evidence that God is Three in One.

Let me say first of all that we cannot explain the Trinity. In the words of a popular bumper sticker, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." But unfortunately, disbelievers most often will not take that for an answer. So it is up to us to at least show that the Bible supports this idea that is crucial to the very basis of Christianity. There is not much else we can do, because the very concept of the trinity is beyond our full comprehension.

Jews and non-believing Christians alike point to the Great Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, soundly refutes the doctrine of the trinity. It goes like this: "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD..." If God is one, how can He be three?

The answer lies in the Hebrew. It is fascinating to note that the word 'one' in the Great Shema is not the Hebrew word used throughout the rest of the Old testament to denote absolute singularity. The Hebrew word is echad, which is used to demonstrate compound unity of oneness. For example, here are a few of the verses in which the Hebrew echad is used:

• For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
  
  Now the whole earth used the same [echad] language and the same [echad] words. (Genesis 11:1)
  
  And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one [echad] people, and they all have the same [echad] language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)
  
  Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)
  
  Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one [echad] voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)
  
  Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single [echad] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23)

Make sense now? So the word 'one' used in the Great Shema doesn't mean one singular, it means one plural! and now contrast that to the word used in the rest of the OT to mean one singular: yachid. Here are a few verses* in which yachid is used:

• And He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2)
  
  And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." (Genesis 22:12)
  
  and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, (Genesis 22:16)
  
  When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only [yachid] child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:34)
  
  Deliver my soul from the sword, My only [yachid] life from the power of the dog. (Psalms 22:20)

Very clear-cut. But it goes farther. In the Old Testament, God (Elohim in Hebrew) is never refered to as yachid! When refering to god, the Old Testament writers always used echad!

Clearly, God is plural. Not multiple, but plural. It is inexplainable, but as I wrote in "You Want Proof?", I consider that one of the greatest arguments for the existence of God! It doesn't make sense! If God make perfect sense, it would show we invented him!

Ref: http://www.yeshua.com/AnswerQuestion.php?ID=13

Hebrew echad connotes something that is first (in the sense of preceding other things), alone, or united. In English, one equally denotes these same ideas. It makes sense, then, that ADONAI is echad given the second of the Ten Words, You are to have no other gods before me. In other words, ADONAI is supreme, there is no one like Him, He alone is God, and He alone was willing and able to bring Israel up out of Egypt; likewise to bring all Gods redeemed up out of bondage to sin and death.

Other Tanakh occurrences of echad also help us to understand this simple word. In B¡¦resheet (Genesis) 2:24, a man is to leave his father and mother and stick to his wife, and they are to be [echad person]. Husband and wife unite in a unique relationship of oneness physically, emotionally, spiritually, and in every other human aspect. Here we begin to see echad describe a singularity that exists between two distinct entities: a man and woman.

This kind of unity among human beings is nowhere else more apparent than in the constructing of the Tower of Babel. B'resheet (Genesis) 11:6 reports, Look, the people are [echad]... at this rate, nothing they set out to accomplish will be impossible for them. The concept of echad, then, is not limited to single entities, but is a descriptor of those single entities (i.e. a married couple [2:24], a people [11:6]) that consist of multiple parts.

This definition may be summed up in the word elohim which aptly describes the pluralistic, supreme, divine majesty and power of God. This plurality of oneness is expressed in B'resheet 3:22, where Adam is compared with ADONAI, ADONAI Elohim said, See, the man has become like one of (k'achad) us

Given these expressions of echad, we may infer that God is One means that He is in some way pluralistic, or compound in the sense of consisting of multiple elements, yet He is one, unified, the single God, alone, unique in the universe.

I apologize for the weird symbols in the post... I have no idea why the Theology Web site skewed these words... I suggest going to the sites I posted for a clear understanding of what I quoted.

I cleaned it up a bit, but in doing so I erased some of the parentheses, again, I would go to the sites I mentioned if one wished to read the quoted portions in their original context.

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here
Ron Macy:

seang200

You wrote,
The word “one” used to express this fundamental doctrine is the Hebrew word “ehad,” [or, echad – “compound unity; united one] which means not one in isolation but one in unity. The word “stresses unity while recognizing diversity within the oneness.”

I think you should check out some lexicons. Strongs says echad is “A numeral.” Brown-Driver-Briggs also says it is a number. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance says it is “a prim. card. number.” I believe that means a prime cardinal number. It is a number by which one counts. To proclaim compound unity as the meaning of the word eliminates any possible usage as a counting number. The concept is patently false. The “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24 is a figure of speech, an analogy. Two people will become as one flesh. If the true meaning of one is really compound, the analogy loses all value. In fact it become circular and really means 3 flesh or more “because it echad is really a compound one.”

