Purity: Shema is the Backbone of OT AND NT, Agree?

[shturt678]

The OT paradigm is yes, the right hand is on the throne. I modify here and now my paradigm.

Not as equal. So then I did not repent all the way as you might mean: "throw in the towel."

Right hand of Jesus ain't God, or equal to him neither. Right hand of God ain't God, that makes two Gods on the throne.

Two Gods on the throne is outside the bounds of kosherability, in the technicalability of theologicalbility.

Thank you for your response again!

i was hoping you could handle Revelation a little better ie, Rev.3:21, "my throne...his throne" = same throne, anbd not two thrones. No crowding here, ie, plenty of room. On a positive note, you do have a "hearing ear" in light of Rev.3:22.

Old Jack

btw "throwing in the towel" is to not just repent, but to turn to the genuine faith in repentance which is difficult to do in today's time by even Christians that believe in the Trinity concept, ie, although most are Christians, they just turn to the "faith."

 

[Questor]

To those that are not nothead...is he a troll?

 

[nothead]

To those that are not nothead...is he a troll?

Not quite but I have to tolerate quasi-Jewish Messianic Munchkins who deny the very first Principle of any Jew on the planet: God is One Absolutely and Numerically, by the definition of ECHAD which is not a compound 'one' rather a numerical one.

The VERY 'one' which a child of Hebrew persuasion counts to when he says his first number of all.

Nice going. Take you yarmaluke out of your eyes. It belongs on the BACK of you head, sir.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

To those that are not nothead...is he a troll?

Yes , or he is a former member back under a new disguise.

Talks like a child

 

[nothead]

Yes , or he is a former member back under a new disguise.

Talks like a child

What aspect of the numerically singular God don't you understand, GENIUS? This happens to be God's first requirement of you, but you were too genius to get it. The first thing they would teach you in synagague among first generation Christians but you don't get it. The unequivocal statements of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark and Paul, but you don't get it.

You don't get the very foundation of your own faith. So become a child and start over, GENIUS.

 

[shturt678]

What aspect of the numerically singular God don't you understand, GENIUS? This happens to be God's first requirement of you, but you were too genius to get it. The first thing they would teach you in synagague among first generation Christians but you don't get it. The unequivocal statements of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark and Paul, but you don't get it.

You don't get the very foundation of your own faith. So become a child and start over, GENIUS.

Thank you for caring again!

First and foremost one's "faith" must be based upon the "Word of God," (untterances, and written form & sacraments - nourishes), and it's written form ("Scriptures"). Ie, collectively the O.T. and N.T., correct? My point: The Shema assumes one has trust in the promise already, and requires continued 'hearing' and keeping the greatest commandment. However one cannot but help to agape the ol' Shema.

Old Jack talking out loud again.

 

[nothead]

Thank you for caring again!

First and foremost one's "faith" must be based upon the "Word of God," (untterances, and written form & sacraments - nourishes), and it's written form ("Scriptures"). Ie, collectively the O.T. and N.T., correct? My point: The Shema assumes one has trust in the promise already, and requires continued 'hearing' and keeping the greatest commandment. However one cannot but help to agape the ol' Shema.

Old Jack talking out loud again.

Rather God is telling you what in GENERAL is required of you, in obedience...in faith...in hope and trust and loyalty...in LOVE which Paul said is the greatest gift and attitude and dynamic of all, the very character of the Living God, not gods in God but the Living One True God, sir.

This is Shema. Paul said to love one another. Why did he not teach Shema? His teacher Gemaliel glossed it? Maybe. No wonder Jews by this time may have recited it so many times, they GOT OVER IT? In mind and heart, quite possible.

I believe he didn't teach Shema since the Circumcision of the Heart was given among converted Jews of Christ, and even Gentiles who trusted and believed in the Christ...

...and that no teaching was necessary for these who got the Great Blast of the Pentecostal Holy Spirit among them.

We see Paul RUNNING HIS RACE and speaking of it in terms of others running theirs. This IS SHEMA. He does not directly TEACH SHEMA as SHEMA was taught, why?

Again, it was in their hearts unprecedented in form and manifestation.

The prophesy:

Deut 30

[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love theLord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

...combined with the great promise in Jer 31

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
[SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

...gave ALL disciples the view that LAW was already being loved en whole by brand new believers never trained in anything at all regarding Mosaic Law.

