For Jews or Christians: Why Shema means what a Jew says

[nothead]

Because the original Hebrew form is this: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one.

The "one" is "echad" meaning in Strong's always singular or a numerical one, or first, cardinal, unique and alone as a unit. Only 7 times out of 952 is "echad" meaning a unity of some kind. See the English "one" which has a minority "compound one:"

1one
adjective\ˈwən\
: having the value of 1

—used to refer to a single person or thing

—used before a noun to indicate that someone or something is part of a group of similar people or things

See the alternate defn of "one" in Strongs, echad:

1. one (number)
   
   1. one (number)
      
      
   2. each, every
      
      
   3. a certain
      
      
   4. an (indefinite article)
      
      
   5. only, once, once for all
      
      
   6. one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
      
      
   7. first
      
      
   8. eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
      

Because this "echad" qualifies the IDENTITY of God, his name predominantly, with the first two words secondarily. Meaning the NAME of God is unique, alone and the NAME also being the first meaning of the first two words also..."YHWH Elohim." Being an ADJECTIVE the word modified is first, "YHWH."

Pretty simple, eh? Theodore Jones et all state your case.
1) you cannot make the "echad" of the Adonai a compound one as Jews for Jesus did.
2) you cannot say a singular one is for the BEING of God since his identity or NAME is one.
3) you cannot get around Jesus' own emphasis of Shema in Mk 12 as the FIRST COMMAND OR the traditional interpretation that all knew, NO OTHER BUT HE, said by the scribe. Why? Why since this would be a good time to give a NEW INTERPRETATION of Shema, and the Christ did not here or anywhere else.

 

[nothead]

Because the original Hebrew form is this: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one.

The "one" is "echad" meaning in Strong's always singular or a numerical one, or first, cardinal, unique and alone as a unit. Only 7 times out of 952 is "echad" meaning a unity of some kind. See the English "one" which has a minority "compound one:"

1one
adjective\ˈwən\
: having the value of 1

—used to refer to a single person or thing

—used before a noun to indicate that someone or something is part of a group of similar people or things

See the alternate defn of "one" in Strongs, echad:

1. one (number)
   1. one (number)
      
      
   2. each, every
      
      
   3. a certain
      
      
   4. an (indefinite article)
      
      
   5. only, once, once for all
      
      
   6. one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
      
      
   7. first
      
      
   8. eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

Because this "echad" qualifies the IDENTITY of God, his name predominantly, with the first two words secondarily. Meaning the NAME of God is unique, alone and the NAME also being the first meaning of the first two words also..."YHWH Elohim." Being an ADJECTIVE the word modified is first, "YHWH."

Pretty simple, eh? Theodore Jones et all state your case.
1) you cannot make the "echad" of the Adonai a compound one as Jews for Jesus did.
2) you cannot say a singular one is for the BEING of God since his identity or NAME is one.
3) you cannot get around Jesus' own emphasis of Shema in Mk 12 as the FIRST COMMAND OR the traditional interpretation that all knew, NO OTHER BUT HE, said by the scribe. Why? Why since this would be a good time to give a NEW INTERPRETATION of Shema, and the Christ did not here or anywhere else.

Normally, I do the U Can't Touch This impersonation of MC Hammer when thirty views gets no refute. Of course, if I ain't right, then Trins and JisG can go on as before. But if I AM, then reconstruction of the Deity of Jesus is now your option.

Where are my harem pants? Claiming victory since no one bothers, deigns to, or in fact has any idea how to refute this?
Is this what must happen? REFUTE or cry in your proverbial soup, sirs and madams.

 

[rosends]

Because the original Hebrew form is this: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one.

Um, no it is not. You should recheck the Hebrew. Oh, right. You can't.

Because this "echad" qualifies the IDENTITY of God, his name predominantly, with the first two words secondarily. Meaning the NAME of God is unique, alone and the NAME also being the first meaning of the first two words also..."YHWH Elohim." Being an ADJECTIVE the word modified is first, "YHWH."

Echad is not the identity of God, but a quality of god -- his uniqueness. The question whether the word "echad" is a predicate nominative or predicate adjective is an interesting one. In Judaism, the answer is "both." As for the other word, it is neither. It is an adjective phrase which some like to turn into a predicate nominative.

If Jesus's making something into a "first command" is your focus then you are preaching Christianity to Christians. Have fun with that. It has nothing to do with Judaism because Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism.

 

[nothead]

Um, no it is not. You should recheck the Hebrew. Oh, right. You can't.



Echad is not the identity of God, but a quality of god -- his uniqueness. The question whether the word "echad" is a predicate nominative or predicate adjective is an interesting one. In Judaism, the answer is "both." As for the other word, it is neither. It is an adjective phrase which some like to turn into a predicate nominative.

If Jesus's making something into a "first command" is your focus then you are preaching Christianity to Christians. Have fun with that. It has nothing to do with Judaism because Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism.

