Am what I am:
For Popeye, "am what I am" is an expression of humility. He pointed out that he has only one eye, and has other shortcomings, but, on the other hand, he has many good qualities, as well (honesty, etc).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Am what I am:
For Popeye, "am what I am" is an expression of humility. He pointed out that he has only one eye, and has other shortcomings, but, on the other hand, he has many good qualities, as well (honesty, etc).
Teritos
Active Member
God has different attributes, so it could also refers to an unity.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Or Neerav, PART VI 1
"When they call the Creator, may He be blessed, One, it is in this manner: that the Creator, may He be blessed, [is found] in all things in actuality, while all things are [found] in Him in potential. He is the beginning and cause of all things. In this way they ascribed to the Creator, may He be blessed, unity, without change by addition or subtraction, similar to the [number] one. [They found] also that He is the [necessary] Cause of being, just as [the number] one is necessary for [all] numbers, for no number could be in existence without it. He is not a number. If the one should be eliminated, [all] numbers would be eliminated, [whereas] if the numbers should be eliminated, the one would not be eliminated in their elimination. This is the power of [the divine] unity."
exchemist
Veteran Member
No I'm not asking you about Abraham, I'm asking you about the story of the prostitute.
But actually don't bother. You clearly have no answer, since you keep trying to divert the discussion back to Abraham. And it's off-topic for the thread anyway. But fun while it lasted.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I believe it is better that you do not mix the NT and OT when analysing something like this. One reason is they are two very different languages.
Also I would like to ask you to analyse from the language, and some experts in the language, not apologists for the Christian doctrine.
I have heard from Christians that "If Elohim were exclusively singular, this would read yachid which can only mean one." Yes, Echad does in fact have a compound singularity in it, such as having one synagogue with a hundred people inside." Thats nice apologetics but absolutely bad logic. I can say "one country" and that would mean a 100 million people in it but its still one country. "ONE MAN" is just one man. So one is not a compound one every time, but it would depend on one persons baggage that he is already carrying. If he really really wants to make God more than one, and that's all his faith is, then he would want to make God like a country. One means one country with many people.
But linguistically its absurd. Because when you think of God in this sentence its singular. One.
What apologists do is that they try to conflate the word one of many contexts into one. As in, when the Bible says "The people are one" it is the same saying "God is one". But that's bogus because in this particular sentence or in other places in the Tanakh God is always singular and is never referred to as "people". How could YHWH (Sorry if the mention offends any Jews who are reading this) which is used as a proper name be like a group of people and/or speaks in "ONE" language and thus this one is a compound one? It is a very bad but valiant attempt. Think of the verse Genesis 11:6 where the same word Echad is used. It says "the people are one and the ALL speak one language". DO you see that this verse says "People" and it also says "ALL speak ONE language". Using this type of verses to say this one is a compound one has to be a dishonest attempt because one cannot be so illogical possibly.
I dont think one has to be a language expert to understand this. I am no expert in Hebrew at all. Yet, what I do know is that some people like Daniel Pipes have tried to use the same logic with the arabic word Ahad saying one is "Wahid" but not Ahad. The same logic. When someone is that ignorant, it is most likely that this person is dishonest. I would understand a layman on the internet believing someone and repeating something like that, but educated people in the subject cannot be so daft. Thats impossible.
Equally unreasonable is the suggestion of Michael Brown on Zechariah 11:8, where the prophet speaks of one (echad) month. Brown asks, "What does that tell us about the essential nature of a month? Does it mean that a month does not have thirty days because it is one?" The word "one" modifying "month" is not remotely connected to how many days there are in a month! On Brown's argument the word "one" loses its fixed sense as "one single." And the whole argument is then brought to bear on the central question of monotheism and is used to justify a plurality in the Godhead.