So then you are right that new acolytes of the faith in modern day may start out only knowing Jesus in a 'reborn experience' of some modality, or some conviction or some conceptualization of...

...but now the question oh Lord, is..."What shall I do now oh Lord?" And what is the GENERAL answer to all men? Women? Children of viable wisdom and maturity?

Shema again. Love the SINGULAR YHWH Elohim who is ONE with all of your heart soul and might.

So then I don't think Jack, you really KNOW Shema, for if you did, you would not be Trin for one thing.

Secondly it should be the first thing taught any new believer. Who has a beginning rudimentary relationship to his Lord and through his Lord, his God.

 

[shturt678]

Rather God is telling you what in GENERAL is required of you, in obedience...in faith...in hope and trust and loyalty...in LOVE which Paul said is the greatest gift and attitude and dynamic of all, the very character of the Living God, not gods in God but the Living One True God, sir.

This is Shema. Paul said to love one another. Why did he not teach Shema? His teacher Gemaliel glossed it? Maybe. No wonder Jews by this time may have recited it so many times, they GOT OVER IT? In mind and heart, quite possible.

I believe he didn't teach Shema since the Circumcision of the Heart was given among converted Jews of Christ, and even Gentiles who trusted and believed in the Christ...

...and that no teaching was necessary for these who got the Great Blast of the Pentecostal Holy Spirit among them.

We see Paul RUNNING HIS RACE and speaking of it in terms of others running theirs. This IS SHEMA. He does not directly TEACH SHEMA as SHEMA was taught, why?

Again, it was in their hearts unprecedented in form and manifestation.

The prophesy:

Deut 30

[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love theLord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

...combined with the great promise in Jer 31

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
[SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

...gave ALL disciples the view that LAW was already being loved en whole by brand new believers never trained in anything at all regarding Mosaic Law.

So then you are right that new acolytes of the faith in modern day may start out only knowing Jesus in a 'reborn experience' of some modality, or some conviction or some conceptualization of...

...but now the question oh Lord, is..."What shall I do now oh Lord?" And what is the GENERAL answer to all men? Women? Children of viable wisdom and maturity?

Shema again. Love the SINGULAR YHWH Elohim who is ONE with all of your heart soul and might.

So then I don't think Jack, you really KNOW Shema, for if you did, you would not be Trin for one thing.

Secondly it should be the first thing taught any new believer. Who has a beginning rudimentary relationship to his Lord and through his Lord, his God.

Thank you again for the response, and btw a good one at that! You've been taking a beating on some of the threads thus let an old man give you a hug.

Before I suffered an extreme paygrade reduction, I recall my Hebrew Jewish maxed out professor (Christian Jew, sorry and he passed on quite awhile back) stated regarding the Shema: "The Shema implies that we know the true God in all his greatness and grace and that we turn to him with all our being." I'm sure I'm close as had and have the greatest respect for him. He emphasized the "heart" as first for a purpose where the soul and mind are within. Don't want to get too carried away as lost my pride long ago.

One thing I can safely recall is the Shema applies waaay beyond the whole 1 hour in Church on Sunday, ie, like a 24/7 sort of thing. Also I recall him saying something like "God will have no mere part, allow no division or substraction sort of thing, ie, not even the smallest corner is to be closed against God.

One cannot help but to agape Yahweh 'Eloheka.

Old agaping Jack, ie, not so much a kisser, however a hugger.

 

[nothead]

Thank you again for the response, and btw a good one at that! You've been taking a beating on some of the threads thus let an old man give you a hug.

Before I suffered an extreme paygrade reduction, I recall my Hebrew Jewish maxed out professor (Christian Jew, sorry and he passed on quite awhile back) stated regarding the Shema: "The Shema implies that we know the true God in all his greatness and grace and that we turn to him with all our being." I'm sure I'm close as had and have the greatest respect for him. He emphasized the "heart" as first for a purpose where the soul and mind are within. Don't want to get too carried away as lost my pride long ago.

One thing I can safely recall is the Shema applies waaay beyond the whole 1 hour in Church on Sunday, ie, like a 24/7 sort of thing. Also I recall him saying something like "God will have no mere part, allow no division or substraction sort of thing, ie, not even the smallest corner is to be closed against God.

One cannot help but to agape Yahweh 'Eloheka.

Old agaping Jack, ie, not so much a kisser, however a hugger.

