Religious Cults & False Prophets~ Discussions and DebatesOneness debateClassic mistake in logic. Just because “echad” represents the cardinal number 1 does not mean it is limited to that function alone. Words in languages often have more than one usage as “echad” indeed does as reflected in dictionaries and grammar books of Hebrew. Just check any Hebrew lexicon. Another classic mistake in the rules of language, specifically grammar: adjectives and adverbs. An adjective or adverb has its own set of meanings, the appropriate one of which modifies the noun or verb respectively – depending upon context. The noun or verb does not modify the adjective or adverb. It’s the other way around. Let’s consult an official source of the Hebrew language to see what it has to say: The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, TWOT for short: [TWOT, p. 30, #61 (Strongs #259] “This word occurs 960 times as a noun, adjective, or adverb, as a cardinal or ordinal number, often used in a distributive sense…. It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness… Adam and Eve are described as “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), [yet they are obviously more than one entity]. In Gen 34:16 the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob’s children in order to become “one people” [which obviously has in view more than one entity comprising this unity]. Later, Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks (37:17). Once again Judah and Ephraim [two entities] would be one nation with one king (37:22)…. In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4, “Hear O Israel… the LORD is one,’ the question of diversity has theological implications.” To the Hebrews the Lord is ‘echad’ which signifies a unity with diversity which OT Scripture portrays as having three Personalities. Whatever a selected group, even a majority of Hebrews is irrelevant. The issue is what Scripture portrays. This is not an issue of deciding whatever the majority votes for – Hebrews or not. Since we do not have the Aramaic available, we cannot put any words in Jesus’ mouth, i.e., whether or not He used “echad” or “yachid”. Besides that, if the text in John 17:3 contradicts Dt 6:4, you cannot go back and change Dt 6:4. It stands as ‘echad’ and not ‘yachid’ in Dt 6:4. Case closed. Furthermore, it appears you do admit that yachid describes an indivisible unity as opposed to ‘echad’ which would indicate a diversity within a unity. Before you were unwilling to admit to this. Now you indicate there there is a difference and want to force God into being described as ‘yachid where it is not done so anywhere in the bible. There is a dishonesty detected here. I am not Origen. Origen’s arriving at the correct conclusion via bad reasoning does not eradicate the correct conclusion. I have not used Clement’s Greek philosophical approach to interpreting the bible either. This is simply a debating tactic – introducing irrelevant side issues. I have used a linguistic approach via the normative rules of language, context and logic. We are not discussing Origen or Clement or their methods. We are discussing the bible in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic. What you have posted above is NOT within the normative rules of language, context and logic as stipulated above. On the other hand, I have presented the plain language meaning of the Scriptures via the normative rules of language, context and logic. Saying I have not does not make it so. I have used the available meanings of words in accordance with established usage as reflected in dictionaries and grammar books. You have not. To accuse me of being a disciple of Clement’s and Origen’s philosophy is a smoke screen that covers up your lack of scholarship and honesty. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame