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

[nothead]

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

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

Neither comparison holds up. The "one" of flesh is a non-literal analogy of a single homogenous "flesh" which portrays flesh on flesh, becoming a single unit, or a single sexual lump of phi slamma jamma...the "one" is not even a temporary or permanent condition, unless they be opposite sex Siamese twins having sex, so to speak. Ooops.

The single son, emphasized by scripture also is also sacrificed on a single, alone mountain. What is with you, cannot see the single sacrifice for the mountains? How many was Abraham making and how many sons did he have to sacrifice?

Like saying a FOREST is a compound set of trees. The COMPOUNDNESS is inherent in the word, "forest." But a single "echad" forest is ONE forest in relation to other not specified "forests." So then an echad forest would be a SINGLE forest, and is not compound in the meaning of "echad."

 

[nothead]

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.

What is hid is the plain numerical one, "echad" which seems to bypass you bean. Bean having a nice day? Put that in your bean and have a nicer one. FIRST number a child learns when learning to count. SHIRKED by Jews for Jesus whom have no excuse.

 

[rosends]

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

But if your understanding of "echad" is "united one" how does that fit in to the use of the word in the verse you quoted?

 

[rosends]

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?

You are inventing categories and differentiation and you consider that "common sense" It is uncommon nonsense. You have decided on a hierarchy that fits the conclusion you already need to come to. That doesn't make that hierarchy in any way real or precedented, just your convenience.

 

[nothead]

You are inventing categories and differentiation and you consider that "common sense" It is uncommon nonsense. You have decided on a hierarchy that fits the conclusion you already need to come to. That doesn't make that hierarchy in any way real or precedented, just your convenience.

I was informed by Jesus. He happens to make a lot of sense. I was also trying to show you that you yourself cannot but prioritize Law, from the less stressed ones (by God) and the more important ones. Shema is the Single Law by which all Law and the prophets hang, why since the love of YHWH Elohim inspires all Law in our hearts, and if this is not true, then the Law is a lesser law, an ITTY BITTY law after all. Cleaning your hands for instance may be healthy and this merges into the "holy" but not directly and so...washing your hands is a lesser law, natch. The manic obsessive and the compulsive are gonna not see this at all, but then again they have dain brisorder.

 

[Levite]

I was informed by Jesus.

Utterly irrelevant to Judaism, Jewish thought, Jewish text.

He happens to make a lot of sense.

Not so far, he doesn't.

 

[nothead]

Utterly irrelevant to Judaism, Jewish thought, Jewish text.



Not so far, he doesn't.

No likey Haysoos? How do I know that? Think I'ma gonna change just 'cause you say so?

How about arguing what he said instead of wantonly dismissing him? Diss the man, bite da bullet. That's what we say on da STREET, man.

More to the real life problems of man: if you gotta wash before every meal, then how about washing your hands before every mean AND every prayer? And if this, how about these times AND before you go to bed and before you rise, and before you put a cigarillo in your mout, and AFTER you eat, since you maybe got some germs FROM THE FOOD, and after you do a number two and before and after a number one? And on.........and on, until you washing your hands 50plus times each day. See how manic obsessive disorders work, sir?

 

[Levite]

No likey Haysoos? How do I know that? Think I'ma gonna change just 'cause you say so?

I didn't say so. I merely noted that whatever he said is irrelevant to Judaism, Jewish thought, and Jewish text. What you as a non-Jew do is none of my concern, right up until the moment you begin claiming to have more authoritative and correct understandings of Jewish text or Judaism than Jews do. As long as you don't do that, what you do is completely uninteresting to me.

How about arguing what he said instead of wantonly dismissing him? Diss the man, bite da bullet. That's what we say on da STREET, man.

That's the lovely thing about a heretic who's been dead for almost two millennia. I don't have to argue what he said. What he said, if it ever had any relevance to Judaism, stopped being relevant to Judaism almost two thousand years ago. I don't have to argue what he said anymore than I have to argue Galen's lessons on the four bodily humors. They are irrelevant relics of a very distant past.

