Shema and Trinity in Christian Doctrine.

The Oneness of God is the cornerstone Abrahamic religion.  In the core of Jewish prayer,   Shema calls the humanity to listen to and obey God alone, in the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel:

Nothing in Jewish life is more hallowed than the saying of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” All over the world “the people acclaim His Oneness evening and morning, twice every day, and with tender affection recite the
Shema”... The voice that calls: “Hear, He is One,” is recalled, revived. It is the climax of devotion at the close of the Day of Atonement. It is the last word to come from the lips of the dying Jew and from the lips of those who are present at that moment.1

In the early Christianity, before the takeover of the misleading  doctrine  trinity, the Shema was also the centerpiece of  the New Testament. For instance, in  Mark 12: 28-34, the earliest of gospels one reads:

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

This is, of course,  a clear statement of the unity of God that should  put any self-respecting  trinitarian into shame.  However, we see in the subsequent gospels although  this message is watered down somewhat nevertheless is still markedly  detectable. In Luke 10:25-27  we  read:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”. And He said to him, "What has been written in the Law? How do you read it?" He answered, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;" and "your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” 

 In Matthew, 22:36, we see that it is god the father who knows everything.

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only. 

Clearly, some manuscripts in later periods dropped "the son"  in the above text, in order to render the forgery of trinity more realistic.  However, Paul and other writers including John, who in his gospel tries to exaggerate the narrative of Jesus’ life, realize that  the Shema is the main pillar of Christianity.

Triads of divinities, in many  polytheistic religions, however, was part of the background information that was used as a filter to interpret  the massage of Christianity. The Egyptian triad of Osiris. Isis and Horus, symbolizing father, mother and son,was one of the main influences, because of Egypt's  geographical proximity,  and the broad similarity of the narrative of god-the-father, Jesus, and Mary to that triad.  Of course, the triad of Jesus ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection  could also be mapped into the Hindu myth of Brahma's creation of the world, Vishnu's preservation of it, and Shiva's role is to destroy it in order to re-create. Beyond these triads, there has been the  superstisus   
. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e.g. Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo’s neo-Stoical doctrine of the “powers,” especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham’s three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of “threeness,” and beyond their “threeness” these triads have nothing in common with it.

In a 1947 study, C. K. Barrett makes the intriguing suggestion that John takes the theme of God’s oneness, along with the command to love God and neighbor, and develops them into the movement at the very heart of the Fourth Gospel, weaving these themes throughout the narrative.5 Joel Marcus takes note of Barrett’s  article and observes that in both Mark and John, tensions between Jesus and Jewish authorities seem to reflect late first-century conflicts in which Christians are accused of blasphemy for their claims about Jesus. 6 The present study combines the observations of both Marcus and Barrett in an effort to demonstrate that (1) themes of the Shema are presented in a novel way in John’s Gospel, and (2) these Johannine innovations have resulted from a bitter conflict
between believers in Jesus in the late first century and non-Christian Jews, a conflict over Jesus’ identity that is expressed through a novel interpretation of one of the most sacred Jewish texts. John’s use of the Shema provides a lens through which the reader is able to witness the painful process of self-definition and separation of two groups: the Johannine community and the larger community of Jews to which its members once belonged.

To support their claim that there are multiple persons within the godhead, evangelicals insist that the Hebrew word אֶחָד, (echad), meaning “one” at the end of Deuteronomy 6:4 does not mean an absolute one. Rather, they argue, this verse can only signify a “compound unity,” or many things in one. They will often cite two verses to support this assertion.

1. Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one אֶחָד, (echad)cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs. (Numbers 13:23) 
2.  And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one (אֶחָד, echad) day. (Genesis 1:5)

From these verses, they insist, it is clear that the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad) can only mean a fusion of a number of things into one. Their sophistry is immediately clear for anybody who is familiar with the elementary rules of logic. It is well understood  that the understanding of the grouping of nouns in noun class systems hints at a universal cognitive basis, which underlies such linguistic classifications. Typology in the sense of analyzing a variety of language structures is a source of establishing linguistic universals.  

