Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
 

 FAQFAQ SearchSearch Free GamesMake a Donation  UsergroupsUsergroups Free GamesForum Rules ProfileContact RegisterRegister 
ProfileWebsite News Log inSubmit Articles  ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in 

What is a composite unity? From the Christian Think Tank


Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Trinity Discussion.
Author Message
45degreeN
King Kong



Joined: 02 Aug 2005

Posts: 2416

Location: Salem Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject: What is a composite unity? From the Christian Think Tank Reply with quote

What is a composite unity?

The use of a "composite unity" word for 'one' in the Shema of Deut 6.4-5.

This is the older translation of the famous Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." There are two words for 'one' in Biblical Hebrew: 'ehad ('one', 'alone', 'unity from parts') and yahidh (uniqueness-only one of its kind). This verse is sometimes used by a few groups within the Jewish tradition to assert the numerical unity of God's nature, over against what they perceive as a 'Christian' notion of plurality-in-unity. But this verse either doesn't support their position (i.e., it doesn’t talk about God's nature at all); or actually does the opposite (i.e., by leaving a door open to 'composite unity'). Instead of using YAHIDH, which MIGHT be of some support to their position, it uses 'EHAD, which lends itself to the plurality position (or certainly allows it). Consider some other passages in which 'EHAD is used:

*

Gen 2.24--the man and his wife will be one (ehad) flesh--clearly a composite unity.
*

Ex 26:6, 11--the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit (ehad).
*

2 Samuel 2:25--many soldiers made themselves into 'one group' (ehad)
*

Gen 34:16 --the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become 'one(ehad) people'.
*

Joshua 9.2 -- the western kings agree to fight Joshua as "one (ehad) force"
*

Josh 10.42-- "And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one (ehad) time" (NAS) or "All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one (ehad) campaign" (NIV)
*

Ex 24.3 --"Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one (ehad) voice, and said"
*

2 Chr 5.12--"and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps, and lyres, standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets 13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one (ehad) voice to praise and to glorify the Lord"
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dim12trav,

Hi, Very Happy

I was looking over these examples of "composite unity" and found some very interesting points. Many of the examples are not dealing with "composite unity" at all. Very Happy

I will bold my comments to diferentiate.

*

Ex 26:6, 11--the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit (ehad).

All the parts make "a unit", or 1 unit. NOT AN EXAMPLE.

*

2 Samuel 2:25--many soldiers made themselves into 'one group' (ehad)

NOT AN EXAMPLE. It was indeed 1 group. Group qualifies the many soldiers, but it was 1 group.

*

Gen 34:16 --the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become 'one(ehad) people'.

NOT AN EXAMPLE. 2 nations, or peoples, intermarry to make 1 nation, or people.
*

Josh 10.42-- "And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one (ehad) time" (NAS) or "All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one (ehad) campaign" (NIV)

NOT AN EXAMPLE. It is speaking about 1 campaign or time.


* * * *****************

Joshua 9.2 -- the western kings agree to fight Joshua as "one (ehad) force"

A PROPER EXAMPLE. Multiple forces fight as one force.

*

Ex 24.3 --"Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one (ehad) voice, and said"
A PROPER EXAMPLE.
*

2 Chr 5.12--"and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps, and lyres, standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets 13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one (ehad) voice to praise and to glorify the Lord"
A PROPER EXAMPLE.
*

Gen 2.24--the man and his wife will be one (ehad) flesh--clearly a composite unity.
A PROPER EXAMPLE.

*************************

There were 4 proper examples, and if you would notice each of them were in the proper context showing how the multiple acted as "one". Such scriptures even make sense in english regarding the composite unity in these instances. The Shema has no such context so there is no reason to view "one" as meaning composite unity there. The Jews were Unitarians and never viewed it that way. This is a perfect example of taking a figure of speech and applying it out of context where it doesn't belong. Smile


Take care. Very Happy
Back to top
RevJP
Moderator



Joined: 18 Apr 2003

Posts: 6816

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After reading your post Tbax, I have concluded that you have absolutely no understanding of the One True Triune God and you continue to argue from ignorance.

How can you disagree with something that you cannot even understand on the most elementary level?


All the parts make "a unit", or 1 unit. NOT AN EXAMPLE.

