What does "one" mean?

[Brian2]

Well then, the verse has to say "Man and woman became one". But that inference cannot be made to every verse that says "One". Thats absurd.

Gen 2:24 means what it says. The man and the woman became one flesh. Echad does not have to be a compound one in all places. It is obvious it is compound at Gen 2:24 and for those who believe Jesus is Jehovah it is obvious it means that at Deut 6:4. (Maybe Unitarians see it differently).

I believe it is better that you do not mix the NT and OT when analysing something like this. One reason is they are two very different languages.

What is wrong with a few different languages in the one set of scriptures?

Also I would like to ask you to analyse from the language, and some experts in the language, not apologists for the Christian doctrine.

I have looked around at what various people say and have come to the conclusion that Echad is used in places as a compound one.
Apologists also sometimes are or use language specialists.

I have heard from Christians that "If Elohim were exclusively singular, this would read yachid which can only mean one." Yes, Echad does in fact have a compound singularity in it, such as having one synagogue with a hundred people inside." Thats nice apologetics but absolutely bad logic. I can say "one country" and that would mean a 100 million people in it but its still one country. "ONE MAN" is just one man. So one is not a compound one every time, but it would depend on one persons baggage that he is already carrying. If he really really wants to make God more than one, and that's all his faith is, then he would want to make God like a country. One means one country with many people.

I don't use Echad as a proof of the trinity. It is just that Echad can be compound and the use of it at Deut 6:4 shows that those who want to use Deut 6:4 as proof that there is no trinity are wrong. I use Echad to fight that false argument.

But linguistically its absurd. Because when you think of God in this sentence its singular. One.

What apologists do is that they try to conflate the word one of many contexts into one. As in, when the Bible says "The people are one" it is the same saying "God is one". But that's bogus because in this particular sentence or in other places in the Tanakh God is always singular and is never referred to as "people". How could YHWH (Sorry if the mention offends any Jews who are reading this) which is used as a proper name be like a group of people and/or speaks in "ONE" language and thus this one is a compound one? It is a very bad but valiant attempt. Think of the verse Genesis 11:6 where the same word Echad is used. It says "the people are one and the ALL speak one language". DO you see that this verse says "People" and it also says "ALL speak ONE language". Using this type of verses to say this one is a compound one has to be a dishonest attempt because one cannot be so illogical possibly.

I don't usually use other verses. I can see in Gen 2:24 that Echad can be compound. 2 bodies become one body. 2 separate bundles of flesh become one flesh.
The Christian Church is one just as the Father and Son are one. We are one body even though we are many bodies. We are united as one because of the one Spirit of Christ which is in us all.
It is certainly easier to see the distinctness of the Father and the Son than to see their unity.

Equally unreasonable is the suggestion of Michael Brown on Zechariah 11:8, where the prophet speaks of one (echad) month. Brown asks, "What does that tell us about the essential nature of a month? Does it mean that a month does not have thirty days because it is one?" The word "one" modifying "month" is not remotely connected to how many days there are in a month! On Brown's argument the word "one" loses its fixed sense as "one single." And the whole argument is then brought to bear on the central question of monotheism and is used to justify a plurality in the Godhead.

Yes it can get to the unreasonable stage with some people.
It should not be used to justify the plurality in the Godhead imo, this can be justified in other ways. It can be used against those who want to use Deut 6:4 to dismiss a plurality in the Godhead however.
It is not that Echad is used as a compound one in every instance.

How would the proponents of one as "compound one" explain Nehemiah 11:1: "one (echad) out of ten"? Or Ezra 10:13: "one* (echad) day or two"? "Two are better than one (echad)" (Ecc. 4:9). "If two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one alone[echad] keep warm?" (Ecc. 4:11). "Where a lone [echad] man may be overcome, two together may resist" (Ecc. 4: 12). The rest of the 970 appearances of echad might be cited to make exactly the same point.

