Evidence for God from Science

I am trying to help a Jewish friend understand the concept of the Trinity. He has asked a question and I want to make sure I get it right. The Trinity is a belief in one Being in three persons. One God, not three Gods.

My friend asked:

"What does "person" mean when talking of the trinity? Does it mean "character"? Does it have to do with "personality"? One God with three personalities? One God in three beings? One God in three characters? One God in three masks? What does it mean? That's my problem with understanding the trinity. Using a term doesn't mean that either you or your audience understands it. I never received a satisfactory answer."

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

That's all?

It's a good question but it's a tied to something that Christians for millenia have wrestled with because it involves comprehending the nature of God and then putting it in human language and to the extent that humans can comprehend. There's a great deal of mystery and every analogy at some level is destined to break down.

I'll try however and hope you and others will extend me some grace and not seek to hoist me upon my own petard.

The trinity is a word that is not in the Bible but developed over time in the early Church and beyond and is the primary doctrine of Christendom in my opinion in terms of importance and impact with implications cascading throughout Christian history.

It a nutshell the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 3 distinct person, essentially of one substance who comprise the Godhead. The idea of "person" in reference to the Trinity is a little different than our common understanding of the word in our language and culture.

Here's a quote from wikipedia (which is certainly not an authority but this element is referenced and it rings true to me.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."[2]:pp. 185-6. To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well."[2]:p.186 The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases,[3] but one being.[4] Each person is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

2 a b Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. ISBN 139780830815050.
3 See discussion in "Person". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_ ... 13)/Person.
4 Grudem, Wayne A. 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Page 226.

The emphasis on community is something that I've seen emphasized in the element of what is referred to as "perichorises." I think it matches more closely the understanding of the early church. It's been preserved more in the Eastern Orthodox tradition than in the western. The western tradition was greatly impacted and adopted much of the greek philosophical heritage in its approach which is more individualistic, hierarchical and loses in my opinion elements of that communal existence with the oneness of the Trinity.

That may be more than you are asking here though so I'll stop here and maybe others will weigh in.

I hope this helps.

blessings,

bart

Thanks bart, I will check back in a day or two for more comments. Meanwhile, I am checking my Trinity books to see what I can find on the subject.

In addition to what Canuckster provided above, you may want to consider the following:

-There is only one God at per Dt 6:4 and confirmed in James 2:19.
-If your Jewish friend has a Hebrew Bible, turn to Isaiah 63:11. Have him read it aloud and watch his eyes bulge as he reads «Where is He that put his holy spirit in the midst of them?»

B.W. has done an interesting study on the names of God in the OT. He shows that you can identify which person of the Trinity is speaking/acting according to the context. Unfortunately, I'm not bright enough to provide you with a link but you can find B.W.'s work in the Christian Theology Forum under the title The Old Testament Concept of God.


FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: In addition to what Canuckster provided above, you may want to consider the following:

-There is only one God at per Dt 6:4 and confirmed in James 2:19.

Agreed.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
-If your Jewish friend has a Hebrew Bible, turn to Isaiah 63:11. Have him read it aloud and watch his eyes bulge as he reads «Where is He that put his holy spirit in the midst of them?»

My friend reads the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew and teaches Hebrew.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
B.W. has done an interesting study on the names of God in the OT. He shows that you can identify which person of the Trinity is speaking/acting according to the context. Unfortunately, I'm not bright enough to provide you with a link but you can find B.W.'s work in the Christian Theology Forum under the title The Old Testament Concept of God.


FL

Thanks, sounds very interesting.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33317

Just find the thread and copy the url at the top of the screen.

For your Jewish Friend….

Have your friend look up Exodus 34:6, “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…”

Have him explain the use of the thrice usage of: “Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh Elohim merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…”

Next note how in the physical world there exist trinities of oneness such as the lowly atom.

There are three distinctly different parts of a single atom are there not? These parts are identified as protons, electrons, and neutrons.

You can tell the difference by their individual attributes.

The attributes of Electrons are as follows: They are smaller than the other two parts, have a negative charge and are more numerous.

Attributes of Protons are as follows: they are positive charged, located in the nucleus of an atom. These act as a name tag for the atom — defining it. Protons have within 'quarks.'

Attributes of Neutrons are as follows: they are neutral, no charge. Weight is heavier and they maintain balance and hold the atom together.

These three parts makes one atom an atom.

