Phil 2 Must Exist To Be Able To Consider

[Towerwatchman]

You said, "
be careful what you Google. Note from the site it states that ehad is used as a unity of one 3 times in the OT.
On a quick search, how many times did I find it used as a unity of one.
Ex 26:6,
Ex 26:11
Ex 36:13
Gen 2:24
Gen 34:16
Ez 37:17
Mal 2:15"


It is you who needs to be careful what you assume and what you read from my replies. I've known the "half-shekel" site for at least a decade or more and have used it in the past to refute the nonsensical notion that Echad means a unity in Deut 6. It totally smashes the shameful abuse of the Hebrew by those who would subvert Deut 6 to say the opposite of what it says.

I do my homework. Whenever possible I double check the authors work. And there’s a problem when you write your theology from someone else’s interpretation of the text, and not double check against the text.

Also, did you pay attention that the statistical analysis chart is only from the first 5 books of the Bible? You seem to have missed the point while trying to prove that Ecad doesn't mean a unity 99% of the time but 98% of the time! The author missed a handful? Nice catch, but does that help you. Actually the opposite, keep reading.

You can twist anything with statistics. It’s not a difference of 1%. Your author missed four out of seven. That’s a 57% error. With modern technology, and computer programs you can do word searches that took hours before in a matter of minutes. Seems someone didn’t double check thier work. And one or 2% of the entire text does not matter. What matters is how it used in a verse.

The point is not so much a specific percentage, but that the majority of the time echad doesn't mean a unity!

Irrelevant

However, even if the reverse was true, which it isn't, the CONTEXT gives us the definition.

Make up your mind.

But, I see you are getting some skill at identifying Echad in the text as a unity, so it is not a reading comprehension problem.

Spare the insults.

More to the point then: There is absolutely nothing in the context of Deuteronomy 6 other than singular pronoun references to God.

Using the same methodology you used to pull up Exodus 26:6, you couldn't do the same with Deuteronomy 6:4. The only reason you abuse echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 while you ignore and push under foot all the singular pronouns in Deuteronomy 6, is because you have a preconceive narrative of three persons you want to force into it. It is shameful.

The text reads
Here oh Israel, Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh, Ehad. No singular pronouns.
I believe I wrote a correction in my previous conversation.

 

[Andreas]

And there’s your red flag. Since oneness claims to be apostolic, then its doctrines should originate from the oldest manuscripts in existence, and not translations. I am not in any way in disagreement with the translations. You are misinterpreting the translations.

No. Isaiah is speaking about Jesus in the entire text. He is the son that is given, and the child is born., And all the titles afterwards are about Jesus, including father of eternity. Again you have to explain the verse away in order for it to fit your theology, and I have to only take it literally.

Again, look it up in the original language. And here’s something interesting. In all the debates that I have seen, where the oneness apologist is ask the same question, “where does it literally say that Jesus is the father incarnate”, they never refer to Isaiah 9:6.

I gave you the biblical evidence, from the new and the Old Testament, Isaiah, John and Paul identify three individuals in that narrative. Now if you want to prove it wrong, go to scripture and do so. Is it not the oneness motto “solo scriptura”?

If you have answered this multiple times, please identify the post. You have not.

You are one being with one center of consciousness. God is one being with three centers of consciousness. Center of consciousness is were “I” originates from. It includes mind, will, desire.
A mediator identifies with both parties in the mediation. For there to be a true mediator between God and man that has to be a center of consciousness independent of both, that understands both sides. It has to be an individual who is both God and man and independent of both parties.
You cannot be the mediator and a party in the mediation.

When you have the right concept of God, it is easy to harmonize everything in the Bible. Such is the case for the Oneness of God and Isaiah 9:6. That the one God was manifested in the flesh is detailed in Isaiah 9:6 by his various titles. It is amazing how the OT prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 harmonizes with the rest of the Bible.


1 JOHN 3:1

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him {the Father]. 2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he [same subject Father] appears we shall be like him [same subject Father], because we shall see him [same subject Father] as he [same subject Father] is. 3And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he [same subject Father] is pure.