Haha. With this kind of logic, the word one is not meaning one because we make sentences like "Year one". But the year has 365 days.

It is not that Echad is used as a compound one in every instance and it should not be seen that way from what I have read.

 

[Brian2]

why do you specifically choose Gen 2:24 to explain how "one" is more than one? The word "one" in English refers to the value of the set in which there is a single element. That set might be "group of basketballs" and there is one group of basketballs, or that set might be "basketball" and there is one basketball.

Gen 1:9 has God move all the water to "one" place. Is that a compound one? Gen 21:15 talks about "one of the trees". Is that more than one? 40:8 talks about "one night" - is it "echad" because it is made up of minutes? In that case, the word "one" can never be a singular idea in any language.

As to the question about "yachid" it is a completely different word. If a statement is that God is "one" that is different from "God is only" or "God is unique." (or, "God is alone" as biblically, the word yachid can mean 'alone' as in Psalms 25:16, Amos 8:10).

I use Gen 2:24 because it shows the point quite well,,,,,,,and the point for me is not that Echad means compound one in all cases, but that it can have that meaning at times.
This unity of the flesh of the man and woman also could be seen as the having a relationship with the unity of the Father and Son and the unity of Christ and the Church (body of Christ).

 

[firedragon]

Gen 2:24 means what it says. The man and the woman became one flesh. Echad does not have to be a compound one in all places. It is obvious it is compound at Gen 2:24 and for those who believe Jesus is Jehovah it is obvious it means that at Deut 6:4. (Maybe Unitarians see it differently).

One year has 365 days. But it still means one. One man means one man. One dog means one dog. Not 3 men or 3 dogs.

It is a truly nonsensical argument to say that one man is three because one year has 365 days. Truly nonsensical. Also ignorant of simple language.

 

[firedragon]

What is wrong with a few different languages in the one set of scriptures?

Because different languages work differently.

For example, The God in English can be male and Goddess is female. In Greek Theos can be both genders. Yet Ho Theos is masculine.

Tell me how different is that with the Jewish El. Analyse it.

It is not that Echad is used as a compound one in every instance and it should not be seen that way from what I have read.

One group = One group
One <> One Group.
One = One

Again. One<>One group just because One Group=One Group.

 

[rosends]

I use Gen 2:24 because it shows the point quite well,,,,,,,and the point for me is not that Echad means compound one in all cases, but that it can have that meaning at times.
This unity of the flesh of the man and woman also could be seen as the having a relationship with the unity of the Father and Son and the unity of Christ and the Church (body of Christ).

You use it because you can twist it to support what you need to find. The problem is, the word exists in many other places that you can't use so you ignore them. To say that it "can" mean something means that when you decide it "does" is simply capricious on your part.

 

[Katzpur]

God is One and this One can be used as a compound One and in the case of God it is a compound One.
I take it you do not believe the New Testament.

I've never heard the term "compound One." Just to see if the two of us are thinking along the same lines, I see the word "God" as being used as a singular noun when referring to either God the Father or His Son Jesus Christ individually, but as a collective noun (like family or jury or team) when used to describe both of them together, acting in unity as a single entity.

 

[Brian2]

One year has 365 days. But it still means one. One man means one man. One dog means one dog. Not 3 men or 3 dogs.

It is a truly nonsensical argument to say that one man is three because one year has 365 days. Truly nonsensical. Also ignorant of simple language.

Yes that argument is not great.
But as I say, I don't do that, I just say Deut 6:4 cannot be used to argue in opposition to God being a simple unity.

 

[Brian2]

Because different languages work differently.

For example, The God in English can be male and Goddess is female. In Greek Theos can be both genders. Yet Ho Theos is masculine.

Tell me how different is that with the Jewish El. Analyse it.

I don't have to analyse it to know that the gender of a noun grammatically does not necessarily relate to the actual gender of the thing or being.
But what you are saying seems to be that we are not able to analyse these differences in language but that we are able to analyse the differences.

