The SHEMA and God-Man (Trinity??)

An article from a website I was viewing, thought it'd be interesting to share it.. - Messianic Ministries
here it is.....

The Shema

While the Tanakh provides evidence of the complex, indivisible unity of God, it never teaches polytheism - a number of gods. However, the fact that this unity is complex and indivisible is apparent, even in statements that stress that there is only one God, such as the Shema. Here is Deuteronomy 6:4 as rendered by the Tanakh version:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.84
The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation includes a footnote to Deuteronomy 6:4 that is important to notice. The footnote reads:

Cf. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra. See Zech. 14:9 others The LORD our God the LORD is one.85
"The LORD out GOD the LORD is one" is the classic translation of the verse. That rendering stresses God's unity, and takes the literal meaning of the word "one" which has a numerical meaning. The numerical meaning designated the quantity. As Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) says:

The Shema is in Jewish thought the supreme affirmation of the unity of God and is frequently called 'the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.' The original meaning of the first verse may have been that, unlike the pagan gods who have different guises and localities, God is one. At first the main emphasis in the Shema was seen to be in opposition to polytheism; there is only one God, not many gods.86
The verse appears to argue against the complex, indivisible unity of God. However, the verse actually supports the concept in a number of ways. First, the English translation "The LORD out God" appears in the singular. However, the literal form of the word God is plural, "The LORD our Gods..." Second, the most significant word to look at is the final word translated "one" (literally) or "alone" (as above). The word is echad. The range of meaning found in echad contains a clear and unmistakable sense of complex unity.

One example is found in Genesis 2:24. There, when two persons (a man and a woman) marry, they become "one flesh" (basar echad). In addition to the excerpt above, the Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to cite additional interpretations of this verse. The most interesting is the mention of the Rabbinic work called the Zohar:

Very curious are the references in the Zohar to the three divine names in the first verse of the Shema. These represent the unity of three powers in the Godhead, that is the Sefirot of Lovingkindness, Judgment, and Beauty (Hesed, Gevurah, Tiferet), symbolized by the colors white, red, and green, or the Sefirot of Wisdom, Understanding, and Beauty (Hokhmah, Binah, Tiferet; Zohar 1:18b, 3:263a). The Zohar is strongly anti-Christian in intent and repeatedly stresses that all the Ten Sefirot are a unity with Ein Sof.87
Three powers, three colors, three Sefirot - more "trinities." Amazing! Then the Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to say that the Zohar takes pains to "repeatedly stress(es) that all the Ten Sefirot are a unity with Ein Sof. The Zohar seems to think that God can be complex, indivisible unity with ten identifiable Sefirot.

Here are three more quick examples:

On the word (Elohim) Simeon Ben Joachi says: 'Come and see the mystery of the word (Elohim) there are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.88
...the union is expressed in the sentence: 'Hear O Israel, TETRAGRAMMATON Elohenu TETRAGRAMMATON is one.' These three are one...89

Even so it's with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by TETRAGRAMMATON Elohenu TETRAGRAMMATON three modes yet they form one unity.90

Is the concept of the Trinity a pagan concept? We think not. Is evidence for complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead present in Scripture? The writer of the Zohar seemed to think so. The statements in the Zohar sound like they come right out of the Brit Chadashah. If the Zohar is "strongly anti-Christian in intent," it is speaking against a misunderstanding of what the Brit Chadashah actually teaches. We run into this misunderstanding repeatedly. The misunderstanding is most often seen in the use of the word "separate." The Brit Chadashah does not teach that there are three, separate, divine entities - three gods (as Saadya's misunderstanding stated above). The New Testament teaches that there is one God. The one God is a complex, indivisible unity of three distinguishable persons.