Another example is a simple cell organism which also is made up of three distinctly differing parts and each is defined by its attributes — what each does:

Cell membrane - controls which substances enter and leave the cell. Protect the Cell, provides structure of cell, holds it together — gives it shape…

Cytoplasm is where all of the chemical processes of life go on inside the cell. It is semifluid in nature, maintains the chemical reactions that take place inside the cell to maintain life.

Embedded in the cytoplasm are organelles cell structures, internal organs if you will, that help a cell to function. The third part of the cell — its Nucleus resides here.

The Nucleus controls. The nucleus is the primary organelle within the cell and it has two fundamental functions: controlling the activities of the cell and to make possible cell division.

These three make one. Each has differing and distinct attributes. The cell Membrane is distinctly different than the cytoplasm or the nucleus (inner organs). Cytoplasm is basically fluid — gel like. Inner organs are solid. They make one — one.

Concerning the persons of the Godhead

The Person's of the Godhead each have their own personality (attributes) and functions. We have no problem seeing this concept in nature and in the atom so why do we have such trouble seeing this about God?

Romans 1:19, 20, 21, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” ESV

After explaining the above principles go to the Torah and follow the outline below:

Moses understood and wrote in the Torah about God's Divine nature as 'Echad' — Show your friend from the Jewish Bible:

Exodus 34:6 again: “And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth…” JPS

Deuteronomy 5:24 (5:21), “and ye said: 'Behold, the LORD our God hath shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth.” JPS

Notice it mentions His Glory and Greatness and Hearing His Voice — three differing distinctions are the not? Don't get rattle by his answer — continue…

Deuteronomy 33:2, “And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.” JPS

Notice Yahweh came from Sinai, rose from Seir, and shined forth from Paran. Three differing encounters and from one came the Law. His Right Hand gave them the law. Go through other parts of the bible and have him discover that the Right Hand brings salvation and is known also as the Messiah. You have each member of the Trinity appearing to Moses…

Also ask you friend to explain the following account from Exodus:

Exodus 24:9, 10, 11, 12, “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.

“11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink. 12 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.'

13 And Moses rose up, and Joshua his minister; and Moses went up into the mount of God…”

They saw God and lived (verses 10 and 11) and then what happened?

Notice in verse 11 and God withheld His hand against them — sign of salvation — i.e. right hand of God.

Now Verse 12 Yahweh said what? Wasn't He already there? Why did Moses have to travel elsewhere, higher up the mount since verses 10 and 11 tell us God was there and remained there supping with the elders?

Did not God's right hand give the Law? See verses 12 and 13 and Deuteronomy 33:2, “And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.” JPS

The only way this could happen if One God is indeed in three Persons as evidence even in the creation that such oneness in three does indeed exist:

Romans 1:20

Deuteronomy 5:24 (5:21), “and ye said: 'Behold, the LORD (Yahweh) our God (Elohim — Majestic Plural One) hath shown us His Glory and His Greatness, and we have heard His Voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God (Elohim — Majestic Plural One) doth speak with man, and he liveth.” JPS

Note John 1:1, 2, 3
-
-
-

Christian2:

Your answer.

I'll summarize:

A "person" is a complete, essential, rational, subject of predication that does not exist apart from the individual.

It is complete in that it isn't broken down into further parts; it forms a complete nature.
It is essential (more lit., substantial) in that it excludes what philosophers call "accidents." A person is an essence, not a property of an essence (like blue may be a property of a car).
It is rational, which needs to explanation.
It is the subject of predication ("I am Sam"; "Sam" is predicated of "I").
It does not exist apart from the individual, in that it is not a universal ("I am a man"; "Man" is a universal that can be applied to many people, but not necessarily all.)

There is nothing in the definition of "person" that requires it to be a single being. Thus, there is nothing logically incompatible with saying that the Trinity is one Being subsisting in three Persons.

Hope this helps.

God bless

edit: Here is Aquinas' own answer to your question. You can use it as a base for further research, if you like.

B. W. , thank you for all the work you put into your response.

I will try to have my comments posted tomorrow.

Jac3510 wrote:Christian2:

Your answer.

I'll summarize:

A "person" is a complete, essential, rational, subject of predication that does not exist apart from the individual.

It is complete in that it isn't broken down into further parts; it forms a complete nature.
It is essential (more lit., substantial) in that it excludes what philosophers call "accidents." A person is an essence, not a property of an essence (like blue may be a property of a car).
It is rational, which needs to explanation.
It is the subject of predication ("I am Sam"; "Sam" is predicated of "I").
It does not exist apart from the individual, in that it is not a universal ("I am a man"; "Man" is a universal that can be applied to many people, but not necessarily all.)

