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

[JM2C]

No, the text is referring to a single mountain It says "one of the mountains." That makes the mountain it refers to "one" and the rest, "of the mountains." This does not make the "one" any different from any other notion of "one" whether there were 2 other mountains or a million. The question is the meaning of "one" not the existence of anything else. You seem to lose sight of that.

One of one and one of twenty are both "one."

”one of one” is “only/yachid” like an “only/yachid son of Abraham” and “one of twenty” is “one/echad” like “We are all one man's sons” –Gen 42:11.

The reason why God chose the word “only/yachid” in contrast with the word “one/echad” is because the promise is through Isaac and not through Ishmael.

What if the verse says something like this instead: “Take one/echad of your sons –see Gen 42:11” [either Isaac or Ishmael, although Ishmael is gone already] “whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him as a burnt offering on top of the only/yachid mountain in that land.”

If that is the case, then we would have more controversies about who did Abraham actually brought into the land of Moriah. The Muslim would say, Abraham brought Ishmael and not Isaac.

But God gave Abraham specific instructions by using the words “only/yachid” and “one/echad”. God specifically commanded Abraham to take Isaac as the “only/yachid” son, and take him to one/echad of the mountains in the land of Moriah.

Abraham could have gone to any part of those mountains, but God said specifically which one/echad of the mountains “which I will tell thee of” He will send Abraham to sacrifice his only/yachid son.

 

[JM2C]

Not precisely. Yachid derived from "to be made one" through the word "yachad" which means "together." Yachad, in turn, derived from echad.

yachid came from the same root as echad like only came from one.

Isaac is a specific one of the two sons of Abraham. Yachid must then mean "specific", right?

An only absolute one. God is specific to His wordings. That’s is why I asked you about these words in Greek, “heteros” and “allos”

How do you understand this verse?

Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

 

[rosends]

I thought the original Hebrew text was translated in Greek, the LXX or the Septuagint.

Yes, "translated." I work with the pretranslated text.

 

[rosends]

”one of one” is “only/yachid” like an “only/yachid son of Abraham” and “one of twenty” is “one/echad” like “We are all one man's sons” –Gen 42:11.

That is your position, unsupported by anything in Hebrew. You have started with the conclusion you draw and have gone back to find a way of supporting that conclusion.

The reason why God chose the word “only/yachid” in contrast with the word “one/echad” is because the promise is through Isaac and not through Ishmael.

But Isaac was "one of two" so the word should have been "echad". If you say that Isaac was really only one of one (yachid) then the mountain was set aside and distinct and was also one of one, as was Jacob, so the word used should be yachid also.

What if the verse says something like this instead: “Take one/echad of your sons –see Gen 42:11” [either Isaac or Ishmael, although Ishmael is gone already] “whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice"

If that is the case, then we would have more controversies about who did Abraham actually brought into the land of Moriah. The Muslim would say, Abraham brought Ishmael and not Isaac.

We would have no controversies because the next words in the text are אֶת יִצְחָק, naming Isaac as that child.

But God gave Abraham specific instructions by using the words “only/yachid” and “one/echad”. God specifically commanded Abraham to take Isaac as the “only/yachid” son, and take him to one/echad of the mountains in the land of Moriah.

Actually, first God says to take the specific and unique son (yachid), but recognizing that he was "one of two", God then added the name.

Abraham could have gone to any part of those mountains, but God said specifically which one/echad of the mountains “which I will tell thee of” He will send Abraham to sacrifice his only/yachid son.

Yes, God specified one of the mountains as a unique and specific mountain, much like a unique and specific son. And yet it does not say "yachid".

 

[rosends]

yachid came from the same root as echad like only came from one.
An only absolute one. God is specific to His wordings. That’s is why I asked you about these words in Greek, “heteros” and “allos”

How do you understand this verse?

Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

I don't understand that verse. I also have no interest in what it might mean. The issue here is not the Greek words, but the Hebrew ones. God is specific in his wording and uses "yachid" but still has to clarify which son (so he names "Isaac"). If yachid was so clearly an "only" or "absolute" there would be no need for clarification.

 

[JM2C]

But those are two different words used in two different contexts.

Right

Why insist they both mean "one" just with different senses?

they modify the nouns.

Ge 22:2 Then God said, “Take your son , your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.

