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

[nothead]

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.

Shop for a fine point Sharpie, and stop using your arm. Arm AIN'T in there, rabbi.

 

[nothead]

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.

I am quoting the Hebrew rendition of Scripture4all, sorry if it don't match whatever you got.

 

[nothead]

I am quoting the Hebrew rendition of Scripture4all, sorry if it don't match whatever you got.

If you know more about it, arm and hand being together, then this is my ignorance. See, sometimes being here might show me something, although the REMINDER to do Shema still ain't as important as DOING Shema, which you've glommed together in concept. I apologize for my ignorance but not what Jesus said Shema was. To HEAR God, that he is one, and to love Him with all of your heart, nephesh, and whole being.

 

[rosends]

Shop for a fine point Sharpie, and stop using your arm. Arm AIN'T in there, rabbi.

Huh? You are making a claim that a word isn't in there when you don't know the language and I do? Um...ok. But if you ever want to learn...
Translation יד | Morfix Hebrew English Dictionary

 

[rosends]

I am quoting the Hebrew rendition of Scripture4all, sorry if it don't match whatever you got.

The whatever "scripture4all" is, you might want to let it know that it is incorrect. And you aren't quoting a "Hebrew rendition." You quoted something in English. it might be a transliteration, but it isn;t a Hebrew rendition. If it was, it would be, well, in Hebrew.

 

[rosends]

If you know more about it, arm and hand being together, then this is my ignorance. See, sometimes being here might show me something, although the REMINDER to do Shema still ain't as important as DOING Shema, which you've glommed together in concept. I apologize for my ignorance but not what Jesus said Shema was. To HEAR God, that he is one, and to love Him with all of your heart, nephesh, and whole being.

Here you have 2 inventions:
1. That the binding on the arm and head are a reminder to "do". In truth, they are separate obligations from the "do" part which have to be done.
2. That there exists some concept that the plural laws referred to in the text are limited to the 2 you chose. In truth, they refer to much more. You can deny that all you want, but then you should start a thread about what Shma means to a non-Jew.

 

[nothead]

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.

Jesus said to one scribe who asks him, (sorry for quoting NT)

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

Luke 18

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

...notice Jesus did not say to DO any other than Core Law, of the Ten and the Shema as he described it. All of your itty bitty laws do not qualify and this was the rabbi of rabbis speaking, IMHO. Or not so HO.

Hint: what do you think the PURPOSE was, to put this Law upon your hand, I mean arm and hand? It is closer TO YOU, than inside of your bean, yay whut? It is in fact a reminder and a cheat sheet and something PRIORITIZED by God is why you put it there, or in a teffellim box?

Seeee...God has His priorities, same as I said. All law is not glommed together in priority, some supercede others.

 

[nothead]

Here you have 2 inventions:
1. That the binding on the arm and head are a reminder to "do". In truth, they are separate obligations from the "do" part which have to be done.
2. That there exists some concept that the plural laws referred to in the text are limited to the 2 you chose. In truth, they refer to much more. You can deny that all you want, but then you should start a thread about what Shma means to a non-Jew.

Can't type Hebrew and wouldn't know what I am typing anyway. English transliterations are the closest nothead gets, sorry.

 

[rosends]

Jesus said to one scribe who asks him, (sorry for quoting NT)

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

Luke 18

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

...notice Jesus did not say to DO any other than Core Law, of the Ten and the Shema as he described it. All of your itty bitty laws do not qualify and this was the rabbi of rabbis speaking, IMHO. Or not so HO.

That's nice, if irrelevant. I note that your "Core" is NOT the ten commandments, but 5 of them. I also see loving God (in 4 ways) and loving your neighbor, and selling everything you have and giving it the proceeds to the poor.

What I don't see is the commandment to hear anything (ie the essential first sentence which includes the word "sh'ma"). So he has deleted that part and skipped to the loving (of whatever vision of God, even a polytheistic one) gets devised. It does say "thy God" which, if not explained through the (missing) first line, can be whatever the individual dreams up.

Again, you might want to start a Christian DIR about what the core required laws are if you insist that they are one thing and this text says otherwise.

 

[JM2C]

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]

?

In other words, unlike the English "one" which has a minority "compound" meaning, the echad is hardly ever used in this manner, if at all, not being a major or minor defn of "one."

Destroying by the way, God saying He is either a unity of Three...or ANY other "one" than the "one" stated.

 

[nothead]

That's nice, if irrelevant. I note that your "Core" is NOT the ten commandments, but 5 of them. I also see loving God (in 4 ways) and loving your neighbor, and selling everything you have and giving it the proceeds to the poor.

What I don't see is the commandment to hear anything (ie the essential first sentence which includes the word "sh'ma"). So he has deleted that part and skipped to the loving (of whatever vision of God, even a polytheistic one) gets devised. It does say "thy God" which, if not explained through the (missing) first line, can be whatever the individual dreams up.

Again, you might want to start a Christian DIR about what the core required laws are if you insist that they are one thing and this text says otherwise.

Your ad hom of Jesus is again noted, but he was stating all as part of the ten and this was understood by the ruler to be so.

In fact the Mk 12 passage has the scribe asking, "Which is the Greatest Commandment of all?"
And this means even among his detractors, the understanding of PRIORITY was very important to them.

As a real time example, as a signmaker I was required to get an engineer's seal for a smallish ground sign for the complex business tenants.

The Seal was given but with the stipulation that a certain ground density was met, or exceeded. Common sense said that this was not a problem. But the customer insisted this ground density test had to be done, and refused to pay the extra 500.00 to 600.00 it would cost. There was no safety consideration, only a possible "listing" of the sign if the ground density was not met. I had already guaranteed the sign would not list and was bound to this.