There is nothing in the definition of "person" that requires it to be a single being. Thus, there is nothing logically incompatible with saying that the Trinity is one Being subsisting in three Persons.

Hope this helps.

God bless

edit: Here is Aquinas' own answer to your question. You can use it as a base for further research, if you like.

Jac, thank you for your response. I haven't read it yet, nor checked out the links, but I did reply to my Jewish friend and this is what I said:

******

First I would like to point out that I am no expert in explaining the Trinity. I can tell you what I believe though.

The word “person” carries a lot of baggage in my opinion. The use of the word “person” brings to our human minds three people, like Tom, **** and Harry. All three are people and all three are separate beings.

My being is shared by one person and that is me.

This is not how the word “person” is used in the Trinity. In the nature of the one God, the One Being who is God, there are three centers of consciousness, who we call “persons.” These persons are equal. The Trinity is an absolute unity and they relate to one another in love. The Trinity is relational.

Unlike people or human persons, the persons of the Trinity not separable from one another, they indwell each other.

Some Trinitarian scholars refer to the “persons” as hypostasis -- substance, essence. IOW's the person of the Word/Son is made out of the same essence as the Father because the Son proceeds from the Father.

Within the one Being who is God, there are three define “persons.” They are not each 1/3 God and not 3 Gods, but one God and only One God.

I have no problem using the word “person” now that I know what lies behind it.

******
I used some of the thoughts of James White in his book, "The Forgotten Trinity, and I have yet to get a response.

Christian2 wrote:B. W. , thank you for all the work you put into your response.

I will try to have my comments posted tomorrow.

Remember, when speaking to Jewish brethren you must be familiar with their biblical text and simply point out things and let them discover truth on his / her own. That was the style I was using in my example...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
For your Jewish Friend….

Have your friend look up Exodus 34:6, “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…”

Have him explain the use of the thrice usage of: “Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh Elohim merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…”

I think my friend would say this is an example of Hebrew parallelism.

B. W. wrote:
Deuteronomy 33:2, “And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.” JPS

Notice Yahweh came from Sinai, rose from Seir, and shined forth from Paran. Three differing encounters and from one came the Law. His Right Hand gave them the law. Go through other parts of the bible and have him discover that the Right Hand brings salvation and is known also as the Messiah. You have each member of the Trinity appearing to Moses…

I also think my friend would say this is an example of Hebrew parallelism.

Christian2 wrote:

B. W. wrote: For your Jewish Friend….

Have your friend look up Exodus 34:6, “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…”

Have him explain the use of the thrice usage of: “Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh Elohim merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…”

I think my friend would say this is an example of Hebrew parallelism.

B. W. wrote:Deuteronomy 33:2, “And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.” JPS

Notice Yahweh came from Sinai, rose from Seir, and shined forth from Paran. Three differing encounters and from one came the Law. His Right Hand gave them the law. Go through other parts of the bible and have him discover that the Right Hand brings salvation and is known also as the Messiah. You have each member of the Trinity appearing to Moses…

I also think my friend would say this is an example of Hebrew parallelism.

Answer: Then Yahweh is truly the Majestic Plural One...

Next ask: why the Jewish scriptures tell us that there is specifically none like God. And if God were truly an Echid, would not that therefore then make God truly like all others? But how can that be if there is truly none like Him as recorded within the pages of the Holy Books?

Have your friend review these passages from the Jewish Publication Society Bible:

Deuteronomy 4:35, “Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else beside Him.”

Deuteronomy 33:26,27, “There is none like unto God, O Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven as thy help, and in His excellency on the skies. 27 The eternal God is a dwelling-place, and underneath are the everlasting arms…”

1Samuel 2:2, “There is none holy as the LORD, for there is none beside Thee; neither is there any rock like our God.”

2 Samuel 7:22, “Therefore Thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like Thee, neither is there any God beside Thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.”

1 Kings 8:60, “…that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else.”

1 Chronicles 17:20, “ O LORD, there is none like Thee, neither is there any God beside Thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.”

Isaiah 45:5, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me…”

Isaiah 45:21, “Declare ye, and bring them near, yea, let them take counsel together: Who hath announced this from ancient time, and declared it of old? Have not I the LORD? And there is no God else beside Me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me. “

Isaiah 46:9, “Remember the former things of old: that I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me…”

If there is none Like him — why the reduction to oneness which makes God like, say, in the form of Zeus's state of oneness?

