Part 1 Echad..Echad...My God...God Is Echad!

PART 1 ECHAD..ECHAD…MY GOD…GOD IS ECHAD!

Mark 12:28. And one of the scribes came, …., asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29. And Jesus answered him, The THE FIRST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS IS, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE (HEIS) Lord:……..If you cannot properly grasp the concept of “ONE GOD” (and “who” [what person] Jesus is) then all the rest of  your theology is moot

Linguistically, both the Hebrew and the Greek NT terms translated as “ONE” in various places to modify “God” as in “God is ONE” destroy all pretense to God in three different persons.

The word Echad is used almost IDENTICAL AS THE ENGLISH WORD “ONE”……… Both the words “ONE” and “ECHAD” refer to

(a) ONE PERSON/ or item ONLY (Ezk33:24; Eccl 4:8)

(b) multiple different persons who are acting as one (Gen 2:24)

(c) multiple different parts of the same person or thing that act as one .(Ezk 37:17; Ez 2:64) .

(d) While other possible uses for Echad exist such as “first” (e.g Isaiah 51:20); or “unique” in certain passages [e.g. based primarily on Job 23:13; Ez 7:1; 1Chron 17:21; 2Sam 7:23; et al] but none of these are relevant (nor necessary to debate the virtues of such as “unique”) because the same passage and word is used in the NT with specific Greek word where uses such as “first” or “unique” would not be accurate and or permissible

Thus the mere fact that the word echad is used anywhere does not demand any one of those definitions just by itself NOR CAN YOU CHERRY PICK A DEFINITION YOU WANT TO USE SUCH AS A “COMPOUND UNITY”!?!…. so WHICH ONE OF THESE USES IS THE CORRECT USE?

There are two FUNDAMENTAL AND DEVASTATING reasons why ECHAD in Deut 6:4 (or any of the other places where God is defined by that word) cannot refer to a compound unity. Each reason stands on its own not dependent on the other and either one destroys the Trinitarians.

FIRST:

(1) The word Echad can be used almost identical to the English word “ONE” it can refer to

(a) NO COMPOUND UNITY of ONE a single solitary ONE PERSON ONLY (Ezk33:24; Eccl 4:8) …

OR…….

(b) COMPOUND UNITY : a husband and wife/ table and chairs as ONE which is a compound unity (Gen 2:24; Ezk 37:17; Ez 2:64 ) ….Thus the fact that God uses the word ECHAD does not show that God is a compound unity any more so then to say “I am ONE” shows that I am a compound unity nor does it prove that I should have said “I am ALONE”

So which is it in Deut 6:4? Well the same grammar rule that applies to (Ezk33:24; Eccl 4:8) applies to Deut 6:4 …Namely:

In Hebrew the word ECHAD must be accompanied by collective sets of nouns pronouns to identify as a compound unity in the same way the English word “ONE “ is used!!!

EXAMPLE A: ECHAD /ONE/ HEN used as a COMPOUND UNITY of ONE:

-ENGLISH

The table/Husband and chairs/Wife are ONE

-GREEK

The table/Husband and chairs/Wife are HEN

-HEBREW

The table/Husband and chairs/Wife are ECHAD

HERE IS WHERE : Echad in scripture used as multiple different persons who are acting as one (Gen 2:24) And or multiple different parts of the same person or thing that act as one .(Ezk 37:17; Ez 2:64)

When the word Echad is used with reference to God it is NEVER qualified with multiple sets of pronouns/nouns WHICH IN HEBREW IT MUST in order to interpret or claim a compound unity exist and is almost identical in the way that the English word ONE does!?!?!?

If you say you have “ONE/ECHAD table” no compound unity Is under consideration period! …if on the other hand you say those legs and top fit together as ONE/ECHAD then and only then is a compound unity under consideration and even in this instance the compound unity can still be modalism as in “the head and right arm are one”….This is true for the Hebrew word Echad …It must be accompanied by multiple pronouns and nouns to suggest or claim any compound unity is under consideration but it NEVER IS WHEN GOD IS THE SUBJECT!?!?

