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

[JM2C]

And if I give you a quote that says "one man" so it isn't a group (Samuel I:1:1) you would find another reason why that says "echad".

In Hebrew, as in English, "only" and "one" are two very different words.

Yes, I agree. “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

“One/echad” HS259 with 716 occ.

Nu 13:23 “a branch with one/echad cluster of grapes”. Eze 37:17 Join them together into one/echad stick so that they will become one/echad in your hand.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

 

[rosends]

Yes, I agree. “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

So you see that yachid does not mean "one" so there is no reason to say that yachid and echad are two different types of "one." Good.

Nu 13:23 “a branch with one/echad cluster of grapes”. Eze 37:17 Join them together into one/echad stick so that they will become one/echad in your hand.

Not sure exactly what you are quoting or why. 13:23 reads
"They came to the Valley of Eshkol and they cut a branch with a cluster of grapes. They carried it on a pole between two [people] and [they also took] some pomegranates and figs." There was one cluster, so the text uses the word "one" for the cluster. In Ezekiel, the text reads "And bring them close, one to the other into one stick, and they shall be one in your hand." Notice the text uses the word "echad" for both the individual stick (as was done in the verse before) and for the sticks in the hand, it uses a pluralized "achadim." Not "echad". Different word.

Yes, I agree. “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

So you see that yachid does not mean "one" so there is no reason to say that yachid and echad are two different types of "one." Good.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

The word Elohim is either singular or plural depending on the opther words in the sentence. In the first verse, the verb is bara, singular, so the word is a singular noun. In this verse, the word is "echad" which means "one" so the noun that matches it is a singular one. Since the verses you gave, especially the Ezekiel 31:16 and 17 in which a single stick is "echad", show that echad means "one" and not more than that, the noun is clearly singular to agree with that.

 

[RabbiO]

So you see that.....

There comes a point when even the most padded of kippot cannot shield one from the ache resulting from repeatedly hitting one's head against a wall.

 

[metis]

There comes a point when even the most padded of kippot cannot shield one from the ache resulting from repeatedly hitting one's head against a wall.

But if you have a head as hard as mine, no padding needed.

 

[JM2C]

So you see that yachid does not mean "one" so there is no reason to say that yachid and echad are two different types of "one." Good.

I think I’m having a hard time understanding you. Before we start our debate I asked you if you can tell me the difference between “yachid” and “echad”. Now please tell me the difference between the two from the scriptures.

 

[rosends]

I think I’m having a hard time understanding you. Before we start our debate I asked you if you can tell me the difference between “yachid” and “echad”. Now please tell me the difference between the two from the scriptures.

They are Hebrew words. Yachid means "only" or "alone" and echad means "one". You have defined them both as "one" but called yachid a different kind of "one" from echad and that's your error. Your proof that echad is something different comes from your taking a verse you have to define in a particular way, defining it that way, and then saying that that is the meaning of the text (because your version of God is unified, the use of the word echad must be unified. That's putting the cart before the horse.) I have given plenty of textual examples of "echad" being "one".

 

[JM2C]

They are Hebrew words. Yachid means "only" or "alone" and echad means "one".You have defined them both as "one" but called yachid a different kind of "one" from echad and that's your error.

The scriptures did and not me who defined “yachid” differently from “echad” and I gave you examples from the scriptures of the word “Only/yachid” HS3173.

8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

The word “yachid/only” was never used of God’s oneness.

Your proof that echad is something different comes from your taking a verse you have to define in a particular way, defining it that way, and then saying that that is the meaning of the text (because your version of God is unified, the use of the word echad must be unified. That's putting the cart before the horse.) I have given plenty of textual examples of "echad" being "one".

My proof of “echad” came from the scriptures also and they are totally different from the word “yachid” an only one.
Nu 13:23 “a branch with one/echad cluster of grapes”.