One group = One group
One <> One Group.
One = One

Again. One<>One group just because One Group=One Group.

When Echad is used however that One may be a compound One and that possibility cannot be denied by JWs or Jews or whoever.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, Israel: Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh.
James 2:19
You believe that God is one, you do right; also the demons believe and tremble.

What does it mean when the Bible says that God is one?

It means just that, the is One God and all Faiths are a result of that One God.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

You use it because you can twist it to support what you need to find. The problem is, the word exists in many other places that you can't use so you ignore them. To say that it "can" mean something means that when you decide it "does" is simply capricious on your part.

That seems to be just the nature of the word. I decide on the context of a passage I guess.
My main argument is that a Jew or JW or whoever cannot use Deut 6:4 to say that God is NOT a compound one,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no matter what Maimonides may have said about the oneness of God.

 

[Brian2]

I've never heard the term "compound One." Just to see if the two of us are thinking along the same lines, I see the word "God" as being used as a singular noun when referring to either God the Father or His Son Jesus Christ individually, but as a collective noun (like family or jury or team) when used to describe both of them together, acting in unity as a single entity.

I would have to say to a Mormon that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not 3 Gods but are joined in the one God.

 

[Brian2]

It means just that, the is One God and all Faiths are a result of that One God.

Regards Tony

It says nothing about all faiths being the result of that one God. It does mean that there is but one God however.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It says nothing about all faiths being the result of that one God. It does mean that there is but one God however.

I see that entirely depends on your frame of reference and Baha'u'llah has said that there is only One God for all Faiths and that God has always said there is only One God.

Regards Tony

 

[Katzpur]

I would have to say to a Mormon that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not 3 Gods but are joined in the one God.

That would be correct, but we believe any of the three of them may be referred to -- individually -- as "God."

 

[firedragon]

When Echad is used however that One may be a compound One and that possibility cannot be denied by JWs or Jews or whoever.

No its not.

 

[Brian2]

I see that entirely depends on your frame of reference and Baha'u'llah has said that there is only One God for all Faiths and that God has always said there is only One God.

Regards Tony

True there is One God but Deut 6:4 does not say anything about religions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,some of which have many gods.

 

[Brian2]

That would be correct, but we believe any of the three of them may be referred to -- individually -- as "God."

I suppose that is a good thing even thought the Mormon position seems to be a deviation from the Bible and probably the reason that you can call each of them individually, God, is probably different.

 

[Brian2]

No its not.

What is not? Are you saying that the One in the Shema is not a compound One? If so , how do you know that?

 

[firedragon]

What is not? Are you saying that the One in the Shema is not a compound One? If so , how do you know that?

Because it doesnt say so. A singular must say something like "One Year" or make a statement like "God is one, with three in it, with one Ousia" or something like that. Your justification is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Katzpur]

I suppose that is a good thing even thought the Mormon position seems to be a deviation from the Bible and probably the reason that you can call each of them individually, God, is probably different.

I don't see it as a deviation of the Bible at all, but rather a deviation from the traditional interpretation of the Bible.

To be clear, we believe that "God" is a title that they share, and if you share a title with someone else, both of you can be addressed by or referred to by that title. Generally speaking, when we use the word "God," it is the Father we are referring to. When we refer to "the Lord," it is Jesus Christ we are speaking of.

There is, however, one place in our scriptures known as "The Doctrine and Covenants" where Jesus Christ is speaking of the anguish He endured in the Garden of Gethsemane just a couple of days prior to the crucifixion. He says, "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men." And this may not be the only examples. It's just the one that first came to my mind.

But now I'm confused about your belief. As a Trinitarian (which I believe you are -- correct me if I'm wrong), don't you believe that Jesus is God? I've often heard Trinitarians say that God took on flesh and came to earth. Wouldn't that be Jesus you're referring to? When you say He was crucified, surely you don't mean that the whole Trinity was crucified.