EXAMPLE B ECHAD /ONE/ HEIS as a numeral singular ONE person place or thing with NO compound unity:

-ENGLISH

I have ONE table

-GREEK

I have HEIS table

-HEBREW

I have ECHAD table

HERE IS WHERE : Echad in scripture used as ONE PERSON/or thing ONLY (Ezk33:24; Eccl 4:8) NO COMPOUND UNITY IS HERE EVEN THOUGH THE WORD ECHAD IS USED!

So, just as with the English word “ one” is defined by the context so too is the Hebrew word Echad defined by the context in which it is found. Collective sets of nouns/pronouns indicate a compound unity as in the table and chairs are “ECHAD”/ “one” ( set ) If on the other hand all you have is “one”/ “echad” table then there is not compound unity involved. When the Lord states that HE is one there is no compound unity under consideration because for there to be so then the OT text would have had to spell out that the Lord of he and I and him are “one” However, the OT context and sentence structure where Echad is used to describe God forbids any compound unity because for a compound unity to exist it must be qualified with a collective set of nouns/ pronouns, which it never is.

NOTE: The word used in Deut 6:4 is Echad not Yachid nor does the existence of the word Yachid prove anything about how Echad is to be understood in Deut 6:4

(A) The fact that any language has multiple different words that can all mean and or refer to the same definition does not invalidate the definition!?! (example I am ALONE …or I am BY MYSELF) This Trinitarian kind of argument is saying basically that since God could have used the word FORTOLD (i.e. yachid) but chose to use PROPHECY (i.e. Echad) instead therefore the word PROPHECY (i.e. Echad) can’t have/ be used with the same meaning as the word FORTOLD(i.e. yachid)!?!?! …Prov 26:12

FISH can be used as SINGLAR or PLURAL

FISHES is just another form of the word …The fact that the word Fishes exist does not prove that the word FISH is always singular!?!?  www.dictionary.com/browse/fishes

Consider Also: Elohim is SINGULAR or PLURAL…..the fact that there is another form of the word ELOAH proves nothing !?!

(B) Since the word Echad can be used almost identical to the English word “ONE” it can refer to a single solitary NO compound unity of ONE(Ezk33:24; Eccl 4:8) …OR……. it can also refer to a husband and wife/ table and chairs as ONE which is a compound unity (Gen 2:24; Ezk 37:17; Ez 2:64 ) ….Thus the fact that God uses the word ECHAD does not show that God is a compound unity any more so then to say “I am ONE” shows that I am a compound unity nor does it prove that I should have said “I am ALONE” if I intended that to be understood ….Trying to argue that God should have used this word Yachid instead of that word Ecahd if he wanted folks to understand that he is only one person is a ridiculous and self-righteous argument of cowards, fools and liars (trinitarians) ……Prov 26:12

(C) Further and final note for this first part: “A compound unity” can refer to different parts of the same thing or person as well as different persons who are acting/ unified as one. So even if “a compound unity”  is assumed in Deut 6:4 that still would not demonstrate that God would be multiple different persons as opposed to having different modes/parts/manifestations that are unified together such as the different parts of the human body are all unified as one but only a fool should suggest that compound unity represented multiple different persons!

SECOND:

(A) The same verse and words of Deut 6:4 are translated in the NT with specific Greek words that PROHIBIT and FORBID any more then ONE PERSON !?! Thus the NT writers understood ECHAD in Deut 6:4 NOT as a compound unity but as ONE person ONLY…..

In the NT two different Greek words are used to express those SAME BASIC SET OF DEFINITIONS found in the Hebrew word Echad or the English word “ONE” they are “Heis” & “Hen”

“HEIS” (a) ONE PERSON ONLY This word demands a singular person (or item) when person (or item) is the object being quantified by that number. (NO EXCEPTIONS EXIST, not even in Gal 3:28!?!)

Joseph Henry Thayer: “Heis” means the cardinal numeral ONE. Where the word “heis” takes the place of a predicate it means one person. (Page 186. A Greek, English Lexicon of the New Testament.)

Mr. A. T. Robertson: “One,” when masculine (heis) sets forth the idea of the cardinal numeral “one.” When referring to people or beings, ALWAYS the numeral “one” is implied. (Page 186 vol 5; pages 526 and 527, vol 4; page 299 vol 4. Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament.)

