Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

[Fenris]

These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)

Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.

[shepherdsword]

These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)

Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.

[Fenris]

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

"Echad" means the same thing in English as it does in Hebrew: "One".

Or are you arguing that the word "one" in English means "unity of of plurity"?

[Athanasius]

These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)

Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.

"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".

When saying "These three are one", what are you suggesting is plural? I've sort of skipped over your suggestion that any one person of the Godhead could have "fulfilled the role" of the Father. That's an interesting choice of words. Are you suggesting that the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are roles and not persons?

[Fenris]

"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".

This is usually a Christian Apologetic for Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one". "Oh but Gen 2:24 says a man and his wife become one flesh, so "Echad" doesn't mean one, it means "a compound unity" and Det 6:4 means the trinity". Something like that.

[shepherdsword]

"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".

This is usually a Christian Apologetic for Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one". "Oh but Gen 2:24 says a man and his wife become one flesh, so "Echad" doesn't mean one, it means "a compound unity" and Det 6:4 means the trinity". Something like that.

yeah, that's my typical defense too. In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers? (from the Tanakh)

[Fenris]

yeah, that's my typical defense too.

Well, that isn't what the word means.

In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers?

No, I haven't. Because there's no such Jewish doctrine.

[shepherdsword]

yeah, that's my typical defense too.

Well, that isn't what the word means.
It's how it is used in Gen 2:24

In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers?

No, I haven't. Because there's no such Jewish doctrine.

Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ. Watch the video I posted for a surface view. You can then dig deeper into Heiser's 8 hour video on the subject.

[Fenris]

Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ.

The whole idea that Jews prior to the Pharisees were some sort of proto Christians and they were somehow "deceived by the rabbis" is just silly and not supported by any biblical texts, including the Christian bible.

The Jews were a highly literate society even during the first temple era. You're comparing them to Christians in the medieval era, who could be led astray by Catholic priests because the priests were the only ones who could read the bible. That didn't apply to Jews, and probably never did. Judaism is a religion of deeds, not faith, and only biblically literate individuals could know what God expected and how to carry that out.

Christianity was a new way of looking at the bible. This is why it did not attract many Jewish followers, who could already read the bible and had a tradition on how it was understood going back to Sinai. That you think Jews were somehow duped "by the rabbis" who, after Jesus appeared on the scene, changed what everything meant, is just silly.