Eze 37:17 Join them together into one/echad stick so that they will become one/echad in your hand.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

 

[nothead]

Solomon? God will address Solomon “Your throne, Oh God”? Solomon got more gods that any pagans during his time – 1King 11:1-6. “One greater than Solomon is here -Matthew 12:42”, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David, according to the flesh –Romans 1:3

NO! The author is calling the king (the elohim). This is attributed to Jesus, but first it is attributed to the king, most likely Solomon whom EVERYONE knows is not God! Only Elohim Theology can explain. Your paradigm does not. There is no negative aspersion here at all, so it matters not how many gods Solomon has. Stay on track.

Psalm 45 is the one the description of the Davidic covenant [Isa 55:3, 2Samuel 7:12-16, Gen 49:10 “the scepter shall not depart from Judah”, Luke 1:31-33] that God made with king David in 2Samuel 7:11-16.

And?

Mt 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Mt 22:42 “What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.

The Lord Jesus is the Son of David according to the flesh [Romans 1:3] from the line of Judah, from the Davidic covenant, the Messiah.

Agreed, but no one thought this would be God Himself, INCARNATED, a vacant WORD in the Bible, sir.

See John 1:14 “And the WORD became flesh”. IOW, “And the WORD was God –v1” “became flesh –v14” according to the Davidic covenant and that’s how he became the “Son of David” that was prophesied all the way back from Genesis 3:15, Gen 49:10 to Luke 1:31-33 to Paul’s Romans 1:3-4.

How does what God say, become something? Walll, if He said "Jesus" then would not this Word become flesh?

As you can read king Solomon is nowhere in the picture because “One greater than Solomon is here -Matthew 12:42”, the Lord Jesus Christ.

You still don't geddit...Elohim Theology says Solomon was called AN ELOHIM, "one to whom the Word of God came," Jn 10. NOT GOD.

Mt 22:43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
Mt 22:44 “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”

Jesus IS "adon" just as soon as he was born. They CALLED him "adon" not knowing he was God. Even the Samaritan woman, the translation in KJV "sir." Just as David was "adon" so would the Messiah be "adon."

Who is this “Lord” in Psalm 110:1? According to your own interpretation, a “master”, or “adonee”, means: just an ordinary mortal human being like us.

Not according to Psalm 45 for Solomon, and not according to Psalm 45 for the future Messiah. THIS adon is also "elohim" and "son of elohim." "Sons of the most high, Psalm 82 and "ye are elohim" EXPLAINS this in Jn 10, Jesus' own refutation of the accusation that he "made himself an elohim."

Now, the question is this

Mt 22:45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

How can He, the Lord Jesus, be David’s Son according to the Davidic covenant, and at the same time be his “Lord” according to Psalm 110:1?

Because the Word was determined to be, before the Foundation of the World. This is how David could "see" his lord even before he was born.

What king David saw or have foreseen with the help of the Holy Spirit or “speaking by the Spirit” in Psalm 110:1 was the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ at the right hand of God the Father in heaven.

But this Right Hand cannot be God, just as the Right Hand of Jesus is not God. Don't you see? Two throne seats. God on the first one. Jesus on the second. John or James or whoever at the Second Seat's Right Hand.

Stephen was an eyewitness of the ascended LORD/ADNY Christ in,

Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And? Did Stephen say his lord was God here? AT THE RIGHT HAND of meant OVER THE ANGELS, whom NONE sat at the Right Hand of glory. Or stood.

This is what the Lord Jesus was telling to the Jews in

Mt 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

"Tell me if you are the Messiah, as per Judaic POV, sir. No Jew THOUGHT the Messiah would be God. See the Simon Bar Kokhba Revolt. 100 years later.

Mt 26:64 “Yes, it is as you say,”Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

This verse DISPROVES you, sir. ONE on the throne. ONE to the Right Hand of it. ONE God, and YHWH is His name.

Now, according to your own interpretation an “adonee/master” cannot be God.

Isaiah 21:16 Dead Sea Scroll VERSION: For thus has the Lord(ADNY/Hebrew/DSS Version) said to me, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail;

Here Isaiah was talking about the “LORD” God and not just a “master” or just a mortal man.