I don't mind the holy kiss, give or take. Too slobbery and I might heave, heaving in a loving manner...

Hugs are easier to tolerate, usually unless he is homeless and didn't bath for a few months.

I've seen congregants so drunk they'd peed their pants. This doesn't do the pews any good, or pew sitters who might get an uncomely surprise...seen that too. Sitting on a pew which was peed on by another pew sitter. 'Specially women don't like it too much.

Unfortunately Shema and a trinitarian Jew somehow don't mix. God says He is One and the Trin says yeah but add two more and this is one.

Do not correlate. Is not kosher or orthodox or likened to the True Reality. Objectively false.

And no Jew has an excuse not to know it. ALL humbug. And this includes EVERY SINGLE Jew for Jesus.

 

[shturt678]

I don't mind the holy kiss, give or take. Too slobbery and I might heave, heaving in a loving manner...

Hugs are easier to tolerate, usually unless he is homeless and didn't bath for a few months.

I've seen congregants so drunk they'd peed their pants. This doesn't do the pews any good, or pew sitters who might get an uncomely surprise...seen that too. Sitting on a pew which was peed on by another pew sitter. 'Specially women don't like it too much.

Unfortunately Shema and a trinitarian Jew somehow don't mix. God says He is One and the Trin says yeah but add two more and this is one.

Do not correlate. Is not kosher or orthodox or likened to the True Reality. Objectively false.

And no Jew has an excuse not to know it. ALL humbug. And this includes EVERY SINGLE Jew for Jesus.

Thank you again for your response!

You got it, ie, he passed on as a Christian Jew that understood the Shema quite well. I did ask him later why my weekly exams looked like a Xmas tree where he responsed, "I expected more out of you Jack" What did you think of his definition of the Shema? btw I flatten the Bell Curve for my students, and go easy on the red ink.

Old lower paygrade Jack

btw remember no difference between Jew, Greek, or Gentile, eg, Gal.3:28 my hugging Christian brother.

 

[nothead]

Thank you again for your response!

You got it, ie, he passed on as a Christian Jew that understood the Shema quite well. I did ask him later why my weekly exams looked like a Xmas tree where he responsed, "I expected more out of you Jack" What did you think of his definition of the Shema? btw I flatten the Bell Curve for my students, and go easy on the red ink.

Old lower paygrade Jack

btw remember no difference between Jew, Greek, or Gentile, eg, Gal.3:28 my hugging Christian brother.

Hey they can call Jesus "Lord" all day long and I say HURRAH.

They can tout the toot of Jesus anytime in my book.

Call Jesus "God" and I say what about the Father. Two Gods, not kosher, no excuse for a Jew not to know.

By the way there is no other easy way to say God is singular other than "YHWH Elohim, YHWH echad."

And by all context this was what YHWH was doing, sir.

See Isa 45 just in case you never read it. 8 times He says NO OTHER stands next to Him. And this chapter by the way has over 50 singular personal pronouns attendant to the One True God.

Wow, the wonders of the emperor with no clothes. This is your trin God, sir.

 

[Floyd]

The Shema speaks nothing against the doctrine of the Trinity.



Oh and you could not be more wrong about this.

1) God is numerically one. This means one God-being, one God-Person, one will, one mind and one set of God-characteristics. Your God has three sets of each. Wrong. God is one, once again. I SINGULAR am the ONE NUMERICALLY who brought you out of Egypt. Ye shalt have no OTHER SINGULAR OTHER before me as Equal.

First command of the Ten, sir. You are still beholden to it and BROKE it when you made two others God.



Dr. David Ginsburg, Hebrew scholar (Massorah).
Dr. David Ginsburg: (Hebrew scholar, Jewish academic, Jewish language scholar for the British Library, and Museum.)

Quote: Deut.6:4.

"Heb. ehad, = a compound entity"

Floyd.

 

[nothead]

The Shema speaks nothing against the doctrine of the Trinity.



Oh and you could not be more wrong about this.

1) God is numerically one. This means one God-being, one God-Person, one will, one mind and one set of God-characteristics. Your God has three sets of each. Wrong. God is one, once again. I SINGULAR am the ONE NUMERICALLY who brought you out of Egypt. Ye shalt have no OTHER SINGULAR OTHER before me as Equal.

First command of the Ten, sir. You are still beholden to it and BROKE it when you made two others God.



