The old compound unity lie. Echad means one and funcion the same way the word 'one' does in English. Nothing in the context suggest a unity of plurality. And Deuteronomy 6:4 is NOT the only verse asserting the oneness of the Most High God, it's stressed like no other principle in the Bible. And the numerical context, the supremacy of the Most High and the exclusion of other supposed deities, makes it utterly clear beyond doubt in several verses: the onenes of God has NOTHING to do with one in 'unity' or 'agreement' (or substance) between pluralities, but ONE singular, ONE-PERSON God that alone is the Most High.
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5
Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14
My argument was not Echad proves the Trinity in the Shema, my argument is that Echad CAN be plural or singular based on the context of a passage. Furthermore, No reference where it says "I am God, there is no other", preaches against the Trinity or assert there is only one God. For that matter as James White pointed out:
"Every single time, that the context does not demand that we see a particular individual operating differently than the others, would be a reference to the Triune God. So any time where God's general activities, God's general attributes or in reference, can be referred to the entire Godhead acting in unity."
This statement from White applies to ALL the contexts of the Old Testament that are similar to Isaiah 45:5 and 45:14. The argument I am making is that NONE of the texts cited in your comments talk about the nature of God, they only have YHWH proclaiming there are no other Gods but he.
The problem with the trinitarian oneness however (one probelm rather, there are maaany problems) is that according to trinitarian doctrine and dogma they are one in substance/essence, homoousios, a concept adopted from Neoplatonism. The problem with that i that the Bible NEVER, not even once, delve into the ontological nature and substance/essence of God. Please, show where the Bible speak of the "divine substance". Better yet, show me where Deuteronomy 6:4 speak of the divine God-substance constituting the compound triad. Because that 's what your link is claiming the verse says. Sounds like pure paganism to me,
Can you show me what the source is where you are getting what you are claiming? homoousios is just a term used to describe the substance of the Trinity. What matters isn't the terminology being in the Bible, what matters is if the concept is there. As long as the CONCEPT of the Trinity is found, that's all that matters.
Again, if you read my article, I didn't say that Deuteronomy 6:4 spoke on the " divine God-substance constituting the compound triad" (A triad is not the same as the Trinity BTW), I said:
"The answer is simple, It simply means that there is only ONE God, that's all it means. It is not a proof text for the Trinity, nor a proof text against it."
"In light of what Deuteronomy 6:4 ACTUALLY teaches, not what Unitarians want it to teach and even what Trinitarians assert, We can see the Trinity is neither proven by the Shema nor refuted, because both Trinitarians and Unitarians ARE BOTH MONOTHEISTS. The Shema is a creed of Monotheism, not of Unitarianism."
Case and point, the Shema is NOT a proof texts for either of us when it comes to the nature of God. I wasn't arguing if the Shema taught the Trinity.
And I've saved the clincher for last; the Father ALONE is conclusively identified in several verses and passages as ALONE being YHWH; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the OT. An YHWH, as asserted by Jesus, in clear-cut verses, excludes everyone else from laying claim to the position of Most High God.
Scripture will bear witness against you when that day comes. Repent of the trinity idol and start worshipping the Most High God in spirit and truth as Jesus taught you to do.
I already worship the God that Jesus worshiped, plus, you haven't covered the points I made in the second article specifically:
For evidence of the Trinity, see the following:
(The point about Isaiah 9:6 I need to rethink on).
Again, I point you back to the articles I wrote in response to droptozro:
Perhaps it is you who are worshiping an idol Doris.