It is quite possible that the tragedies that have happened to the Jewish people is that the religious leaders have made God into a image of oneness (echid) like all other gods in violation of Exodus 20:1-5 and that is why the iniquities of the forefathers have fallen on future generations. Ask them - What do you think of this?

Exodus 20:1, "And God (Elohim) spoke all these words, saying: 2 I am the LORD (Yahweh) thy God (Elohim), who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

"3 Thou shalt have no other gods (elohims) before Me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

“5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD (Yahweh) thy God (Elohim) am a jealous God (El), visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me..."

Please note….

Isaiah 45:5, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me…”

Reads like this with the proper names added in:

Isaiah 45:5, “I am Yahweh, and there is none else, beside Me there is no Elohim (Majestic Plural One); I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me…”

Ask your friend: Do you really know the One who revealed Himself and His Holy Arms to Moses who is truly like no other god?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:"3 Thou shalt have no other gods (elohims) before Me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

“5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD (Yahweh) thy God (Elohim) am a jealous God (El), visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me..."[/i]

I don't think it is correct to say "elohims" as elohim is plural form already. Elohim is both used to refer to "gods" (plural) and also one God (Yahweh).

A significant Scripture which I see strongly evidences God's trinitarian nature is found in the Shema - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is one (echad)." (Deut 6:4) Given elohim is in plural form this could literally read "Yahweh our gods, one Yahweh." Why allow any plurality to creep into Yahweh at all if emphasising His oneness?

A response might be that elohim is still also used in reference to the one God of Israel. Yet, then why not just have the simpler "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) is one (echad)." This removes some ambiguity, and is also much more succinct. Instead the obvious is being stated that "Yahweh our one God is one Yahweh." Well I'd never have guessed that if Yahweh was my one God that Yahweh is one.

A response might be this is simply a stylistic form of writing still intended to emphasise God's oneness. Interestingly a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and together they become one (echad) flesh (Gen 2:24). So the oneness of God's plurality could in fact be getting emphasised the other way around: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is a cohesive unit (echad)." So if taking elohim to be singular, despite its plural construction, a plurality can still be read into echad.

Hmm. The Shema isn't doing well to support God's complete and utter oneness if it was meant to be a statement emphasising this. And if we decide to take both terms in plural form, well we loose any singularity to God which destroys Trinitarian belief in God's oneness. However, I doubt a Jewish person will go there since it undoes the belief in God's oneness.

This passage might make a Jewish friend reflect a little bit more on the language used, but I'd expect them to just continue believing the Shema emphasises God's oneness and leave it at that. As for us who are Christian, it's definitely an interesting passage for reflection upon God's trinitarian nature.

Kurieuo wrote:

B. W. wrote:"3 Thou shalt have no other gods (elohims) before Me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

“5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD (Yahweh) thy God (Elohim) am a jealous God (El), visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me..."[/i]

I don't think it is correct to say "elohims" as elohim is plural form already. Elohim is both used to refer to "gods" (plural) and also one God (Yahweh).

A significant Scripture which I see strongly evidences God's trinitarian nature is found in the Shema - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is one (echad)." (Deut 6:4) Given elohim is in plural form this could literally read "Yahweh our gods, one Yahweh." Why allow any plurality to creep into Yahweh at all if emphasising His oneness?

A response might be that elohim is still also used in reference to the one God of Israel. Yet, then why not just have the simpler "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) is one (echad)." This removes some ambiguity, and is also much more succinct. Instead the obvious is being stated that "Yahweh our one God is one Yahweh." Well I'd never have guessed that if Yahweh was my one God that Yahweh is one.

A response might be this is simply a stylistic form of writing still intended to emphasise God's oneness. Interestingly a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and together they become one (echad) flesh (Gen 2:24). So the oneness of God's plurality could in fact be getting emphasised the other way around: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is a cohesive unit (echad)." So if taking elohim to be singular, despite its plural construction, a plurality can still be read into echad.

Hmm. The Shema isn't doing well to support God's complete and utter oneness if it was meant to be a statement emphasising this. And if we decide to take both terms in plural form, well we loose any singularity to God which destroys Trinitarian belief in God's oneness. However, I doubt a Jewish person will go there since it undoes the belief in God's oneness.