To the ancient Jews God is their Father and the Father is God. To be God is to be the Father because they didn't divide God up into different persons or plural minds in the Godhead. So before all the Trinitarian stuff came in to corrupt the minds of believers, to be God was to be the Father. All references to God, were by default references to the Father. Every reference to God in the Bible is a reference to the Father. When God became incarnate, the result is called the Son of God, who is by very nature both fully God and fully man. The reason why the bible is careful to distinguish between the Father and Son was due to his authentic and full human identity. It is a salvation issue. The Father wasn't animating a puppet human body.

 

[Andreas]

I do my homework. Whenever possible I double check the authors work. And there’s a problem when you write your theology from someone else’s interpretation of the text, and not double check against the text.

You can twist anything with statistics. It’s not a difference of 1%. Your author missed four out of seven. That’s a 57% error. With modern technology, and computer programs you can do word searches that took hours before in a matter of minutes. Seems someone didn’t double check thier work. And one or 2% of the entire text does not matter. What matters is how it used in a verse.

Irrelevant

Make up your mind.

Spare the insults.


The text reads
Here oh Israel, Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh, Ehad. No singular pronouns.
I believe I wrote a correction in my previous conversation.

Context!

Number of Singular Pronouns referencing God in the context of Deuteronomy 6: 13
Number of Plural Pronouns referencing God in the context of Deuteronomy 6: 0

DEUTERONOMY 6

“Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you— 'a land flowing with milk and honey.’

4“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

6“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Caution Against Disobedience​

10“So it shall be, when the Lord your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build, 11houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant—when you have eaten and are full— 12then beware, lest you forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 13You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name. 14You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are all around you 15(for the Lord your God is a jealous God among you), lest the anger of the Lord your God be aroused against you and destroy you from the face of the earth.

16“You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted Him in Massah. 17You shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, His testimonies, and His statutes which He has commanded you. 18And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land of which the Lord swore to your fathers, 19to cast out all your enemies from before you, as the Lord has spoken.

20“When your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord our God has commanded you?’ 21then you shall say to your son: ‘We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand; 22and the Lord showed signs and wonders before our eyes, great and severe, against Egypt, Pharaoh, and all his household. 23Then He brought us out from there, that He might bring us in, to give us the land of which He swore to our fathers. 24And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. 25Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.’

 

[Towerwatchman]

When you have the right concept of God, it is easy to harmonize everything in the Bible. Such is the case for the Oneness of God and Isaiah 9:6. That the one God was manifested in the flesh is detailed in Isaiah 9:6 by his various titles. It is amazing how the OT prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 harmonizes with the rest of the Bible.

Really? The passage is not about Jesus, but about the father? You are basically writing your own religion. Do you know you’re out on a limb, for even the cultish ascribe that passage to Jesus. In fact, even the Muslims do.

1 JOHN 3:1

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him {the Father]. 2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he [same subject Father] appears we shall be like him [same subject Father], because we shall see him [same subject Father] as he [same subject Father] is. 3And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he [same subject Father] is pure.

I don’t know how this helps you. I asked you where does it say literally that Jesus is the father to which you cannot point

To the ancient Jews God is their Father and the Father is God. To be God is to be the Father because they didn't divide God up into different persons or plural minds in the Godhead. So before all the Trinitarian stuff came in to corrupt the minds of believers, to be God was to be the Father. All references to God, were by default references to the Father. Every reference to God in the Bible is a reference to the Father. When God became incarnate, the result is called the Son of God, who is by very nature both fully God and fully man. The reason why the bible is careful to distinguish between the Father and Son was due to his authentic and full human identity. It is a salvation issue. The Father wasn't animating a puppet human body.

The very thing you’re attempting to use for support does not agree with you. Yes the Jews considered God as father, but so what? That doesn’t answer my question, point to where it says that Jesus is the father literally.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Context!

Number of Singular Pronouns referencing God in the context of Deuteronomy 6: 13
Number of Plural Pronouns referencing God in the context of Deuteronomy 6: 0

DEUTERONOMY 6

“Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you— 'a land flowing with milk and honey.’

4“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

6“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Caution Against Disobedience​

10“So it shall be, when the Lord your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build, 11houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant—when you have eaten and are full— 12then beware, lest you forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 13You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name. 14You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are all around you 15(for the Lord your God is a jealous God among you), lest the anger of the Lord your God be aroused against you and destroy you from the face of the earth.