How would the proponents of one as "compound one" explain Nehemiah 11:1: "one (echad) out of ten"? Or Ezra 10:13: "one* (echad) day or two"? "Two are better than one (echad)" (Ecc. 4:9). "If two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one alone[echad] keep warm?" (Ecc. 4:11). "Where a lone [echad] man may be overcome, two together may resist" (Ecc. 4: 12). The rest of the 970 appearances of echad might be cited to make exactly the same point.
Haha. With this kind of logic, the word one is not meaning one because we make sentences like "Year one". But the year has 365 days.
Anyway, its an interesting topic. So that's what I have to say on it.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Teritos
Active Member
Regarding the Prostitute, James refers to the event where Rahab betrayed her own nation and sent them to their death. This is not a good work either, but a work of faith, because Rahab believed that the God of the Israelites is the True God, and for this reason she did so. Through her lie, a genocide was committed. For this reason, her work is far worse than that of Abraham.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It means that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are fully and absolutely united in will and purpose.
Teritos
Active Member
Abraham wanted to kill his own son because he obeyed God. This work justified him.
Rahab betrayed her nation and sent them to their death because she feared God. This work justified her.
Both works were evil. But because they were works of faithfulness, they were justified by them.
Rahab betrayed her nation and sent them to their death because she feared God. This work justified her.
Both works were evil. But because they were works of faithfulness, they were justified by them.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Depends on who you ask some will say 1=3 and some will say 1=1. Logic and rational say 1=1
Crawford
New Member
The Bible also says "God is love". Love implies a subject, the lover and an object the one or ones loved.
Therefore, within Himself, God has both.
I gather that in Hebrew there are two words for "one", Echad and Yaheed.
For example Genesis 3:2 " Therefore a man shall.... be joined to his wife and they shall be one(echad) flesh".
And Genesis 22:2 "take now your son, your only(yaheed) Isaac, whom you love".
So there are two Biblical concepts of one: a compound unity and a simple unity. As far as I can gather most references to God
imply the former. The very first reference to God Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God(Elohim)" , this use of "God" is a plural word. The ending of Elohim is "im" which in hebrew, I believe, indicates plurality. I don't know Hebrew but that seemed to make sense of a lot I read in the Bible.
Last edited:
Sorry, no. Simple hermeneutics doesn’t allow for it. In Deuteronomy 4 we read, “You are the ones who have been shown, so that you will know that God is the Supreme Being, and there is none other besides Him!” and “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other!” and within Deuteronomy 6 itself it reads “You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you!”
JerryMyers
Active Member
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is ONE” - Deuteronomy 6:4
This was repeated word for word by Jesus - “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is ONE Lord” – Mark 12:29
Clearly, in both verses, ONE means the ABSOLUTE ONE and ONLY, not one team of 3 persons because if it is, Jesus would have said so in Mark 12:29, especially when he was supposed to be a key member of that one team, BUT, he DID NOT say so, why ? Because God is NOT a 3-in-1 team but He is the ABSOLUTE ONE and ONLY God.
So, what does ABSOLUTE ONE and ONLY means ? It means,
- The ONE and ONLY GOD has no partners, no equals, and no rivals
- The ONE and ONLY GOD has no father, mother, sons, daughters, or wives
- The ONE and ONLY GOD is worshipped directly without anyone or anything acting as an intermediary
- The ONE and ONLY GOD is not in need of anyone’s worship
- The ONE and ONLY GOD is not answerable to anyone
- The ONE and ONLY GOD is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him
- The ONE and ONLY GOD created everything without any assistance
- There is nothing above or comparable to The ONE and ONLY GOD
- There is nothing that exists except that it is completely subservient to the ONE and ONLY GOD
- No one can withhold what The ONE and ONLY GOD provides and no one can provide what The ONE and ONLY GOD withholds
- The ONE and ONLY GOD alone can benefit or harm anyone HE Wishes
Brian2
Veteran Member
I believe it is better that you do not mix the NT and OT when analysing something like this. One reason is they are two very different languages.
