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

[CMike]

Personally, I really don't care what Jewish laws jesus approved of and what laws he didn't approve of.

He is irrelevant for Judaism.

 

[nothead]

Not really.

Jewish law came from G-D.

Whether you understand the spiritual significance of it is irrelevant to Jews.

Below is a link to some of the reasons of ritual hand washing for Jews.

Washing for Bread

I agree with you, but this God's first command is to love Him with all. This actually implies the Love Covenant, that which Law He gave at the same time the Land of Milk and Honey was given. The Command was reiterated by Jesus, but was known to be the Greatest Command by the scribe also, in two parts, who was in all likelihood a Pharisee. In other words, God comes first, in authority and in our love and loyalty. This was originally the first of the Ten, also. To have no other idols of elohim before the One True God. Shema is actually the Hard version of the first of the Ten.

 

[nothead]

Personally, I really don't care what Jewish laws jesus approved of and what laws he didn't approve of.

He is irrelevant for Judaism.

So you say, but Abrahamics who reside here who are also Jesus followers will differ significantly in their POV as to what Law really is...and the Pharisees legitimately wanted first to be reinforced, not rebuked or having their own "authority" taken away. Part of that rebuke was that their overall spirituality was not as clean as they themselves perceived.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Mt 23...being a Gentile, of course the inside of the cup and dish would be most important...the PRIMAL LAWS even.

 

[nothead]

It's rather annoying how these non Jewish "experts" on Jewish law don't seek to understand what they are talking about, but just blindly and ignorantly cast judgement about Jewish law.

You can do what you want to, but I've no compunction to uphold lesser Law. However as YHWH Elohim is also God of the nations, who created every living thing...His primal Law is for every human born. All will be judged both Jew and Gentile. And Gentiles who were never told Law will still be judged for his heart before both God and man. Atheists and agnostics may never know Shema unto God. But moral law is the natural order of humanity, and the social law unto men is still binding according to one's conscience.

This God whom no man hath seen in form, or heard in audible voice normally speaking is still the Creator and Judge. Some will see it too late, and some will be moral with no Law taught them. Some seek for God and some never. I would however tell a Jew that all Law connects to the BAT QOL of God, the inner resonance of spirit...to the Spirit of God. Mysticism taken too far has now given way to a secular/rational POV which is not eschatological, not like the Qumran Jews, not like even the Pharisees of Jesus' time. The workings of the various Heavens and the workers thereof are as real as our world is to us, and these men living in caves knew more than modern man...by far. Daniel, the Targum of Ezekiel, the Apocalypse of Moses, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Life of Adam and Eve, the Testament of Abraham, the Similitudes of Enoch, the Targum of Job, the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice, the Testament of Levi, the Exogogue, the Book of Watchers all have amazing and differing mystical experiences of Heaven which are so ignored today...that the calcification of Judaism is becoming normal and mundane. Even though I am normally conservative, I do not treat the Law of God as a lawyer does secular Law, a disappointing thing in my view.

 

[nothead]

English please?

Was I sprechen Hebrew, sir which I do not know?

 

[nothead]

They bucked against the Romans because the Romans tried to destroy Judaism.

When in Rome...but they were Jews at heart, and a true Jew puts their own God first and foremost. Taxes may hinder, but incense to other gods, never.

 

[nothead]

It's rather annoying how these non Jewish "experts" on Jewish law don't seek to understand what they are talking about, but just blindly and ignorantly cast judgement about Jewish law.

Do you understand the Shema is the Great Law? The scribe who confronted Jesus in Mk 12 knew it. Did not Rosends say he was proud to be a Pharisee? THIS Pharisee knew more than the both of you. Do you really think your version of Judaism is the SAME as the Pharisees in Jesus' day? One common trait, not knowing lesser Law from Primal Law. Goody for you.

 

[nothead]

IMO it was an easier sales job to say that people didn't actually have to do anything other than accept jesus as their saviour.

However, in reality the deeds are more important than the words.

Yes deeds are more important than what you got in your bean...you can even know what you are supposed to do, and don't do it, creating more havoc in your life. I did appreciate that for a Jew action speaks louder than words. Faith is not without action, and belief and action are ideally cause and effect. An immoral Christian is as bad as an immoral Jew, maybe worse off for knowing better the Heart Circumcision. Deut 30:

6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

So then the Heart Circumcision is the fulfillment of the Penis Cut, that which foreshadows the Real Deal is not compulsory for dogs, now is it? Youall can do it if you want to, just know which is more important to God.

 

[metis]

Give unto Caesar what is his due. But what is not his due is any abrogation of God's primal Law. Taxes were said to give unto him. Not our hearts and souls. Every Jew under the sun and under Roman occupation knew this. You might be smudging a most important concept, assuming secular Law and Mose's Law are mergible, and you even deny why Jews bucked against Roman authority many times.

I don't know how you got this from what I wrote. I used secular law only in regards to the fact that it and Mosaiic Law pretty much become automatic to follow after a while. When in conflict, we Jews are to follow the Mosaiic Law.

 

[metis]

Do you understand the Shema is the Great Law? The scribe who confronted Jesus in Mk 12 knew it. Did not Rosends say he was proud to be a Pharisee? THIS Pharisee knew more than the both of you. Do you really think your version of Judaism is the SAME as the Pharisees in Jesus' day? One common trait, not knowing lesser Law from Primal Law. Goody for you.