16“You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted Him in Massah. 17You shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, His testimonies, and His statutes which He has commanded you. 18And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land of which the Lord swore to your fathers, 19to cast out all your enemies from before you, as the Lord has spoken.

20“When your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord our God has commanded you?’ 21then you shall say to your son: ‘We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand; 22and the Lord showed signs and wonders before our eyes, great and severe, against Egypt, Pharaoh, and all his household. 23Then He brought us out from there, that He might bring us in, to give us the land of which He swore to our fathers. 24And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. 25Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.’

So you don’t answer my question as usual. And start posting irrelevant evangelical jargon.
How about answering my question about mediator?

 

[Andreas]

So you don’t answer my question as usual. And start posting irrelevant evangelical jargon.
How about answering my question about me

So you don’t answer my question as usual. And start posting irrelevant evangelical jargon.
How about answering my question about mediator?

Your idea "evangelical jargon" is my posting the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 6 and highlighting all the pronouns that refer to God. What are you talking about?

 

[Andreas]

Really? The passage is not about Jesus, but about the father? You are basically writing your own religion. Do you know you’re out on a limb, for even the cultish ascribe that passage to Jesus. In fact, even the Muslims do.

I don’t know how this helps you. I asked you where does it say literally that Jesus is the father to which you cannot point

The very thing you’re attempting to use for support does not agree with you. Yes the Jews considered God as father, but so what? That doesn’t answer my question, point to where it says that Jesus is the father literally.

Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. For example, what about Isaiah 9:6 did I say was not about Jesus? That's been my entire point! What is happening to you man?

You're playing word games with the adjective "everlasting" to make some sort of point that Jesus is not called "Father" because of the adjective "everlasting". You would not be straining to make a point out of nothing if this verse wasn't talking about Jesus and it wasn't troubling to you. Get real my friend.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. For example, what about Isaiah 9:6 did I say was not about Jesus? That's been my entire point! What is happening to you man?

Good. If its about Jesus, and Jesus is the Father of Everlasting; that everlasting exist because of Him, then by default, this places Jesus in the eternal before the incarnation.

You're playing word games with the adjective "everlasting" to make some sort of point that Jesus is not called "Father" because of the adjective "everlasting". You would not be straining to make a point out of nothing if this verse wasn't talking about Jesus and it wasn't troubling to you. Get real my friend.

Wrong, and I suggest you double check your work. Father and everlasting are both nouns in the text.

Your idea "evangelical jargon" is my posting the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 6 and highlighting all the pronouns that refer to God. What are you talking about?

My bad, I must have parked my omniscience. With the large number of angles you have been using to argue this away, sometimes if becomes a bit hard to keep track of them. Looking back I can see where you were arguing the chapter instead of the verse.
So. what does that prove? Expanding the text to include the chapter to argue that Ehad is being used as a singularity vs unity proves nothing. Why? Because I can also expand the text to include the entire OT to argue that Ehad is being used as a unity.

There are places where Elohim is used of YHWH and followed by a plural verb.
Genesis 20:13: “And when God [Elohim] caused me to wander [literally: “They” caused me to wander] from my father’s house.
Genesis 35:7: “There God [Elohim] had revealed himself to him.” [Literally: “They” appeared unto him.]
2 Samuel 7:23: “God [Elohim] went.”” [Literally: “They” went.]
Psalm 58:11: “Surely there is a God [Elohim] who judges.” [Literally: “They” judge.]

Authors of the OT referring to God as a plurality.
Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: “holy God” [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband.” [Literally: makers, husbands.]

6:4 by itself does not make a strong argument for the Trinity, its a cumulative argument. Its a collection of circumstantial evidence that makes the argument more possible than not.
And you cannot knock it because its Oneness M.O.

The combination of words are very convincing.

Here oh Israel, Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh, Ehad.
Yahweh Elohim [plural], Yahweh, Ehad [unity of one].


BTW are we to park mediator with the other unanswerable questions about Oneness such as consider, love, eternal Father, etc..

 

[Andreas]

Good. If its about Jesus, and Jesus is the Father of Everlasting; that everlasting exist because of Him, then by default, this places Jesus in the eternal before the incarnation.

Wrong, and I suggest you double check your work. Father and everlasting are both nouns in the text.

