The Trinitarian Misconception of Echad.

None of my  postings on this  blog are meant to do anything, but to evoke thought and discussion for Trinitarians and Oneness adherents. I do not ever use the blog to make a thesis statement  set in stone of any particular doctrinal issue. I use it as a sounding board for myself and for others who read it. Lately I been discussing the Trinitarian's usage  or misuse of the Hebrew word Echad. The word echad  is the word for one in the Hebrew scriptures used 967 times. Trinitarians whom I have encountered on debate groups on Facebook and Youtube like to argue rigidly, that one only means a unity of one and not a an absolute one. This narrow view would absolutely contradict scriptural teaching for the word and especially in Malachi 2:10. Malachi 2:10 uses the word Echad 2 times once for the word Father and another for the word God. The Trinitarian's are being inconsistent in my opinion and I welcome anyone in the comments to tell me I am wrong? But if  Echad is a oneness of unity only for God in Malachi 2:10 then to be consistent it would have to be a unity of One in relation to the Father in the passage also. Who are the other Father's in the passage? We know already that they believe there are other person of God to maintain their view that one is a unity of God persons, but what about the one for the word Father?

I contend that yes there are gods many, but Only one absolute true God. There are  also father's many, but only one absolute true Father our God. That is the reason for the usage of the compound unity and it has nothing to do with God being a unity of God persons. I do not mean for this to be exhaustive whatsoever because I also do not like to telegraph all of my arguments when discussing these issues with Trinitarian's but would love to hear in the comments of other ideas.

                                          Modalism

Modalism what is it? We should ask ourselves that question often, especially in light of the fact being, that Trinitarian's are more Modalist than any Modalist.

I know there are Trinitarian readers (possibly) scratching their heads think the writer has lost all of his respective marbles. Maybe not, stay with me for just a moment?
Trinitarian's have a weird eternal role playing game of Father and Son throughout all eternity, where one person of God plays the role of the Father, and yet the other eternal person plays the role of the son. 

There is no real "progeny where a child has any parent in the sense of the word." The definition of progeny says the following:"The organism or organisms resulting from sexual or asexual reproduction. b. A child or children of a parent "(thefreedictionary.com/progeny). The Father and Son of the Trinity are in name only and are on equal footing as divine persons so that the roles could be switched up and nobody be the wiser.

The next time trinitarian's want argue over "Modalism," I think it is high time we give them the sobering fact/facts of the matter and show them that they are more Modalist than we Oneness ever thought about being.