Also I would like to ask you to analyse from the language, and some experts in the language, not apologists for the Christian doctrine.
I have heard from Christians that "If Elohim were exclusively singular, this would read yachid which can only mean one." Yes, Echad does in fact have a compound singularity in it, such as having one synagogue with a hundred people inside." Thats nice apologetics but absolutely bad logic. I can say "one country" and that would mean a 100 million people in it but its still one country. "ONE MAN" is just one man. So one is not a compound one every time, but it would depend on one persons baggage that he is already carrying. If he really really wants to make God more than one, and that's all his faith is, then he would want to make God like a country. One means one country with many people.
But linguistically its absurd. Because when you think of God in this sentence its singular. One.
What apologists do is that they try to conflate the word one of many contexts into one. As in, when the Bible says "The people are one" it is the same saying "God is one". But that's bogus because in this particular sentence or in other places in the Tanakh God is always singular and is never referred to as "people". How could YHWH (Sorry if the mention offends any Jews who are reading this) which is used as a proper name be like a group of people and/or speaks in "ONE" language and thus this one is a compound one? It is a very bad but valiant attempt. Think of the verse Genesis 11:6 where the same word Echad is used. It says "the people are one and the ALL speak one language". DO you see that this verse says "People" and it also says "ALL speak ONE language". Using this type of verses to say this one is a compound one has to be a dishonest attempt because one cannot be so illogical possibly.
I dont think one has to be a language expert to understand this. I am no expert in Hebrew at all. Yet, what I do know is that some people like Daniel Pipes have tried to use the same logic with the arabic word Ahad saying one is "Wahid" but not Ahad. The same logic. When someone is that ignorant, it is most likely that this person is dishonest. I would understand a layman on the internet believing someone and repeating something like that, but educated people in the subject cannot be so daft. Thats impossible.
Equally unreasonable is the suggestion of Michael Brown on Zechariah 11:8, where the prophet speaks of one (echad) month. Brown asks, "What does that tell us about the essential nature of a month? Does it mean that a month does not have thirty days because it is one?" The word "one" modifying "month" is not remotely connected to how many days there are in a month! On Brown's argument the word "one" loses its fixed sense as "one single." And the whole argument is then brought to bear on the central question of monotheism and is used to justify a plurality in the Godhead.
How would the proponents of one as "compound one" explain Nehemiah 11:1: "one (echad) out of ten"? Or Ezra 10:13: "one* (echad) day or two"? "Two are better than one (echad)" (Ecc. 4:9). "If two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one alone[echad] keep warm?" (Ecc. 4:11). "Where a lone [echad] man may be overcome, two together may resist" (Ecc. 4: 12). The rest of the 970 appearances of echad might be cited to make exactly the same point.
Haha. With this kind of logic, the word one is not meaning one because we make sentences like "Year one". But the year has 365 days.
Anyway, its an interesting topic. So that's what I have to say on it.
Cheers.
In what Deut 6:4 says it can be One God with more than one person/consciousness (whatever name you prefer) in that one God. The Father is the one true God and the Holy Spirit and the Son are in the Father.
The Holy Spirit can be called God also because in Him is the Son and the Father. Similarly for the Son.
But yes it is an interesting topic and can get complicated for our minds.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No. It doesnt Brain.
Brian2
Veteran Member
The same word for "one" is used at Genesis 2:24.
Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
2 different bodies become one.
In the case of God, the 2 are one. Maybe one Spirit.
Why do you say no?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well then, the verse has to say "Man and woman became one". But that inference cannot be made to every verse that says "One". Thats absurd.
Why not respond to my post rather than stating the same argument I said people make, again.
Let me cut and paste for you.
I believe it is better that you do not mix the NT and OT when analysing something like this. One reason is they are two very different languages.
Also I would like to ask you to analyse from the language, and some experts in the language, not apologists for the Christian doctrine.
