Does the Hebrew Word for "One" mean "Three"? - Sir Anthony Buzzard & J. Dan Gill

[@wirebrushproductions1001]

People have been arguing the doctrine of the Trinity for at least 500 years. But there is never an end to the supply of new, self-assured scholars who think that they can win the argument.

[@standupstathentes6842]

At least the last 500 years.... why at least 500 and not the last 2000? God bless you!

[@wirebrushproductions1001]

@@standupstathentes6842 Arguably it goes back at least to the 6th century AD with the Athanasian Creed and the Fourth Lateran Council. But I picked 500 years as a useful starting point because that is when the printing press was invented, and doctrines such as the Trinity could be spread in a uniform way over many people.

[@SoftBreadSoft]

​@@wirebrushproductions1001It goes back to 70AD when roman philosophers started saying Jesus was divine. The trinity shows up some 30 years later.

[@neweyz3396]

Thank you Both Pastor J. Dan Gill & Anthony , that was marvellous! Blessings to you ! ❤😊

[@c434567557]

Never heard this weird argument before

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

: Seriously ? The web is full of trinitarians who have been misled by the fraudulent use of echad.

[@juniormonteiro6323]

Thank you!

[@bosse641]

BUT, 1 chair has 4 legs! .....so 1 means 4! Such a mess in the Triune camp.

[@stephenbermingham6554]

I have 3 legs so I been told but only 1 of me.

[@hughb5092]

The concept of the trinity is so ridiculous I eventually deconverted from Christianity. Jewish scholars have easily refuted this doctrine, it’s their language and their OT.

[@Captain_Camo]

What is an integer?

[@IsJesusGod.]

Good man Sir Anthony.

[@logicalfallacies3352]

"God is One." Amen. Yes. And Hallelujah! But now answer me this, "One what?" Essence or substance is the only acceptable and Biblical answer. And if that is the Truth (and it is), there is no contradiction with multiple persons of a Triune God being of the same essence.

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

Perhaps you care to share with us where in the Bible it says God is one essence but three 'persons'. I share the same essence as you. But we are totally different individuals/beings/ entities. Indeed, I amy have existed lomg before you came into existence or vice versa. 'Essence' and 'substance' are the language of Greek philosophy and not the language of scripture. This shows the origin of such theology, coming from those eaerly theologians steeped in platonism.

[@standupstathentes6842]

@@JosephSmith-ph4xr peace to you. I don't think we are the same essence. We are the same nature, namely human. No?

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

@@standupstathentes6842 : I think you should read up in your Church History, especially how the understanding of certain words changed not only over time, but between East and West. Then again, you could just stick to what the scriptures say and ignore all this pagan platonic language.

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

970 times? Echad means one or single. I just wish that those Trinitarain apologists who use the compound unity nonsense to argue that you can have a three in one God would watch this little video clip.

[@IanTanLK]

Two shall become echad. Are they still two or one?

[@RalphHumphries-th1ym]

It's funny video that came up a day ago between a so called person who was arguing with a trinitarian but called himself a biblical Unitarian and it was a disaster but funny thing to hear that about it, One means One not 1+1+1=1 and Jesus being God Almighty walking on water, oneness and binitairian, no one has to keep trying to make Jesus something else than the son of God and not God the son

[@abdulalimomar6116]

Jesus was born, and how about the Holy Spirit's existence? What did Moses call the Holy Spirit.

[@AlanHales-k6i]

21st Century reformation, there you go AGAIN, twisting the trinity and the Biblical Greek. The Hebrew and Greek words have different meanings, and you have to put the right meaning to the right meaning, but because you are unsaved antichrist, you dont have the Holy Spirit of truth in you to reveal the Biblical truths. Please keeping Duet 6: 4 in its right side. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, (Elohim plural) is One, (Echad plural). In this scripture, Echad means more than one person in the One God. Why would God contradict Himself by saying He is Elohim plural, then say there's only one God in the Godhead. Why don't you believe the Bible and the Biblical Hebrew and Greek, which clearly teaches the trinity.