In the DSS we read the word “LORD” as “ADNY” no vowel points. IOW, if we want to correct the Masoretic –with vowel points- text we would compare it to DSS, meaning: the older the text the better.

IOW, there is no VOWEL POINTS in the ancient Hebrew text and the dead sea scroll of Isaiah’ 21:16 where it says “Lord” as “ADNY” as “God” is the same as the one in Psalm 110:1 where the “Lord/ADNY” REFERRING TO THE Lord Jesus Christ was change BY THE MASORITES to “adoni” which translate to “master” and therefore became your own interpretation as well.

You go to the DSS? To make your point? Are you not capitulating now? See Anthony Buzzard, you fav scholar:

This verse was referred to the Messiah by the Pharisees and by Jesus. It tells us that the relationship between God and Jesus is that of Deity and non-Deity. The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord)means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity.

If the Messiah were called Adonai this would introduce “two Gods” into the Bible and would be polytheism. Psalm 110:1 should guard us all against supposing that there are two who are God. In fact the Messiah is the supreme human being and agent of the One God. Psalm 110:1 is the Bible’s master text for defining the Son of God in relation to the One God, his Father.

Why is it that a number of commentaries misstate the facts about Psalm 110:1? They assert that the word for the Messiah in Psalm 110:1 is adonai. It is not. These commentaries seem to obscure a classic text defining God in relation to His Son. The Hebrew text assigns to the Messiah the title adoni which invariably distinguishes the one addressed from the Deity. The Messiah is the supreme human lord. He is not the Lord God (cp. I Tim. 2:5; I Cor. 8:4-6; Mark 12:28ff).

Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?

“Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.”

Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.

Adoni — ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai — ref. to God…Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).

Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)

IOW again, your own interpretation of “adonee/master” in Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44, on which you refer it ALSO to the Lord Jesus Christ as a mortal human being, IF compared to Isaiah 21:16 –DSS where the word “ADNY/LORD” –NO VOWEL POINTS- where it was referred to God Himself, IS NOT EXEGITICALLY VALID or YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION IS NOT EXEGITACALLY VALID AT ALL BASED ON THE SCRIPTURES.

Nice try, but you ain't no scholar like SIR Anthony Buzzard is a buzzard, I mean scholar...

IOW, there was no “adoni/master” in the original Hebrew text base on the Dead Sea Scroll, but “ADNY” WHICH MEANS THE “LORD” OR Jehovah.

ALL THIS JUST PROVED THAT THE LORD JESUS IS GOD.

So, when the God the Father says to His Son, “Thy Throne, Oh God” in Hebrews 1:8 you have to go all the way back to Genesis, to the Davidic Covenant in 2Sa 7:12-16, the Covenant that God made with king David about the Messiah from the tribe of Judah, to Isaiah, all the way to Paul’s epistles, and to Hebrews where it says “Thy Throne, Oh God” to prove your case.

Your attempts to prove are sentimental and traditionally weak. Don't feel bad. Many have gone before you, and presented equally WEAK (example, DSS arguments) arguments.[/QUOTE]

 

[nothead]

There comes a point when even the most padded of kippot cannot shield one from the ache resulting from repeatedly hitting one's head against a wall.

Kippot yarmaluke?

 

[rosends]

The scriptures did and not me who defined “yachid” differently from “echad” and I gave you examples from the scriptures of the word “Only/yachid” HS3173.

8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

The word “yachid/only” was never used of God’s oneness.
My proof of “echad” came from the scriptures also and they are totally different from the word “yachid” an only one.
Nu 13:23 “a branch with one/echad cluster of grapes”.

Eze 37:17 Join them together into one/echad stick so that they will become one/echad in your hand.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

So your claim is that a particular word is NOT used in reference to God. That is a bizarre way of deciding what the meaning is. God is described by the word "one." That word "one" can be used to describe a variety of things that Wittgenstein would say satisfy the definition of "one." That would include "one cluster of grapes", "one man" or "one atom." Unless you are saying that God is somehow not defined as "one" because he is not described as "only" then you have no case. God is described as only when the text says in Deut 4:35 "there is no other besides him alone" even without the use of the word "only."

