Original intent and the Sh'ma..

[Elijah John]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

[marco]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

The statement does not dismiss the Trinity which mysteriously maintains ONE God. If Jesus were simply regarded as a human manifestation or messenger of Yahweh, and the Spirit as his prevailing inspirational force, there would be no inconsistency. When we have the notion of three separate entities, but just one God, we scratch our heads.

[ttruscott]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

Ummm, if GOD wrote the Sh'mah by inspiration then the ancient Hebrews are interpreters, not originators nor formulators.
Deut 6:1 These are the commandments and statutes and ordinances that the LORD your God has instructed me to teach you to follow in the land that you are about to enter and possess, 2 so that you and your children and grandchildren may fear the LORD your God all the days of your lives by keeping all His statutes and commandments that I give you, and so that your days may be prolonged. 3 Hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe them, so that you may prosper and multiply greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One. 5 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Will you be proving that their interpretation is better than anyone else's especially when the word ONE is used so plainly to mean UNITY in Gen 2:24 and they ignore this fact?

[onewithhim]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

It was NOT the ancient Hebrews' intent to convey any idea of a Trinity. It is obvious when they say "Jehovah is God & Jehovah is one," that they view the FATHER as the one true God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not mentioned there.

[PinSeeker]

The statement does not dismiss the Trinity which mysteriously maintains ONE God. If Jesus were simply regarded as a human manifestation or messenger of Yahweh, and the Spirit as his prevailing inspirational force, there would be no inconsistency. When we have the notion of three separate entities, but just one God, we scratch our heads.

Agreed. Something does not have to be completely understood to be accepted as true.

[brianbbs67]

The statement does not dismiss the Trinity which mysteriously maintains ONE God. If Jesus were simply regarded as a human manifestation or messenger of Yahweh, and the Spirit as his prevailing inspirational force, there would be no inconsistency. When we have the notion of three separate entities, but just one God, we scratch our heads.

Agreed. Something does not have to be completely understood to be accepted as true.

Or we scratch our heads at the eisegesis read into the Shema? Everything that is true must be understood. How can we accept truth we don't understand nor can it be explained? The RCC calls this a mystery. I do not believe my God is a dealer in mysteries, but rather, truth. God says long ago that He reveals Himself to every believer in some way. Directly, dreams, visions, actions. Never a mystery. We know from whence the blessing came as all blessing comes from God. All of them. Something good happens, God. Promotion at work , God. "I place before you a blessing and a curse. A blessing if you obey, a curse if you do not." God.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]


ECHAD ("0NE")

Echad (‘Plural’ Oneness?)

Deut. 6:4 - “YHWH [Jehovah] our God, YHWH [Jehovah] one [Echad]

This is rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They usually say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.�

The examples that they cite which are supposed to verify this understanding for echad are not evidence for their interpretation.

In addition to insisting that echad means “plural oneness� some of them also insist that, if God had intended the meaning of “absolute oneness� (singleness, only one individual) at Deut. 6:4, he would have used the word yachid (or yacheed). But yachid is rarely used (and mostly poetically for a dear child or even 'forsaken'). It is, therefore, never used for God.

So let’s examine the intended meaning of echad

First, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising to find that some noted trinitarian authority of Biblical Hebrew had written somewhere that echad means “united or plural oneness.� but I haven’t found one yet!

Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew:

The only definition given for echad in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: “a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one�. We find no “plural oneness� there!

The respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is “a numeral having the power of an adjective, one.� He then lists the various meanings of echad as:

“(1) The same,�
“(2) first,�
“(3) some one,�
“(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,�[2]
“(5) one only of its kind,�
“(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] ‘one ... another’,�
“(7) [K echad] AS one man.� [The initial consonant of this word, “K,� (or כ in Hebrew) actually means “as� or “like,� so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]

Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word achadim which means “joined in one, united.� This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House.

Surely, if God were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means “united one� would have been used to describe “Him� repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)!

[Wootah]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

It was NOT the ancient Hebrews' intent to convey any idea of a Trinity. It is obvious when they say "Jehovah is God & Jehovah is one," that they view the FATHER as the one true God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not mentioned there.

Nor is the Father mentioned in Deut 4. True?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 8 by Wootah]

Nor is the Son ever clearly called Jehovah

Deut. 32:6 - “Is this the way you treat Jehovah? O foolish people, is not God your Father? Has he not created you?� - Living Bible.

Is. 64:8 - "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. - ASV."

[Elijah John]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

The statement does not dismiss the Trinity which mysteriously maintains ONE God.

.

The statement could not dismiss the Trinity, as dismissal implies consciousness of what is being dismissed. Dismissal is not usually pre-emptive. The Trinity did not exist anywhere at the time, except in Pagan pantheons. It would not have occurred to the ancient Hebrews to dismiss a Christian Trinity. Dismissal no, but the Sh'ma precludes the Trinity before it was ever conceived.

If Jesus were simply regarded as a human manifestation or messenger of Yahweh, and the Spirit as his prevailing inspirational force, there would be no inconsistency.

Agreed, and that seems likely how Jesus (as a good Jew) probably viewed himself in relation to Father YHVH.

When we have the notion of three separate entities, but just one God, we scratch our heads.

And that's where the paradox of the Trinity manifests itself as incompatible with the absolute oneness of the Sh'ma. Doubtful the Ancients trafficked in such paradox. They seemed to have been far more straightforward.