Dr. David Ginsburg, Hebrew scholar (Massorah).
Dr. David Ginsburg: (Hebrew scholar, Jewish academic, Jewish language scholar for the British Library, and Museum.)

Quote: Deut.6:4.

"Heb. ehad, = a compound entity"

Floyd.

Is that the Dr David Ginsberg who is a Jew for Jesus?

Acid reflux, I feel it coming up. Keesha: Let's get this party started, I'm coming UP.

Echad: numerical one, repeat. How this DOCTOR of DIVINITY knows more than the common man? Language is convention, not what he says it is. Including Echad, sir.

Man, if you don't believe it, look it up. Don't have to read a book. Especially by some guy who ABROGATED the very First FOUNDATIONAL PREMISE OF HIS RELIGION.

 

[Floyd]

Is that the Dr David Ginsberg who is a Jew for Jesus?

Acid reflux, I feel it coming up. Keesha: Let's get this party started, I'm coming UP.

Echad: numerical one, repeat. How this DOCTOR of DIVINITY knows more than the common man? Language is convention, not what he says it is. Including Echad, sir.

Man, if you don't believe it, look it up. Don't have to read a book. Especially by some guy who ABROGATED the very First FOUNDATIONAL PREMISE OF HIS RELIGION.

CHRISTIAN DAVID GINSBURG
[SIZE=14pt]Encyclopaedic References:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]GINSBURG, CHRISTIAN DAVID (1831 ), Hebrew scholar, was born at Warsaw on the 25th of December 1831. Coming to England shortly after the completion of his education in the Rabbinic College at Warsaw, Dr Ginsburg continued his study of the Hebrew Scriptures, with special attention to the Megilloth. The first result of these studies was a translation of the Song of Songs, with a commentary historical and critical, published in 1857. A similar translation of Ecclesiastes, followed by treatises on the Karaites, on the Essenes and on the Kabbala, kept the author prominently before biblical students while he was preparing the first sections of his magnum opus, the critical study of the Massorah. Beginning in 1867 with the publication of Jacob ben Chajims Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, with notices, and the Massoreth HaMassoreth of Elias Levita, in Hebrew, with translation and commentary, Dr Ginsburg took rank as an eminent Hebrew scholar. In 1870 he was appointed one of the first members of the committee for the revision of the English version of the Old Testament. His life-work culminated in the publication of the Massorah, in three volumes folio (1880-1886), followed by the Masoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894), and the elaborate introduction to it (1897). Dr Ginsburg had one predecessor in the field, the learned Jacob ben Chajim, who in 1524-1525 published the second Rabbinic Bible, containing what has ever since been known as the Massorah; but neither were the materials available nor was criticism sufficiently advanced for a complete edition. Dr Ginsburg took up the subject almost where it was left by those early pioneers, and collected portions of the Massorah from the countless MSS. scattered throughout Europe and the East. More recently Dr Ginsburg has published Facsimiles of Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (1897 and 1898), and The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Abbreviations (1903), in addition to a critical treatise on the relationship of the so-called Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916 to the Eastern Recension of the Hebrew Text (1899, for private circulation). In the last-mentioned work he seeks to prove that the St Petersburg Codex, for so many years accepted as the genuine text of the Babylonian school, is in reality a Palestinian text carefully altered so as to render it conformable to the Babylonian recension. He subsequently undertook the preparation of a new edition of the Hebrew Bible for the British and Foreign Bible Society. He also contributed many articles to J. Kittos Encyclopaedia, W. Smiths Dictionary of Christian Biography and the Encyclopaedia .[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Scriptural Source controversies.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]The many controversies re. the origins of the Christian Old Testament (OT), the Septuagint, and the Essenes were dealt with by the scholarship of Dr. David Ginsburg. His international recognition as a Hebrew Scholar, and particularly his famous work on the Massorah, together with his joint efforts with Dr. E. W. Bullinger[/SIZE] in the editing of the Companion Bible, have produced one of the finest critical works of the KJV available.
[SIZE=14pt]The ongoing controversy between the Orthodox (Pharisaic) Jews, and Christians, as to the authentic OT, is cleared by Dr Ginsburg's detailed knowledge and work on the OT Manuscripts, which, as he became a Christian, are not accepted by Pharisaic Jewry, as the Christology of the OT is confirmed by him![/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Dr. Ginsburg's conversion to Christ, as he came from a devout background of Orthodoxy, has resulted in his negation by Orthodox Jewry, as he is regarded an "heretic". His detractors state that he became a Christian at age 15, and could not have known what he was doing! However; in the book "The Appointed Time", by Rick L. Wills, on page 3 he states that David Ginsburg converted to Christ at age 25, which makes more sense, as he would have been unlikely to have attended Rabbinical College in Warsaw as a Christian! Also, his rabbinical studies would have prepared him for the momentous works he was to accomplish in his lifetime, particularly on Massorah! The Jewish resistance to his brilliance is understandable, as they lost a great mind to the truth of Christ Jesus Messiah![/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Floyd.[/SIZE]