This passage might make a Jewish friend reflect a little bit more on the language used, but I'd expect them to just continue believing the Shema emphasises God's oneness and leave it at that. As for us who are Christian, it's definitely an interesting passage for reflection upon God's trinitarian nature.

Whoops my typo on elohim by adding an 's' to it - sorry about that

As for the Shema then politely point out and ask our Jewish friends: why, when, and by whom was it changed to read from the original Echad to Echid and what evidence from history from that point onward in time did tragedies occur to the Jewish people noting the injunction from Exodus 20:4-5…

There is no malice intent in this at all. Make that plain to our Jewish brethren. We hold no ill will toward them but the reality of the facts do call for an honest look to see whom was pierced and bruised for all our transgressions. Look at the signs and connect the dots.
-
-
-

Kurieuo wrote:

B. W. wrote:"3 Thou shalt have no other gods (elohims) before Me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

“5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD (Yahweh) thy God (Elohim) am a jealous God (El), visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me..."[/i]

I don't think it is correct to say "elohims" as elohim is plural form already. Elohim is both used to refer to "gods" (plural) and also one God (Yahweh).

A significant Scripture which I see strongly evidences God's trinitarian nature is found in the Shema - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is one (echad)." (Deut 6:4) Given elohim is in plural form this could literally read "Yahweh our gods, one Yahweh." Why allow any plurality to creep into Yahweh at all if emphasising His oneness?

A response might be that elohim is still also used in reference to the one God of Israel. Yet, then why not just have the simpler "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) is one (echad)." This removes some ambiguity, and is also much more succinct. Instead the obvious is being stated that "Yahweh our one God is one Yahweh." Well I'd never have guessed that if Yahweh was my one God that Yahweh is one.

A response might be this is simply a stylistic form of writing still intended to emphasise God's oneness. Interestingly a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and together they become one (echad) flesh (Gen 2:24). So the oneness of God's plurality could in fact be getting emphasised the other way around: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is a cohesive unit (echad)." So if taking elohim to be singular, despite its plural construction, a plurality can still be read into echad.

Hmm. The Shema isn't doing well to support God's complete and utter oneness if it was meant to be a statement emphasising this. And if we decide to take both terms in plural form, well we loose any singularity to God which destroys Trinitarian belief in God's oneness. However, I doubt a Jewish person will go there since it undoes the belief in God's oneness.

This passage might make a Jewish friend reflect a little bit more on the language used, but I'd expect them to just continue believing the Shema emphasises God's oneness and leave it at that. As for us who are Christian, it's definitely an interesting passage for reflection upon God's trinitarian nature.

Hello Kurieuo,

I've had a discussion about the Shema and the use of Echad with several Jews over the years. Personally I think God inspired Moses to write Echad and not yachid. I believe Echad leaves room for a compound unity, whereas yachid does not.

I can post part of my discussion with one Jew. These are his comments:

******

This is really a misconception. There's no such thing as "compound unity." There is, however, such a thing as "set theory."

Basically, what I mean is that we mention "one" always as opposed to "plural." One never means more than one -- EVER. It is always singular, and the idea of "compound unity" is nonsense.

Here's how it works: I eat one grape, and I say that I've eaten one grape. The grape itself contains the fruit's flesh, skin and seed remains (in seedless grapes, anyway). When I say "one" I am referring to the "set" of the components that make up the grape. Thus, the combination of the pieces equals the whole ONE.

The same is true of a bunch of grapes. I say that I buy one bunch of grapes, though I'm talking about several individual grapes. The "one" is the bunch. It is the "set" of all the pieces that make a singular whole.

Unless it can be determined that God is a "set" of internal components, it makes no sense to refer to God as "one" in the same way that we refer to a bunch of grapes as "one."

Similarly, I can look at a chair and say that I have "one" chair, though the pieces are many. I could break it down into four legs, a seat, a frame and a back, but it all equals "one" chair. Can you break the Infine into component pieces that could possibly be combined to produce a singular "one"? Could you break down God's existence into such parts?

Surely you see the problem here.

The numbers {1, 2, 3... 14} are a set of positive intergers and as such compose ONE set. However, they could be recomposed and create a different set altogether or two or six sets. It is all about combinations, just as it is with grapes.

I could buy ten bunches of grapes and place them into one crate and resell them as "one crate" of grapes for a little profit. There is no comparison here to the concept of there being three that are really one that is really three. It's just a silly concept.

******
So, there you have it!