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

[nothead]

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.

His emphasis did not include a rebuke to his own for not washing before eating, for being homeless essentially, water is not always easy to find, even grey water which is undrinkable...these kind of things were so unimportant that to wash the outside of the cup was considered moot, at least in time and place. Mikveh baptisms were not done often, but WHEN they were done, a cleansing or spiritual washing before God did take on very much new meaning. Since they were as dirty as people get who do not wash every day their whole body.

I agree that verbal tradition was considered valid, the THREAD of thought underlying metaphor, which may have slight variance. It was in fact essential to do this, find the underlying principles and THREADS of truth behind variant oral testimony, since certain words may be changed around, a jot here or a tittle there misplaced. That part of the halachic system was necessary, but not necessarily inspired as the original oral testimony from the mouthpiece of God. What Jesus meant by "no jot or tittle" will pass away without fulfillment, is the ORIGINAL testimony, which must necessarily be "oral copies" upon other "oral copies."

The secular/rational POV is indeed superceded by spiritual comprehension, and this by faith. But faith does start with common sense and this in survival mode, since we have to use this same mechanism...to survive unto life, whether temporal or eternal.

 

[nothead]

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

What I have is seen through the lens of the NT, and this is valid as Josephus or Eusebius is also. No HISTORY exists for us except by testimonies of men in that day and age which survive. You deny NT is valid history. But we only have what we have, and comparisons have to be made at least between the writings extant in the modern age. Even rabbi's of the day would give their own, and bias has to be evaluated from each source.

 

[nothead]

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.

It is only used eleven times, compared to "echad" used 952 times. The word was hardly EVER used, sir. Why would God bumble us with ill or nil used words...for the Great Command? Deut 30 SAYS Shema was given to be simply heard and done, and it is the singular command meant which Rosends denies:

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.

See how modern day Judaism boogles the simple PESHAT Command? Three Jews here deny it, and they are wrong.
Hint: the Command GIVEN THAT DAY was Shema.

 

[nothead]

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!

I'll halleluyah that one, sir. The HALLS of Montezuma, I mean EL YOU and ME YAH!

The reason being that for the Circumcised of Heart, Shema is done as never before. Reformation gets back to Core Faith, even that of Abraham who knew Shema in his heart before it was even said in metaphor by God. God's Word was in his heart, and soul and was the strength of him.

 

[rosends]

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.

There are two words. On many situations, yachid means "unique", "alone" or "singular." The word is also never used in reference to locusts so they must also be like God.

You understand that you are talking about a Hebrew word which means "one" the way the English word "one" means "one", right? If I say "one person" then it doesn't matter that you can reword a sentence to include "one man from among the 7 billion humans on earth." The number is still "one." To claim that it is a "unified" one (which was your contention) and that this is different from some other form of one is like saying that the word "one" means something different from the word "single." They are simply different words. The text refers to one mountain so it uses the word "one." It refers to a single object regardless of its context. In Ex 14:28, the text relates that "to the one". You want to say that because the "one" is one of others, it is different from being "just one that there is nothing else like" and your proof is that there is a word meaning "singular" which isn't used for God. That's a bizarre conclusion to draw. The non-use of a word does not confer a trait, it just makes that word not part of the sentences which describe.

The problem here is twofold:
1. You have created this concept of "unified one" and decided that it is different from some other "one" which doesn't actually exist.
2. You apply this "unified one" to God by comparing him to other uses of the word "one" which are determined by "others in the group" (one from among other mountains).

There simply is no other word for "one" so the text uses the only word it has for "one".

 

[rosends]

What I have is seen through the lens of the NT, and this is valid as Josephus or Eusebius is also. No HISTORY exists for us except by testimonies of men in that day and age which survive. You deny NT is valid history. But we only have what we have, and comparisons have to be made at least between the writings extant in the modern age. Even rabbi's of the day would give their own, and bias has to be evaluated from each source.

