God is now two in essence, not one?

[_Paidion]

So, you say that when Jesus quoted the shema, he was thinking of 'neither of a "deitific nature" or "a person", but "two persons" ---- He and the Father in perfect unity.

But you agree that the scribe thought that Jesus was speaking about the Father only as being the subject of the shema.

If this be the case, why did Jesus consider him to have answered "wisely" and why did he commend him for his comprehension of his words? Would this not be confusing and misleading if - as you say - the scribe had misinterpreted Jesus' words?

The answer lies in the text itself:

And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." Mark 12:32-34

The scribe's "wise" answer is found in the bolded words, and not in the fact that he thought Yahweh was a single individual (as did all the scribes and pharisees of the time).

Consider the rest of Jesus' reply to the scribe. "You are not far from the kingdom of God." Which do you think indicates that the scribe was not far from the kingdom of God? ----- the fact that he said that to love God completely, and one's neighbour as oneself is much more that the totality of burnt offerings and sacrifices? ----- or the fact that the scribe thought that Yahweh was a single individual?

[Guest]

Which do you think indicates that the scribe was not far from the kingdom of God? ----- the fact that he said that to love God completely, and one's neighbour as oneself is much more that the totality of burnt offerings and sacrifices? ----- or the fact that the scribe thought that Yahweh was a single individual?

Hey Paidion,

That's a false dilemma, it's not an either/or. There is no exegetical reason to chop up the scribe's answer into the wise annd unwise. Jesus believed that he had answered wisely. This indicates that everything that the scribe's whole answer was wise.

There is even evidence from the immediate context that Jesus affirmed the scribe's conception of who Yahweh is. Consider what Jesus had just been saying immediately beforehand to the Saducees (from Luke 20):

But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called "the Lord" ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” Then some of the scribes answered and said, “Teacher, You have spoken well.”

Notice, Jesus said that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Lord, not "me." Also, notice, "He is" (not "I am") the God of the living and all live to "Him" (not "to me"). We then read (in Mark):

"Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that he had answered them well"

The scribe affirmed everything that Jesus had just said. He had heard Jesus speaking of the God of the patriarchs as a He and a Him. The Him and He that the scribe was referring to is the same He and Him that Jesus had been refering to (i.e. The LORD our God/ the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). It is on this shared understanding that the two of then discuss the shema and it is on this foundation that they are able to speak of loving this God.

[Guest]

Notice, Jesus said that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Lord, not "me." Also, notice, "He is" (not "I am") the God of the living and all live to "Him" (not "to me"). We then read (in Mark):


I don't see where Jesus excludes himself but affirms that what the scribe said is true. And trinitarians and bitarians would not disagree they simply don't equate the definition of "one" to God as it is applicable to humans who have physical limitations.

[_Paidion]

Jesus believed that he had answered wisely. This indicates that everything that the scribe's whole answer was wise.

What justification do you have for believing that "This indicates that everything that the scribe's whole answer was wise"?

Have you not noticed a person will often commend another positively, for what the other said, even if they disagree with part of it? I think this has happened a number of times in this forum.

There is even evidence from the immediate context that Jesus affirmed the scribe's conception of who Yahweh is. Consider what Jesus had just been saying immediately beforehand to the Saducees (from Luke 20):

But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called "the Lord" ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” Then some of the scribes answered and said, “Teacher, You have spoken well.”

I'm not exactly sure that it is "the immediate context." I know it's a parallel passage to the one in Mark, but it seems to be lacking the part about the oneness of Yahweh.

The fact that our Lord refers to His Father as "Yahweh" and also as "the God" gives me no problem whatever. I have pointed out in my previous posts that the Father is often the referent of both terms. While both the Father and the Son are called "Yahweh" in Gen 19:24, I have never tried to argue that every time the word is used, it must refer to them both. Often it refers to the Father alone ---- as does the term "God". Yet both terms also refer to the Son, but "God" does not refer to the Son when it is prefixed by the definite article "ho" and has no other modifier.

[Guest]

Hmm,

To be honest, I think I've made my point. I raised this text to show that this understanding of God's oneness as referring to the existence of only one deitific nature cannot make sense of a whole multutude of scriptures. The conversation between Jesus and the scribe is just one such example. The way you are interpreting the passage is in my opinion, not exegesis.

[Guest]

To be honest, I think I've made my point. I raised this text to show that this understanding of God's oneness as referring to the existence of only one deitific


And IMO there are many verses particularly in John that strongly suggest the diety of Christ.
If Christ were just a man his blood could not cover the sins of humanity, it would not be precious or unique enough and it would violate the OT law that one man could pay for another's sins.
If Christ were just a creation his sacrifice would not be precious enough because another Christ could just be created to replace him. Every creation is replacable, Christ is not.
God's oneness in the OT was demonstrated several different times to be not limited to a physical body.
God's creation is limited to one physical body per being, God is greater then his creation in every aspect including this.