[@JudeOne3Four]

Biblical Hebrew? NO such thing. You're so called hebrew was INVENTED by the Pharisees after four FAILED attempts. The Jews spoke Greek for hundreds of years and that's why we've got the Septuagint from 285 BC, no go figure!!! The Pharisees got you ignorant people arguing about (what they call) a MAGICAL language. I bet you don't know that ALL the names fo your false god COME from the Kabbalah tree of life? You blind guides are believing and spreading Jewish mysticism. Didn't Jesus warn you about the Pharisees? Yes, He did!!! Secondly. there is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical concept (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father! Can you prove me wrong from the Scriptures?

[@eddieyoung2104]

In Deuteronomy 6:4 Elohim is plural, but Echad is singular. That's in the Hebrew, which can easily be examined by reading the verse on Blue Letter Bible or something similar. The fact that 'Elohim' is a plural word doesn't make any difference to the verse. For example, when Moses is called an 'Elohim' in Exodus 7:1, that's plural as well. So, for the sake of consistency, you'd have to insist that Moses was plural too, which of course we know he wasn't.

[@AlanHales-k6i]

@eddieyoung2104 Echad can be singular, and it can be plural, and you have to know what context and scripture it's either singular or plural, (Which you don't know). Because in Deut 6: 4. Echad is plural, why would God say He is Elohim plural, then say He is singular?? Do wake up. The Bible does use Echad in the plural in some scriptures. You oneness people make things up, things that oppose the Bible.

[@JudeOne3Four]

@@AlanHales-k6i No such thing in Scripture. This is what the "rabbi's" call >> The Judaization of Christianity. You people are doing a great job promoting their mystical gibberish! Didn't Jesus warn you against the Pharisees? Yes, He did!! All of the names of your so called god come from the Kabbalah tree of life. This has nothing to do with the Scriptures but it has everything to do with the Kabbalah. All of you need to wake up!! One means one in every language you can imagine. EXCEPT in LalaLand 🤡

[@eddieyoung2104]

@@AlanHales-k6i In Hebrew it's quite acceptable to have a plural word like 'Elohim' used in a singular sense. It's called the plural of majesty, where something majestic is given a plural form to denote its greatness in comparison to others. The Jews know about this, because they're quite familiar with 'Elohim', yet don't believe that God is more than one person. The plural of majesty is a better explanation as to why we have plural 'Elohim' used along with singular adjectives, and singular verbs. In Hebrew the adjective and verb will agree with the noun. For example, if we have a singular noun, then the accompanying verbs and adjectives will also be singular. So, if 'Elohim' was meant to denote a proper plural, then we would find plural adjectives and verbs going with it. This can be demonstrated with the following two examples. Exodus 32:4 '...These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up...' 'Elohim' is plural, and the related verb 'brought' is also plural, because it's talking about plural gods who had brought them. Deut 5:15 '...the LORD thy God brought thee out...' Here the word 'brought' is singular, because it's the singular LORD God doing the bringing. By the way, I'm not a Oneness person, and neither is this channel Oneness. Oneness is Modalism, and this channel is putting forward the Biblical Unitarian position. Which is, that there is one God, who is the Father. And this one God has a son, Jesus Christ, who began his existence as a mortal man, and was made immortal by his father.

[@bosse641]

1 means 1. ....simple.

[@Nemes1sEn4cer]

I even I

[@kingoftheearth2149]

Is one King of Jerusalem. But many have held the title. The title stands alone but the ones who was are. The few who was King of Jerusalem was King of Jerusalem. But is only one title of King of Jerusalem. Understand? One title many parts ...

[@coventrypunx1014]

Does the Islam word for tolerance mean tyranny?