Some variation in noun classes has been ascribed cultural variation. Some linguists also prefer cultural explanations to cognitive theories that are set out to explain the semantic bases of noun class systems.Noun class systems are known to distinguish their inflectional classes according to semantic distinctions, e.g. along the lines of animacy (incl. human/non-human) vs. artifact, various shapes and spatial configurations. The semantic organization does not happen at random. 

In classifier systems, ANIMACY can subdivide into human/non-human, person/non-person, and HUMAN can of course subdivide further into sex (masculine and feminine), but also be classified according to social status, function and age, and kinship relationship. In addition, the notion of animacy plays an important part in the syntax and morphology of many languages. Inanimate objects on the other hand, are   classified according to (a non-exhaustive list of) nine different properties (which are again subdivided). These may be summarised into i. Other INHERENT NATURE or TIME-STABLE PROPERTIES: plants, houses, canoes,  and ii.  FUNCTION: what use an object is put to or what type of action is performed on them (cutting, piercing, harvesting). Example: can be eaten, drunk; can be planted, domesticated; transport, clothing, housing may have separate classifiers.

Animacy distinctions, distinctions between human and animal, and categories of food, plants, and tools are directly reflected in present-day human grammars.  The evolutionary pressures in ancient human history made us respond to animal and plant life, and to relate to and use tools for our survival. It is easy to imagine that such categories were not only important to discern and understand the surroundings, but also essential in singling out these things for reference in communication with others. However, although such semantic fields lump together in noun class systems, it is more often the case that there is no one-to-one match between the categories of the mind not determined by language and the categories of grammar. First, grammars may draw both finer and coarser distinctions. For example, ‘human’ may be further subdivided into masculine and feminine, black and white, etc.

Evangelical Christians will never offer biblical examples where the word echad  refers to  non-classifiable “unity.” For example, the Torah states,

עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת:  לֹא יוּמַת, עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד

At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one (אֶחָד) witness he shall not be put to death.

(Deuteronomy 17:6)

לא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ, לְכָל-עָו‍ֹן וּלְכָל-חַטָּאת, בְּכָל-חֵטְא, אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא:  עַל-פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אוֹ עַל-פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה-עֵדִים–יָקוּם דָּבָר.

One (אֶחָד) witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

(Deuteronomy 19:15)

יֵשׁ אֶחָד וְאֵין שֵׁנִי גַּם בֵּן וָאָח אֵין לוֹ, וְאֵין קֵץ לְכָל עֲמָלוֹ גַּם עיניו (עֵינוֹ), לֹא תִשְׂבַּע עֹשֶׁר; וּלְמִי אֲנִי עָמֵל, וּמְחַסֵּר אֶת נַפְשִׁי מִטּוֹבָה  גַּם זֶה הֶבֶל וְעִנְיַן רָע, הוּא.

There is one (אֶחָד) alone, without a companion; yes he has neither son nor brother…

(Ecclesiastes 4:8)

כֻּלָּנוּ, בְּנֵי אִישׁ אֶחָד נָחְנוּ; כֵּנִים אֲנַחְנוּ, לֹא הָיוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִים.

“We are all one (אֶחָד) man’s sons; we are upright men, thy servants are no spies.”

(Genesis 42:11)

וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוָה אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיָּמָת, כֹּל מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם; וּמִמִּקְנֵה בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא מֵת אֶחָד

The next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one (אֶחָד) animal belonging to the Israelites died.

(Exodus 9:6)

שְׁלַח לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו, תִּשְׁלָחוּ כֹּל, נָשִׂיא בָהֶם

 “Send men to scout the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelite people; send one (אֶחָד) man from each of their ancestral tribes, each one (אֶחָד) a leader among them.”

(Numbers 13:2)

In the above verses the exact same Hebrew wordאֶחָד is used, and clearly the word (echad) is referring to  a non classifiable unity, not a one related to a noun  class .