 

[nothead]

CHRISTIAN DAVID GINSBURG
[SIZE=14pt]Encyclopaedic References:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]GINSBURG, CHRISTIAN DAVID (1831 ), Hebrew scholar, was born at Warsaw on the 25th of December 1831. Coming to England shortly after the completion of his education in the Rabbinic College at Warsaw, Dr Ginsburg continued his study of the Hebrew Scriptures, with special attention to the Megilloth. The first result of these studies was a translation of the Song of Songs, with a commentary historical and critical, published in 1857. A similar translation of Ecclesiastes, followed by treatises on the Karaites, on the Essenes and on the Kabbala, kept the author prominently before biblical students while he was preparing the first sections of his magnum opus, the critical study of the Massorah. Beginning in 1867 with the publication of Jacob ben Chajims Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, with notices, and the Massoreth HaMassoreth of Elias Levita, in Hebrew, with translation and commentary, Dr Ginsburg took rank as an eminent Hebrew scholar. In 1870 he was appointed one of the first members of the committee for the revision of the English version of the Old Testament. His life-work culminated in the publication of the Massorah, in three volumes folio (1880-1886), followed by the Masoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894), and the elaborate introduction to it (1897). Dr Ginsburg had one predecessor in the field, the learned Jacob ben Chajim, who in 1524-1525 published the second Rabbinic Bible, containing what has ever since been known as the Massorah; but neither were the materials available nor was criticism sufficiently advanced for a complete edition. Dr Ginsburg took up the subject almost where it was left by those early pioneers, and collected portions of the Massorah from the countless MSS. scattered throughout Europe and the East. More recently Dr Ginsburg has published Facsimiles of Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (1897 and 1898), and The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Abbreviations (1903), in addition to a critical treatise on the relationship of the so-called Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916 to the Eastern Recension of the Hebrew Text (1899, for private circulation). In the last-mentioned work he seeks to prove that the St Petersburg Codex, for so many years accepted as the genuine text of the Babylonian school, is in reality a Palestinian text carefully altered so as to render it conformable to the Babylonian recension. He subsequently undertook the preparation of a new edition of the Hebrew Bible for the British and Foreign Bible Society. He also contributed many articles to J. Kittos Encyclopaedia, W. Smiths Dictionary of Christian Biography and the Encyclopaedia .[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Scriptural Source controversies.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]The many controversies re. the origins of the Christian Old Testament (OT), the Septuagint, and the Essenes were dealt with by the scholarship of Dr. David Ginsburg. His international recognition as a Hebrew Scholar, and particularly his famous work on the Massorah, together with his joint efforts with Dr. E. W. Bullinger in the editing of the Companion Bible, have produced one of the finest critical works of the KJV available.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]The ongoing controversy between the Orthodox (Pharisaic) Jews, and Christians, as to the authentic OT, is cleared by Dr Ginsburg's detailed knowledge and work on the OT Manuscripts, which, as he became a Christian, are not accepted by Pharisaic Jewry, as the Christology of the OT is confirmed by him![/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Dr. Ginsburg's conversion to Christ, as he came from a devout background of Orthodoxy, has resulted in his negation by Orthodox Jewry, as he is regarded an "heretic". His detractors state that he became a Christian at age 15, and could not have known what he was doing! However; in the book "The Appointed Time", by Rick L. Wills, on page 3 he states that David Ginsburg converted to Christ at age 25, which makes more sense, as he would have been unlikely to have attended Rabbinical College in Warsaw as a Christian! Also, his rabbinical studies would have prepared him for the momentous works he was to accomplish in his lifetime, particularly on Massorah! The Jewish resistance to his brilliance is understandable, as they lost a great mind to the truth of Christ Jesus Messiah![/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Floyd.[/SIZE]

Arf. Guess I better wookie down and bow to him then. El primo credentials.