[@MakaiJohnkenneth]

While i dint acceot the trinity doctrine ss from bible You are also failing to see that one entnty can have more than one lime One tean of volley nut has deven Peorpke The Sun is one but gives lite amd heat but its one sun. Heat is not light and conversely Them water in three states

[@vetajoshua]

I in a plural form according to English! Ex: 'I' ain't doing what they expect.

[@Captain_Camo]

John 10:30-38

[@jamesrougeau]

Ahh...Excellent. Amen.

[@sukruoosten]

there are MANY gods en many called god like moses satan jesus judges angels money en MANY MORE called god. BUT NO ONE EVERRRRRRRRRRRR is called THE ALL POWERFULL ETERNAL ONE which is YAH ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHEMA is the GREATEST MOST IMPORTANT LAW OF ALL LAWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Captain_Camo]

John 1:1

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

Jesus is not mentioned in this verse. But if we assume that Jesus is the word in the verse, who then is the God he is with?

[@sukruoosten]

1 LORD GOD en 1 lord mediator timothy 2,5 john 17,3 saying TEH FATHER ALONE IS GODS thus says the lord christ the sinless exalted perfect son of man who is ABOVE ALL en not a mere angel ore simpel man. but he sits next to HIS GOD en not on the throne

[@alanhales6369]

21st century reformation how did Anthony Buzzard get to be a "Sir", when he hasn't got the mental and spiritual ability to understand the Bible and the Biblical Hebrew Echad in Duet 6: 4 is a Plural meaning. Hear O Israel the Lord our God, (Elohim Plural) is One, (Echad Plural). What's so difficult to understand that?? Echad can be singular or Plural, and you have to put the right meaning to the right scriptures, (which Anthony Buzzard knows nothing about). Why would God say He is Elohim Plural, then contradict Himself by saying that is one? 21st century reformation people aren't saved, as the Bible says about those who deny the trinity.

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

Some words are single and plural words in the English language e.g, 'fish'. How do we know if we are talking about one fish or a plurality of fish? The verbs and pronouns! And I wonder why there are thousands of singular personal pronouns associated with 'God' in the Bible. And all those singular verbs. I guess all those scholars and translators are as mentally deficient as Anthony Buzzard.

[@davidwenger9821]

Christian is another Greco Roman term

[@sukruoosten]

there is no god BESIDES GOD YAH ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ONLY CREATOR who needs nothing en nobody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAH/YHWH ALONE IS MASTER GOD en not allah/budda/shiva/ganesh/myth idol gods evoltion/science en ALSO CERTAINLY NOT YAHSUA/CHRIST

[@davidwenger9821]

Trinity theology comes from the Pauline Gospel yet you still support Paul. Yeshua is Yah is from the Pauline Gospel yet you still support Paul. I can't wrap my head around your theology. Yah is one and therefore Pauline Gospel is false, or you are just talking from both sides of your mouth.

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

What? Throughout his writings, Paul differentiates Jesus from Yahweh. Just look at the introductions in all his letters. He even says one is the God of the other. (2 Cor 1 :3; Eph 1 :3)

[@Mike-p9n]

6 bible text proves trinity is a lie to every one you find

[@MrGdad1998]

Ok, then. Should I presume then, that you are prepared to *establish the meaning* of each of these texts and not change the subject until we have answered one another point-by-point?

[@JudeOne3Four]

@@MrGdad1998 “The *doctrines* of the Logos [i.e., the “Word,” a designation for Christ in John 1] *and the Trinity* received their shape from *Greek Fathers,* who . . . were MUCH influenced, *directly or indirectly,* by the PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY . . . *That errors and corruptions crept into the Church* from *this source* CAN NOT BE DENIED” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91) OW YES, THE PAGANS WILL DENY IT!!