You are not really contradicting me. The name identifies God and this His holistic or complete self, just as your name Rosebuds I mean ends names your whole self, not just part of you.

Dividing God up into parts is not behoovin' to be groovin' for either Gentile or Jew, or a Jesus follower.

As for your Jesus ad hom, yes we know you don't like him. Maybe I will decide to hate your fav rabbi, how about that? Insulting him though, every chance I get, would that suit you?

And my Hebrew rendition of English of the Hebrew is because NO ONE normally on this board understands the Hebrew without a translation, so criticize away, there is a method to my madness.

 

[rosends]

You are not really contradicting me. The name identifies God and this His holistic or complete self, just as your name Rosebuds I mean ends names your whole self, not just part of you.

Except that word does not name the "whole self" of God How can a few letters encapsulate the infinite? I daresay that my name doesn't even name the whole self of me. Others have the same name as I do and some people don't know my name and yet know me. Trying to compare and equate a human name to a divine name is a waste of time.

Dividing God up into parts is not behoovin' to be groovin' for either Gentile or Jew, or a Jesus follower.

True but why bring that up. I didn't do that, unless you'd like to show me that I did.

As for your Jesus ad hom, yes we know you don't like him. Maybe I will decide to hate your fav rabbi, how about that? Insulting him though, every chance I get, would that suit you?

what "ad hom"? Is it an attack against Jesus as a person to say that he is irrelevant to Judaism? You should check on what an ad hom really is. Also, feel free to hate my "fav rabbi." What you hate has no value to or impact on me.

And my Hebrew rendition of English of the Hebrew is because NO ONE normally on this board understands the Hebrew without a translation, so criticize away, there is a method to my madness.

If your method includes over simplifying or misrepresenting or betraying ignorance then I will continue to call you on it. Would you prefer that you be allowed to make errors or mislead others?

 

[Desert Snake]

the Christmas tree.
Therefore, 'the' means Christmas tree. Hmm it's a good argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

Anyways, in xianity, since Jesus actually is JHVH (true xianity), the OP doesn't affect the theological meaning.
Good argument for xians who separate Jesus from JHVH, though.

 

[nothead]

the Christmas tree.
Therefore, 'the' means Christmas tree. Hmm it's a good argument.

But if you named you own Xmas tree, "max" it would be a single one, yeah idnit?

 

[nothead]

Anyways, in xianity, since Jesus actually is JHVH (true xianity), the OP doesn't affect the theological meaning.
Good argument for xians who separate Jesus from JHVH, though.

Said in Bible zero times, the One True God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, or the Only True God, also.

 

[nothead]

Except that word does not name the "whole self" of God How can a few letters encapsulate the infinite? I daresay that my name doesn't even name the whole self of me. Others have the same name as I do and some people don't know my name and yet know me. Trying to compare and equate a human name to a divine name is a waste of time.

Which PART of yourself does your name, designate, sir? See you problem? If it names NOTHING, the NOTHING a stranger knows of you, then what does he KNOW of you now, except your name? STILL names all of you, even the unknown PARTS of you the private ones. And you private parts may even be of both sexes too, right? Ooops.

True but why bring that up. I didn't do that, unless you'd like to show me that I did.
what "ad hom"? Is it an attack against Jesus as a person to say that he is irrelevant to Judaism? You should check on what an ad hom really is. Also, feel free to hate my "fav rabbi." What you hate has no value to or impact on me.

You specialize in spewing inanities? Jesus has ALL things to do with Judaism...he went to the Jews first. And mostly last...until the Spirit came to the nations, sir.

If your method includes over simplifying or misrepresenting or betraying ignorance then I will continue to call you on it. Would you prefer that you be allowed to make errors or mislead others?

If I am blind, you are more blind. Exponential darkness, as it were...[/QUOTE]

 

[Akivah]

Of course, if I ain't right, then Trins and JisG can go on as before. But if I AM, then reconstruction of the Deity of Jesus is now your option.

{snip}

Claiming victory since no one bothers, deigns to, or in fact has any idea how to refute this?

ROFL. So you think that you are the first missionary to mention this? Everything you can think of to support your idol has already been refuted over the centuries.

Strong's Concordance was written by James Strong, a METHODIST scholar. He wrote it to provide an index to the King James Bible (i.e. a Christian bible). This book has no relevance or authority to the Hebrew bible. Quoting Strong's concordance to Jews is just as authoritative as quoting the Book of Wicca to Christians.

 

[rosends]

Which PART of yourself does your name, designate, sir? See you problem? If it names NOTHING, the NOTHING a stranger knows of you, then what does he KNOW of you now, except your name? STILL names all of you, even the unknown PARTS of you the private ones. And you private parts may even be of both sexes too, right? Ooops.

