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

[Levite]

This really should have been a thread discussing meanings of the Shma for Christians, since so far, only @rosends has actually said anything relevant to Judaism and a Jewish understanding of the Shma, or, for that matter, relevant to any coherent understanding of the text of the Torah at all.

 

[rosends]

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.

"Very much like"? Indeed, modern Judaism is based on the Pharisees. Thank you for the compliment. I won't ever apologize for being right or repent having done no wrong.

 

[nothead]

"Very much like"? Indeed, modern Judaism is based on the Pharisees. Thank you for the compliment. I won't ever apologize for being right or repent having done no wrong.

THEY were not behoovin' to be groovin'. You aren't either. Maybe you behoovin' to be screwin'. Around, that is.

A rabbi can't see the big Laws from the smaller ones? The scribe asked Jesus what Law was greatest? Maybe you can even take a LESSON from them eyeh?

 

[nothead]

This really should have been a thread discussing meanings of the Shma for Christians, since so far, only @rosends has actually said anything relevant to Judaism and a Jewish understanding of the Shma, or, for that matter, relevant to any coherent understanding of the text of the Torah at all.

Jesus' view of Shema should be your own. The additions to the original two are at very best subservient to the two in Deut 6:5...even Jews should be able to see it...you cannot either? What does this say about you, oh man?

 

[Levite]

Jesus' view of Shema should be your own. The additions to the original two are at very best subservient to the two in Deut 6:5...even Jews should be able to see it...you cannot either? What does this say about you, oh man?

I see no reason whatsoever to care about any of Jesus' opinions about anything. He is dead, and apparently also wrong.

 

[nothead]

I see no reason whatsoever to care about any of Jesus' opinions about anything. He is dead, and apparently also wrong.

Maybe you then do not understand how awfully hard Shema is to do...do you in fact love God with ALL of your heart soul and being? Have you done this throughout your life?

The mainline Christian view of Shema is wrong, since HE is not a unity of HE'S being a THEY.

But your view is also obviously wrong too, not understanding what Shema is, and even more compellingly, not understanding it is after all the hardest Law to do, under the sun.

 

[nothead]

Maybe you then do not understand how awfully hard Shema is to do...do you in fact love God with ALL of your heart soul and being? Have you done this throughout your life?

The mainline Christian view of Shema is wrong, since HE is not a unity of HE'S being a THEY.

But your view is also obviously wrong too, not understanding what Shema is, and even more compellingly, not understanding it is after all the hardest Law to do, under the sun.

If no priority is given Law, and all laws are of general equal or doable en toto, then there is no concept that a greater law will necessitate the abrogation of a lesser law. This is just common sense, but for some reason, law mongers seem to think all laws can be done in combination, when in fact a greater law will FREQUENTLY deny a lesser law, and require an abrogation of it.

Jesus' own sayings makes this clear. You must HATE your mother, father sister or brother if to love them means not loving God, who comes first. This is an obvious abrogation even of one of the Ten, but it was the reasoning he gave his own mother when she rebukes him for not being ready and present as they left from Jerusalem. To bury his father for one disciple was honoring him, but what did rabbi Yeshua say? Even for Abraham he had to make a choice between his favorite son and God. This concept is so pervasive, how do some miss it altogether?

The Pharisees said they did not wash their hands, but as wanderers after Jesus, was hand washing so really holy or not? Was fasting, when they had nothing to eat sometimes anyway?
Was wine not their sustenance and not an excuse for wanton behavior?

 

[JM2C]

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

”Yachid” is an absolute one while “Echad” is a compound or united “one”.

Echad in the Shema is NOT a compound "one." Got that?

I think you “Got that” the other way around. You still did not answer my question. Why did Maimonides changed the “echad, a united one” to “yachid, an absolute one”?

 

[rosends]

THEY were not behoovin' to be groovin'. You aren't either. Maybe you behoovin' to be screwin'. Around, that is.

A rabbi can't see the big Laws from the smaller ones? The scribe asked Jesus what Law was greatest? Maybe you can even take a LESSON from them eyeh?

A rabbi can see that there are no "big laws" and "small laws". While there are some laws which overrule others in given situations, laws are laws. We have in Judaism the idea that there is a law which is essential to understanding the whole religion. You want to call that "bigger"? Fine. It isn't the sh'ma.

"What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a). That was said by a Pharisee who died before Jesus was 10 years old. If that is the "most important" and "bigger" than ALL the rest, then your thesis is shot to heck and back.

 

[CMike]

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.

Absolutely. "The Lord is our G-D, the Lord is One."

It's very clear except for people who want to make it non clear.

 

[Levite]

Maybe you then do not understand how awfully hard Shema is to do...do you in fact love God with ALL of your heart soul and being? Have you done this throughout your life?

The mainline Christian view of Shema is wrong, since HE is not a unity of HE'S being a THEY.

But your view is also obviously wrong too, not understanding what Shema is, and even more compellingly, not understanding it is after all the hardest Law to do, under the sun.

