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

[rosends]

And the "one man" in Gen 42:11 is really two men. And one locust in Ex 10:19 is really a compound locust. The one ordinance in Num 15:15 is really a series of laws. The "one part out of 50" of Num 31:47 is not one part. The one witness discussed in Deut 17:6 is...um...a plural person.

Should I go through the other 470 or so instances of the word, plus the 120 uses of the root with a simple prefix? I'd love to understand how "one moment" in Ex 33:5 is a "compound unity".

 

[nothead]

Please read this. The Trinity: The Old Testament Evidence: A Multi-Personal God

“Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides, the unity of God was expressed byechad which, as has been proved beyond a doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the wordyachid which in the Tenach is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substitutingyachid which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense forechad which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage [Dt 6:4].” -David Cooper

New meaning or just what Maimonides considered the Heresy of the Ages, that "echad" was CONSIDERED by third gen and on ILLITERATES to be compound?

Illiterate to Jewish language, sir. IF the compound unity of Shema WAS EVER considered by the language itself THEN the FIRST question would be: what is this COMPOUND GOD comprised of?

And the question is never once proposed or hinted at or considered one whit in the OT, sir.
Get a life be happy. Get some common sense, be simply true.

 

[nothead]

"my brilliant post?" You know I never heard Bill Gates says something like “my brilliant ideas”

Maybe he was being humbly a monopoly king. Just guessing. This is the way of the shrewd. Gain your monopoly by hook or crook or extended
trials, in which you pay the penalty in much less proportion to the gains in monopolyism. Then act humble that they will not skewer you in the next trial.

 

[nothead]

Yes. Nor can it be explained away easily how a husband and wife are One, yet two persons. Gen 2:24

The closest word to PERSON in the Koine is "prosopon" or "face." This correlates directly to the soul or "nephesh" of a man. But God said He had only one FACE, and that ye shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my FACE. No man hath seen his FACE, and lived. But it is presupposed this FACE is singular, by all the pronouns and verbs in the singular which in text accompany YHWH Elohim.

The trinitarian first paintings show the heresy explicit. One body of God with three FACES or HEADS. Not exactly kosher, not accurate, and not even one whit true.

 

[nothead]

Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:

This considers "God" to be a class of, designated unity of, kind of, species of or BEING of. Problemos:

1) YHWH Elohim is identity first, and classification SECOND, in existence, not so much ONTOLOGY.
2) The ontology of God is hardly ever considered by a faithful Jew, maybe NEVER, who knows inherently to make the sacred, still sacred. No Jew speaks of God's MAKE-UP, rather His aspects or characteristics, His commands unto men, His will in the here and now. And by make-up I don't mean no eyeliner.
3) BEING and PERSON are the same word, synonym. This was even the problem in the first Councils which MADE these first Creeds of JisG.
OUSIA and HYPOSTASIS were then synonym too, meaning "essence" or "substance (of)."

 

[BilliardsBall]

And the "one man" in Gen 42:11 is really two men. And one locust in Ex 10:19 is really a compound locust. The one ordinance in Num 15:15 is really a series of laws. The "one part out of 50" of Num 31:47 is not one part. The one witness discussed in Deut 17:6 is...um...a plural person.

Should I go through the other 470 or so instances of the word, plus the 120 uses of the root with a simple prefix? I'd love to understand how "one moment" in Ex 33:5 is a "compound unity".

Bad examples. WE are sons of the one man in Gen 42:11. The one ordinance in Num 15:15 was for the singular "you, the congregation" AND the strangers among you... etc.

I think it is disingenuous, at this point, not to admit that echad can be plural as well as singular...

 

[nothead]

No, I'm sure I was circumcised at home--photos were taken of the guests and the general ceremony. And the rest is a citation from Saul/Paul.

What is the Circumcision of the Heart, sir?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The closest word to PERSON in the Koine is "prosopon" or "face." This correlates directly to the soul or "nephesh" of a man. But God said He had only one FACE, and that ye shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my FACE. No man hath seen his FACE, and lived. But it is presupposed this FACE is singular, by all the pronouns and verbs in the singular which in text accompany YHWH Elohim.

The trinitarian first paintings show the heresy explicit. One body of God with three FACES or HEADS. Not exactly kosher, not accurate, and not even one whit true.

Certainly. But I'm not a Trinitarian. I believe in a tri-unity of God. I'm hear to talk about the living Word of Ha Shem, not the paintings of the goyim.

And as an aside, if you were a mystic, you might find at least "one whit" in the faces before the throne in Ezekiel.

 

[nothead]

Certainly. But I'm not a Trinitarian. I believe in a tri-unity of God. I'm hear to talk about the living Word of Ha Shem, not the paintings of the goyim.

And as an aside, if you were a mystic, you might find at least "one whit" in the faces before the throne in Ezekiel.

There's no tri-unity that I know of, since I became Monotheist. Are you talking of the CHERUBIM in Ezekiel? Do you know the ADDRESS to Ezekiel 94 times was "son of Adam," out of 107 times total? So then what was Jesus saying calling HIMSELF, "the son of Adam?"

 

[nothead]

Bad examples. WE are sons of the one man in Gen 42:11. The one ordinance in Num 15:15 was for the singular "you, the congregation" AND the strangers among you... etc.

I think it is disingenuous, at this point, not to admit that echad can be plural as well as singular...

Yeah according to Strong's less than 1% of the time. This is because virtually anything called ONE, can be subdivided also.

 

[rosends]

Bad examples. WE are sons of the one man in Gen 42:11. The one ordinance in Num 15:15 was for the singular "you, the congregation" AND the strangers among you... etc.

I think it is disingenuous, at this point, not to admit that echad can be plural as well as singular...