Let’s say we take the modifier “only” and just read it like this “take your son, your son, Isaac.” Some would say it was not Isaac but Ishmael is what God meant because Abraham has two sons. Remember Ishmael was born first.

But when you put the modifier “only/yachid” in contrast to the other modifier “one/echad” and name that noun/son as Isaac it would be hard to argue, from the Muslims POV, that what God meant was really Isaac and not Ishmael.

“Muslim scholars have endorsed the belief that it was the first-born son Ismail, not Isaac, who was asked to be sacrificed in the vision, and that the second son Isaac was born later as one of the rewards for Abraham's fulfillment of his vision.” -Wiki

 

[rosends]

Right

they modify the nouns.

Ge 22:2 Then God said, “Take your son , your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.

Let’s say we take the modifier “only” and just read it like this “take your son, your son, Isaac.” Some would say it was not Isaac but Ishmael is what God meant because Abraham has two sons. Remember Ishmael was born first.

But when you put the modifier “only/yachid” in contrast to the other modifier “one/echad” and name that noun/son as Isaac it would be hard to argue, from the Muslims POV, that what God meant was really Isaac and not Ishmael.

“Muslim scholars have endorsed the belief that it was the first-born son Ismail, not Isaac, who was asked to be sacrificed in the vision, and that the second son Isaac was born later as one of the rewards for Abraham's fulfillment of his vision.” -Wiki

That was answered over 1000 years ago:

"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.” "

 

[nothead]

”one of one” is “only/yachid” like an “only/yachid son of Abraham” and “one of twenty” is “one/echad” like “We are all one man's sons” –Gen 42:11.

The reason why God chose the word “only/yachid” in contrast with the word “one/echad” is because the promise is through Isaac and not through Ishmael.

What if the verse says something like this instead: “Take one/echad of your sons –see Gen 42:11” [either Isaac or Ishmael, although Ishmael is gone already] “whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him as a burnt offering on top of the only/yachid mountain in that land.”

If that is the case, then we would have more controversies about who did Abraham actually brought into the land of Moriah. The Muslim would say, Abraham brought Ishmael and not Isaac.

But God gave Abraham specific instructions by using the words “only/yachid” and “one/echad”. God specifically commanded Abraham to take Isaac as the “only/yachid” son, and take him to one/echad of the mountains in the land of Moriah.

Abraham could have gone to any part of those mountains, but God said specifically which one/echad of the mountains “which I will tell thee of” He will send Abraham to sacrifice his only/yachid son.

1) Instead of dealing with the scripture as written, you are second guessing the author AND the Author by which word they actually used, "echad." This constitutes "reaching" my man, until your arm sockets are displaced. Your second guess: that God would have used "yachid" if He really meant He was singular. HE meant? That IS a singular pronoun, sir.

2) Echad means a compound unity so little, proven by the Lexicons, the rationale of "compoundness" really stinks, since a SINGULAR one of anything is also a compound one of something which is the forced overlay you project. For instance a SINGULAR dog you called "ruff" is of course a compound dog of some actual parts...even an ATOM has electrons circling...or an ELECTRON of some components too.

3) The Yachid/Echad argument among trinitarians is so BLASE, so IRRATIONAL and so GOMER we can only conclude trinitarians ALSO think that God would tell us HE is some unumbered and unnamed UNITY which is our Great Command in faith. Like saying "I God, am X," with X being a mysterious and not described UNITY. ODDBALL and BEREFT of making any sense at all.

 

[JM2C]

ONLY was an ancient concept. God is one, ONLY. Jn 17 This is eternal life that they know YOU the ONLY True God, and [also] Jesus Christ (me) whom YOU sent. Ton monon alEthinon theos. And ONLY is the pervasive CONTEXT of Shema.

NO OTHER ONE. First Command of the Ten. You shall have NO OTHER elohim to my face. (As equal).

"I" "I" "I" am THE ONE who brought you out of Egypt.

If in John 17:3 it says, the Father is the “only true God” but it did not say the Lord Jesus is not God and in 1 John 5:20 it did say the Lord Jesus Christ is “the true God” but it did not say the Father is not God, then we can only conclude that both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ is God base on these two verses.

Are they different/HETEROS from each other? NO!

Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other/different/HETEROS gods before me.