So again, "one" is a word meaning one. God is a single unit in the same way an atom is a single unit, or a stick is a single unit. SO the word "one" is used.

God is unique so the text says "there is no other besides him alone." What more is there?

 

[JM2C]

So your claim is that a particular word is NOT used in reference to God. That is a bizarre way of deciding what the meaning is.

Exactly! Who decided that the word “yachid” should be use in reference to God instead of “echad”? Not the Christians/Trinitarians. We are just reading the word of God as was written in the bible without changing a word. We do not change words in the bible to suit our theology.

 

[JM2C]

God is described by the word "one." That word "one" can be used to describe a variety of things that Wittgenstein would say satisfy the definition of "one." That would include "one cluster of grapes", "one man" or "one atom."

But “yachid” was never used in reference to God, was it? So, who’s altering the word of God as we speak? We simply read the bible as God’s word without changing anything. We used patterns from other verses to understand the verse or verses we are reading and a good example of that are the words “yachid” and “echad”. Again for the 20th times, “yachid” was never used in reference to God.

 

[JM2C]

Unless you are saying that God is somehow not defined as "one" because he is not described as "only" then you have no case.

Again for the 20th times, “one/echad” is different from the word “yachid/only” based on the scriptures.

Now, you think you have a case, base of on the scriptures, when you use the word “yachid” in reference to God? Yes or No

 

[JM2C]

God is described as only when the text says in Deut 4:35 "there is no other besides him alone" even without the use of the word "only."

So again, "one" is a word meaning one. God is a single unit in the same way an atom is a single unit, or a stick is a single unit. SO the word "one" is used.

God is unique so the text says "there is no other besides him alone." What more is there?

Is this from the JPS version?

Dt 4:35 'atah hare'eta lada`at kiy yehvah hu' ha'elohiym 'eyn `ovd milebadov

Where is the “yachid/only” here?

Again for the 20th times, “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

 

[rosends]

Is this from the JPS version?

Dt 4:35 'atah hare'eta lada`at kiy yehvah hu' ha'elohiym 'eyn `ovd milebadov

Where is the “yachid/only” here?

Again for the 20th times, “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

There is no word "yachid" but the sentence means "there is no other besides him." This means "only" doesn't it In English, don't we have ways of describing the same quality without naming the quality? Are you such a slave to a word that a description of that same quality doesn't count? Really? (and that transliteration happens to be wrong...just saying.)

So, fo rthe 21st time, echad and yachid are two different words. THe first means "one" and the second means "only." The word "one" refers to something that is a single thing. That has been shown. That there are other words that refer to other things and they aren't used doesn't negate precisely what IS used. And when the same qualities are described and attributed, then the choice to use a word as opposed to a description is meaningless.

 

[JM2C]

There is no word "yachid" but the sentence means "there is no other besides him." This means "only" doesn't it In English, don't we have ways of describing the same quality without naming the quality? Are you such a slave to a word that a description of that same quality doesn't count? Really? (and that transliteration happens to be wrong...just saying.)

No! Please read and Understand. The word “yachid/only” in the bible was never used in reference to God. The words “there is no other besides him” do not in anyway translates to the word “only” as in an “only/yachid”. So, if I could borrow your wordings

That is a bizarre way of deciding what the meaning is.

We do not alter the word of God to suit our theology or doctrine, do we?

Again for the 25th times, “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

 

[JM2C]

So, fo rthe 21st time, echad and yachid are two different words. THe first means "one" and the second means "only." The word "one" refers to something that is a single thing. That has been shown. That there are other words that refer to other things and they aren't used doesn't negate precisely what IS used. And when the same qualities are described and attributed, then the choice to use a word as opposed to a description is meaningless.

”only” as “yachid” and not as “there is no other besides him”

 

[rosends]

”only” as “yachid” and not as “there is no other besides him”

so you are saying that the statement "there is no other besides him" does not mean "only"?

So noted.