Bauer: The masculine “one” (heis) means, A single; only one. (Page 230 Bauer’s Greek Lexicon.)

Gingrich: The masculine “one,” (heis), is equivalent to ‘protos’ which means‘first’. Only one; single. (Page 57, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament).

“HEN” (b) multiple different persons who are acting as one

“HEN” (c) multiple different parts of the same one person or thing that act as one ………………

IN the NT when Deut 6:4 et al is referred to by Christ it is recorded as using the Greek word “HEIS”.NOT HEN!?!?….Thus Linguistically, destroys all pretense to God in different persons…….

When two or more words or concepts equally apply have different possible meanings they can only logically apply in a way that they do not contradict each other.(you cannot appeal to self contradiction in terms to make a valid argument)..the Trinitarian argument is incoherent and certainly not consistent with itself. Logically The church members are “Hen” but cannot be “heis”. so multiple persons is the demand. On the other hand, your head and right arm are both “Hen” and “heis” this can only be logically coherent as ONE PERSON with parts or parts of the same person. Likewise; Father and son are “hen” and God is ONLY and always “heis” logically they can only be one person in parts/portions of the same person

(B ) The whole point to Gal 3:20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one, again, point blank, identifies the number of persons of God! The mediation is between multiple persons (“a party” of God and man); the “but” points out the contrast between the multiple persons in a mediation party verses the “one” of God; The “BUT” is making the point that God is not like a mediation party with multiple persons, God is ONE [person]!?! The one is contrasted against “a party” or multiple persons……….. No matter how one try’s to interpret the parties as individual persons with opposing views or as two different groups or parties (ie corporations) with opposing views, this verse makes a contrast between those meditations and parties which are “NOT ONE” (person), But God “IS ONE” (Person). Thus any attempt to lay claim that this verse does not destroy all contrary pretenses about the fact that God is only one person is willful ignorance and delusional nonsense of the greatest magnitude.

NOTE THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!: HEIS IS NEVER USED FOR COMPOUND UNITY : If we continue to look at Galatians, a little latter in verse 28, we can see again the use of the word “heis” but this time it is not a reference to a number of persons acting together to form “one” (the greek word for that is hen) but rather it is a specific reference to a number of positions or a number of class/status that are found in Christ and everyone is in that ONE (heis) class/status……. The word One is NOT a reference to the saints (multiple different persons) who come together to form or are functioning together so as to create one (Hen) class but rather that there is ONLY ONE (heis) status/ class that the saints are all in.

.Gal 3:28.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. The comparison/contrast is between two different status or classes or positions of people outside of Christ verses the only ONE position/class/status of those people who are in Christ. This is NOT the same thing as several different persons or parts operating as one. The One here is a qualification of the number of positions and status that people in the church have it is not about how many persons make up that status or how many persons can be one in purpose or unity. There is no:

1. UPPER CLASS/STATIUS POSITION (Jew, Free, Male)

2. LOWER CLASS/STATIUS POSITION (Gentile, Bond/slave, Female)

Multiple different classes do not exist “IN CHRIST” ….”FOR” (because) you are all HEIS (ONE as in one CLASS.) There Is ONLY ONE CLASS in Christ, which is Christian or “saved”, there is NO upper class or lower class “IN CHRIST” Also note the author is NOT saying that multiple different persons make up that one class either. He is only saying that no matter who you are “in Christ” you only have one status or belong to one class only.

Example:

Bill jack and Jill function together as/to form ONE (HEN) TEAM/ CHURCH

This first sentence is a reference to the effect of activity or unity of purpose

……In other words YE WORK TOGTHER AS ONE [TEAM]….

Bill, Jack and Jill ARE all in ONE (HEIS) TEAM/CHRIST (all IN Christ)

This second sentence is not about the unity of function/purpose of the people as one but rather only about the number of different teams they are all in which is only ONE

……On other words ONE TEAM YE ARE ALL IN……….

The Gal 3:28  verse thus reads or is to be understood as follows: “There is neither Jew (upper class/status) nor Greek, (lower class/status) there is neither bond (lower class) nor free(upper class), there is neither male(upper class) nor female:(lower class) for ye are all ONE (Class) in Christ Jesus”.  Jew, slave, male are all different types or conditions of class /status and that “position of status/class is what is described as ONE status class that those “in Christ” are in. However, there is NO suggestion that all those Christians Paul is speaking of are unified in purpose and activity so as to create that one class/status/position. The ONE position/status/class exist irrespective of any unity of purpose and or activity of anyone.

