Jesus Christ: the greatest story ever told?

[muhammad_isa]

The reason is not the language.

No, it isn't.
People interpret things in order to satisfy their creed..
..when it should be, the other way round.

It is easy to claim that "God is One" but
"buts" lead away from truth.
Jesus did not teach any "buts".

Jesus taught the Lord's prayer.
He did not teach anybody to 'pray to' or worship him.

 

[Brian2]

Where did you "Find out" that echad "can" mean a compound one?

Do you mean as a standalone word Echad or in conjunction with another word? Which Hebrew source of grammar did you "find that out" from?

Thanks.

I have seen it elsewhere but also here:
In what sense is 'echad' [one] used in the Shema?
If the meaning yachid was meant there was no reason to use the ambiguous echad in the Shema.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it isn't.
People interpret things in order to satisfy their creed..
..when it should be, the other way round.

It is easy to claim that "God is One" but
"buts" lead away from truth.
Jesus did not teach any "buts".

Jesus taught the Lord's prayer.
He did not teach anybody to 'pray to' or worship him.

Yeah, we all do that. We just interpret differently how to interpret in the correct way. You do it, I do it and everybody else who can, do it.

 

[firedragon]

I have seen it elsewhere but also here:
In what sense is 'echad' [one] used in the Shema?
If the meaning yachid was meant there was no reason to use the ambiguous echad in the Shema.

SO the source says its used as one in the Shema. Is that your source?

Did you even read it? DO you even understand it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

SO the source says its used as one in the Shema. Is that your source?

Did you even read it? DO you even understand it?

It is all words and I get that wrong, because I don't do your understanding as you do it. That is in effect cognitive relativism.

 

[Brian2]

No, it isn't.
People interpret things in order to satisfy their creed..
..when it should be, the other way round.

It is easy to claim that "God is One" but
"buts" lead away from truth.
Jesus did not teach any "buts".

Jesus taught the Lord's prayer.
He did not teach anybody to 'pray to' or worship him.

1Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus means praying to Him.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Jesus' Father is the only true God.

• 1 Kings 18:24, “And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD [YHWH]: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God.”
  • 1 Kings 18:37-38, “Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD [YHWH] God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.”
• Psalm 116:4, “Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH]; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul.”

 

[firedragon]

It is all words and I get that wrong, because I don't do your understanding as you do it. That is in effect cognitive relativism.

Irrelevant. And you are committing a fallacy of generalisation. It is illogical so I will stay out of that type of generalisation. It's not cognitive relativism. One of the most absurd statements there is in this thread.

).

 

[Brian2]

SO the source says its used as one in the Shema. Is that your source?

Did you even read it? DO you even understand it?

Yes I read it and understand that the reasoning about the Shema is not grammatical.
It is wanting to say that Yahweh alone in God and uses echad instead of yachid so that nobody can claim that the Shema is saying that Yahweh is yachid.
But of course the Jews do that and it sounds as if you also want to do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant. And you are committing a fallacy of generalisation. It is illogical so I will stay out of that type of generalisation. It's not cognitive relativism. One of the most absurd statements there is in this thread.

).

And that absurd is in you as a result of cognitive relativism, unless you really are God. But I doubt that.

 

[firedragon]

And that absurd is in you as a result of cognitive relativism, unless you really are God. But I doubt that.

).

 

[firedragon]

Yes I read it and understand that the reasoning about the Shema is not grammatical.

Lol. It's absolutely grammatical.

Tell me. Can "one" be a "compound one" without using the word "compound" in that sentence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

).

The world is not just signs, it is also signs and it is also a subjective interpretation of both "the world" and the world and both are intertwined as in the end cognitive relativism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus means praying to Him.

Yes, well you believe differently to me..
I was raised as C. of E. and remember vividly that we recited "through Jesus Christ our Lord" constantly.

In other words, we pray to God through Jesus.
The Lord's prayer is all about "Our Father".