Bad examples? Just because it says "we are sons" doesn't mean that "One man" is any different. Do you have a maximum number of words between any other noun and the ONE in question which makes for a bad example? Meanwhile, you do nothing but sidestep what the word clearly means. In Num., there is mention of "ONE" ordinance. It could be an ordinance which applies to a million people. It still is "one" ordinance. You seem to want to say that if one thing is connected at all to something plural, the "one" is a plural word. This is patently ridiculous. It isn't true in English or in Hebrew. It is disingenuous to continue to claim that a word which means "one" means the plural.

One tree is one tree regardless of the number of branches, atoms or other trees. One hat is one hat. One man is one man. One highway is one highway no matter how many people drive on it. How you can continue to claim that one=plural is beyond comprehension.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Bad examples? Just because it says "we are sons" doesn't mean that "One man" is any different. Do you have a maximum number of words between any other noun and the ONE in question which makes for a bad example? Meanwhile, you do nothing but sidestep what the word clearly means. In Num., there is mention of "ONE" ordinance. It could be an ordinance which applies to a million people. It still is "one" ordinance. You seem to want to say that if one thing is connected at all to something plural, the "one" is a plural word. This is patently ridiculous. It isn't true in English or in Hebrew. It is disingenuous to continue to claim that a word which means "one" means the plural.

One tree is one tree regardless of the number of branches, atoms or other trees. One hat is one hat. One man is one man. One highway is one highway no matter how many people drive on it. How you can continue to claim that one=plural is beyond comprehension.

Not at all for my spouse and I are One as commanded by Ha Shem in the 2nd chapter of the scriptures... the triunity is also everywhere from Orthodox prayer to a Haggadah to Talmud to Zohar and all things Jewish. I do understand the Bible accurately, and I'm not open to changing my understanding of soteriology, so I'll leave you the last word if you'd like to respond.

 

[rosends]

Not at all for my spouse and I are One as commanded by Ha Shem in the 2nd chapter of the scriptures... the triunity is also everywhere from Orthodox prayer to a Haggadah to Talmud to Zohar and all things Jewish. I do understand the Bible accurately, and I'm not open to changing my understanding of soteriology, so I'll leave you the last word if you'd like to respond.

You can be "one couple" but that is still "one" and it takes a singular verb. That is the nature of "one". It is singular. So if I am a compilation of a trillion-trillion cells, I am still one man. That doesn't make my "man" into a plural or a "collection of other things" -- just "one man." And if I have 1 tree, or one drop of water or 1 atom, each one is "one" -- it is not plural. What you are advocating is a misunderstanding of how words work in English and Hebrew. By your logic, each person is actually a multiple personalitied, multiple identitied plurality. That makes no sense.

This is not an issue of salvation as much as it is about words and what they mean. If you are fixed on seeing "one" as a plural, then there is nothing more to be said.

 

[RabbiO]

You can be "one couple" but that is still "one" and it takes a singular verb. That is the nature of "one". It is singular. So if I am a compilation of a trillion-trillion cells, I am still one man. That doesn't make my "man" into a plural or a "collection of other things" -- just "one man." And if I have 1 tree, or one drop of water or 1 atom, each one is "one" -- it is not plural. What you are advocating is a misunderstanding of how words work in English and Hebrew. By your logic, each person is actually a multiple personalitied, multiple identitied plurality. That makes no sense.

This is not an issue of salvation as much as it is about words and what they mean. If you are fixed on seeing "one" as a plural, then there is nothing more to be said.

There are days when running away and joining the circus looks more and more like an attractive option.

גוט שבת
שבת שלום

 

[nothead]

Not at all for my spouse and I are One as commanded by Ha Shem in the 2nd chapter of the scriptures... the triunity is also everywhere from Orthodox prayer to a Haggadah to Talmud to Zohar and all things Jewish. I do understand the Bible accurately, and I'm not open to changing my understanding of soteriology, so I'll leave you the last word if you'd like to respond.

"One in the flesh" Theology is as hokey as a hockey puck in your teef.

What it do, what it imply...is two humans as one "flesh," or in analogy...two Gods in one Being. But the Being itself is not it's own being, the two are it's Prosopons or FACES.
God has only one face, by your first command of the Ten. "I am the ONE who brought you out of Egypt, thou shalt have NO ELOHIM to my FACE."

What it do, what it imply, is two Gods of Like Kind. That's just two Gods, folks. Polytheism, anti-monotheism, hokey as a hockey puck in your TEEF.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"One in the flesh" Theology is as hokey as a hockey puck in your teef.

What it do, what it imply...is two humans as one "flesh," or in analogy...two Gods in one Being. But the Being itself is not it's own being, the two are it's Prosopons or FACES.
God has only one face, by your first command of the Ten. "I am the ONE who brought you out of Egypt, thou shalt have NO ELOHIM to my FACE."

What it do, what it imply, is two Gods of Like Kind. That's just two Gods, folks. Polytheism, anti-monotheism, hokey as a hockey puck in your TEEF.

And next you'll tell me the other Elohim are real and truly exist. A specious claim here, but I'm used to it.

 

[Tumah]

You can't really make a thread like this. The underlying principle is one that the entire Christian faith rests on and they will contort their thinking to any lengths in order to prevent the building from falling down.

Try starting with something less overwhelming.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Or, perhaps the post just isn't worth the time and effort to respond to because it's too insipid.

 

[nothead]

And next you'll tell me the other Elohim are real and truly exist. A specious claim here, but I'm used to it.

Are you saying the angels in heaven, the cherubim and serraphim, and the holy assembly in heaven are not real?

 

[nothead]

Or, perhaps the post just isn't worth the time and effort to respond to because it's too insipid.

Insipid proverbial soup, then for thee to cry in, then. Then what?