The difference is to function together as one (Hen) so as to create a class/team verses the fact that only one (heis) class/team that exist and all saints are in that one (heis) class/team. The word “heis” is used here because it is a reference to the number of classes itself NOT the saints unified so as to create one class

(C) “But Jesus prayed that they be “one” as he and father are one? …… There are two kinds of “one”(ness) one of purpose/Unity/ and one of Person and one kind of oneness does not exclude the truth of the other kind of oneness. They are NOT mutually exclusive. You can’t use one kind of oneness to make void the other with. If Christ is praying for one kind of oneness (of purpose, which even trinitarians must admit that He is) you can’t then assume that well he must be denying the other kind of oneness (oneness of person). The fact is the father and the son just like a head and right arm are BOTH one in purpose/unity (which is what Jesus is praying for) AND (as he states elsewhere in other context) one in person. Thus, pointing to passages such as these which use the word “HEN” and in the obvious context of unity of purpose/action/goal and speaks of the oneness of Jesus and the father in that unity wanting his disciples to also be in THAT UNITY just as the right arm (Jesus/son) and head (father) are in THAT UNITY does not have anything to do with the number of persons of God. Jesus is NOT asking that they be one in person nor is he denying that the son and father are one person. The only oneness (Jesus is praying for) under consideration here is the UNITY of parts/purpose/action NOT persons!?! Thus, these passages cannot be used or said to “Qualify” or imply a number of persons of God. In fact, these kinds of passages are completely irrelevant in defining the number of persons of God except as an good example of Trinitarian faulty exegesis and logical fallacies.

(D) Finally let’s address John 1:1 and what the trinitarians think is their one of their “trump cards”/ proof text out on the table so to speak because the few notes mentioned here on it will become more and more relevant.

The Greek word “pros” in Jn 1:1 does not demonstrate multiple different persons because:

1. The definitions/uses (the accusative case as is found in John 1:1) are just as equally valid as reference to parts of the same person (modalisim) Your head and your right arm(“is with you/God and is you/God”)  have close relationship to each other; can be facing, towards, relating to, moving to, in the direction of, to, unto, looking to;  even at home with, a living union, in the presence of, a common ground, closeness They are still both distinct and different  from each other and yet they are of both the same person. Ironically the scriptures use the very same terms to describe father and son.

2. Ironically and most hypocritically, the trinitarians are trying to appeal to the anthropomorphisms (they claim this passage implies; i.e. face to face) to demonstrate different persons while at the same time denying the very anthropomorphisms that God himself specifically in scriptures uses to define the son and the son’s relationship to the father. Apparently only the literal anthropomorphisms that trintiarins “see’ exist, while the one’s that God himself uses should not be taken too literal or too anthropomorphic or seriously. Is the face anthropomorphic and or literal face or just some metaphor? Either way the problem for trinitarians still exist and simply does not cease with linguistic distractions. There are many different types of faces; face of a clock; face of a mirror; face of one’s palm. Further, the face of one’s palm would be totally consistent with the anthropomorphism that God uses when discussing his own right arm as the son!  So either way, a literal and or anthropomorphic face or a metaphorical face in close relationship only leaves the trinitarinas peddling an empty argument hoping no one notices the fact that this argument is nothing more then delusional smoke and mirrors for “the faithful” and for everyone else, well, just “never mind that man behind the curtain”.

3. You cant appeal to your own desired and or preconceived conclusions as evidence that your methodology in arriving at your conclusions are valid. [ie the use of Jn 1:18 et al as proof that Jn1:1 supports different persons in Jn1:18 et al or visa versa ] How difficult can they make these simple things? The God in heaven is a he but cannot be known except by the he who is the same God in flesh! So why can’t they be the same he again? It should not be difficult to understand since:

A. The same God who is in heaven is on earth and the difference need only be of circumstance which at least we know that much to be factually true [spirit only v spirit in human flesh] There is no further need or demand for different individual persons since all the different he’s are in fact the same HE!.  Trying to claim that God is multiple different “He(s)” who make up the one being either leaves your God to be a “it” that consist of different he(s) or a“God being” who is a he while simultaneously consisting of different individual he(s) [Father-he; Son=he; Holy Spirit=he].