---

Here is the other article I was looking at.. I hope it speaks to you .. it's from the same place.. Here it is:

The God-Man

The Hebrew Scriptures also teach the concept of a God-Man. Not man making himself God, but God appearing on earth as a man. One example is Zechariah 13:7a which states in the first part of the verse:

Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,71(NASB)
The key word in the sentence is the word translated "My Associate." That word is translated "who is close to me" by the NIV.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum evaluates the word as meaning "my equal" and comments:

This man is God's equal and God's equal must be God Himself. On one hand, His humanity is stressed: ...the man; and then His deity is stressed: that is my equal.72
THe Bible Knowledge Commentary concurs in their comments using the NIV rendering:

The LORD added that this Shepherd is the Man who is close to Me. The Hebrew word translated "who is close to me" is found elsewhere only in Leviticus (6:2, 18:20, etc) where it refers to a "near relative"... In Zechariah 13:7, the LORD is claiming identity of nature or unity in essence with His Shepherd, thus strongly affirming the Messiah's deity.73
In contrast to the NASB and NIV is the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh version of 1997:

O sword! Rouse yourself against My shepherd,
The man i-in charge of My flock-i 74
As you can see the rendering of the key Hebrew word is very different from the NASB or the NIV. Why is their rendering so different? A reason is given in a footnote. IN the electronic version I own, that phrase is bracketed by two superscripted "i's." The explanation given in the footnote is "meaning of Hebrew uncertain." This is quite an amazing position to take. No one else seem to have a problem wiht the word, including the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). In the JPS produced "The Holy Scriptures" (1917, 1945, 1955), the word is rendered "the man that is near to me." Likewise:

Soncino Books of the Bible (text rendering): the man that is near unto me
Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary rendering): the man that is my fellow

Septuagint: citizen, freeman, fellow citizen

American Standard Version: my fellow

Revised Standard Version: the man who stands next to me

New Living Translation: my partner

The Contemporary English Version: friend

King James: my fellow

New American Standard: my associate

New International Version: The man who is close to me

The New King James Version: my companion

Brown Driver and Brigs Lexicon: associate, fellow, relation

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: associate, fellow, relation

New American Standard Hebrew-American and Greek Dictionaries: associate, fellow, relation

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: relation, neighbor, associate, fellow

These other works have no trouble understanding this word. The 1997 Tanakh does not seem to be able to face the impact and meaning of the text. They almost seem to want to obscure it. However, the God-Man concept is there and supports the idea of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. The God-Man concept is also found in Micah 5:2, Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 80:17, and Psalm 110:1. Micah 5:2 states that the Messiah has existed from eternity past, indicating that He is God, as well as being born in Bethlehem which indicates that He is also a man. In Zechariah 12:10, Israel will look to God, whom they pierced. In Psalm 80:17 and Psalm 110:1, the Messiah will be seated at the place of honor and equality, God's right hand.

Here is one final thought that is helpful from Rabbi Albo. In J. David Bleich's book, With Perfect Faith, he quotes Rabbi Albo explaining his understanding of how the prophets receive their revelation. Albo uses:

A Cuthean asked Rabbi Meir, is it possible that God, of whom It's written, 'Don't I fill heaven and earth?' should have spoken to Moses from between the staves of the ark? Said Rabbi Meir, bring me large mirrors. When he brought them, R. Meir said to him, look at your reflection. He looked, and he saw they were large. Then he said, bring me small mirrors. He looked and he saw they were small. Then R. Meir said, If you, a man of flesh and blood can change yourself into many shapes at your pleasure, surely God who created the world can do so.
As in the mirrors a thing appears different in form, large or small, straight or crooked, bright or obscure, according to the nature of the mirrors through which the thing is seen, i.e. according as the mirrors are large or small, straight or crooked, clear or obscure, though the thing itself does not change, so God appears to the prophets under many and various forms according to the brightness and purity of the media, though God Himself does not multiply or change. The change and multiplicity come from the media, as in the illustration of the mirrors.76

The connection here is that fact that Albo has nicely stated that God has revealed Himself to man through a variety of media, a cloud, a fire, etc. The media He chose to use in the case of the Messiah is a human body. God did not multiply Himself or change. He simply used a particular medium of expression. The God-Man concept is not contrary to Scripture and it maintains the evidence for complex, indivisible unity.

Hope you enjoyed or it spoke something to you. This is another interesting one you guys may want to take a look at http://www.hadavar.org/additional-obj-2-10.html ..that one is about THE SHEKINAH AND THE RUACH HAQODESH (HOLY SPIRIT)...