My bad, I must have parked my omniscience. With the large number of angles you have been using to argue this away, sometimes if becomes a bit hard to keep track of them. Looking back I can see where you were arguing the chapter instead of the verse.
So. what does that prove? Expanding the text to include the chapter to argue that Ehad is being used as a singularity vs unity proves nothing. Why? Because I can also expand the text to include the entire OT to argue that Ehad is being used as a unity.

There are places where Elohim is used of YHWH and followed by a plural verb.
Genesis 20:13: “And when God [Elohim] caused me to wander [literally: “They” caused me to wander] from my father’s house.
Genesis 35:7: “There God [Elohim] had revealed himself to him.” [Literally: “They” appeared unto him.]
2 Samuel 7:23: “God [Elohim] went.”” [Literally: “They” went.]
Psalm 58:11: “Surely there is a God [Elohim] who judges.” [Literally: “They” judge.]

Authors of the OT referring to God as a plurality.
Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: “holy God” [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband.” [Literally: makers, husbands.]

6:4 by itself does not make a strong argument for the Trinity, its a cumulative argument. Its a collection of circumstantial evidence that makes the argument more possible than not.
And you cannot knock it because its Oneness M.O.

The combination of words are very convincing.

Here oh Israel, Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh, Ehad.
Yahweh Elohim [plural], Yahweh, Ehad [unity of one].


BTW are we to park mediator with the other unanswerable questions about Oneness such as consider, love, eternal Father, etc..

You're twisting the OT scriptures. You have to ask yourself why generations of Hebrew/English translators have not included these plural makers and Gods but you have found a secret meaning. While you strain at finding so-called hidden translations, you miss the elephant in the room of all the singular "I" and "me" God pronouns within the context of those passages.

Isaiah 54:5 is an example where you have turned the context upside down and are proposing a reading that is opposite of what is saying. Israel has plural husbands? God says in verse 7 "for a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee." Notice the singular "I" pronoun. Historically, Israe'ls problems stem from their worship of other gods and having other "husbands". Having "husbands" is Israel's greatest sin historically. What you are doing is mumbo jumbo that even Trinitarians I have debated with over the years have not ascribed too. God does not reveal himself by thumping sounds and code knocks on the closet door in the middle of the night or by secret decoder Hebrew words. He made his word plain.

 

[Towerwatchman]

You're twisting the OT scriptures. You have to ask yourself why generations of Hebrew/English translators have not included these plural makers and Gods but you have found a secret meaning. While you strain at finding so-called hidden translations, you miss the elephant in the room of all the singular "I" and "me" God pronouns within the context of those passages.

Again, I don’t have a problem, in my theology, singularity and plurality harmonize. The elephant in the room, that your theology cannot deal with are the multiple places we find plurality. And it doesn’t matter how high you want to stack singularities, you still have to deal with the plurality.
And there is no hidden meaning, in the verses, I posted, it’s literal, supported by the grammar. If you want to argue it away, give it a shot.
As to your argument as to why the Jews did this, and the Jews didn’t do that, carries no weight. As if they got it all correct? Are they not waiting for their Messiah?

Isaiah 54:5 is an example where you have turned the context upside down and are proposing a reading that is opposite of what is saying. Israel has plural husbands? God says in verse 7 "for a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee." Notice the singular "I" pronoun. Historically, Israe'ls problems stem from their worship of other gods and having other "husbands". Having "husbands" is Israel's greatest sin historically. What you are doing is mumbo jumbo that even Trinitarians I have debated with over the years have not ascribed too. God does not reveal himself by thumping sounds and code knocks on the closet door in the middle of the night or by secret decoder Hebrew words. He made his word plain.

We do not need to take a bunny trail to explain this away when the verse identifies the speaker as God, who states that He is Israel’s maker and husband. Both maker and husband are in plural form. I am applying the verse as it is written, literally. Read your post, you’re the one who is trying to twist it and explain it away.

So what are we gonna do with mediator?

Btw Ehad
Genesis 1 “…morning and evening Ehad day.

Your source missed 5 out of 8 so far. 62.5% missed. Would you drive a car that has a 62% failure?