B. If you find no difficulty in accepting that God is a he that consist of father son and holy spirit also referred to each as a different he and yet all the same he then what is the point to claiming different persons again? How is the multitude of hes who are all the same he show or demand different persons rather than different circumstances of the same person who is in fact “HE”?

 In any case, the trinitarian inconsistency and or incoherence wil never be resolved by simply chalking it all up to “how great thou art” unless you willingly and blindly “drink the cool aid” calling it “faith”.  True faith is in the words of God (including the specific anthropomorphism God himself uses) not in wild created imaginations of three different persons with different minds, locations and instructions for each other. That is nothing more then a pantheon of three (“equally godlike”)  gods who are “one” only in purpose & ”substance”!?! The final analysis demonstrates that the doctrine and arguments of Trinitariansism are nothing more then “clever” set(s) of “little lies”.

-The Trinitarian apologist pretend to have superior understand of more complex issues in statements where the purpose of God is NOT DEFINING how many persons he is while the simplest of statements by God FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of defining how many persons God is eludes them. They also seem to “excel with glee” in giving their translations of oblique/obscure passages that have NO demand or intention of defining a specific number of persons of God to then cherry pick demands and assumptions of “great piety” into them. The difference is clear: Oneness show & use specific words that demand one person as well as God’s own specific descriptions who’s whole contextual purpose/point is to define a specific number of persons of God, while Trinitarians on the other hand try to use vague and or oblique passages with ambiguities who’s context and or point of the passage is NOT to define a specific number of persons of God to make demands on the passages that are specific in claim!?! In other words, they pretend that specific passages/words whose purpose is to define a number of persons they claim are not literal / just figures of speech or do not define a specific number of person while they point to the oblique and obscure passages whose purpose is NOT to define a specific number of persons and claim the translations somehow provides them license to make cherry pick demands they use to redefine the specifics with in favor of the obscure. The simplest of test: a text that is intending to specifically define God as 3 persons would have to say a specific number of persons as opposed to the numerous text that are obvious in trying to specifically define how many persons God is by stating “ONE”…….”ONE” is specific and abstractions/ obscurities or acrobatic contortions can never redefine a specific “ONE” into a specific THREE !?!…… “figures of speech” by nature are known in their abstraction NOT the specifics they speak or define!? You can’t use passages that do not intend to define a specific number of persons to negate and redefine specific passages whose purpose is to define the number of persons. They like to reach for obscurities and or point to the complexities that can exist in the simplest of statements or ambiguities that could exist in an attempt to redefine unambiguous specifics. They like to take clarity for mud and mud for clarity. The sad thing is, even after It is demonstrated, pointed out to them what and how exactly they are doing it, most still either refuse or are unable to see it while “pretending” it is “faith” and piety that keeps them in this frame of mind, which speaks volumes about the promise of God for delusion and predestination….

-God said he would CHOOSE send you STRONG DELUSIONS. I bet it never occurred to the trinitarians et al that God would ever use words in such a way as to allow folks like them to “get confused” (inexcusably so) or lied to and delude themselves with. (2Thess 2:11-12/Isa 66:4/1Kings 22:19-23/ 2Chron 18:18-22) Not only do they not know what they are talking about but the books and or people who are teaching these kinds of argument are cowards who know that they cant defend it so they create as many tape-recorded minions and send them out as one of their “students” so they can avoid the risk of embarrassment of being shown wrong and incompetent. But, don’t worry because they have a vey good reason why you were not able to answer the anti- trinitarins as well as they themselves could have “if it had been them”!?!…However, if on the other hand no one is able to show these minions the foolishness of their arguments, then the Trinitarian scholars and “teachers” will congratulate the minions on how well they have been taught. I can hear Darth Sideous now: “you have been taught well, they will be no match for you”…..In other words, THEY (the Trinitarian “scholars” and liars who are teaching these arguments) are using you and in their eyes see you as “useful idiots” ……….or just “good minions” (like bob and Stewart of “Despicable me” stories)