The Shema and the Trinity

[BlindSeeker]

If there is any problem with my claim, it will be borne out in the evidence. So far, I have been waiting for evidence from you that I can review. Up to this point, I have seen none, at least none that is actual, credible exegetical evidence.

For example, if your position is correct, you should be able to provide real biblical evidence that God is ever referred to as "Gods" in Scripture. You need to produce ONE Jewish interlinear portion that translages Elohim as "Gods," and stuff like that.

Shiloh,

What you have shown is that you dindt know those 5 or 6 hebrew words had a singular form, and also that you thought one meant Egypt. Youce shown that you believe the singular YHWH to be used as a plural while you believe the plural Elohim should be singular.

You say you believe the Father is an individual and He is God

You say you believe Jesus is an individual and He is God

You say that the Holy Spirit is an individual and HE is God

You MUST then either believe that they are all 3 GOD individually and independant of one another OR that NEITHER of them are God individually and independent of one another... If NONE of them are God without the other, at which point do they become God? Are they God when only 2 are together?

You complicate things Shiloh by going against the very grammatical rules of plural and singular

You have no problem saying 3 are 1, you just have a problem saying all 3 are God, yet you just did.

You have no problem at ALL saying that they are all 3 God joined as One, yet you want to take away their diety in their uniqueness?

How is it possible that these 3 arent God individually? Which one do you assume REMAINS God when He is alone?

Youre putting it backward when you imply there are 3 eternal ones who are not independantly God... the truth is THAT the shema says that the "3 Gods are ONE ETERNAL ONE"

Again, you teaching polytheism.

You've been addressed on this twice and never stated other wise.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

What you have shown is that you dindt know those 5 or 6 hebrew words had a singular form,and also that you thought one meant Egypt.

Wrong. I did not say they did not have a singular form. What I said was that they had a plural form that was often translated in singular form.

I said Mitzrayim was translated as Egypt and is translated as Egypt over 600 times. Actually Mitzrayim does not mean "Egypt" and I never said it did. It is a word that refers to the upper and lower portions of the land we call Egypt.

Youce shown that you believe the singular YHWH to be used as a plural while you believe the plural Elohim should be singular.

Here we go with the misquotes and intentional misrepresentations of my statments yet again. I said that God is three persons, but ONE God. I did not say YHVH is plural. Again, you just can't seem to be trusted in a debate to correctly and accurately frame your opponent's position. I do not understand why you employ such a dishonest method of debate.

You say you believe the Father is an individual and He is God

You say you believe Jesus is an individual and He is God

You say that the Holy Spirit is an individual and HE is God

I said that they ares sepaarate and distinct persons and that they are each God. Do you have an aversion to calling them persons? Do you not think that they are persons?

You MUST then either believe that they are all 3 GOD individually and independant of one another OR that NEITHER of them are God individually and independent of one another...

See that is where we differ. I have already addressed this issue and told you that I cannot explain the Trinity. All I know based on the light given in Scripture is that God is ONE being but is also three separate persons. I cannot explain the nuts and bolts of their relationship and how they relate separately as the Bible doesn't tell me that. I am not going to speculate or saying anything beyond what I can see in Scripture. So I don't HAVE believe anything you assign to me just because YOU say so.

You complicate things Shiloh by going against the very grammatical rules of plural and singular

I simply know the rules of Hebrew grammar beter than you.

You have no problem saying 3 are 1, you just have a problem saying all 3 are God, yet you just did.

No, I have maintained that all three are God. What I will not accept and where you are completely wrong is claiming that they are three individual "Gods."

You have no problem at ALL saying that they are all 3 God joined as One, yet you want to take away their diety in their uniqueness?

Nope. I hold to their uniqueness and their Deity. You stripping them of their uniqueness by claiming they are individual "Gods."

How is it possible that these 3 arent God individually? Which one do you assume REMAINS God when He is alone?

AGain, you are trying to have a debate with me over beliefs YOU have assigned to me and not based on anything I have posted. This whole debate has been about you putting words in my mouth and erecting false assumptions about what I believe and then arguing against the assumptions you created.