My name identifies me when it is taken along with other identifying marks, like my appearance, my social security number, my fingerprints etc. By itself, it identifies many people who share the name. And what part of me does it identify? Check your Shakespeare -- a name isn't confined to one part of the body -- it identifies the general whole but does so incompletely. Just ask Juliet.

You specialize in spewing inanities? Jesus has ALL things to do with Judaism...he went to the Jews first. And mostly last...until the Spirit came to the nations, sir.

Do you always label things you don't agree with but cannot disprove "inanities" Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism.

If I am blind, you are more blind. Exponential darkness, as it were...

First, I never said you were blind -- just wrong. Second, just because you don;t know Judaism doesn;t mean I am blind.

 

[nothead]

ROFL. So you think that you are the first missionary to mention this? Everything you can think of to support your idol has already been refuted over the centuries.

Strong's Concordance was written by James Strong, a METHODIST scholar. He wrote it to provide an index to the King James Bible (i.e. a Christian bible). This book has no relevance or authority to the Hebrew bible. According to Wikipedia

Quoting Strong's concordance to Jews is just as authoritative as quoting the Book of Wicca to Christians.

So then quote you own lexicon and then let's get it on.

Make my day. Even if pay ain't the order of the day. Bring you peashooters. Shoot your peas.

 

[nothead]

My name identifies me when it is taken along with other identifying marks, like my appearance, my social security number, my fingerprints etc. By itself, it identifies many people who share the name. And what part of me does it identify? Check your Shakespeare -- a name isn't confined to one part of the body -- it identifies the general whole but does so incompletely. Just ask Juliet.

You think YHWH applies to any ONE other than the single one, sir? You ain't even ARGUING me, less you not a Jew attall.

JAMES or JESUS can identify any one of them, but in context names ONE of them. Got reason? Or are you a thinker or a blinker? A NAME does not first NAME the being or ontology of a person, his DNA, genetic makeup, SPECIES of or KIND of...and until you NAME ANY OTHER with this name "YHWH" like bobo Christians do, you HAVE no argument.

Do you always label things you don't agree with but cannot disprove "inanities" Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism.

Wow, repete por favor one more time. THAT is what makes your DEBATES inane, sir.

First, I never said you were blind -- just wrong. Second, just because you don;t know Judaism doesn;t mean I am blind.

Blind leading the blind, into the pit. Christian idea? Or one which the JEW Jesus said?

 

[rosends]

You think YHWH applies to any ONE other than the single one, sir?

I think a number of different words all apply to God uniquely. The four letter name (not those English letters) is just one identifier.

The rest of your comments were incomprehensible so I'll try to keep this limited to one statement at this point.

 

[Akivah]

So then quote you own lexicon and then let's get it on.

Make my day.

As I stated, all your "arguments" are time-worn and have been answered many times. Here is an easy to read link that debunks your claim.

Have Christians Discovered the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Shema prayer? | Outreach Judaism

The conclusion from this link:

There is a question that immediately comes to mind:If the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad) can signify either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell which definition is operative when studying a verse?

The answer lies in the context, which is always determinative. In the exact same way the word “one” is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. “Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set” is a compound unity, and “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” is unsullied monotheism.

 

[nothead]

As I stated, all your "arguments" are time-worn and have been answered many times. Here is an easy to read link that debunks your claim.

Have Christians Discovered the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Shema prayer? | Outreach Judaism

The conclusion from this link:

This is wrong. Soooo wrong. The "echad" is the first number a child learns when learning counting, iddnit?

My whole polemic rests upon the FACT that the "echad" is so rarely used as the English does, it is not even an option in EITHER Strong's lexicon OR Judaic POV. So then are you arguing me or supporting me? And why use a CHRISTIAN POV to begin with? I SAID use your own lexicon and lettuce get it on. MAKE SALAD, sir. 7 times out of 952 times in Strongs HARDLY even makes a minority meaning, and NONE of the definitions in Strong's even states this "compound" meaning.

Did you read the OP or not? Whose side you on? MINE? Then lettuce clap hands and give each other the holy kiss. Amen.

 

[nothead]

I think a number of different words all apply to God uniquely. The four letter name (not those English letters) is just one identifier.

The rest of your comments were incomprehensible so I'll try to keep this limited to one statement at this point.

Okaydokay, then. So when GOOOOD named himself this name, doesn't it apply to ONE ONLY, sir? You too, seem to think you are arguing me, when you are just being NASTAY.

 

[Desert Snake]

Said in Bible zero times, the One True God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, or the Only True God, also.

I don't want to go off topic, but I have presented verses in Hebrews, for example, that call Jesus God. I think you might be making that arbitrary separation between the titles, 'JHVH', and 'God'.

 

[rosends]

Okaydokay, then. So when GOOOOD named himself this name, doesn't it apply to ONE ONLY, sir? You too, seem to think you are arguing me, when you are just being NASTAY.

You really should go back to posts 2 and three and see what you were insisting about a "name" and the identity of God. You have lost your place in your own argument.