More to the real life problems of man: if you gotta wash before every meal, then how about washing your hands before every mean AND every prayer? And if this, how about these times AND before you go to bed and before you rise, and before you put a cigarillo in your mout, and AFTER you eat, since you maybe got some germs FROM THE FOOD, and after you do a number two and before and after a number one? And on.........and on, until you washing your hands 50plus times each day. See how manic obsessive disorders work, sir?

And this non sequitur rant is supposed to be relevant to what?

 

[Unification]

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?

There is nothing special about anyone's ethnicity. A Jew spiritually is one InWARD, SPIRITUALLY. Metaphor. Jews ethic wise are very disciplined in vain works when they and every human being should realize that those literal works are the meaning of what is happening INSIDE of an individual where the temple of the Lord is, the human body. Jesus coming in the flesh is not literal but the spiritual conscious being resurrected inside an individual, inside the heart. Jesus goes by many different names in the Hebrew Scriptures. Every religion has their own term for it. To the Christian, it's a literal physical coming and they also wait for a mystical second coming which is false. EVERyThInG is INsIDE of a human body as are all of the scriptures talking about the human body and transformation of a man within.

 

[JM2C]

Neither comparison holds up. The "one" of flesh is a non-literal analogy of a single homogenous "flesh" which portrays flesh on flesh, becoming a single unit, or a single sexual lump of phi slamma jamma...the "one" is not even a temporary or permanent condition, unless they be opposite sex Siamese twins having sex, so to speak. Ooops.

The single son, emphasized by scripture also is also sacrificed on a single, alone mountain.

What is with you, cannot see the single sacrifice for the mountains? How many was Abraham making and how many sons did he have to sacrifice?

Your analogies do not make any sense at all. We are talking about “Echad” and “Yachid” in Genesis 22:2.

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.

 

[JM2C]

Like saying a FOREST is a compound set of trees.

Trinity is a compound of God/Father, God/Son, and God/Holy Spirit. So, everytime you say forest you think of trees, or everytime you say Acacia wood you think of the forest. The same thing if you say God/Father, or the Lord Jesus, or the Holy Spirit you think of the Trinity and vice versa and this is the meaning of the word “Echad”, a united ONE.

You cannot separate one from the other because it would not make sense. You cannot separate the 10C from the Book of Covenant because they are ONE/Echad united or unified law that came from God. When you speak of the 10C you are speaking of the entire Law of Moses. You should understand it, the Law of Moses, as ONE piece of law but consist of many laws.

The COMPOUNDNESS is inherent in the word, "forest."

You cannot say this any better. The COMPOUNDNESS of God/Father, God/Son, and God/Holy Spirit is inherent in the word “TRINITY” like the ONE/Echad forest with trees.

But a single "echad" forest is ONE forest in relation to other not specified "forests."

You are moving away from you own analogy. The relationship of a single forest, as ONE/ECHAD, is to the trees and not to the other forests.

So then an echad forest would be a SINGLE forest, and is not compound in the meaning of "echad."

You are contradicting you own analogy or analogies. A forest with trees is the same as the one of the mountains. The Andes Mountains are group of mountains or One/echad group of mountains. A FOREST with TREES is like the ANDES with MOUNTAINS. A Forest without trees and the Andes without the Mountains will not make any sense at all. Trinity without the Holy Spirit, or the Lord Jesus, or God the Father will not make any sense at all either.

 

[JM2C]

But if your understanding of "echad" is "united one" how does that fit in to the use of the word in the verse you quoted?

Read Posts #90 and 91

 

[rosends]

I was informed by Jesus. He happens to make a lot of sense. I was also trying to show you that you yourself cannot but prioritize Law, from the less stressed ones (by God) and the more important ones. Shema is the Single Law by which all Law and the prophets hang, why since the love of YHWH Elohim inspires all Law in our hearts, and if this is not true, then the Law is a lesser law, an ITTY BITTY law after all. Cleaning your hands for instance may be healthy and this merges into the "holy" but not directly and so...washing your hands is a lesser law, natch. The manic obsessive and the compulsive are gonna not see this at all, but then again they have dain brisorder.

You were informed by Jesus? Well then, I was informed by my great grandfather that Jesus, and therefore you, are wrong.