I challenge you to find one instance of what you consider “compound unity” where echad is used to describe multiple things, where the word echad modifies is not a “compound” word itself. For example “one company” in Genesis 32:8 does refer to many people, but one defines company. Company defines many people, not one. Genesis 34:16, 22 uses the phrase “one people.” One defines people; people speaks of multiples, not echad.

Ron

I realize that you probably have me on ignore but I still feel compelled to refute fallacious reasoning. "I challenge you to find one instance of what you consider “compound unity” where echad is used to describe multiple things, where the word echad modifies is not a “compound” word itself." Excuse me? That is the point Mr. Macy, thank you for conceding the obvious. As with the English word, "one," אחד/echad can and does describe a compound unity, where the word it modifies is a "compound" word itself. And because of that fact it cannot be said that the use of אחד/ echad, alone, to refer to God, proves God is not plural. You must first prove that God is NOT a compound unity. אחד/echad does NOT do that.

And the use of the plural "elohim," plural pronouns, and verbs referring to God, in the HOT, does not help your case. Neither does the fact that the Trinity originated in Judaism before the Christian era, not in any pagan religion, because there were no trinities in any pagan religion which could have influenced Christianity. None. Read about the Trinity in Judaism, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, here

"Strongs says echad is “A numeral.” Brown-Driver-Briggs also says it is a number. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance says it is “a prim. card. number.”" This is deceptive. You appear to be saying that these sources say that אחד/echad means only "a numeral" and "a prim. card. number," but as Seang200 has said these resources list several definitions beside the one you referenced.

Strong’s 259 – echaod / ekh-awd’
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, 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’s 258 – ached / aw-khad’
Perhaps a primitive root; to unify, that is, (figuratively) collect (one’s thoughts):—go one way or other.

I want to thank my neighbor for letting me borrow the following two resources – he is a seminary student/family man… thanks Rob.

In the book, Gesenius’ Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, the prime root (which is #258 in the Strong’s) is said to mean many things in context of usage. I will give a few of these examples: “to unite, to join oneself together, to collect oneself (p. 28)…. Joined in one, united; Ezek. 37:17… ‘and they shall be (the two sticks) joined in one” (p. 29). (Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House: 1979)

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says this of echad (Strong’s # 259):

• Sometimes the phrase “as one man” can mean “all at once” (Num 14:15). But when Gideon was told he would defeat Midian “as one man” it probably meant “as easily as a single man” (Jud 6:16). The phrase can also refer to a nation aroused to take a united action against a gross injustice (Jud 20:8; 1 Sam 11:17). Zephaniah’s mention of people serving God “with one shoulder” (3:9) likely means “shoulder to shoulder,” solidly united. Likewise in Ex 24:3 “with one voice” expresses that all Israel was involved in entering into the Covenant with Yahweh.
  
  The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened together to form one unit (Ex 26:6; 11; 36:13). Adam and Eve are described as “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), which includes more than sexual unity. In Gen 34:16 the men of Schechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob’s children in order to become “one people.”… (Multiple editors. Chicago, Illinois; Moody Press: 1980)

I hope this helped in the understanding of this word and all the varied meanings it has. I hope this study – as it turned out to be – assisted others here in the deeper meaning of the Shema.

Much thought, SeanG

P.S., What does the Hebrew say in your signiture OldShepherd?

Seang200,

Notice the contradiction between the statements made in Karol Joseph in Atonement Questions and Answers and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum in Jewishness.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/qa/karoltrinity.htm
Joseph says, “The word echad, like the English word "one" can be used in either way, as a compound unity (e.g. one month) or as an absolute unity (e.g. one earth).”

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/...-08/jewish.htm
Fruchtenbaum says, “The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.”

One says absolute unity is possible, the other says absolutely no absolute unity. My vote is for absolute unity all the time.

http://www.geocities.com/stat23mj/theology/trinity.html
The article, The Trinity, goes to great length to show a day is made up of two parts, a marriage is made of two parts, a cluster of grapes is made up of many grapes, and a congregation is made up of multiple people.

What item on this earth cannot be considered in it’s multipe parts. One curtain, bull, goat, lamb, bowl are all made up of smaller parts. This is the point I made about one defining compound words. “Cluster” and “congregation” are “compound” words by themselves. These words speak of the multiples, not the word, one.

Every instance of echad refers to a singularity. It is an absolute one. Speaking of multiples in one is just double talk. The multiples are in the words defined by the adjective, one. I am sure some are thinking it should then be obvious in Deuteronomy 6:4 that God is a multiple word. It is not obvious.

If you want to define God as mulitple, that is fine. I disagree, but you can do it. The word echad defines God as a single being, “one God.” You should have no trouble agreeing with that. Don’t try to introduce more multiplicity into the situation by saying one is really more than one. It is counter productive and adds even more confusion to an already confusing doctrine.