So the bias of Jewish rabbis who record how Jews acted and what Jews believed makes more sense to me than the bias of a document which has factual errors and suggests changing what the rabbis and Jews believed. You want to use it? Fine. It just has nothing to do with Judaism. Good luck with that.

 

[Desert Snake]

His emphasis did not include a rebuke to his own for not washing before eating, for being homeless essentially, water is not always easy to find, even grey water which is undrinkable...these kind of things were so unimportant that to wash the outside of the cup was considered moot, at least in time and place. Mikveh baptisms were not done often, but WHEN they were done, a cleansing or spiritual washing before God did take on very much new meaning. Since they were as dirty as people get who do not wash every day their whole body.

I believe the 'baptism' of Christians to be essentially a 'local tradition' that Jesus partook of. Notice it is 'John the Baptist', not Jesus the Baptist. Jesus was giving, or rather lending, credibility to the custom of introducing new adherents via this method; however, notice that the Bible makes a clear distinction between baptism by John, ie 'worldly baptism', and the baptism by Jesus, the spiritual baptism. They are different things. The 'command to baptize', is fuzzy at best, in that, this was a symbolic public ceremony, where someone became a Xian. If we look at baptism in the spiritual sense, ie Jesus baptism, there is no 'rule' to procedure; even a traditional 'style', either sprinkling or dunking, is not specified. We have essentially the leeway to baptize ourselves, or in any manner we see fit, aside from ''church baptism'', and it's still legit. Technically it is the baptism from Jesus we seek, not the 'church', or public symbolism, that is the 'goal'.

 

[JM2C]

God the Father is the ONLY GOD, and this was said again and again by YOUR LORD, sir.

In John 17:3 it did not say the Lord Jesus is not God. In 1John 5:20 it did not say that God the Father is not God.

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

NEVER ONCE that he is God,

Where is your proof?

I have John 1:1-2, John 12:41, Hebrews 1:8-9, Romans 9:5 where it says He is God.

 

[JM2C]

There are two words. On many situations, yachid means "unique", "alone" or "singular." The word is also never used in reference to locusts so they must also be like God.

Really? That’s your argument?

You understand that you are talking about a Hebrew word which means "one" the way the English word "one" means "one", right?

Wrong! The word “only/yachid” derived from the word “one/echad”. The word “yachid” derived from the word “echad”. Read and understand Genesis 22:2 until you are blue in the face, and you will understand the diff bet these two words.

 

[JM2C]

The problem here is twofold:

1. You have created this concept of "unified one" and decided that it is different from some other "one" which doesn't actually exist.


2. You apply this "unified one" to God by comparing him to other uses of the word "one" which are determined by "others in the group" (one from among other mountains).


There simply is no other word for "one" so the text uses the only word it has for "one".

Until now you have not answered the diff bet “yachid” and “echad”.

 

[rosends]

Really? That’s your argument?

No, that's yours. The use or non-use of a word in a context determines some aspect of meaning. If that's the case, then you have to look at all uses or non-uses of the word and come to the same conclusion.

Wrong! The word “only/yachid” derived from the word “one/echad”. The word “yachid” derived from the word “echad”. Read and understand Genesis 22:2 until you are blue in the face, and you will understand the diff bet these two words.

Actually, you might want to check your etymological sources. Echad comes from the root "chad" meaning "one" while "yachad" is a later off shoot of that meaning "to be made singular" (connected to the Syriac shucheid.) The word "yachid" as singular when came from "yachad". So Gen 22:2 identifies what makes Isaac a yachid -- he is unique and not like Yishma'el. Not sure what else you would want to derive from that. Different meaning, different word.

 

[JM2C]

If I say "one person" then it doesn't matter that you can reword a sentence to include "one man from among the 7 billion humans on earth." The number is still "one." To claim that it is a "unified" one (which was your contention) and that this is different from some other form of one is like saying that the word "one" means something different from the word "single." They are simply different words.

