Hebrews refers to a Psalm in which em the author calls SOLOMON "oh God?" This proves...uh..."oh elohim," was the order of the day and meaning sir...and then further..."elohim YOUR elohim," is em...God Almighty. How about them apples? Or is em...Solomon God too or what?
-
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!
For Jews or Christians: Why Shema means what a Jew says
- Thread starter nothead
- Start date
Yeah He names Himself...id's Himself with the definitive id for all time, and says THIS id is ONE, or "echad" singular, first, cardinal, unique and alone, just as Maimonides said, yachid?
Otherwise you have the adjective "echad" directly modifying the first Subject, "YHWH Elohim," not the object of the clause number last. "YHWH."
,
rosends
Well-Known Member
At least you are catching up...I addressed this in post #3.
If that was the post you declared the BEING of God is echad, I proved to you the identity first is echad and the BEING is also echad, as expressed by the first clause, "YHWH Elohim," not directly modified as "YHWH" is but implied as being modified.
And also said you are not refuting me, rather just not allowing for the IDENTITY to be meant first. This is crucial for Christians, since they also say the BEING is being modified firstly, and that this BEING is like a "species of," or "kind of," or "nature of." AND allowing for other Persons or identities to be INHERENT in this so-called "being."
As much as Jews even say there are different views of Shema allowed for, and as much as rabbis expound upon this MYSTERIOUS Shema, Deut 30 says instead that it was plainly said, so that it may be HEARD and BELIEVED, and so that the second part of Core Shema MAY BE DONE.
Deut 30
10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
...here, clearly and plainly said, the CommandMENT of all time, the hardest single Law known to man, to love him with all of your being. PESHAT LAW, and classified in truth as no other category of.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Actually, that was the post where I pointed out the status of the word echad as both pred nom and pred adj. The rest of your rambling about being and identity are irrelevant to Jews and Judaism so you can go and restate Christian doctrine (for whatever purpose you want) but it still means nothing.
And if you highlight the "s" in 30:11 then you accept that the reference is being made to ALL the laws (see, I can use all caps also) because once there is a plural, then there is no clear limit on what/how many laws it is pointing to. But if you point out the lack of plural in 30:11 then it can't be the two commandments you have been focusing on Just one of them. And as for the "hardest single law" you then invent this idea that that refers to love with all your being (actually, verses 2 and 8 and 10 command us to return and listen to God and obey with all our hearts and souls...not love) and that this is hard even though the verses you quote say that the loving through obedience (verse 16) is well within our reach and ability.
So basically, you cherry pick, invent and jump around trying to cobble together a meaning which suits your agenda.
You can't tell me the greatest NAME of all time and place, above any other NAME mentioned under the sun has equal weight as the subject, to the echad...the only difference in English I know of between your predicate nominative and predicate adjective...the echad is an ADJECTIVE in Hebrew, and this not of equal weight...as the Subject named. God in other words is described by the adjective and not EQUAL to the adjective, unless ONE is your God. One is ASPECT of and CHARACTERISTIC of your God and this being of identity first. To deny identity for a name is like denying food for your stomach sir...not easily done or even possible.
And there were COMMANDS given before the Shema, notably ten of them written on stone. THE COMMAND given that day was the Shema. THAT COMMAND is of two parts and no add-ons by later optimists. In other words, for the simple-minded, what Jesus said of the Shema is true today as it was then, two parts basically, and you smudge the lesser law to be as important as it's own Core Value. For instance to put it on your forehead is a lesser law, since I bet you DON'T have it on your forehead as we speak, stuck there in all your itty bitty ones combined. IS IT? So then even YOU don't give it equal weight, to put this Law on your forehead, do you? IT ISN'T THERE is it? In a box, written with a paintbrush, or pen or whathaveyou?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
@nothead
The whole reason you know which ''god'' the text is referring to is because it specifies that the title, 'god', is being used outside the usual context of The God. That's how we know that when ''God'' is referred to in the Hebrew Bible, it means JHVH, even though it isn't specified. If we use your figuring for how the titles are used, then in Genesis, it might be talking about Thor. Or some King. How about the times where people in the Bible refer to 'god', /Elohim, yet it isn't specified they are talking about JHVH? Well, we know they are referring to JHVH, because they don't say otherwise. Find an ambiguous instance of Elohim in the Bible, and your argument might hold some merit.
The whole reason you know which ''god'' the text is referring to is because it specifies that the title, 'god', is being used outside the usual context of The God. That's how we know that when ''God'' is referred to in the Hebrew Bible, it means JHVH, even though it isn't specified. If we use your figuring for how the titles are used, then in Genesis, it might be talking about Thor. Or some King. How about the times where people in the Bible refer to 'god', /Elohim, yet it isn't specified they are talking about JHVH? Well, we know they are referring to JHVH, because they don't say otherwise. Find an ambiguous instance of Elohim in the Bible, and your argument might hold some merit.