Poor Mr James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

I wonder if you have seen any video of debates by Mr White. He has probably taken some communication course which he apples its techniques quite mechanistically. It is rather similar to the way Senator Marco Rubio delivered his artificial-sounding oratory, forged command of policy and flimsy unflappability in the presidential debates, which Governor Chris Christie so effectively confronted and destroyed by calling the senator nothing more than a programmed deliverer of polished-sounding lines. Mr White technique consists of making a disgusted face gesture, accusing his debaters of engaging in "scholarly game of semantics". He often mischaracterizes a legitimately posed argument as being “intellectually inconsistent” and lamenting that it is taken from liberal biblical scholars or atheists. Instead of focusing on a question he spends a lot of time trying to point out that it is inconsistent to try to use liberal scholarship like those of EP Sanders, Rudolf Bultmann, or Raymond Brown to try to make supernatural claims. Of course, in his own debate with Catholics like with Robert Sungenis, and Fr. Peter Stravinskas he freely quotes liberal scholars. He usually deceptively misrepresents the position of his opponent as Dave Hunt writes to him:

"The readers of your “open letter” would think that I had relied solely upon him (Ruckman) – a gross misrepresentation. I merely cited him as one of many who so labeled Augustine. In the very same sentence I quote Philip Schaff (...) I quote numerous others to the same effect – W.H.C. Frend (...) and Frederic W. Farrar (...) I quote from the Pope’s special remembrance of Augustine (...) I quote others, from Sir Robert Anderson to Warfield (...) And you say that “the source” of my information is Ruckman?! You even bring up Gail Riplinger, whom I don’t mention at all.(...) Repeatedly you put words into my mouth, building a straw man easily knocked down, such as the following: “You conclude the section with a paragraph that basically says, ‘Hey, I’ve already refuted this stuff. Don’t sweat this. I know this passage sounds like Calvinism, but trust me, it isn’t.” Those are your words, James, not mine. Is that fair? Why don’t you quote me and let readers come to their own conclusions? "

Virtually in all his debates White continually misrepresents the position of his debaters, and repeatedly falsely accusing them of ad hominem attacks upon himself. As Sonny Hernandez has written:

Several friends and colleagues have warned me not to respond to Mr. White because they feel he craves opportunities to: habitually post comments on his social media accounts to play either victim, mock, or accuse of wrong doing, so he can receive consolation likes, defend his pride, protect his popularity, or to incite his fan-base because he knows that they will bombast anyone that he decries on social media.

This is perhaps why Bart Ehrman writs

"I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin."

White always dismisses the facts, like the the ones in the following video, arguing these people are not Calvinist Christians!

Notice the empty rhetoric  of White against the clear logic of Tassi that argues human freewill (free moral agency) and divine election/predestination appear to be mutually exclusive.  White cannot understand this and thus his  whole argument  is based on irrationally constructed  categories such as "autonomous will," but humans do not have freedom of choice!!. To prove this idiotic theory White uses John 6:44, which says, ‘No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him!!’ White does not understand that this makes the mockery of Jesus Crucifixion to save Christians.   

White's  god is so stupid that calls people to come to Jesus and then condemn them for not doing that because  he himself  made it impossible for us to come to Jesus through predestination.  White cannot see the logic of this argument,  He sometimes states why he believes that human freewill is irreconcilable with sovereign election and divine predestination.and then uses his artificial categories to argue  against it!! 

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

  

As the following debate shows  White's god is a mentally  disturbed  god that although can save all the people he won't and in a bizarre and arbitrary way only choose a few! Those people who are saved  have not done anything special, they are dead in their sins like those that are not being saved. This he calls "Irresistible Grace!". Surely,  a voodoo god of shamanism is more intelligent and more graceful than his god.    In short, White believes in
1. the Shamanistic concept god's sovereignty and decrees a la  Calvin
2. the  Calvin doctrine of the total depravity of man and his enslavement to sin, in which will, according to the New Testament, is now in bondage. We are enslaved to the evil impulses and desires of our hearts. The body, the mind, the will, the spirit—indeed, the whole person—have been infected by the power of sin.
3.  the fascist god has, before the creation of the world, selected a portion of humanity to be saved. This election is irrespective of any foreseen merits or faith. It is only according to the good pleasure of His will.
4.  Jesus on Calvary bore the full punishment due his elect, ensuring their final salvation. He did not die for the non-elect, who are excluded and hopelessly reprobated.
5. this primitive god moves upon the helpless sinner before he has a single thought of responding to the good news. Grace renews the spiritually dead will, imparts a new nature and infallibly draws the sinner to Christ. Regeneration, or the new birth, occurs before belief in Christ. Faith, in fact, is a gift imparted to the sinner, who is entirely passive in this act.

