To make it clear, I accept the premise that the Shema refers to a singular usage of Echad, but make it clear that this doesn't refute the Trinity, as that isn't the goal of the Shema.
You can jump up and down and shout "God is an absolute one" but again, it misses the point of the Shema completely.
Read the following articles:
Regardless of the Shema using Echad as singular or Yachid, this would
not disprove nor prove the Trinity, as that is not the goal of the
Shema. It's a point missed by Trintarian and Anti-Trinitarian alike.
Now to move onto the accusation, I have had the oppotunity of listening to a lecture by Tovia Singer on the Trinity and I have made the point in the past that Tovia admits Echad can be used in a plural context but refutes the idea the Shema uses Echad in a plural.
I have been accused by DACON9 on Paltalk for misrepresenting the words of Singer and for all to see, in his OWN WORDS, what Singer said and that I have NOT misrepresented him:
"The word echad in the Hebrew language
functions in precisely the same manner as the word “one” does in the
English language. In the English language it can be said, “these four
chairs and the table make up one dinette set,” or alternatively, “There is one penny
in my hand.” Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the
English word “one” can mean either many things in one, as in the case of
the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny.
Although the Hebrew word echad functions in the exact same manner, evangelical Christians will never offer biblical examples where the word echad means
“one alone.” Thus, by only presenting Scriptural verses such as Genesis
1:5 and Numbers 23:13, it creates the illusion to the novice that the
word echad is somehow synonymous with a compound unity. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth." http://outreachjudaism.org/trinity-shema-prayer/
Singer offers examples of singular echad usage in his own paper and makes goes on to say the following:
"In the above verses the exact same Hebrew wordאֶחָד is used, and clearly the word (echad) is referring to one alone, not a “compound unity.”
There is a question that immediately comes to mind:If the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad) can signify either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell which definition is operative when studying a verse?
The answer lies in the context, which is always determinative. In the exact same way the word “one” is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. “Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set” is a compound unity, and “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” is unsullied monotheism."
Singer makes it clear that Echad being plural or singular is defined by context, something which I made the point he said this in the first place, it is NOT a newsflash.
I have even posted a link to Singer's own lecture and he says something similiar to what he says in his paper.
"Is The Trinity Biblical?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Joz6vKSh1o.
Watch from 15:56-23:40. Singer later claims that the arguments used by Christians are used by Pagans also but to be very honest, Pagan Polytheism and Biblical Monotheistic Trinitarianism are NOT the same thing and any claims they are the same thing are a strawman of Trinitarian belief.
I NEVER CLAIMED that Tovia said the Shema was plural, I said he admits ECHAD can be plural based on the context and refutes the idea it is plural IN the Shema.
There is no misrepresentation my my end.
I also NEVER said that Tovia Singer refuted himself, my whole point is that in his article though he admits Echad can be plural, it is NOT in the context of the Shema.
Answering Judaism.
Addendum: For DACON9's own double standards being exposed, read here:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/dacon9s-double-standards.html
The answer lies in the context, which is always determinative. In the exact same way the word “one” is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. “Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set” is a compound unity, and “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” is unsullied monotheism."
Singer makes it clear that Echad being plural or singular is defined by context, something which I made the point he said this in the first place, it is NOT a newsflash.
I have even posted a link to Singer's own lecture and he says something similiar to what he says in his paper.
"Is The Trinity Biblical?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Joz6vKSh1o.
Watch from 15:56-23:40. Singer later claims that the arguments used by Christians are used by Pagans also but to be very honest, Pagan Polytheism and Biblical Monotheistic Trinitarianism are NOT the same thing and any claims they are the same thing are a strawman of Trinitarian belief.
I NEVER CLAIMED that Tovia said the Shema was plural, I said he admits ECHAD can be plural based on the context and refutes the idea it is plural IN the Shema.
There is no misrepresentation my my end.
I also NEVER said that Tovia Singer refuted himself, my whole point is that in his article though he admits Echad can be plural, it is NOT in the context of the Shema.
Answering Judaism.
Addendum: For DACON9's own double standards being exposed, read here:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/dacon9s-double-standards.html