[@MrGdad1998]

@@JudeOne3Four “Influenced” is the operative word here. Your careless misreading of Schaff-Herzog’s Encyclopedia was heavily “influenced” by your anti-theological bias, which is a common fallacy committed by Unitarians. The moment they find something that _appears_ to support their position they put on the brakes and blinders and turn off their thinking. If you want to stand by your comments, then you must accept Karl Burger’s complete assessment of the so-called “church fathers,” in the encyclopedia, since it was Burger who wrote this, not Schaff or Herzog. So, let’s get that much straight. The real “church fathers” are the apostles, not the mixed multitude of Arians, Trinitarians and Universalists in that part of the world at the time. What do I mean by this? Namely, there is at one particular doctrine which both you and Origen have in common, and it is one which you hold near and dear to your heart. This one was also “…much influenced, directly or indirectly, by Platonic philosophy.” Origen held that Jesus was a “second G/god.” Sound familiar? (_Contra Celsus_, Book XLI, Ch. XXXIX, p. 561). Therefore, by your own criteria: i.e. “corruptions crept into the Church from this source CAN NOT BE DENIED” this applies to your view of Jesus being a god, thereby condemning yourself; i.e. *your view of Jesus is also derived from pagan sources.* Your shoddy copy and paste internet scholarship springs from your antitheological bias, which in turn causes you to display arrogant, pagan conduct. Repent and believe the true gospel of Christ.

[@MrGdad1998]

@@JudeOne3Four “Influenced” is the operative word here. Your careless mis-reading of Schaff-Herzog’s Encyclopedia was heavily “influenced” by your anti-theological bias, which is a common fallacy committed by Unitarians. The moment they find something that _appears_ to support their position they put on the brakes and blinders and turn off their thinking. If you want to stand by your comments, then you must accept Karl Burger’s complete assessment of the so-called “church fathers,” in the encyclopedia, since it was Burger who wrote this, not Schaff or Herzog. So, let’s get that much straight. The real “church fathers” are the apostles, not the mixed-multitude of Arians, Trinitarians and Universalists in that part of the world at the time. What do I mean by this? Namely, there is at one particular doctrine which both you and Origen have in common, and it is one which you hold near and dear to your heart. This one was also “…much influenced, directly or indirectly, by Platonic philosophy.” Origen held that Jesus was a “second G/god.” Sound familiar? (_Contra Celsus_, Book XLI, Ch. XXXIX, p. 561). Therefore, by your own criteria; i.e. “corruptions crept into the Church from this source CAN NOT BE DENIED” applies to your view of Jesus being a god, thereby condemning yourself. Therefore, your view of Jesus is also derived from pagan sources. Your shoddy internet scholarship springs from your antitheological bias, which in turn causes you to display arrogant, pagan conduct.

[@accordingtothescriptures3470]

@@JudeOne3FourThis is MrGdad with my other username. I posted my response to you hours ago, but evidently, the hosts blocked me. What cowards. Here is my response. “Influenced” is the operative word here. Your careless mis-reading of Schaff-Herzog’s Encyclopedia was heavily “influenced” by your anti-theological bias, which is a common fallacy committed by Unitarians. The moment they find something that _appears_ to support their position they put on the brakes and blinders and turn off their thinking. If you want to stand by your comments, then you must accept Karl Burger’s complete assessment of the so-called “church fathers,” in the encyclopedia, since it was Burger who wrote this, not Schaff or Herzog. So, let’s get that much straight. The real “church fathers” are the apostles, not the mixed-multitude of Arians, Trinitarians and Universalists in that part of the world at the time. What do I mean by this? Namely, there is at one particular doctrine which both you and Origen have in common, and it is one which you hold near and dear to your heart. This one was also “…much influenced, directly or indirectly, by Platonic philosophy.” Origen held that Jesus was a “second G/god.” Sound familiar? (_Contra Celsus_, Book XLI, Ch. XXXIX, p. 561). Therefore, by your own criteria; i.e. “corruptions crept into the Church from this source CAN NOT BE DENIED” applies to your view of Jesus being a god, thereby condemning yourself. Therefore, your view of Jesus is also derived from pagan sources. Your shoddy internet scholarship springs from your antitheological bias, which in turn causes you to display arrogant, pagan conduct.