Here is David Hunt's logical rebuttal of Calvinists in two debates:

Notice that White does not understand the concept of "free will". For him human being always decides or choose a path against God!! For him this is the autonomous  will!! He support his beliefs with verses from gospels without reflecting for a moment  on the notion that since these ideas are so absurd then it may be the evidence that those biblical verses are forgery -- and we have so much facts at our disposals that show many of the of the verses in various bools of the bible are fake.  This is why a sovereign God of perfect justice and love permits the entire human race to become totally depraved via original sin!! And this is why did a God of perfect love and justice does not make Jesus the Saviour of the entire human race, and makes him the saviour of only  the elect  few.  

White does not understand that the Jesus of his corrupted bible is a construct of Romans. He alleges  that the author of Qur'an was unaware the biblical Jesus, and is unaware of the fact that Qur'an is talking about the real historical  Jesus of the Jesus Gospel, and not the mythical Jesus forged by Paul, and other Roman pseudo disciples.  He is not aware of Ovid’s story of Perseus who was the son of god and conceived by a virgin, and this is why the second-century   philosopher Celsius thought that the Christians unjustifiably mirrored this Greek hero, child of Zeus, in their depiction  of Jesus.

White is unaware of  the Greek writer Diodorus Siculus who tells the story of an empty tomb of Herakles, a Greek hero who also had a divine conception and an ascension to heaven.    Zeus  adopted  him is god-the-son, which Roman writers of gospels modeled their fake stories based on his narrative.  

White is also unaware of the story of Hercules’ divine conception and his adoption as child of god-the-father, Zeus narrated by the Roman writer Seneca, who was a contemporary of Paul of  the New Testament.  Paul expression of  “adoption to become God’s child” is well known, and   his   metaphor “Son of God” which he attributed to Jesus was exactly  the dictate of his Roman masters.

White uses all sorts of sophistry to explain why Jesus in the New Testament  has never clearly claimed  to be Yahweh.  He refers to  Mark 14:61.  

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ Χριστὸς, the Son of the Blessed ὁ Υἱὸς  τοῦ Εὐλογητοῦ?" And Jesus said, "I am,  Ἐγώ εἰμι , and you will see the Son of Man Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου seated at the right hand of Power, δυνάμεωςa, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

White, adopting a phony dramatized gesture,  acts this part and cries why the high priest tears  his garment? Apparently, he takes this  as the evidence that Jesus was Yahweh!! He is totally unaware of how ridiculous this claim is.  

White is unaware that  in the old Prussian Empire, Martin Kähler (1835-1912) distinguished between the “historical Jesus,”  “real Christ” (“der historische Jesus,” “der wirkliche Christus”) who is the Qur'an's Jesus  and the “geschichtliche,” “biblical,” in other words, “proclaimed Christ” (“der biblische Christus,” “der gepredigte Christus”).  

White does not understand that the first written record of  the New Testament   was written twenty-five years after Jesus’ death, by Paul who had never met him personally (according to Acts 9:11 [cf. Acts 11:25].  He was from the town Tarsus in the region of Cilicia in Asia Minor, today’s Turkey. The Gospel according to Mark,  was written circa 70  AD.,  Luke used Mark  as his source  15 years later and   Matthew  used it close to a century after the Jesus death . The Gospel of John originated independently of the three synoptic gospels, Mark, Luke and Matthew, about two centuries after the death of Jesus. 

White does not understand that  the original  manuscripts of Jesus gospel is lost. Even the original  manuscripts  of the forged New Testament are perished. The surviving small fragments of the forged manuscripts date from the period after 125 AD. and the larger fragments from circa 200  AD. The earliest surviving complete manuscript of the forged New Testament dates from circa 300  AD. No two manuscripts of the forged  New Testament dating from before circa 1454 AD. agree with each other . Numerous mistakes” crept in during the process of copying and translating the forged manuscripts. White wonders why the author of Qur'an does not use these forged documents! 

