Torah : Counter-Missionary : Talmud : Politics :
Shema Yisroel
Counter-Missionary > Shema Yisroel
Shema Yisroel
The verse Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echod (Deut 6:4)
שמע ישראל ידוד אלדנו ידוד אחד (דברים ו.ד)
Is one of the fundamental bases of Judaism.
Ever since Nicea 325 this statement has been one of difficulty for Christians, since they are forced to accept the Torah as the Divine Word of G-d, as well as the NT. The NT (the debate among JWs and Mormon's (or Seventh Day Adventists aside), seems to suggest a trinune conception of the godhead. Christians will tell you that this idea of 3 in 1 is a 'Mystery of the Church'.
This kind of answer is not an answer but rather a complete lack of understanding of the statement and conception. Christians themselves reject this approach, since everyone agrees that 1+1+1 equals 3. Anyone who tells you otherwise will obviously lose a lot of money in business. The point I'm addressing is not that G-d can be a mathematical equation. But rather, that practical application of this idea that Christians espouse is not only ridiculous in conception but unlivable, and should be rejected, not on the grounds that it is illogical and nonsensical alone, but also because Christians don't live it.
Jesus prayed to G-d.
Matthew 26:42 He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah." ....50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
According to classic Christian Theology, where Jesus is 100% god and 100% man, Jesus is praying to himself. Dare I say it: is the Christian conception of god schizophrenic? Isn't Jesus praying to himself?
The upshot of this conception of the godhead or trinune system is that nobody really understands it. The net result of 100% god excludes the premise of man, and vice versa. This is a point in logic, and it is illegitmate. Let me explain (the following is taken from Rabbi Gottlieb's Website and article: G-d's Omnipotence) Those with a penchant for more detailed analysis can click the link for a complete explanation of the points below:
Consider being X.
X can do Y (Let Y be any action).
Question: Can X do Y if Y is logically impossible?
Let us define Y. You see the problem, the minute you define Y, Y is no longer logically impossible, and therefore X can do Y. Consider Y being a rock that is too heavy for X to lift; or consider Y as being a square circle. Are these actions definable? No, therefore the equation:
Let us now consider that Y is really Trinity. Please define the Trinity - is it three in one or one in three - is it logically valid? No, and even Christians will admit it - "It is a mystery of the Church". Hence, the very notion cannot apply to G-d, since by its very nature it is an illegitimate statement, and therefore it is not applicable to G-d.
This conception does not get off the ground!
Now my critic will tell me, that G-d is beyond logic, and therefore this logical maneuvering will help you in terms of our world; but when it comes to G-d, then it is a whole different ball park. The critic will say that things that are illogical are relevant to G-d, since it is a mystery anyway.
I don't wish to avoid this question, but first a question to the critic. Is it logical that G-d can commit suicide? Can G-d kill Himself? If it is not logical, and G-d can do that, then I put to the critic that his god's existence is contingent on himself, and therefore his conception of god is not completely omnipotent - his existence is contingent and is therefore in this aspect, his god is not infinite. I posit then, therefore that his god is not only not infinite but is, in essence not 100% god, since his existence is contingent, then his god is not omnipotent, since his god is finite in existence - that being in the area of contingency.
If this is true, then ultimately the death of Jesus, being necessarily finite, and therefore contingent. Need I say more? you get the picture.
But my critic will again argue and say wait: I said no logic right? So what do you do with the question: can your god make a rock he cannot lift? If you say yes, then his omnipotence is limited, and if not, then he is not omnipotent - paradox!
No! It is not a paradox, since it is illogical. Oh I remember no logic right? So lets leave this aside.
The Critic has won. He has rejected all logic, on the grounds that his god is beyond logic. So I ask my critic, can simply live in faith, and be a murderer? the critic answers: strongly "No", because the NT says that one may not, and that faith without works is dead (James 2) But I ask the critic, so be it, but why is it that you listen to the NT? So he says because it is god's word, but James uses logic. He says, that:
James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
John 5:19 The son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do.
But James, I have a simple answer to your dillemna. Faith without works is only dead to the one who holds logic as dear, and upholds logic. But one who's faith is strengthened not by works, but faith, and belief and is strengthened by belief, has no need for works, since belief Jesus excludes everything and precludes nothing. In short: Faith is itself illogical, and your godhead, is illogical. But it doesn't make a difference, either way, you're going to heaven.