Your position cannot stand on evidence or fact, so your only other option is to assign values to me that I have not expressed.

Youre putting it backward when you imply there are 3 eternal ones who are not independantly God...

Again, I have not said or even implied that.

the truth is THAT the shema says that the "3 Gods are ONE ETERNAL ONE"

No that is not the truth. It is a lie and is really heretical at its core. The Shema is declaration that there is ONE God, while you are asserting that it is claiming there are three Gods. That assertion is quite blasphemous and is not supported by any kind of intelligent , competent Hebrew exegesis.

[BlindSeeker]

wolf: why do you insist on twisting shiloh's words? he has answered your questions and corrected the mistakes you have made regarding what he has said, and still you repeat the same message--saying shiloh has said things he never said. why are you doing this? seems all you are proving is how poorly you are "listening".

you told Traveller you would discuss other issues, and yet, here you are again attacking shiloh. do you have any clue how you are projecting yourself, your standards, and your integrity by acting this way? can you not see how shallow this whole thing is?

the topic is interesting, and i've learned some things here. but your badgering of shiloh is getting a tad old.

I dont know what you mean here... i addressed all the issues just now in my last post... neither has the badgering OR insult been made solely by me... but we're both brothers and big boys, no harm intetnded or done

Perhaps the failure lies with your inability to see the harm . . . and yes, the badgering has been your part.

Shiloh has merely responded (and that way beyond what he needed) to your asking the same thing over and over and over with only slight variations to your questions.

[WolfBitn]

Perhaps the failure lies with your inability to see the harm . . . and yes, the badgering has been your part.

Shiloh has merely responded (and that way beyond what he needed) to your asking the same thing over and over and over with only slight variations to your questions.

I dont deny badgering Blindseeker, i absolutely admit i did... but neither do i deny that i was badgered by claims of knowledge of the Hebrew in comparison to my asssumed ignorance in a couple posts there

But also i know that doctrinally you agree with him on this, which is fine by me... i wont slight any of you, i only wanted to make my point and i believe it was made

Now back to the thread

If you would like to take on the questions in my last post my friend, im happy to discuss it with you

[WolfBitn]

Shiloh,

What you have shown is that you dindt know those 5 or 6 hebrew words had a singular form,and also that you thought one meant Egypt.

Wrong. I did not say they did not have a singular form. What I said was that they had a plural form that was often translated in singular form.

I said Mitzrayim was translated as Egypt and is translated as Egypt over 600 times. Actually Mitzrayim does not mean "Egypt" and I never said it did. It is a word that refers to the upper and lower portions of the land we call Egypt.

And as in this case you can see that Egypt referred NOT to the land but the peoples of the land... it more closely means 'the egyptians' in literal translation

What we see Shiloh is that just as the Mitzarim means 'the egyptians' , "Elohenyu" means "Our Gods"

here it is translated "judges"

Exd 21:6 Then his master 113 shall bring 5066 him unto the judges 430; he shall also bring 5066 him to the door 1817, or unto the door post 4201; and his master 113 shall bore 7527 his ear 241 through with an aul 4836; and he shall serve 5647 him for ever 5769.

Youce shown that you believe the singular YHWH to be used as a plural while you believe the plural Elohim should be singular.

Here we go with the misquotes and intentional misrepresentations of my statments yet again. I said that God is three persons, but ONE God. I did not say YHVH is plural. Again, you just can't seem to be trusted in a debate to correctly and accurately frame your opponent's position. I do not understand why you employ such a dishonest method of debate.

here its translated "gods"

Genesis 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 31:30

And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?

Exodus 20:3

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Yet you mysteriously want to change it to a singular when it refers to YWHW when the Shema COULD HAVE USED the singular Eloah, but didnt.

You say you believe the Father is an individual and He is God

You say you believe Jesus is an individual and He is God

You say that the Holy Spirit is an individual and HE is God

I said that they ares sepaarate and distinct persons and that they are each God. Do you have an aversion to calling them persons? Do you not think that they are persons?