Finally, white is utterly unaware of the fact that  it was under the auspices of  Emperor Constantine in the fourth century  AD that the  classical ontological Christology using a mixture of  complicated Greco-philosophtical metaphysics and Roman legal terminology with terminologies such as “persona” and  "substantia” that allowed a number of   individuals to share some substance  among themselves while retaining their personalities created the grotesque notion of the  Triune  God, or the   Three-headed-Jesus . White goes into a lengthy and extremely funny explanation of the difference between a being and a person, according to which God like  a chair is a being , but not a person. However sharing the same substance of being, three persons feature different aspects of God-head. It never occurs to him that why non of the three persons are  a female god or a black, or Asiatic god?!!  He never explains why this god is so stupid that cannot find a better way to save people other than violently sacrificing his ow son, which according to White is he himself. 

Is Jesus Christ a loving god?

David Wood has written:

In Islam one of God's 99 name "is al-Waddud, “the Loving.”  God is called al-Waddud twice in the Qur’an. In 11:90, the prophet Shu’aib tells the people of Midian, “Ask pardon, then, from your Lord, then turn to Him; verily, my Lord is merciful, loving!” Likewise, in 85:12-16 we read:

Lo! the punishment of thy Lord is stern. Lo! He it is Who produceth, then reproduceth, and He is the Forgiving, the Loving, Lord of the Throne of Glory, Doer of what He will."

He then tries to show that the God of Islam who is "the most forgiving , the most merciful" as every surah of Qur'an atests, is not genuine in his love and writes other passages in the Qur’an qualify God’s love significantly. According to him while God  "is said to love those who do good deeds (2:195), those who are pure (2:222), those who are righteous (9:7), and those who fight in his cause (61:4)," he maintains that the Qur’an is equally clear that God " has no love for transgressors (2:190), ungrateful sinners (2:276), the unjust (3:57), or the proud (4:36)." and adds  that  it is even more significant that, God    "does not love non-Muslims": 

He criticizes the Qur’an for claiming that God "will love people  once they believe in him and obey his prophet. The god of Islam has no love for sinners and unbelievers."  He adds that, the “Love me first and I’ll love you back” kind of love exhibited by God in the Qur’an is condemned by Jesus in Matthew 5:43-48": 

Apparently David wood is unaware of these passages in bible.

In Deuteronomy 20  for instance we see   Yahweh who according to David Wood and other evangelists is Jesus himself!  instruct thus about war; If a city does not accept Israel’s offer of peace and open its gates, then “when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it” (verse13). 



Matthew 10:34–36  

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν · οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν. ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς,   καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.  And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Recall that when the walls of Jericho came tumbling down,  the Israelites adhering to Jesus of Evangelists' command “destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). In fact according to Joshua 11:20, “For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”  Jesus commands capital punishments, i.e., the death sentences, for people who are sacrificing to a god other than Yahweh (Exodus 22:20), for persistent rebelliousness on the part of a child (Deuteronomy 21:18–21), to a child who hits or curses his or her parents (Exodus 21:15 and 17), working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), premarital sexual intercourse (Deuteronomy 22:13–21), and the requirement for a priest to burn his daughter alive if she became a prostitute (Leviticus 21:9).

 In John 8:44, Jesus calls “the Jews” the “children of the devil.”  While Jews are commonly the target of such name-calling, polytheists are also attacked. For example, Titus 1:12 dismisses the entire population of Crete as “liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”

Matthew 7:23
καὶ τότε ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι Οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς: “ἀποχωρεῖτεἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν. 


Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil! 

Psalm 5:4-5

ότι ουχί θεός θέλων ανομίαν συ ει ουδέ παροικήσει σοι πονηρευόμενος ουδέ διαμενούσι παράνομοι κατέναντι των οφθαλμών σου εμίσησας πάντας τους εργαζομένου ς την ανομίαν

Indeed, you aren't a God who delights in wickedness; evil will never dwell with you. Boastful ones will not stand before you; you hate all those who practice wickedness.

Psalm 11:5

κύριος  εξετάζει τον δίκαιον και τον ασεβή ο δε αγαπών αδικίαν μισεί την εαυτού ψυχήν

The LORD examines the righteous and the wicked. He hates the lover of violence. 

The prophet Amos, who speaks on behalf of Jehovah, who according to David Wood is Jehovah!!", delivers a stinging rebuke to the citizens of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, because of their worship exercises and declares  God (or Jesus) despised their worship facades (Am. 5:21ff; cf. Isa. 1:11ff)