 

[nothead]

If in John 17:3 it says, the Father is the “only true God” but it did not say the Lord Jesus is not God and in 1 John 5:20 it did say the Lord Jesus Christ is “the true God” but it did not say the Father is not God, then we can only conclude that both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ is God base on these two verses.

Are they different/HETEROS from each other? NO!

Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other/different/HETEROS gods before me.

Obviously you smudge and smirk over the word ONLY, sir. Only means ONLY, and this even from ancient POV.

 

[JM2C]

Shew me. I thought youall gave up on that thread. NO EVIDENCE the "right hand of God" is equal IN ANY WAY to the throne-sitter.
Oh, I... looky here, no response by you, but one single one from another. Smooth move, ex-lax marketer.

You think I'm trying to avoid you. I proved you wrong in that thread. I have only 3 hrs a day to forum with you guys.

What is the meaning of Adonai in this verse?

Mt 22:44 “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”

 

[JM2C]

Obviously you smudge and smirk over the word ONLY, sir. Only means ONLY, and this even from ancient POV.

1Co 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

One God and One Lord and they are One.

If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord.

 

[nothead]

1Co 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

One God and One Lord and they are One.

If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord.

71 verses have Jesus/lord and God, or Jesus/lord and Father juxtaposed in hierarchy, with NONE of these Jesus/God and God/lord, or Jesus/God and Father/Lord. NEVER reversed. This should tell you of a new meaning for Jesus being LORD, for the disciples and apostles, but nay you will shirk this to the end of you. THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, originally YHWH SAID TO MY adonEE, not adonAI.

 

[JM2C]

For instance a SINGULAR dog you called "ruff" is of course a compound dog of some actual parts...even an ATOM has electrons circling...or an ELECTRON of some components too.

I think you are sniffing to much positive ions that is affecting your reasoning or logic. Try some negative ions so you could think more clearly or positively.

 

[nothead]

1Co 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

One God and One Lord and they are One.

If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord.

I am familiar with the ONE LORD THEOLOGY of trins, sir. And this is entirely wrong. Why? Since a simple scan of the various uses of KURIOS in the gospels shows different persons being called "lord."

1) mammon is called "lord."
2) Lord of the Fields, Lord of the Vineyard had parable "lords."
3) disciples called Jesus "lord" obviously not knowing he was God.
Martha to Jesus after Lazarus died. The Samaritan woman, translated "sir." The disciples when they asked in three synoptics, "what sort of man is this who calms the wind and the seas?"
4) scribes called Jesus 'lord' not knowing he was God.

 

[JM2C]

71 verses have Jesus/lord and God, or Jesus/lord and Father juxtaposed in hierarchy, with NONE of these Jesus/God and God/lord, or Jesus/God and Father/Lord. NEVER reversed. This should tell you of a new meaning for Jesus being LORD, for the disciples and apostles, but nay you will shirk this to the end of you. THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, originally YHWH SAID TO MY adonEE, not adonAI.

Did it say that either one is not God?

I have verses that say they are both God.

 

[nothead]

I am familiar with the ONE LORD THEOLOGY of trins, sir. And this is entirely wrong. Why? Since a simple scan of the various uses of KURIOS in the gospels shows different persons being called "lord."

1) mammon is called "lord."
2) Lord of the Fields, Lord of the Vineyard had parable "lords."
3) disciples called Jesus "lord" obviously not knowing he was God.
Martha to Jesus after Lazarus died. The Samaritan woman, translated "sir." The disciples when they asked in three synoptics, "what sort of man is this who calms the wind and the seas?"
4) scribes called Jesus 'lord' not knowing he was God.

....and how many "lords" are actually IN your verse, "the Lord said to my lord," sir?

Hint: Paul's "one lord" concept was of the Holy Spirit come in the Paraclete name of "Jesus." One lord on earth. Two lords in Heaven, one over the other one.

 

[nothead]

Did it say that either one is not God?

I have verses that say they are both God.

Jesus never said he was NOT GOD, since Jewish Default already knows this sir. Your counter-argument from silence is bereft again.

 

[JM2C]

THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, originally YHWH SAID TO MY adonEE, not adonAI.

Really? What is adonee is English?

 

[JM2C]

Jesus never said he was NOT GOD, since Jewish Default already knows this sir. Your counter-argument from silence is bereft again.

The Son of God is God