Any comments? I hope it doesn't turn into a huge debate or anything these are just articles I thought I'd share with you guys. I thought the Bible discussion would be the most appropriate place to put them. So.. May God bless you!! Hope these articles touched your hearts!

[Mobius]

Tsk tsk tsk...

these theories are very old indeed, but unfortunately, they are largely without merit to the serious Hebrew scholar.

A plural noun form does not automatically indicate a plural noun. In Hebrew, as in English, there exists a literary device called the "plural of majesty" (as in the queen saying "we are not amused" ).

Elohim is another example of this. Yes, the FORM of the noun SEEMS to be plural, but it's not. It is an accenting of the greatness, the majesty of the subject, that being G-d.

Elohim, ending in -im WOULD appear to be plural... except that this notion is shot down by the fact that Elohim always always takes a singular verb.

Another biblical example would be "bahemot." This, too, would appear on the SURFACE, to be a plural noun, but because it does take a singular verb (as well as other context clues) we can see that we are talking about a singular GREAT beast, and not multiple beasts.

I'm surprised to see some of this being discussed in a Christian website. The Kabbalah is very poorly understood today. It is rather fashionable to speak of it, and perhaps even to study it, but the majority of these studies, and even the institutions that offer to teach you about them (i.e. The Kabbalah Center in California) are really shams, and are teaching many falsehoods, for exorbitant fees.

When we speak of the Sephirot, we are speaking of the Tree of Life. I'm not going to go too deep into it, because some knowledge is concealed for a reason, but I can give a brief outline. The "Tree of Life" according to lore, was said to be a body of knowledge given by the angels to Adam as he left the Garden. It was believed that without this knowledge, he and he family would surely die out.

The Tree of Life, does contain 10 points, or Sephirot, which are seen as emanations from the source of all things, Kether, ("Crown") down to Malkuth ("Manifestation").. the Tree is also said to exist in at least 4 different planes, and can be used as a metaphor, or a tool for understanding those things too large or small to be comprehended in the usual way. It all gets very complicated, much more so than I care to go here.

The point is, in Kabbalah, every thing still has a singular source. One, not three. Yes, those ten points are organized into three columns. But when Kabbalists speak of these together, it is in the form of Father/Mother/Child.. now most Christians would wholly reject the concept of an Earth Mother or any other form of feminine godhead.

As to G-d coming to Earth in the form of a man.. It really blows my mind how clearly and in minute details G-d could foresee the future heresies that would befall His people.

Think about this for a minute... what was the most common name by which Jesus called Himself? Without question, it would have to be the "Son of Man" right ?

Now read Num 23:19

It's really pretty clear, and no amount of apologetics can really undo what G-d's Word says so clearly. G-d alone is G-d. He has no peer. Jesus worshipped one G-d alone, and so should we, if we endeavor to follow Him.

Actually Jesus made it very clear that He is Jehovah.

Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (KJV)

John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (NKJV)

What does that mean? ..Well we can conclude that Jesus IS the Great I AM.
How important is that? Do we NEED to know Jesus is God ? Answer: Very important, and yes.. Yes we do.

John 8:24 - Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins. (NKJV) EGO EIMI

Jesus is the I AM mentioned in Exodus and Isaiah.

Seriously think about it for a minute.. Why would Thomas in John 20:28 cry out.. mou Kurios kai mou Theos to Jesus and worship Him... Why would a monotheistic Jew who says Shama Yisrael Yehovah elohym Yehovah echad every morning call Jesus God?

Originally Posted by Definition_Christ

The word is echad. The range of meaning found in echad contains a clear and unmistakable sense of complex unity.

One example is found in Genesis 2:24. There, when two persons (a man and a woman) marry, they become "one flesh" (basar echad).

I read this and I am not able to finish reading the rest, because I suddenly have a strong urge to log onto youtube and listen to this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XORUkiVHeZg

hmm. haven't listened to that song in a while. I still need to learn the pronunciation of the rest of the verses.

Originally Posted by lil-rush

I read this and I am not able to finish reading the rest, because I suddenly have a strong urge to log onto youtube and listen to this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XORUkiVHeZg

hmm. haven't listened to that song in a while. I still need to learn the pronunciation of the rest of the verses.

Haha, nice song I'll check it out.