Yesterday I read the closing argument of my opponent for Point 2 (The Person of Being of the Father) of my Trinity debate. (*sigh*) I'm still waiting for him to actually present an affirmative position on why he believes what he believes--thus far it has only been talks about creeds and what-not.
One thing I found to be crazy was that he actually used a point I made to try to refute the same point that I made! Don't believe me? Well check it out...
My Original Argument
Concerning the Shema as was wrongly cited twice now as Deuteronomy 6:6 (6:4 is the proper citation), there is no interaction with the verse itself. In Hebrew it reads, “Shema Yisrael Yahweh eloheynu Yahweh echad.” Immediately I must point out that “eloheynu” (‘our God’) is in the plural form. Secondly, the word “echad” translated as “one” in many versions is a word that allows [notice I did not say this is always the case] for diversity in unity (cf. Genesis 2:24, 11:6; Ezek. 37:17). It’s the word that “echad” modifies which determines whether or not a plurality in unity is in view. In this case, “echad” modifies “Yahweh” and as such there is no a priori reason to assume that Yahweh is not a plurality of persons, especially in light of verses such as Genesis 19:24.
His Rebuttal
An appeal was made to the Hebrew word ‘echad’, and it was erroneously claimed that the Trinity is a ‘compound unity’. [I never used these words, I said 'diversity in unity'] In fact a compound unity is a union of separate entities, not a single entity, and since Trinitarians insist that God is not a union of separate entities, He cannot be described as a ‘compound unity’. The Hebrew word ‘echad’ functions as the English word ‘one’ does, and when placed in front of a noun such as ‘one lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4), means one single noun, not a ‘compound unity’ (and a ‘lord’ is certainly not a ‘compound unity’) [notice that he completely missed my point which was that there is no a priori reason to assume Yahweh is not a plurality of persons]. Academic Trinitarian apologists such as Gregory Boyd understand this (here).
My Point Mirrored in his note
This is what Gregory Boyd said:
"An examination of the Old Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as is our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended.'"
Another thing I found to be strange was that he actually claimed that "elohim" was not a plural noun. He said it functions like the English words, "sheep" or "fish" but is determined by the context whether or not it is plural. Well, I had to actually step away from the computer, and rub my eyes because I couldn't believe I saw that. "Elohim" ends in "im" which is a masculine plural ending in Hebrew. Yes it can refer to a single entity such as God, but this fits nicely into the Trinitarian framework, I mean c'mon, plural noun describing a single God--how perfect is that.
Verb agreement really has nothing to do with it because many instance can be pointed to where "elohim" is not the one acting, such as Jonah 3:5 where it is the people of Nineveh who believe "God/Elohim" and proclaim a fast. Notice that "God/Elohim" does not do anything, thus there is no verb connected to the noun. In any event, "elohim" is the plural of the singular noun "eloah" which is used nearly 60 times in the Hebrew scriptures. Why anyone would say this is beyond me.
Another thing to note is that there are occurences of plural verb agreement with the plural "elohim" in reference to the One True God Yahweh in scripture (e.g. Gen. 20:13, 35:7; 2Sam. 7:23; Ps. 58:12, et al.)
So alas, I am left to just take a deep breath and release a long sigh... My opponent has yet to present a compelling argument, and truthfully, he has yet to present a relevant argument... I just can't wait to get into the Deity of Christ issue... Until then, God bless!