Ron

Ron,

To be honest, you really haven’t addressed the main issues involved in my, or the posted articles. In other words, you would walk into a Hebrew class, say, given by Gleason Archer (see appendix), and repeat what you just did?

I have shown that the word itself has varied meanings, and that another Hebrew word can be used to explicitly show an absolute one that cannot have these varied meanings (I am assuming Moses knew what he was doing in using the unity word).

Not only that, but the articles I posted deal with other pluralities within the Old Testament for God. Like I said, my paper wasn’t written to debate the issue of the Trinity, it was written assuming the Trinity to exist, but not exist in the varied ways that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Oneness Pentecostals believe Him to exist. It was written for clear thinking so when someone says, “how could Jesus pray to himself?” I can say, “you are setting up a straw-man, and are mischaracterizing how the Christian faith has understood this doctrine for almost 2,000… let me explain to you how it is we actually see it.”

And so far, my paper has withstood even your nitpicking, Ron. (I don’t mean to put nitpicking in a negative connotation, my wife "nitpicks" for instance, and I love her for it... although I wouldn't say as much in respects to you Ron.)

Appendix

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

1938 B.A., Harvard University (summa cum laude in Classics)
1939 LL.B., Suffolk Law School
1940 A.M., Harvard University
1944 Ph.D., Harvard University
1945 B.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

1945-1948 Pastor, Park Street Church, Boston
1948-1965 Professor of Biblical Languages, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California
1965- Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, Deerfield, Illinois (now emeritus)

Archer's areas of expertise include Old Testament, comparative Semitic grammar, and coinage of biblical times. He has mastered more than 20 languages.

For a debate involving Islamic and Christian understandings of God (which deals with echad at one point), see:
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...m/IS2W1299.pdf

• John’s [John Ankerberg Show] guests representing Islam are Dr. Jamal Badawi, Chairman of the Islamic Information Foundation, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Dr. Hussein Morsi, Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Chicago, Illinois. Representing Christianity are Dr. Anis Shorrosh, a Palestinian Arab Christian who received his Ph.D. from Oxford Graduate School and Dr. Gleason Archer who holds degrees from Princeton, Suffolk University and received his Ph.D. from Harvard. Dr. Archer is currently professor of Semitic Languages and Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. We invite you to join us in listening to this important debate.

It [the doctrine of the Trinity] may be a mystery of sorts, but it is neither self-refuting nor confusing (as confusing as you seem to make it, that is).

08-15-2003 @ 11:59 AM post located here
Ron Macy:

One says absolute unity is possible, the other says absolutely no absolute unity. My vote is for absolute unity all the time.

Ron

When you study and demonstrate a scholarly knowledge of Hebrew and the historical era in which the HOT was written then your vote might have some weight. Otherwise it is no more valid than any man on the street. Just for fun here is the complete entry on "echad" from BDB.

• אחד adj.num. one — 1. one; as subst. sq. מן pl. = few, a few. 2. = each, every; also repeated, distrib. sense. 3. = a certain; hence 4. = indef. art. 5. only; & (fem.) once; at once באחת 6. one … another, the one … the other ’ א . . . ’ א, ’ הא . . . ’ א. 7. as ordinal, first; of first day of month; first year, ’ שנת אחת. 8. in combin., a. אחד עשר eleven (cf. אחתי) as ordinal, eleventh עשרה אחת. b. with other numerals, as cardinal; as ordinal.
  
  Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. (. R., & Briggs, C. A. (. A. 1997, c1906. The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament : From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Edited by Richard Whitaker (Princeton Theological Seminary). Text provided by Princeton Theological Seminary. (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor WA

good stuff...

but I really have just one question because I do not look much into trinitarian theology.

Doesn't the idea of the trinity basically have the exact same basis as Sabellianism or Modalism.

Trinitarian theology claims that three persons are in one godhead...but wouldn't that make all three the one god...and therefore lead to modalism?
Trinity says Father son and HS are all three different beings in one essence. If they are of one essence..then wouldn't they consequently be just one larger being? And therefore preach modalism?

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here
mandolin:

good stuff...

but I really have just one question because I do not look much into trinitarian theology.

Doesn't the idea of the trinity basically have the exact same basis as Sabellianism or Modalism.

Trinitarian theology claims that three persons are in one godhead...but wouldn't that make all three the one god...and therefore lead to modalism?
Trinity says Father son and HS are all three different beings in one essence. If they are of one essence..then wouldn't they consequently be just one larger being? And therefore preach modalism?