 

[Andreas]

Again, I don’t have a problem, in my theology, singularity and plurality harmonize. The elephant in the room, that your theology cannot deal with are the multiple places we find plurality. And it doesn’t matter how high you want to stack singularities, you still have to deal with the plurality.
And there is no hidden meaning, in the verses, I posted, it’s literal, supported by the grammar. If you want to argue it away, give it a shot.
As to your argument as to why the Jews did this, and the Jews didn’t do that, carries no weight. As if they got it all correct? Are they not waiting for their Messiah?

We do not need to take a bunny trail to explain this away when the verse identifies the speaker as God, who states that He is Israel’s maker and husband. Both maker and husband are in plural form. I am applying the verse as it is written, literally. Read your post, you’re the one who is trying to twist it and explain it away.

So what are we gonna do with mediator?

Btw Ehad
Genesis 1 “…morning and evening Ehad day.

Your source missed 5 out of 8 so far. 62.5% missed. Would you drive a car that has a 62% failure?

Though the majority of Jews didn't receive the Messiah, Jesus Himself tells us that regarding the theology of God, they got it right... "Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (JOHN 4:22).

The revelation of God was given to Moses and the prophets of Israel, and to Jewish Apostles, not to Plato and the Greek philosophers. You lose out on a tremendous heritage of theology and worship when you don't appreciate that OT theology is the foundation of theology.

“This is what the LORD says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God" (ISAIAH 44:6).

"“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself" (ISAIAH 44:24)

"I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other." (ISAIAH 45:5-6)

I AM, NONE BESIDES ME, BY MYSELF.

This is the OT foundation that Jesus was talking about. However we understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it must align with OT theology. There is one God and Jesus is this one God manifested in the flesh. No need for three God persons.

You are playing so fast and loose with OT verses that I've never seen any Trinitarian in the 40 years I've been talking to Trinitarians take the OT plurality thing to the extent you have. Your proposals that Psalms mention plural makers and Isaiah mentions plural husbands is totally off the rails even for hard core social Trinitarians because you (or your source) are just making this stuff up.

The word echad is used hundreds of times in the OT and the majority don't mean a unity. So, if you find a few errors in the half-shekel.com site it barely moves the needle. Maybe you could go through the entire OT and count for yourself the percentage of which echads mean Quantity and which are unity? Go for it.

But that even misses the point. The word echad means one like the English word one. It has no mysterious coded meaning any more than our English word one. The definition is determined by context. So, since Deuteronomy 6 only has singular pronoun references to God the only thing you have is to read the multiple persons back into the Shema based on other sources. There is nothing in Deuteronomy 6 that suggests a Trinity. The Shema then is not evidence for the Trinity but something that Trinitarians must make excuses for.

 

[Towerwatchman]

The revelation of God was given to Moses and the prophets of Israel, and to Jewish Apostles, not to Plato and the Greek philosophers. You lose out on a tremendous heritage of theology and worship when you don't appreciate that OT theology is the foundation of theology.

More Dr Phil.
This is a typical cultist move. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. Philosophy filters out false doctrines. That is why Oneness, JW, Mormons all advise their followers to avoid philosophical thinking. My theology passes the test, as evident by our conversation, Oneness fails miserably. Thomas Aquinas is a great read.

“This is what the LORD says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God" (ISAIAH 44:6).

Last night I posted a thread as to how this supports the Trinity, look it up.

"“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself" (ISAIAH 44:24)

"I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other." (ISAIAH 45:5-6)

I AM, NONE BESIDES ME, BY MYSELF.

Totally agrees with the Trinity. What does not agree with scripture? Oneness.

This is the OT foundation that Jesus was talking about. However we understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it must align with OT theology. There is one God and Jesus is this one God manifested in the flesh. No need for three God persons.

You are playing so fast and loose with OT verses that I've never seen any Trinitarian in the 40 years I've been talking to Trinitarians take the OT plurality thing to the extent you have.

Thank you.

Your proposals that Psalms mention plural makers and Isaiah mentions plural husbands is totally off the rails even for hard core social Trinitarians because you (or your source) are just making this stuff up.

notice you attack me and fail to disprove the post. Why? Could it be you researched first and found it to be true? Just post the verse and show everyone that these verses are singular. It’s that easy. But you can’t.

The word echad is used hundreds of times in the OT and the majority don't mean a unity. So, if you find a few errors in the half-shekel.com site it barely moves the needle. Maybe you could go through the entire OT and count for yourself the percentage of which echads mean Quantity and which are unity? Go for it.