My Critic is now in very hot water. You see, James uses simple logic a straightforward point in analysis - but it is logical that faith without works is dead, since faith is not intrinsic to deed, it is contingent on deeds. For James (at the very least), logic is relevant, and justified, without it, Christians have no need to give charity.
John himself admits the dilemna - the son is merely a means to reach G-d, nothing more. At best, Jesus is an angel, but not G-d. QED.
And now we return to the point. My Critic can call his conception of the Trinity a hundred different things, and subject it to a thousand mysteries. The point is, that it does not defy logic, it is illogical to the point of ludicrousness, and anyone who holds such a position either fails to grasp it's implications, or if they do, do not live it in practicality.
We move on.
Imagine the following:
Jack and Jill are sitting high up, on mountain ledge. Below is a beautiful valley, with forest below. There are literally thousands of trees below and a river runs through valley. It is unbelievably beautiful - serene and calm.
Jack points out the following detail - Jack says, you know what Jill, there are literally millions of leaves below. Jill responds and says; Jack, do you see the forest? There is one mass of greenery. Jack says, yeah, but do you see the leaves?
Who is a little bit crazy? Jack or Jill?
The answer has to be Jill. We tend to focus on the big picture - the leaves are not relevant to the big picture below.
In terms of the analysis of the verse in Deut 6:4 (The Shema), there is an explicit statement: G-d is One. Now if you answered the above question as Jack being crazy, then you are forced to understand the Shema in the same way. The statement is G-d is One. Not that there is a compound unity - this is not stated in the text at all. In fact, it seems absurd that this lack of clarity was around for millenia before the NT.
Consider that they were looking at a picture book, that is about different beautiful scenes throughout the world. Is Jack's statement relevant to the book? Absolutely not. It is beautiful because of the totality, not because of individual leaves.
Consider that they were looking at a picture book, that is about different types of leaves throughout the world. Is Jack's statement relevant to the book? Absolutely. Jill's statement is a side point now.
Our perception changes, based on context and concept. The NT sprung upon the notion of a trinune godhead, and now Christians are forced into a position of reading all statements that are antithetical to this idea as symbolic of 'compound unity'.
There is a general rule that a word is usually explained as a source word, when it is first used in the Torah. The word אחד or Echad is first used in Genesis 1:5 and means: one day. This is not a compound unity, but it means one. But there are other verses that also mean one: Deut 17:6 - one witness, Eccl. 4:8 (one -alone). If that is all true, what determines the meaning? Context. The context is that there is no suggestion of compound unity.
Nonetheless, the priority of what אחד means is context and explicit statements. Consider:
Deut 4:35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other. 36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire. 37 Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength, 38 to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today. 39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40 Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.
Isa 44:6 "This is what the Lord says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
Isa 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, 6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. 8 "You heavens above, rain down righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness grow with it; I, the Lord, have created it. 9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, 'What have you begotten?' or to his mother, 'What have you brought to birth?' ...18
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
I Sam 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.
Hosea 11:9 I will not act on My wrath, will not turn to destroy Ephraim. For I am God, not man, The Holy One in your midst.
Psa 146:3 Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.
In short, the verses make it abundantly clear that G-d is One and Only. The Critic will argue - those verses are referring to idolatry, but not the type of unity.
In Classical Hebrew, the words: אחד and לבדו encapsulate this notion. The word יחד refers to compound unity. As a side point, Isaiah 44:11 states: "Behold, all who join it will be shamed; and the artisans, they are but human! Let them gather together and stand; let them be frightened and ashamed together!" These are artisans who fashion statues - that are empty (Isa 44:9-10) "All who fashioned a god or a molton idol - it is to no avail".
The word לבדו means there is no other - only. This occurs in Deut 4:35
The word בלעד refers to singularity, that is mentioned in Isaiah 43:11Isaiah 43:11 I, only I, am the Lord, and there is no deliverer aside from Me.
Anyone who wishes to suggest that there is some kind of trinity or triunitarianism in the Tanakh, is sadly mistaken.
My critic cites verses in Genesis 18 for example that suggest that G-d is a man. However, a simple reading of the Hebrew, will dispel any notion. G-d and Abraham are talking to each other, and Abraham sees three men at the entrance to His tent. He welcomes them, and invites them as guests. There is nothing here in these verses that indicates anything about G-d being a man.