Any Christian view of the Shma is irrelevant.

In any case, I much prefer the interpretation of the Rabbis in tractate Brachot, where they say that the mitzvah to love God with all your heart means that one is obliged to bless God not only amidst one's joys but also amidst one's woes; that to love God with all your soul means to remain faithful to him even if doing so endangers your life; and that to love God with all your might means with all the means at your disposal, by giving tzedakah (charity) unstintingly.

Makes much more sense to me than anything I've seen in this thread.

 

[nothead]

”Yachid” is an absolute one while “Echad” is a compound or united “one”.
I think you “Got that” the other way around. You still did not answer my question. Why did Maimonides changed the “echad, a united one” to “yachid, an absolute one”?

Echad is not a united one. It means a stand-alone unit of one. Only one, and the context of Shema always was interpreted this way by all Jews dead or alive or halfway in between. NO OTHER ONE means only one. And Jn 17:3 reiterates it for you. When was Maimonides around, some time 12th century? What difference does it make what he did, although I already stated it may have been done in response to Trinitarian claims like yours. Remember, NO OTHER ONE was said in Isa 45, 8 times in case you missed the first one...and the second one.....and the third one............and the fourth one..................and the fifth one..........................and the sixth one.............................................and the seventh one, along with 50 SINGULAR pronouns attendant to the One True God.

 

[nothead]

Any Christian view of the Shma is irrelevant.

In any case, I much prefer the interpretation of the Rabbis in tractate Brachot, where they say that the mitzvah to love God with all your heart means that one is obliged to bless God not only amidst one's joys but also amidst one's woes; that to love God with all your soul means to remain faithful to him even if doing so endangers your life; and that to love God with all your might means with all the means at your disposal, by giving tzedakah (charity) unstintingly.

Makes much more sense to me than anything I've seen in this thread.

Yeah, that commentary by Brachot really does show you this Command is the Hardest Under the Sun..."Book by nothead," coming in the Spring of whenever.

 

[nothead]

A rabbi can see that there are no "big laws" and "small laws". While there are some laws which overrule others in given situations, laws are laws. We have in Judaism the idea that there is a law which is essential to understanding the whole religion. You want to call that "bigger"? Fine. It isn't the sh'ma.

"What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a). That was said by a Pharisee who died before Jesus was 10 years old. If that is the "most important" and "bigger" than ALL the rest, then your thesis is shot to heck and back.

Biggest social Law. Biggest LAW is Shema to your God, and this is goofy I have to remind a JEW.

 

[rosends]

Biggest social Law. Biggest LAW is Shema to your God, and this is goofy I have to remind a JEW.

Oh, now you have 2 categories? Law is different from "social law"? More additions and inventions to keep your unfounded schema intact. You dance divinely.

 

[JM2C]

Echad is not a united one.

It means a stand-alone unit of one.

Only one, and the context of Shema always was interpreted this way by all Jews dead or alive or halfway in between.

”Only one” is “yachid” from the word “one/echad”.

Ge 2:24 `al-ken ya`azab-'iysh 'et-'abiyv ve'et-'imov vedabaq be'ishetov vehayu lebasar 'echad/259/united one.

Ge 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become echad/259/united one flesh.

Dt 6:4 shema` yisera'el yehvah 'eloheynu yehvah 'echad/259/united or unified ONE

Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one/echad/259/.

The word yachid, an absolute “only” one, is never used in reference to God –see Strong’s 3173.

Example of these two word, “yachid” and “echad”, in one verse.

Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only/yachid/3173 son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one/echad/259 of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

 

[rosends]

Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only/yachid/3173 son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one/echad/259 of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

and how is that mountain a "unified" mountain?

 

[JM2C]

What difference does it make what he did, although I already stated it may have been done in response to Trinitarian claims like yours.

Exactly! He changed it because of the Trinity. It’s like changing “ADNY/LORD” to “adoni/master” by adding vowel points. It does make a whole of difference, doesn’t it? From “echad” to “yachid” and “ADNY/LORD” to “adoni/master”.

Have you ever thought why they needed to change the meaning of the word of God?

Hiding something perhaps?

All these alteration of the word of God points only in one direction, and that is, to the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JM2C]

and how is that mountain a "unified" mountain?

Just making comparison between “echad/united one” and “yachid/only one”

 

[nothead]

Oh, now you have 2 categories? Law is different from "social law"? More additions and inventions to keep your unfounded schema intact. You dance divinely.

Rabbis cannot discriminate between social Law and God's own Law unto Him? Even common sense tells us these Laws are NOT in the same category...although all social Law reflects the character and love of God.

Proper priority and the weights and measures given Law means all Law is in proper order. The wrong weights upon the hierarchy of Law will confuse and confound the Order of the Universe, as meant by YHWH Elohim for us to comprehend.
How's that for a pedantic statement? God gave you the proper order of authority. You SHIRK it sir, not even knowing some are over others, which you won't even admit for ANY, right?