I believe everyone should do their homework before they post, and if they are found not to do their homework, their sites are worthless. I hold everyone to the same standard. Be it evolutionist, atheist, JW,RC, Oneness etc. My opinion half shekel does sloppy work.

But that even misses the point. The word echad means one like the English word one. It has no mysterious coded meaning any more than our English word one. The definition is determined by context. So, since Deuteronomy 6 only has singular pronoun references to God the only thing you have is to read the multiple persons back into the Shema based on other sources. There is nothing in Deuteronomy 6 that suggests a Trinity. The Shema then is not evidence for the Trinity but something that Trinitarians must make excuses for.

Here’s another cultist move, to hold something in isolation, in order to spin it. You want to expand the text to include all of Deuteronomy six, and then limited it to there. If you can explain the text so can I , and as in my previous post, I have provided multiple verses, that support Ehad as a unity of one can apply to God.

Bottom line in a court of law I have enough evidence to prove the Trinity.,

So shall I shelf mediator with everything else Oneness cannot answer?

 

[Andreas]

More Dr Phil.
This is a typical cultist move. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. Philosophy filters out false doctrines. That is why Oneness, JW, Mormons all advise their followers to avoid philosophical thinking. My theology passes the test, as evident by our conversation, Oneness fails miserably. Thomas Aquinas is a great read.

Last night I posted a thread as to how this supports the Trinity, look it up.

Totally agrees with the Trinity. What does not agree with scripture? Oneness.


Thank you.


notice you attack me and fail to disprove the post. Why? Could it be you researched first and found it to be true? Just post the verse and show everyone that these verses are singular. It’s that easy. But you can’t.

I believe everyone should do their homework before they post, and if they are found not to do their homework, their sites are worthless. I hold everyone to the same standard. Be it evolutionist, atheist, JW,RC, Oneness etc. My opinion half shekel does sloppy work.

Here’s another cultist move, to hold something in isolation, in order to spin it. You want to expand the text to include all of Deuteronomy six, and then limited it to there. If you can explain the text so can I , and as in my previous post, I have provided multiple verses, that support Ehad as a unity of one can apply to God.

Bottom line in a court of law I have enough evidence to prove the Trinity.,

So shall I shelf mediator with everything else Oneness cannot answer?

You don't know the Bible very well.

Romans 9:1-5 1I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,a my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Good Bible Study technical includes at least two important things: 1. Read a verse in context. Don't isolate a verse and then read into it your agenda. 2. Consider everything the Bible says on a particular topic and harmonize it all because it is all inspired by one author.

Your twisting of Hebrew in regards to Elohim and Echad is shameful in general and a joke for those that actually know Hebrew well, like the Bible translators. You don't really know how off the rails you are as a beginner, but just keep in mind that your comments about Makers, and Husbands and Gods are so far off the rails that even Trinitarians don't have your back on that.

It seems you consider an answer that is something you disagree with to be no answer. You're doing a lot of projecting.

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

Who is the mediator?

 

[Towerwatchman]

Good Bible Study technical includes at least two important things: 1. Read a verse in context. Don't isolate a verse and then read into it your agenda. 2. Consider everything the Bible says on a particular topic and harmonize it all because it is all inspired by one author.

Your twisting of Hebrew in regards to Elohim and Echad is shameful in general and a joke for those that actually know Hebrew well, like the Bible translators. You don't really know how off the rails you are as a beginner, but just keep in mind that your comments about Makers, and Husbands and Gods are so far off the rails that even Trinitarians don't have your back on that.

When you have nothing left why not attack me personally. Again all you have to do is post proof that everything I posted as plurality is actually singular. It’s that easy. Oneness can’t therefore oneness fails.

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

Who is the mediator?

Sorry you don’t get to hijack the conversation. Search back and answer my last question on mediator. Must fave reposted a dozen times to which you ignored.

 

[Andreas]

When you have nothing left why not attack me personally. Again all you have to do is post proof that everything I posted as plurality is actually singular. It’s that easy. Oneness can’t therefore oneness fails.

Sorry you don’t get to hijack the conversation. Search back and answer my last question on mediator. Must fave reposted a dozen times to which you ignored.