 

[JM2C]

What is hid is the plain numerical one, "echad" which seems to bypass you bean. Bean having a nice day? Put that in your bean and have a nicer one. FIRST number a child learns when learning to count. SHIRKED by Jews for Jesus whom have no excuse.

Bean? That’s it? That’s all the argument I’m gonna get from you? You started a thread you can’t support with good arguments?

 

[rosends]

Read Posts #90 and 91

I did. You haven't clarified. You claim that "echad" is a unified one, then you refer to a verse which points to "one mountain". That mountain -- is it a "unified one" mountain? I can find loads more textual uses of the word "echad." Your claim would have to be defensible in every case of the use of the word. Is it?

 

[CMike]

Here are some more.

Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-D, the L-ord is ONE (Deut)


I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from Me there is no God. ...so that from the rising of the Sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:5-6)

...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah, 46:9)

... so that all the peoples of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other. (1 Kings, 8:60)

Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the Earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:22)

This is what the Lord says…"Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other God." (Isaiah, 45:14)

...The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Deuteronomy, 6:4)


You are my witness--the words of Hashem--and My servant, whom I have chosen, so that you will know and believe in Me, and understand that I am He; before me nothing was created by a G-D, and after Me it shall not be (Isaiah 43:10)

... O Lord; no deeds can compare with Yours. All the nations You have made will come and worship before You, O Lord; they will bring glory to Your name. For You are great and do marvelous deeds; You alone are God. (Psalms, 86:8-10)

O Lord ...You alone are God over all the kingdoms of the Earth. You have made heaven and Earth. (Isaiah, 37:16)

... all kingdoms on Earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God. (Isaiah, 37:20)

This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, Who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, Who has made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, Who spread out the Earth by Myself. (Isaiah, 44:24)

Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides You, who acts on behalf of those who wait for Him. (Isaiah, 64:4)

For this is what the Lord says—He Who created the heavens, He is God; He Who fashioned and made the Earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: "I am the Lord, and there is no other." (Isaiah, 45:18)

...Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no god apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me. (Isaiah, 45:21)

See now that I Myself am He! There is no god besides Me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal... (Deuteronomy, 32:39)

...you may know there is no one like the Lord our God. (Exodus, 8:10)

O Lord... there is no god like You in heaven above or on Earth below... (1 Kings, 8:23; 2 Chronicles, 6:14)

Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, "Lord, there is no one like You to help the powerless against the mighty..."(2 Chronicles, 14:11)

I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from Me there is no savior. (Isaiah, 43:11)

There is no one like You, O Lord, and there is no god but You, as we have heard with our own ears. (1 Chronicles, 17:20; 2 Samuel, 7:22)

There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides You; there is no strength like our God. (1 Samuel, 2:2)

 

[JM2C]

I did. You haven't clarified.

I did. You’re just making the same argument.

You claim that "echad" is a unified one, then you refer to a verse which points to "one mountain". That mountain -- is it a "unified one" mountain? I can find loads more textual uses of the word "echad." Your claim would have to be defensible in every case of the use of the word. Is it?

Load them up and let us see them. Strong’s 259/Echad got about 967 of them but I counted 716. The “yachid/3173” is 12. Can you tell the difference between the two words?

 

[nothead]

Your analogies do not make any sense at all. We are talking about “Echad” and “Yachid” in Genesis 22:2.

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.

One son, one mountain. What of "echad" you want to portray? UNITY OF? Not so. One mountain. Rosends already told you.

 

[nothead]

I did. You’re just making the same argument.

Load them up and let us see them. Strong’s 259/Echad got about 967 of them but I counted 716. The “yachid/3173” is 12. Can you tell the difference between the two words?

What is 12 out of 716? One point 7 percent. Do you honestly think, even under YOUR paradigm, God's Greatest Command would portray a less than 2% meaning? Is this not why the meaning is ABSENT under major OR minor defns in Strong's?

 

[nothead]

Bean? That’s it? That’s all the argument I’m gonna get from you? You started a thread you can’t support with good arguments?

Bean: brain. Some have beans and some beanbrains. What else you wanna know? Which one are you?

Does a beanbrain know he is one? Depends on the beans, and which endeth he speaks from, I would guess.