Question: what to do, since 5-6 hundred would SERIOUSLY come out of my own pocket?

Answer: I waited until he got more antsy for the sign, and retracted his own insistence of a minor law. What should I have done? Take a substantially significant hit on my bottom line?

In real life we have to make these decisions. To not prioritize LAW in our lives makes no sense.

Again, Jesus did not waste time with minor laws, as you should not, since he was in that day and age rabbi of rabbis. This was source of contention then for the Pharisees who did, as you do. They got HUNG UP on minor law and accused Jesus himself of being both a winebibber and and one who did not observe fasting law. A "glutton." Obviously they were trying to hang him up on small law. They would have been better served by observing the more basic and primal Law, and to FOLLOW Jesus himself came under Shema, the love of God inspired so much that to give up riches and literally to follow him, was in turn, to follow YHWH Elohim to the ends of the earth. To love YHWH, and then to love neighbor is...of COURSE more important than to fast according to strict regulations they had, AND to abstain from wine, which then was a major staple of their diet.

 

[Akivah]

Sorry I don't know Hebrew.

This sums up all of nothead's posts.

 

[nothead]

This sums up all of nothead's posts.

We know what Christian Hebrew scholars say about Hebrew. You may have your own sources, and these may not always coincide...what non-Hebrew scholars do in general is to refer to these. Was it you whom I asked to state your own scholarly references, yes? To state in general that I am wrong does not help, unless I know where the problem is. Where it was awry at root, and where what opposing experts say is false and where it is true.

 

[rosends]

Your ad hom of Jesus is again noted, but he was stating all as part of the ten and this was understood by the ruler to be so.

Please don't misuse the term "ad hominem". I said nothing against a person' I only pointed out the details of a statement. And while you might INTERPRET that a list of 5 means 10, but then that would make your idea simply a later addition.

In fact the Mk 12 passage has the scribe asking, "Which is the Greatest Commandment of all?"
And this means even among his detractors, the understanding of PRIORITY was very important to them.

Ah, so there is a core which has many, but there is still one above the others...sort of a super core?

Again, Jesus did not waste time with minor laws, as you should not, since he was in that day and age rabbi of rabbis.

And they disareed with him.

This was source of contention then for the Pharisees who did, as you do. They got HUNG UP on minor law and accused Jesus himself of being both a winebibber and and one who did not observe fasting law. A "glutton." Obviously they were trying to hang him up on small law. They would have been better served by observing the more basic and primal Law, and to FOLLOW Jesus himself came under Shema, the love of God inspired so much that to give up riches and literally to follow him, was in turn, to follow YHWH Elohim to the ends of the earth. To love YHWH, and then to love neighbor is...of COURSE more important than to fast according to strict regulations they had, AND to abstain from wine, which then was a major staple of their diet.

You are endorsing a reformer who decided, on his own then, that some laws just don't matter and fought with the authorities who pointed out that God gave all the laws and man doesn't have the right to decide which are unimportant. If that's how you want to live your life, have fun. I'll follow the laws that were given and not make excuses why some no longer need to be followed.

 

[JM2C]

In other words, unlike the English "one" which has a minority "compound" meaning, the echad is hardly ever used in this manner, if at all, not being a major or minor defn of "one."

Destroying by the way, God saying He is either a unity of Three...or ANY other "one" than the "one" stated.

still not getting you. Can you tell the diff bet Echad and Yachid?

 

[nothead]

still not getting you. Can you tell the diff bet Echad and Yachid?

Maimonides used "yachid" probably to expound upon "echad" in the face of Christian opposition...and it is after all not used often, only eleven times in OT.

Christians seem to think this word SHOULD have been used by God if the numerical, stand-alone, unique and by itself meaning was meant. Not at all, since Echad means the numerical one, first, alone and unique. 7 out of 952 times by Strong's to might mean what you say. Not even one percent of the time. Not even a MINOR definition of Strong's.

Anything else you want to spout? I have answers, usually.

 

[nothead]

Please don't misuse the term "ad hominem". I said nothing against a person' I only pointed out the details of a statement. And while you might INTERPRET that a list of 5 means 10, but then that would make your idea simply a later addition.

Ah, so there is a core which has many, but there is still one above the others...sort of a super core?

And they disareed with him.

You are endorsing a reformer who decided, on his own then, that some laws just don't matter and fought with the authorities who pointed out that God gave all the laws and man doesn't have the right to decide which are unimportant. If that's how you want to live your life, have fun. I'll follow the laws that were given and not make excuses why some no longer need to be followed.

This would make you very much like the Pharisees who tried to hang Jesus on the minor laws. Unless you repent of this, you too will see your own mistaken view of Law to it's own end. The violence and depravity of the Holocaust had more to do with COVETING, and STEALING and MURDER than anything else among Christian folk in Germany. The basic breaking and abrogation of God's First and Primal Laws.

 

[JM2C]

Maimonides used "yachid" probably to expound upon "echad" in the face of Christian opposition...and it is after all not used often, only eleven times in OT.

Christians seem to think this word SHOULD have been used by God if the numerical, stand-alone, unique and by itself meaning was meant. Not at all, since Echad means the numerical one, first, alone and unique. 7 out of 952 times by Strong's to might mean what you say. Not even one percent of the time. Not even a MINOR definition of Strong's.

Anything else you want to spout? I have answers, usually.

So why change from Echad to Yachid?

 

[nothead]

So why change from Echad to Yachid?

The OT did not. Maimonides changed it. But his meaning still conforms to the meaning meant originally.

Echad in the Shema is NOT a compound "one." Got that? Once I did, I knew Jesus could not be God. But then again he never stated this premise in three words or four words or five or six words. All inferences to his DEITY come from em, inferences made.