In Greek language the word “another or other” has two meanings “heteros” and “allos”, can you tell the diff bet these 2 words?

 

[JM2C]

The text refers to one mountain so it uses the word "one." It refers to a single object regardless of its context.

”regardless of the context”? For the 20th times ahem, ahem, ahem!

Please read and understand: The text is referring to the mountains as many mountains like the Andes Mountains.

 

[JM2C]

Actually, you might want to check your etymological sources. Echad comes from the root "chad" meaning "one" while "yachad" is a later off shoot of that meaning "to be made singular" (connected to the Syriac shucheid.)

Didn’t I say that?

Wrong! The word “only/yachid” derived from the word “one/echad”. The word “yachid” derived from the word “echad”. Read and understand Genesis 22:2 until you are blue in the face, and you will understand the diff bet these two words.

The word “only” as in “yachid” came from the word “one” as in “echad”. IOW, yachid derived from the word echad.

The word "yachid" as singular when came from "yachad". So Gen 22:2 identifies what makes Isaac a yachid -- he is unique and not like Yishma'el. Not sure what else you would want to derive from that. Different meaning, different word.

An only/yachid son of Abraham in contrast to “one/echad” of the mountains –Gen 22:2.

 

[JM2C]

No, that's yours. The use or non-use of a word in a context determines some aspect of meaning.
If that's the case, then you have to look at all uses or non-uses of the word and come to the same conclusion.

You mean the proper way to use the words in the context exegetically? I thought I was doing that, but you prefer differently

The text refers to one mountain so it uses the word "one." It refers to a single object regardless of its context.

 

[JM2C]

It is only used eleven times, compared to "echad" used 952 times. The word was hardly EVER used, sir.

How about NEVER?

 

[nothead]

How about NEVER?

Why are you shirking the plain numerical meaning of "echad?" Did I not just tell you what is the first number a Hebrew child learns? Is this COMPOUND or not, sir?

Not only do you shirk the plain meaning of Shema, YHWH is "one," you shirk the pervasive and consistent CONTEXT of Shema, that there is NO OTHER ONE.

Shirking on TOP of shirking will not make a man behoovin' to be groovin', sir.

 

[JM2C]

Why would God bumble us with ill or nil used words...for the Great Command?

That’s why God gave these two words, the “echad”, and the “yachid” so we can know God more accurately and not mislead by misinterpretations.

 

[nothead]

I believe the 'baptism' of Christians to be essentially a 'local tradition' that Jesus partook of. Notice it is 'John the Baptist', not Jesus the Baptist. Jesus was giving, or rather lending, credibility to the custom of introducing new adherents via this method; however, notice that the Bible makes a clear distinction between baptism by John, ie 'worldly baptism', and the baptism by Jesus, the spiritual baptism. They are different things. The 'command to baptize', is fuzzy at best, in that, this was a symbolic public ceremony, where someone became a Xian. If we look at baptism in the spiritual sense, ie Jesus baptism, there is no 'rule' to procedure; even a traditional 'style', either sprinkling or dunking, is not specified. We have essentially the leeway to baptize ourselves, or in any manner we see fit, aside from ''church baptism'', and it's still legit. Technically it is the baptism from Jesus we seek, not the 'church', or public symbolism, that is the 'goal'.

There is the public proclamation of man, most notably by water. There again is the Spiritual Baptism done by God, most notably in the upper room. Now the betrayer, the Cephas is a LION of Judah, like his master. Now the first gen saints are EQUIPPED to die the Shema death of sacrifice.

 

[nothead]

That’s why God gave these two words, the “echad”, and the “yachid” so we can know God more accurately and not mislead by misinterpretations.

Throwing a wrench into the machinery only shows your penchant for finding a way out of truth, sir. See the light, see God is the Father only. The one sitting at the Right Hand of God cannot BE God. Two Gods in Heaven was NEVER the scenario sent in vision, revelation, or truth.