No not at all... in fact i agree with you that they are indeed 3 very distince persons, i have no aversion at all... and this is what the shema teaches. That they ARE in fact 3 very discinct individuals joined as one Eternal One. Neither do i have an aversion to acknowledging that just as Elohim is plural in the above instances and hundreds more, its plural in the Shem as well, when as i pointed out, they very well could have USED the singular form 'Eloah' but didnt. Even YHWH Himself refers to Himself in the plural.

i have no aversion whatsoever in taking scripture for wxactly what it says

[WolfBitn]

You MUST then either believe that they are all 3 GOD individually and independant of one another OR that NEITHER of them are God individually and independent of one another...

See that is where we differ. I have already addressed this issue and told you that I cannot explain the Trinity. All I know based on the light given in Scripture is that God is ONE being but is also three separate persons. I cannot explain the nuts and bolts of their relationship and how they relate separately as the Bible doesn't tell me that. I am not going to speculate or saying anything beyond what I can see in Scripture. So I don't HAVE believe anything you assign to me just because YOU say so.

Thats fair enough

Do you recognize the quandry of your logic though? You have no way of explaining how 1 who is not a God alone can be added to 2 more who are not God, and the 3 be joined to MAKE one God, and yet still remain individual. Your logic is that by themselves they are not God as individuals... this makes absolutely NO sence to me and actually sounds kinda blasphemous (dont take me wrong, im not saying it is, or you are, i dont thing either, it just strikes me this way)

The 3 each have to be God my friend, individually and independant of one another, before they can be One Eternal One

You complicate things Shiloh by going against the very grammatical rules of plural and singular

I simply know the rules of Hebrew grammar beter than you.

thats an uninformed personal opinion

You have no problem saying 3 are 1, you just have a problem saying all 3 are God, yet you just did.

No, I have maintained that all three are God. What I will not accept and where you are completely wrong is claiming that they are three individual "Gods."

So if Christ were by Himself... is He still God?

If Christ is removed from the Father's unity, is the Father still God? Your best speculation please, this question has biblical merit

You have no problem at ALL saying that they are all 3 God joined as One, yet you want to take away their diety in their uniqueness?

Nope. I hold to their uniqueness and their Deity. You stripping them of their uniqueness by claiming they are individual "Gods."

You speak with great authority, but seem to feel like you can just get off without scrutiny... i dont think thats fair to the quesiton at hand. You claim this authoritative knowledge, and yet claim to not be able to answer these nut and bolt questions... so i dont think this qualifies you to speak with this authority.

If they are individual persons and each are God ONLY when they are together, what are they individually... God or nonGod?

Youre putting it backward when you imply there are 3 eternal ones who are not independantly God...

Again, I have not said or even implied that.

Im sure you agree the 3 are eternal ones correct?

[BlindSeeker]

Perhaps the failure lies with your inability to see the harm . . . and yes, the badgering has been your part.

Shiloh has merely responded (and that way beyond what he needed) to your asking the same thing over and over and over with only slight variations to your questions.

I dont deny badgering Blindseeker, i absolutely admit i did... but neither do i deny that i was badgered by claims of knowledge of the Hebrew in comparison to my asssumed ignorance in a couple posts there

But also i know that doctrinally you agree with him on this, which is fine by me... i wont slight any of you, i only wanted to make my point and i believe it was made

Actually, Wolfbtn, I am not a Trinitarian . . . and Shiloh will confirm that.

Though Shiloh and I have discussed the the subject, I've always respected Shiloh's adherence to what the Word of God does say and not what he wishes it says. I've known others who would stretch or lend meaning to things just to make their point . . . Shiloh is way above that practice.

I view Shiloh as one of the main big dogs here who jealously defends what he knows and openly reasons the rest. He is only one of the big dogs around here who has added much more than he knows to my understanding of many things he's reasoned here. I've even learned a few things from a mouse or two . . . but mainly one in particular. But that is because of the integrity with which they position themselves in reasoning with others.

There's also another wacko around here that wears a foil hat that has shared some enlightenment with me as well.

Nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe . . . so long as you are always willing to check your footing now and then.

Peace.

[traveller]

I dont deny badgering.....

Against the ToS

closed.