No, please read the first post in this thread, which specifically refutes Sabellianism or Modalism.

seang200,

I apologize for not getting back sooner. Someone posted this letter on the "pre-existence" thread. Some people! That same person also clicked the ignore button on one of the responses and got this interesting message asking why one would want to ignore themselves.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
To be honest, you really haven’t addressed the main issues involved in my, or the posted articles. In other words, you would walk into a Hebrew class, say, given by Gleason Archer (see appendix), and repeat what you just did?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I haven’t addressed the main issues involved in your post. There was only one (???) I wanted to point out, the fallacy associated with echad.

Being the kind of person I am, I would have to say, yes, I would go into Mr. Archer’s class and challenge the same kind of presentation. I don’t know anything about Mr. Archer, so a list of credentials doesn’t mean anything to me. I have known many people with all the proper letters after their name who couldn’t teach or who couldn’t think straight. I have also seen people with letters after their name willingly twist their thinking in order to conform to a bias. Again, I mean no disrespect to a man I don’t know. I just will not be intimidated by credentials.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall any quotes or URLs which referenced Gleason Archer. Did I miss something?

It has also been mentioned that appealing to authorities is a logical fallacy.


You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I have shown that the word itself has varied meanings, and that another Hebrew word can be used to explicitly show an absolute one that cannot have these varied meanings (I am assuming Moses knew what he was doing in using the unity word).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

According to the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance
echad can mean “only,” “unique,” “united,” and “first” among many other things. According to my calculations based on the numbers supplied by NASEC, echad is used 911 times in the Old Testament. Here is a listing of the words used to translate echad most often: one (586), each (48), first (38), other (27), same (25), another (23), any (15), single (15), once (14), certain (11). According to Excel that makes for 802. What I thought was curious is not once in the 911 uses was echad translated “unity” in the NASB. What do you make of that?

Yachid, on the other hand appears to be used only 12 times. It is defined as “only, only one, solitary” and translated as follows: lonely (2), one and child (1), only (5), only son (4).

Another thing I notice is yachid is never used in counting. So if Moses wanted to count the number of important gods, he would most likely use echad instead of yachid. What do you think?

It is the counting thing which convinces me. You are telling me the number one is no longer just one, it is a euphemism for any number other than one. This concept makes mathematic impossible. You can’t even claim God is one God any more because one no longer means one. It makes no difference whether you believe the one God is made up of multiple persons, one no longer means one, it means many. So the one God is really many gods all made up of multiple persons.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
And so far, my paper has withstood even your nitpicking, Ron. (I don’t mean to put nitpicking in a negative connotation, my wife "nitpicks" for instance, and I love her for it... although I wouldn't say as much in respects to you Ron.)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I appreciate the fact you don’t mean nitpicking in a negative way. I also appreciate the fact you feel differently about me than you do your wife. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

As I said, this is the only nit I want to pick in your article, right now. Maybe in a few weeks I will be able to put some time into discussing the other pluralities you mentioned.

Keep up the good humor, though. There are too many people around who take themselves too seriously. Life is no fun, that way.

Ron

08-22-2003 @ 11:50 AM post located here
Ron Macy:

It has also been mentioned that appealing to authorities is a logical fallacy.

Ron

Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy IF the quoted authority is NOT knowledgable in the particular field for which he (she) is cited. For example, you cited Buzzard as proof that ancient Jews did not expect a supernatural Messiah. Buzzard is not an authority in that field and he did not cite any known authorities or ancient Jewish writings to support the assertions made.

This post is proof, that you read my post in which I said that your appeal to Buzzard was a logical fallacy. And since you now acknowledge that the logical fallacy of appeal to authority exists you have made no attempt to correct your previous post. Yet here you dishonestly raise the issue of logical fallacy, because Archer IS an authority in the appropriate field.

If you want to have any credibility you should know what terms, like logical fallacy, mean and not commit these errors yourself before irresponsibly throwing the terms at others.

It is the counting thing which convinces me. You are telling me the number one is no longer just one, it is a euphemism for any number other than one. This concept makes mathematic impossible. You can’t even claim God is one God any more because one no longer means one. It makes no difference whether you believe the one God is made up of multiple persons, one no longer means one, it means many. So the one God is really many gods all made up of multiple persons.

I wonder if there will ever exist an anti-trinitarian who can respond to Trinitarian apologetics without resorting to exaggeration and outright lying about what the Trinitarians say and believe. I don't think anyone on this thread ever used the word "euphemism." And then the rest of this statement is the same old κυονου εχεραμου misrepresenting and distorting how Trinitarians actually view the Trinity.

I have never encountered any anti-Trinitarian, anywhere, who could accurately describe the Trinity as believed by Trinitarians. It is always, always, the sort of illegitimized nonsense posted here. Straw man is too good a term to describe this stuff

I have never encountered any anti-Trinitarian, anywhere, who could accurately describe the Trinity as believed by Trinitarians.

And I don't know if I have ever heard a group of Trinitarians agree on what they believe.

Well you have just found some, for their is a whole group here that do.