#Rofl
Back to top
hearsayheresy
Guest







PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought Trinitarianism adamently rejects any notion of God being comprised of parts.
Back to top
45degreeN
King Kong



Joined: 02 Aug 2005

Posts: 2416

Location: Salem Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So even you can admit that the word used as "one" can be used as a composite unity you have even agreed with four examples that this Hebrew word Echad does include a multiple unity.

Given this break in the *Female Lumberjack* of your seawall of rejection, try reading the base material in the think tank.
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JP, Rolling Eyes

JP wrote:
All the parts make "a unit", or 1 unit. NOT AN EXAMPLE.


One of those parts does not equal "1 unit". Therefore, multiple "units" do not equal "1 unit". This is another example of your poor reading comprehention. Rolling Eyes

JP wrote:
After reading your post Tbax, I have concluded that you have absolutely no understanding of the One True Triune God and you continue to argue from ignorance.


I understand the same thing you understand about it. You can not even explain what you believe or answer simple questions about it. You seem to like to chime in to display your poor reading comprehention. Sad


Later. Very Happy


Last edited by TBax on Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dim12trav,

Hi, Very Happy

dim12 wrote:
So even you can admit that the word used as "one" can be used as a composite unity you have even agreed with four examples that this Hebrew word Echad does include a multiple unity.



No! One means one. Used in the proper context, like those 4 proper examples, it can be used to help show a composite unity. It still means 1, just like in english.

Context is important in the examples of composit unity.

There were 4 proper examples, and if you would notice each of them were in the proper context showing how the multiple acted as "one". Such scriptures even make sense in english regarding the composite unity in these instances. The Shema has no such context so there is no reason to view "one" as meaning composite unity there. The Jews were Unitarians and never viewed it that way. This is a perfect example of taking a figure of speech and applying it out of context where it doesn't belong. Very Happy


Later. Very Happy
Back to top
45degreeN
King Kong



Joined: 02 Aug 2005

Posts: 2416

Location: Salem Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Shema basically has no context it is an artificially constructed sentence without even a vowel.
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hearsayheresy,

Hi, Very Happy

hearsayheresy wrote:
I thought Trinitarianism adamently rejects any notion of God being comprised of parts.


Someone gave an illustration likening it to the trinity about 1 person with 3 rolls, like a father, a wrestler, and a husband, or something like that. That made me ask if they believed the trinity was 3 persons in 1 God, or 1 person in 3 rolls. JP couldn't answer as he is not sure what he believes. He just seems to cling to anything that points to this confusing doctrine without specifically outlining what he believes. Sad


Later. Very Happy
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dim12trav,

dim12trav wrote:
The Shema basically has no context it is an artificially constructed sentence without even a vowel.


Rolling Eyes No context? So therefore you incert your own context, and figure of speech. Rolling Eyes

The Jews were Unitarians. There is your context. The ones who actually spoke this language never conceived of what you are saying.

Later. Very Happy
Back to top
RevJP
Moderator



Joined: 18 Apr 2003

Posts: 6816

Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tbax wrote:
JP couldn't answer as he is not sure what he believes. He just seems to cling to anything that points to this confusing doctrine without specifically outlining what he believes.
If you had chosen to be truthful Tbax you would have stated that I cannot fully explain the nature of God - which is what I had stated. I've had no problem explaining what I believe, outlining it in a most elementary fashion, which you and a few others have had the most horrible time understanding. I assert that it is not for a lack of clear explanation but a lack of comprehensive ability.
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JP,

Then is your trinity 3 persons in 1 God, or 1 person in 3 rolls?


Later. Very Happy
Back to top
RevJP
Moderator



Joined: 18 Apr 2003

Posts: 6816

Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The One True, Almighty God

There is but one living, and true, triune, God: He who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable immense, eternal, almighty, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory. He who is perfect love; gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. He who is perfect justice, terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. He who is perfect wisdom, bridging the desires of perfect love and the satisfaction of perfect justice.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, not deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever is His pleasure. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all his commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Back to top
TBax
King of the Jungle



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1902


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JP,


Short question, long indescript answer. You call that clear?

So was it 3 persons in 1 God, or 1 person in 3 rolls? Or perhaps neither?


Later. Very Happy
Back to top
hearsayheresy
Guest







PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TBax, I believe RevJP answered your question here:
Quote:
The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.


Personally, I think this answer can go both ways: It may be taken to support either modalism or Trinitarianism.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Trinity Discussion. All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 

© 2001-2007