He brings Genesis 32:29 as an expression of Jacob wrestling with an angel. It is explicit in Gen 32:25 that Jacob was a alone, and wrestled with a man. It was an angel - a messenger from G-d, in the form of a man. Now everyone agrees that angels come in the form of men. This is quite acceptable, and has nothing to do with G-d's essence. G-d is One, and He sends angels. The Torah uses the word אלדים for this, however, as everyone is aware (including Hebrew Strongs 0430) that the word can mean judges, rulers, gods, and divine ones, godlike, and angels - all in the plural, and this has nothing to do with G-d Himself. Now the singular form (as discussed below) according to Strongs himself, can also refer to an angel - and not G-d.
The verse in Gen 1:26, need not be mistaken - read the next verse: Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Where is the duality? It is clear then, that the reference in Gen 1:26, is in reference to something else - a conversation to be sure...with whom? Well you have had quite a number of days in which to create things....who could it be...well on Day 1-2, the angels were created. It is quite possible that G-d was talking to the angels?
My critic continues: "but the word Elohim אלדים in Hebrew is a plural word". As strongs notes, as does Gesenius, that the plural form can mean singular. In fact, the word שמים is a plural form word, and means heaven (singular). The word פנים (06440) (for example Gen 1:2) does not mean faces, but face. This is a plural word in form, but not in meaning. Likewise in modern Hebrew the word חדשות means news. If one event happened, or there is only one news story, or the only thing new is one thing, it is all called חדשות. It is a word with an external form that is plural, but means singular.
In Hebrew plurality forms have different usages. פעמים means twice. The plural can give rise to double. In Hebrew the the plural of אל is not אלדים but אלים (strong ones). To encapsulate the idea of infinite strength (omnipotence) the plural is used. The word: אלדים is a singular word, depending on context, and when used in reference to G-d, it is singular.
In English, the word news is plural, and can refer to one news article. In English the concept of sheep can refer to a single sheep, as well as plural, depending on context. The same is true for Hebrew.
I did a search for the word אחד and אחת and it turns out that these words (without prefixes and suffixes) occurs 675 times in the Tanakh. Anyone who wishes to make the case that it only refers to unity and compoundedness has to show in 500 cases that this is what the words mean. This is the equivalent of going through the works of Shakespeare, Marlowe and Dickens, and showing that the word two is not plural.
I would like to conclude that the very notion of considering G-d to be three is really nonsensical, because, once you consider that, you're open to speculation that you can have many gods - 4, 5 100, 200 - it is endless. Why limit yourself to three? The very notion is not a Jewish concept. One can simply see the conclusions of Augustine and Nicea to see that this was a discussion and debate in the church, and was not a debate in the NT, for good reason. It is clear in the text and the historical process that took place during the period. The fact that G-d relates to us in different ways is not an expression of different deities, or even triunitarianism. It is simply a reflection of G-d's interaction in this world.
G-d has many attributes: Exodus 34:5-10, but these are not to be confused with G-d's essence.
One must also make a important point here. There is a way in which mathematics can be used to provide some hint to G-d - infinitity, the concept of 1 divided by 0 - a mathematical impossibility, and a number of different arguments expressing infinity, can be used with great effect to capture some idea of how removed G-d is, from our perceieved imagination, perception and conception. However, it is important to know that G-d is not a mathematical concept, nor is G-d indicative of it. Mathematical infinity, is not G-d's infinite essence. It is similar in construct and structure (That is infinity without, and not infinity within), to that conception, but is non-identical. We fail to grasp G-d's essence - all we can suggest is that G-d is not finite, but even this definition is fraught with definite difficulties. I can say to you that G-d's essence is Infinitely One - that if Oneness could be expressed in Infinite terms, then G-d's essence would be that. This is not a contradiction, since the definition of infinity here, is not the same as in mathematics (consider 1 divided by 0), and therefore does not preclude oneness (or indivisibility).
This is all talk. I can say it, people can understand the words, and it seems to make sense, but it is incomprehensible. Now I'm not saying that it is a mystery. It involves understanding and explanation. It can be understood, objectively, but one requires tools and understanding to obtain precise definitions here. One needs to quantify in someway the definition of oneness - that one is singular, indivisible, and unique in every possible, conceived manner. It is perfect oneness, without lacking. This oneness is essential. More than that we cannot conceptualize, since we don't have the tools to conceptualize it. However, if I were to give you those tools, provide the language that would enable you understand with clarity the concept. It would be conceptualized. This is the difference. This is all logical, and you can practically appreciate and live it. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
References:
freed.design @ gmail.com