When you have nothing left why not attack me personally. Again all you have to do is post proof that everything I posted as plurality is actually singular. It’s that easy. Oneness can’t therefore oneness fails.

Sorry you don’t get to hijack the conversation. Search back and answer my last question on mediator. Must fave reposted a dozen times to which you ignored.

Just a simple reply regarding your private interpretation of ISAIAH 54:5 shows that no Hebrew/English translator in the history of mankind has rendered it as MAKERS and HUSBANDS. Maybe you should write letters to the hundreds of Bible translators and to Thomas Nelson publishers and Baker Book House, and the American Bible Society and correct them about Isaiah 54:5 because you know Hebrew best due to the fact that you ran with Yiddish kids when you were a kid.

Modern Translations
New International Version
For your Maker is your husband-- the LORD Almighty is his name-- the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth.

New Living Translation
For your Creator will be your husband; the LORD of Heaven’s Armies is his name! He is your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the God of all the earth.

English Standard Version
For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.

Berean Study Bible
For your husband is your Maker—the LORD of Hosts is His name—the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth.

New American Standard Bible
“For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of armies; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.

NASB 1995
"For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.

NASB 1977
“For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.

Amplified Bible
“For your husband is your Maker, The LORD of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of the whole earth.

Christian Standard Bible
Indeed, your husband is your Maker — his name is the LORD of Armies — and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of the whole earth.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Indeed, your husband is your Maker-- His name is Yahweh of Hosts-- and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth.

Contemporary English Version
The LORD All-Powerful, the Holy God of Israel, rules all the earth. He is your Creator and husband, and he will rescue you.

Good News Translation
Your Creator will be like a husband to you--the LORD Almighty is his name. The holy God of Israel will save you--he is the ruler of all the world.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Your husband is your maker. His name is the LORD of Armies. Your defender is the Holy One of Israel. He is called the God of the whole earth.

International Standard Version
For your Maker is your husband; the LORD of the Heavenly Armies is his name, and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of the whole earth.

NET Bible
For your husband is the one who made you--the LORD who commands armies is his name. He is your protector, the Holy One of Israel. He is called "God of the entire earth."
Classic Translations
King James Bible
For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

New King James Version
For your Maker is your husband, The LORD of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth.

King James 2000 Bible
For your Maker is your husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

New Heart English Bible
For your husband is your Creator; the LORD of hosts is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth will he be called.

World English Bible
For your Maker is your husband; Yahweh of Armies is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.

American King James Version
For your Maker is your husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

American Standard Version
For thy Maker is thy husband; Jehovah of hosts is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.

A Faithful Version
For your Maker is your husband; the LORD of hosts is His name; and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called,

Darby Bible Translation
For thy Maker is thy husband: Jehovah of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: the God of the whole earth shall he be called.

English Revised Version
For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is thy redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Webster's Bible Translation
For thy maker is thy husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Early Modern
Geneva Bible of 1587
For hee that made thee, is thine husband (whose Name is the Lorde of hostes) and thy redeemer the Holy one of Israel, shall be called the God of the whole world.

Bishops' Bible of 1568
For he that made thee shalbe thy Lorde and husbande (whose name is the Lord of hoastes) and thy redeemer shalbe euen the holy one of Israel, the Lorde of the whole worlde.

Coverdale Bible of 1535
For he that made the, shalbe thy LORDE & husbonde (whose name is the LORDE of hoostes) & thine avenger shalbe euen the holy one off Israel, the LORDE of the whole worlde.
Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
For your Maker [is] your husband, "" YHWH of Hosts [is] His Name, "" And your Redeemer [is] the Holy One of Israel, "" He is called God of all the earth.

Young's Literal Translation
For thy Maker is thy husband, Jehovah of Hosts is His name, And thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, 'God of all the earth,' He is called.

Smith's Literal Translation
For thy Lord making thee; Jehovah of armies his name; and he redeeming thee, the Holy One of Israel; the God of the earth shall he be called.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Just a simple reply regarding your private interpretation of ISAIAH 54:5 shows that no Hebrew/English translator in the history of mankind has rendered it as MAKERS and HUSBANDS. Maybe you should write letters to the hundreds of Bible translators and to Thomas Nelson publishers and Baker Book House, and the American Bible Society and correct them about Isaiah 54:5 because you know Hebrew best due to the fact that you ran with Yiddish kids when you were a kid.

