TRYING TO APPLY OR INSISTING THAT A COMPOUND UNITY IS HOW ECHAD SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN DEUT 6:4 IS PURELY THE RESULT OF ACADEMIC FOOLS TRYING TO PLAY ACROBATIC EXEGESIS AND DECEIVING UNSTABLE AND UNLEARNED MEN!?!
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….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 different forms of the same word and or 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 (yachid) but chose to use PROPHECY (Echad) instead therefore the word PROPHECY (Echad) can’t have/ be used with the same meaning as the word FORTOLD(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
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
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!?!) This word is used thousands of time in the NT (even if you do not count the times it refers to God) and when it refers to persons it NEVER defines more then ONE single person period!
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” (1Cor 3:6; Jn 11:52 et al)
(c) multiple different parts of the same one person or thing that act as one (1Cor 12-14-20 the PARTS of the human body are ONE/ HEN et al)
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.
(C) ~pg 51..There are two kinds of oneness 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 you cant then assume that well he must be denying the other kind of oneness. The fact is the father and the son just like a head and right arm are BOTH one in purpose/unity 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 have nothing to do with the number of persons of God nor can it "Quality" the number of persons of God. In fact they are completely irrelevant in defining the number of persons of God except as an good example of Trinitarian faulty exegesis and logical fallacies..
SUMMARY:
There are two fundamental underlying arguments that destroy any and all trinitarian arguments/ comments to the contrary
(A) The Hebrew grammar prevents ECAHD from having compound unity in specific verses
(B) The Greek grammar prevents the same word translated into from having compound unity
Since "compound unity" is NOT consistent with how the OT or NT writers used/ translated Deut 6:4 the word nor can echad be said to be only used or understood as “compound unity as such:
……… TRYING TO APPLY OR INSISTING THAT A COMPOUND UNITY IS HOW ECHAD SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN DEUT 6:4 IS PURELY THE RESULT OF AN ACADEMIC FOOLS TRYING TO PLAY ACROBATIC EXEGESIS AND DECEIVING UNSTABLE AND UNLEARNED MEN!?!…It is these trinitarin et al type arguments like the ones addressed here that demonstrate those who are making them are either woefully Incompetent or liars or the minions of other cowards who hopes no one can point them out for what they are.
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 (stupid 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) ….you can “see it” however makes you dandelions grow happy…..... …Prov 26:12
You can download the complete FREE book from
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305367608/The-Trinity-Heresy
OR
https://www.academia.edu/23463667/THE_TRINITY_HERESY