Hey I took on Luther Aquinas John Calvin and Floyd. Guess mr Goldstein can take the heat.

 

[Floyd]

Arf. Guess I better wookie down and bow to him then. El primo credentials.

Hey I took on Luther Aquinas John Calvin and Floyd. Guess mr Goldstein can take the heat.

As I said, you cannot compete with such as Dr. Ginsburg!
Floyd.

 

[shturt678]

The Shema speaks nothing against the doctrine of the Trinity.



Oh and you could not be more wrong about this.

1) God is numerically one. This means one God-being, one God-Person, one will, one mind and one set of God-characteristics. Your God has three sets of each. Wrong. God is one, once again. I SINGULAR am the ONE NUMERICALLY who brought you out of Egypt. Ye shalt have no OTHER SINGULAR OTHER before me as Equal.

First command of the Ten, sir. You are still beholden to it and BROKE it when you made two others God.



Dr. David Ginsburg, Hebrew scholar (Massorah).
Dr. David Ginsburg: (Hebrew scholar, Jewish academic, Jewish language scholar for the British Library, and Museum.)

Quote: Deut.6:4.

"Heb. ehad, = a compound entity"

Floyd.

Thank you for caring again!

As long as we have God as oneness of being and not of person in the Shema, this is the closest we will ever get agreeing to agree.

Old praying the Shema Jack for the 1st of two times today,

 

[nothead]

Thank you for caring again!

As long as we have God as oneness of being and not of person in the Shema, this is the closest we will ever get agreeing to agree.

Old praying the Shema Jack for the 1st of two times today,

Being IS Person, except that somehow youall have made these terms mutually exclusive...

Shema just means overall. Overall, God is One overall. And who knows if He has any overalls on. Holistically God en whole is one of number. Ask a child. He can tell you.


One God.

 

[shturt678]

Being IS Person, except that somehow youall have made these terms mutually exclusive...

Shema just means overall. Overall, God is One overall. And who knows if He has any overalls on. Holistically God en whole is one of number. Ask a child. He can tell you.


One God.

Thank you again for your response!

I alwys thought "Shema" means "Hear" or in the Talmud "accept" if I recall, ie, been decades for the technicalities?

Give you credit, ie, thought you would throw in the towel by now.

Old Jack that is keeping a clean 'towel' in case you need one to throw in, ie, enjoy being your 'corner man.'

 

[Purity]

Nothead,

I have been so engrossed in our discussions with wormwood, Floyd, old jack and justaname that I was oblivious to this thread.

Before I begin to discuss this subject it is essential we stand back and take an honest look at ourselves before we begin to fight and wrestle with each other and the Shema.

As wormwood may attest (though I am yet to see any humility from him) there are different nuances (or connotations) in the way we might read the Shema and hey are all consistent with one another, yes? They are also consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity as well as with Unitarian forms of non‐Trinitarian theology.

Now it wont take a scientist to work out the Shema is consistent with Unitarianism, that's obvious. While we are being honest it could well be consistent with Trinitarianism for anyone who bothers to understand Trinitarian theology correctly.

The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Yahweh is one Yahweh, one God, one divine being. There are not three Yahweh's , or three Gods, or three divine beings. If you are a Mormon you would believe the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are three Gods, but Trinitarians do not.

I affirm and believe that there is only one God, known in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH, and that this Lord God is one eternal divine being.

The fact is that Deuteronomy 6:4 does not address the issue of whether Yahweh is a “unipersonal” or “triune” being. It is just as much a mistake to read into the Hebrew echad that Yahweh is unipersonal (as
all non‐Trinitarians I have read do) as it is to read into it that Yahweh is a “composite unity” (as some Trinitarians have fallaciously argued). The word echad is the common, garden‐variety, ordinary Hebrew
word for the cardinal number “one” (1). It occurs hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible and just means “one,” period. It does not specify one what; in what sense Yahweh is “one” we must learn from the
context or from other statements. The word is consistent with Yahweh as a unipersonal being or as a triune being. Yet critics of the doctrine of the Trinity often lean hard on this statement as supposedly an
obvious disproof of the Trinity, as Nothead is currently doing. Now his conviction is not misguided, certainly not! Shortly we will review the evidence which supports Notheads passionate view of the Shema one which I have held for many years of thoughtful study and meditation.

God bless your reading.