Not of private interpretation, but how the grammar reads. You claim you have been doing this for 40 years, so obviously by now you have the ability and the resources to research this. It takes three clicks on my mouse.
This is just another item that Oneness cannot handle.

And after 40 years, you have not yet understood what the fallacy of appealing to authority, or appealing to the masses is? Because that’s what you just did.

Since oneness cannot handle this verse. I will repost the small sample that I previously posted. Be my guest pick another one.

There are places where Elohim is used of YHWH and followed by a plural verb.
Genesis 20:13: “And when God [Elohim] caused me to wander [literally: “They” caused me to wander] from my father’s house.
Genesis 35:7: “There God [Elohim] had revealed himself to him.” [Literally: “They” appeared unto him.]
2 Samuel 7:23: “God [Elohim] went.”” [Literally: “They” went.]
Psalm 58:11: “Surely there is a God [Elohim] who judges.” [Literally: “They” judge.]

Authors of the OT referring to God as a plurality.
Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: “holy God” [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband.” [Literally: makers, husban

 

[Andreas]

Not of private interpretation, but how the grammar reads. You claim you have been doing this for 40 years, so obviously by now you have the ability and the resources to research this. It takes three clicks on my mouse.
This is just another item that Oneness cannot handle.

And after 40 years, you have not yet understood what the fallacy of appealing to authority, or appealing to the masses is? Because that’s what you just did.

Since oneness cannot handle this verse. I will repost the small sample that I previously posted. Be my guest pick another one.

There are places where Elohim is used of YHWH and followed by a plural verb.
Genesis 20:13: “And when God [Elohim] caused me to wander [literally: “They” caused me to wander] from my father’s house.
Genesis 35:7: “There God [Elohim] had revealed himself to him.” [Literally: “They” appeared unto him.]
2 Samuel 7:23: “God [Elohim] went.”” [Literally: “They” went.]
Psalm 58:11: “Surely there is a God [Elohim] who judges.” [Literally: “They” judge.]

Authors of the OT referring to God as a plurality.
Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: “holy God” [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband.” [Literally: makers, husban

You are misunderstanding the fallacy of appealing to authority. There are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject.

What I've done is given you more than enough. I've given you 30 different translations of Isaiah 54:5 dating from 1535 to the present and NO ONE agrees with you. In fact, I couldn't find even one translation that agrees with you! There have been thousands of Hebrew scholars working on these translations for over 400 years and no one agrees with you.

So you are appealing to your own authority. Arrogant you be?

 

[Towerwatchman]

You are misunderstanding the fallacy of appealing to authority. There are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject.

What I've done is given you more than enough. I've given you 30 different translations of Isaiah 54:5 dating from 1535 to the present and NO ONE agrees with you. In fact, I couldn't find even one translation that agrees with you! There have been thousands of Hebrew scholars working on these translations for over 400 years and no one agrees with you.

So you are appealing to your own authority. Arrogant you be?

You can pile the translations as high as you want. They all have one thing in common they claim to originate from the original text and that’s what I am appealing to. In this business, what trumps everything is the original text, and that’s what you keep running away from. From what I can gather, oneness is not grounded in Scripture, but grounded in translations.
By the way, did you see the new threads I posted

 

[Andreas]

You can pile the translations as high as you want. They all have one thing in common they claim to originate from the original text and that’s what I am appealing to. In this business, what trumps everything is the original text, and that’s what you keep running away from. From what I can gather, oneness is not grounded in Scripture, but grounded in translations.
By the way, did you see the new threads I posted

When we talk about the Hebrew/English translators over the last 400 years, some of these same people are the folks that actually wrote the Lexicons and Words Studies and reference materials.

What is YOUR source of authority?

 

[Towerwatchman]

When we talk about the Hebrew/English translators over the last 400 years, some of these same people are the folks that actually wrote the Lexicons and Words Studies and reference materials.

What is YOUR source of authority?

Same argument, different approach. Just like you can stack the translations as high as you can, you can stack the years as high as you can, it changes nothing. Why? Because it all originate from the original text. And that’s my source of authority. You claim to have been in this business for 40 years, am I to believe that you do not have access to any of these resources in order to double check?
Your refusal or inability research the original text is an indication that you did.