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
You have been saying the same thing over and over and it isn't getting any more convincing. You are fixated on a name. I know because you use all caps when you write it. This bespeaks a lack of understanding about the name of God in Judaism. This is fine. What you don't know is not a problem for me. What you think you know becomes a problem for you (as does a certain lack of facility with English). If you don't understand a pred adj vs a pred nom then there is a limitation. If you don't understand how, because a "name" of God is not exactly a "name", it can be both a pred nom and adj at the same time then that is a limitation (the shmoneh esrei does much the same thing with the word "kadosh").
There are indeed commands given before the shma, more than 10 of them. Even on that day, more than one was given. You repeat that "two parts" fiction for some strange reason and ignore everything else. In fact, the command to put it on your doorpost and forehead/arm is right in the same section but you call that lesser. Weird. What I have on my forehead/arm is substantially more than just that one line, with more commandments in it than just that one line. You didn't know that? Why do you call all the others "itty bitty"? Because you like drawing a line which isn't there.
Arm or hand?
What if you got it here, literally? You orthodox? After all? Still not the same thing as DOING it.
And if you can't figure out the difference, theoretically between naming a nation and God naming Himself, then what can I do? Which is, after all prioritized?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Forearm down to hand. Why? How do you do it? You don't? Oh.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Take a deep breath and try again.
"Ye are elohim," Psalm 82
...and the KJV version has in the OT text "children of the most high," when "sons of the most high," is better.
In fact this realization alleviates the closest possible statement of Christ, that he was possibly God, Jn 10 "I and the Father are one."
Without knowing this, you are stuck with the English version "ye are gods" which makes very little or NO sense.
"My lord and my elohim" Thomas, Jn 20:28 As an Aramaic speaker, his word for "God" would be "elohim,"
of course in Aramaic but INFORMED by Hebrew. However it is also the word for "otherly beings" some good, some bad.
See Exodus 7
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee an elohim to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
...in context this cannot be God Almighty, unless you believe Moses is also Him.
Heb 1
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
...to understand this verse we see it comes from Psalm 45
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
...however it was probably Solomon this verse referred to first, and unless you believe SOLOMON is God, then you cannot believe it refers to Jesus as God. In fact kings were believed to be "elohim" since God appointed them spiritual as well as secular rulers upon Israel, or Judah. So then we see the first reference to "elohim" as the king appointed, and the second repeated and personalized "elohim"...as God.
You don't understand that DOING Shema is not the same as putting this Law, whatever you think it is, on your ARM??
'Cmon now, the Shema is unto God, not your arm...priority of Law is always the stuff of wisdom, even common sense. Got any?
Of COURSE you gotta use your FOREARM, since you have so many Laws committed to Shema...but was that what the verse said?
Ol-id*k is arm plus hand? Didn't you just disprove yourself?
rosends
Well-Known Member
You don't understand that "doing" is the wrong verb as applied to the commandment "shma". You continue to pick and choose, deleting the parts that don't agree with you. The imperative of "uk'shartam" also required "doing." Do you have any knowledge at all?
rosends
Well-Known Member
You clearly don't know Hebrew, do you? Can you tell me the two words which will translate the two English words below:
Hand=?
Arm=?
(while you are at it, translate leg and foot).
And what is "Ol-id*k"? Stop making things up. If you don't know...just ask.
I understand "shmo" is hear first, a doing of...and "u*abeth" is loving...a doing of...what else I gotta know? You think the reminder on your ARM plus hand includes any other verbs or compares to the doing of Shema?
The reminder is to remind you to HEAR and LOVE God, aye whut? Got any?
Hand, ol-id*k. Love: u*abeth. Transliterations, in English. Sorry I don't know Hebrew. Shmo, hear.
Oh, there ain't no ARM in there, genius. PROVING your version can't be, since you need SO MUCH EXTRA SPACE to put all of them laws...see?
Like you would need both a fine point Sharpie to get it all on your HAND, and too both sides of your HAND and they didn't have fine point Sharpies then did they? Am I nothead a GENIUS or what?
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
You aren't working with Hebrew in what you quote...in Hebrew, both hand and arm are the same word (same for foot and leg). I still don't know what "ol-id*k" is, because it isn't hand or arm in Hebrew. The word is transliterated "yad" and written in Hebrew as יד
and "love" is ahava אהבה (what in the world is "u*abeth?).
Really, you shouldn't be arguing a language you don't know.
rosends
Well-Known Member
ain't no Hebrew in there, and no knowledge of the makeup of tefillin. So you just make more unfounded claims. That seems to work for you. Keep dancing; I have to go shopping. I'll come back to tech you more later.
--------------Edit------------
I just figured out the ol-id*k -- it is a poor transliteration of
"al yad'cha" which means "on your arm". I notice that your translation of a 2 word phrase with a preposition and a suffix is reduced to just the3 base noun. Interesting choice, in a dishonest sort of way.