I have heard from Christians that "If Elohim were exclusively singular, this would read yachid which can only mean one." Yes, Echad does in fact have a compound singularity in it, such as having one synagogue with a hundred people inside." Thats nice apologetics but absolutely bad logic. I can say "one country" and that would mean a 100 million people in it but its still one country. "ONE MAN" is just one man. So one is not a compound one every time, but it would depend on one persons baggage that he is already carrying. If he really really wants to make God more than one, and that's all his faith is, then he would want to make God like a country. One means one country with many people.
But linguistically its absurd. Because when you think of God in this sentence its singular. One.
What apologists do is that they try to conflate the word one of many contexts into one. As in, when the Bible says "The people are one" it is the same saying "God is one". But that's bogus because in this particular sentence or in other places in the Tanakh God is always singular and is never referred to as "people". How could YHWH (Sorry if the mention offends any Jews who are reading this) which is used as a proper name be like a group of people and/or speaks in "ONE" language and thus this one is a compound one? It is a very bad but valiant attempt. Think of the verse Genesis 11:6 where the same word Echad is used. It says "the people are one and the ALL speak one language". DO you see that this verse says "People" and it also says "ALL speak ONE language". Using this type of verses to say this one is a compound one has to be a dishonest attempt because one cannot be so illogical possibly.
I dont think one has to be a language expert to understand this. I am no expert in Hebrew at all. Yet, what I do know is that some people like Daniel Pipes have tried to use the same logic with the arabic word Ahad saying one is "Wahid" but not Ahad. The same logic. When someone is that ignorant, it is most likely that this person is dishonest. I would understand a layman on the internet believing someone and repeating something like that, but educated people in the subject cannot be so daft. Thats impossible.
Equally unreasonable is the suggestion of Michael Brown on Zechariah 11:8, where the prophet speaks of one (echad) month. Brown asks, "What does that tell us about the essential nature of a month? Does it mean that a month does not have thirty days because it is one?" The word "one" modifying "month" is not remotely connected to how many days there are in a month! On Brown's argument the word "one" loses its fixed sense as "one single." And the whole argument is then brought to bear on the central question of monotheism and is used to justify a plurality in the Godhead.
How would the proponents of one as "compound one" explain Nehemiah 11:1: "one (echad) out of ten"? Or Ezra 10:13: "one* (echad) day or two"? "Two are better than one (echad)" (Ecc. 4:9). "If two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one alone[echad] keep warm?" (Ecc. 4:11). "Where a lone [echad] man may be overcome, two together may resist" (Ecc. 4: 12). The rest of the 970 appearances of echad might be cited to make exactly the same point.
Haha. With this kind of logic, the word one is not meaning one because we make sentences like "Year one". But the year has 365 days.
Anyway, its an interesting topic. So that's what I have to say on it.
Cheers.
rosends
Well-Known Member
why do you specifically choose Gen 2:24 to explain how "one" is more than one? The word "one" in English refers to the value of the set in which there is a single element. That set might be "group of basketballs" and there is one group of basketballs, or that set might be "basketball" and there is one basketball.
Gen 1:9 has God move all the water to "one" place. Is that a compound one? Gen 21:15 talks about "one of the trees". Is that more than one? 40:8 talks about "one night" - is it "echad" because it is made up of minutes? In that case, the word "one" can never be a singular idea in any language.
As to the question about "yachid" it is a completely different word. If a statement is that God is "one" that is different from "God is only" or "God is unique." (or, "God is alone" as biblically, the word yachid can mean 'alone' as in Psalms 25:16, Amos 8:10).
Brian2
Veteran Member
How do you know that the Father has no Son?
Jesus is compared alongside His Father and is very much like Him.
Jesus was there creating during the creation.
Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant which opens the way for us to go directly to the Father without a bad conscience, because our sins have already been taken away.
But all these things are not because Jesus is another God or another god.
God is One and this One can be used as a compound One and in the case of God it is a compound One.
I take it you do not believe the New Testament.