If you personally wish to "put a spin on it", and claim that "Our Father" is Jesus, and Jesus is "Our Father", you can leave me out!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, well you believe differently to me..
I was raised as C. of E. and remember vividly that we recited "through Jesus Christ our Lord" constantly.

In other words, we pray to God through Jesus.
The Lord's prayer is all about "Our Father".

If you personally wish to "put a spin on it", and claim that "Our Father" is Jesus, and Jesus is "Our Father", you can leave me out!

Well, you personally just do it differently too. So do I.

 

[Brian2]

Lol. It's absolutely grammatical.

Tell me. Can "one" be a "compound one" without using the word "compound" in that sentence?

Deut 6:4 HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE HaShem OUR GOD, THE HaShem IS ONE.

Of course 'one' can be used without using the word "compound".
The idea back in Moses time was to say that there is just one God and that is Yahweh. Yahweh alone is God.
It was not to state anything about God being possibly a compound one in some way.
The use of the word "echad" however left it open as to whether Yahweh was a compound one or not. Echad can mean a compound one and when in the New Testament God revealed that He is a compound one, echad became the perfect choice of words.
However it is also in the OT that we get the hint that God is a compound one.

 

[firedragon]

Of course 'one' can be used without using the word "compound".

Right. When it's used with the word compound it just means one.

When I say "two as one" it's a compound one. When I say "give me one bunch of grapes" it's a compound one.

Not when I say "I have one mother". Unless you wish to impose your latter built belief on my mother and call her a trinity.

I withdraw from this conversation. I am no expert in the hebrew language. But this one, is plainly absurd by the standard of any language. The Jews must have immense patience really

 

[Brian2]

Yes, well you believe differently to me..
I was raised as C. of E. and remember vividly that we recited "through Jesus Christ our Lord" constantly.

In other words, we pray to God through Jesus.
The Lord's prayer is all about "Our Father".

If you personally wish to "put a spin on it", and claim that "Our Father" is Jesus, and Jesus is "Our Father", you can leave me out!

I am in the C of E at the moment and know they are trinitarian and pray to the Lord Jesus.
The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son however and the Father and Son are in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is in the Father and in the Son.
It's all very simple really.
Jesus said "I and the Father and one". That word "one" is a neuter "one" and so Jesus meant "I and the Father and one thing".
Personally I would say that He meant one God. The Lord our God is one Lord. (Deut 6:4) a compound "one".

 

[Brian2]

Right. When it's used with the word compound it just means one.

When I say "two as one" it's a compound one. When I say "give me one bunch of grapes" it's a compound one.

Not when I say "I have one mother". Unless you wish to impose your latter built belief on my mother and call her a trinity.

I withdraw from this conversation. I am no expert in the hebrew language. But this one, is plainly absurd by the standard of any language. The Jews must have immense patience really

That echad in Deut 6:4 can be seen as a compound one is agreed by Hebrew experts. To say that someone has to be a Jew to know what the Hebrew means is ridiculous and your argument about your mother is on a par with the Jewish argument in the link I gave.
You know your mother is not a compound one and the Jews know that HaShem is not a compound one.
But the Jews don't know that.

 

[firedragon]

That echad in Deut 6:4 can be seen as a compound one is agreed by Hebrew experts.

Nope. I have never come across an "agreement between hebrew experts" saying that.

Please give a source to that level of consensus between Hebrew Experts since you make that claim.

Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

Nope. I have never come across an "agreement between hebrew experts" saying that.

Please give a source to that level of consensus between Hebrew Experts since you make that claim.

Thanks.

I was not meaning a consensus. The thousands of Christian Hebrew experts would agree to it however. I suspect that the Jewish Hebrew experts would also have to say that strictly and according to the language the Lord could be a compound one in the Shema. But that is of course an opinion and you would have to ask some Hebrew scholars about it. Maybe @Ehav4Ever could answer that.