 

[rosends]

No! Please read and Understand. The word “yachid/only” in the bible was never used in reference to God. The words “there is no other besides him” do not in anyway translates to the word “only” as in an “only/yachid”. So, if I could borrow your wordingsWe do not alter the word of God to suit our theology or doctrine, do we?

Again for the 25th times, “Only/yachid” HS3173. 8 out of 12 “yachid/only” referred to the word “only” as “an only son/child”, and 2 as “only life”, and 2 as “lonely”.

Not using a particular word doesn't mean that the concept doesn't apply, especially when the concept IS applied explicitly via other words. For the 28th time, echad means one. God is echad. God is one. You only need more when you start by mistranslating echad.

 

[JM2C]

NO! The author is calling the king (the elohim). This is attributed to Jesus, but first it is attributed to the king, most likely Solomon whom EVERYONE knows is not God! Only Elohim Theology can explain. Your paradigm does not. There is no negative aspersion here at all, so it matters not how many gods Solomon has. Stay on track.



And?




Agreed, but no one thought this would be God Himself, INCARNATED, a vacant WORD in the Bible, sir.





How does what God say, become something? Walll, if He said "Jesus" then would not this Word become flesh?



You still don't geddit...Elohim Theology says Solomon was called AN ELOHIM, "one to whom the Word of God came," Jn 10. NOT GOD.


Jesus IS "adon" just as soon as he was born. They CALLED him "adon" not knowing he was God. Even the Samaritan woman, the translation in KJV "sir." Just as David was "adon" so would the Messiah be "adon."




Not according to Psalm 45 for Solomon, and not according to Psalm 45 for the future Messiah. THIS adon is also "elohim" and "son of elohim." "Sons of the most high, Psalm 82 and "ye are elohim" EXPLAINS this in Jn 10, Jesus' own refutation of the accusation that he "made himself an elohim."



Because the Word was determined to be, before the Foundation of the World. This is how David could "see" his lord even before he was born.



But this Right Hand cannot be God, just as the Right Hand of Jesus is not God. Don't you see? Two throne seats. God on the first one. Jesus on the second. John or James or whoever at the Second Seat's Right Hand.



And? Did Stephen say his lord was God here? AT THE RIGHT HAND of meant OVER THE ANGELS, whom NONE sat at the Right Hand of glory. Or stood.



"Tell me if you are the Messiah, as per Judaic POV, sir. No Jew THOUGHT the Messiah would be God. See the Simon Bar Kokhba Revolt. 100 years later.



This verse DISPROVES you, sir. ONE on the throne. ONE to the Right Hand of it. ONE God, and YHWH is His name.



You go to the DSS? To make your point? Are you not capitulating now? See Anthony Buzzard, you fav scholar:

This verse was referred to the Messiah by the Pharisees and by Jesus. It tells us that the relationship between God and Jesus is that of Deity and non-Deity. The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord)means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity.

If the Messiah were called Adonai this would introduce “two Gods” into the Bible and would be polytheism. Psalm 110:1 should guard us all against supposing that there are two who are God. In fact the Messiah is the supreme human being and agent of the One God. Psalm 110:1 is the Bible’s master text for defining the Son of God in relation to the One God, his Father.

Why is it that a number of commentaries misstate the facts about Psalm 110:1? They assert that the word for the Messiah in Psalm 110:1 is adonai. It is not. These commentaries seem to obscure a classic text defining God in relation to His Son. The Hebrew text assigns to the Messiah the title adoni which invariably distinguishes the one addressed from the Deity. The Messiah is the supreme human lord. He is not the Lord God (cp. I Tim. 2:5; I Cor. 8:4-6; Mark 12:28ff).

Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?

“Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.”

Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.

Adoni — ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai — ref. to God…Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).

Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)



Nice try, but you ain't no scholar like SIR Anthony Buzzard is a buzzard, I mean scholar...



Your attempts to prove are sentimental and traditionally weak. Don't feel bad. Many have gone before you, and presented equally WEAK (example, DSS arguments) arguments.

Are you confused? Anthony Buzzard? So, you, a oneness, is in cahoots now with JW.

Mt 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
Mt 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?