There are 613 Laws, and because they are not ranked in Torah, it is nonsensical to elevate one over all the rest.

 

[rosends]

Do you understand the Shema is the Great Law? The scribe who confronted Jesus in Mk 12 knew it. Did not Rosends say he was proud to be a Pharisee? THIS Pharisee knew more than the both of you. Do you really think your version of Judaism is the SAME as the Pharisees in Jesus' day? One common trait, not knowing lesser Law from Primal Law. Goody for you.

Current Judaism is the same as Pharisaic Judaism. Except you are relying on flawed gospels which paint a particular and agendized picture of Pharisees and are unreliable as source material so your conclusions are flawed.

 

[JM2C]

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

You still don’t understand, do you?

“one and only/yachid” son, as in no brothers, singular, son of Abraham, meaning Ishmael is not part of Abraham’s genealogy. An “only/yachid” son of Abraham. Do you understand this NOW?

In the land of Moriah there is a group of mountains, as in not a singular or an "only/yachid" mountain, but many as in plural of mountains but one/echad of mountains like the Andes Mountains. Do you understand this NOW?

The meaning of “yachid” as an “only one” like an only son [excluding Ishmael] of Abraham in contrast to “one/echad” as a united or unified one like the group on mountains in the land of Moriah. Do you understand this NOW?

Please read and understand:

In 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/Echad Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

Some have beans and some beanbrains.

Tell me which one are you now?

 

[JM2C]

You keep insisting that a single mountain is a "unified one" -- while it might be part of "one mountain range" it is "one mountain."

It did not say in Genesis 22:2 “An “only/yachid” mountain”.

It did say “one/echad of the mountains” as in one mountain that is part of the mountains in the land of Moriah like the Andes Mountains in South America.

“One/Echad” of the mountains is a mountain that is part of the many mountains like the Andes. What is so hard to understand here?

You keep insisting that the mountain is the “only/yachid” mountain and not “one/echad” of the mountains in the land of Moriah.

 

[JM2C]

In the 5 books, the word "echad" appears in some form 694 times, and achat, the same word, but feminine, appears 271 times.


Your contention is that in each of these, the word is a unified one.


So when, in Gen 42:11, the brothers tell Joseph that they are sons of "one man" they mean a "unified man"? OK.

Ge 42:11 We are all one/echad/259 man's sons; we are true men, thy servants are no spies.

The plural “we” as “one/echad/259”. The plural mountains as “one/echad/259”

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

“they will become one/echad”

Ge 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

“The man has now become like one/echad of US”

 

[Desert Snake]

Em, the Pharisaical penchant for putting too much weight on the mundane laws? Yes, the question is, how many times DO YOU wash your hands, sir? They accused Jesus' own disciples of not washing.

How many times DO YOU wash your hands sir? Don't you think if you doubled it, twice as holy? Triple it, three times holy?

Quadriple, four times? How holy you wanna be, Levite?

This is irrelevant. In reality, the Judaic tradition has always upheld the verbal tradition as legit, that's why there are variant views regarding some non-important things in the Jewish Bible. The mistake here is thinking that Jesus was upholding the traditions merely by disagreeing with the Pharisees. No, His message was different, but related to, the teachings in the Temple. Jesus taught a religious practice that didn't 'replace' the verbal tradition, merely shifted the emphasis from a more academic one, to a more spiritual one.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is why there isn't a "New Covenant", technically; it is a continuation Covenant, and the words 'new' or such are just descriptive of the modifications directed to the usual traditions.

Can I get a Halleluyah!

 

[JM2C]

And in Ex. 10:19, when no locusts were left over, and the text says "not even one" it means "not even a unified locust." I'm not sure what a unified locust is, but ok.

Tell me why it did not say an “only/yachid” locust instead of the “one/echad” locust?

Numbers 15:16 must be talking about "one unified law"

One/echad unified law, i.e., the Law of Moses, consist of many laws.

 

[nothead]

Current Judaism is the same as Pharisaic Judaism. Except you are relying on flawed gospels which paint a particular and agendized picture of Pharisees and are unreliable as source material so your conclusions are flawed.

NT is as reliable as OT, having the same mechanics as OT canon, the same idea that original revelation of the authors is primal, and that commentary on the original is just that, commentary on the original experience the disciples had.

Paul was a Pharisee, and apparently a higher up, having been taught by Gemaliel, whom you know. His testimony is especially compelling...knowing of course for all Jews, bearing false witness (testimony) is a crime against God.

 

[JM2C]

That's just a random sampling from the masculine construction, in the 5 books, used without prefixes like "and" (as in Lev 5:7 "one as a chatat offering AND one as an olah offering"). More and more varied uses available upon request. So please explain the "compoundness" of a road, a locust, sacrifice or a man (let alone a mountain).

If you can tell me the diff bet “echad” and “yachid” that would answer your question here. You do understand that what we are arguing here is about those two words, right? Did you that The word yachid, an absolute “only” one, is never used in reference to God –see Strong’s 3173.

 

[rosends]

NT is as reliable as OT, having the same mechanics as OT canon, the same idea that original revelation of the authors is primal, and that commentary on the original is just that, commentary on the original experience the disciples had.

Paul was a Pharisee, and apparently a higher up, having been taught by Gemaliel, whom you know. His testimony is especially compelling...knowing of course for all Jews, bearing false witness (testimony) is a crime against God.

Once you assert this position, you lose any credibility in terms of explaining what Judaism believes. Not that you had any, but still...