Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Greek Philosophy Trumps OT Hebrew Defns in Exegesis? The Echad of Adonai.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Greek Philosophy Trumps OT Hebrew Defns in Exegesis? The Echad of Adonai.

    Recently Jameson challenged me to describe the "echad of Adonai" and said my view is obviously and completely false. This view is what I
    consider the ancient Hebrew view: as an adjective, the "echad" is a singular "unit" of one describing Adonai.

    Immediately I knew he took a "modern" stance on the definition. But this stance is not strictly exegetical. In modern view, all THINGS
    are unified from other smaller or lesser things. Thus GodHEAD has a composite whole, and the components are in Trin-doc the Three Persons.

    The Cappadocian Fathers decided "hypostases" and "ousia" were hierarchical, just as "species" and "genus" are in modern view. Instead
    of being synonymous, the terms were considered of different definitions in order to rationalize a singular God of Three Hypostases.
    The OUSIA (called nature) of God is singular. The HYPOSTASES are three.

    Right now I am dealing with Hanson and his own view of Jesus being generated or "unbegotten." Agennetos, a word not even in scripture.
    Much as I respect Hanson's book, "The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God," I am finding that he places too much emphasis upon
    distinctions of GREEK terminology instead of the authorial intent of the original Text.

    It is not exegetical to ADD meaning to our definitions of Text. Authorial intent REQUIRES the original language definitions to be primal.

    Gennetos for Jesus MEANS yalad in the Hebrew, Psalm 2:7 7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    The translator has to find the most correlating language word for the ORIGINAL TEXT. For this reason, "gennetos" must be translated as the same definition of "yalad" in the original when the NT renders the four times this Text is referred to.

    No NEW definition according to philosophy. Children are not philosophers and when Shema was given Deut 6, two things were said about it.

    YHWH our Elohim, YHWH one.

    Deut 30

    11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. [That day Shema was given]
    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?

    Deut 31

    10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
    11 When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
    12 Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
    13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.
    14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

    So then, the context of Shema is a simple concept of "one." Not philosophical, not in accordance to Greek ideals and concepts. Exegetically the ancient view was that God is one Character, Referent, and One Subject, who has one will and intelligence.

    Thus the almost 11000 pronouns and verbs in the SINGULAR for God in Text. HE is singular since HE is "one." The echad of Adonai has EVER been defined anciently as well as accurately
    by this simple definition of "echad."

    Jameson is completely off his petard since he should KNOW the monotheistic version of Judaism. But and yet what does he know about contradictory conceptualizations? I view HIM as a
    contradiction in terms.

  • #2
    Originally posted by nothead View Post
    Jameson is completely off his petard since he should KNOW the monotheistic version of Judaism. But and yet what does he know about contradictory conceptualizations? I view HIM as a
    contradiction in terms.
    What in the world are you talking about? I don't know of a non-monotheistic version of Judaism. Should know? "But and yet"? Could you attempt to make sense?
    I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jameson View Post

      What in the world are you talking about? I don't know of a non-monotheistic version of Judaism. Should know? "But and yet"? Could you attempt to make sense?
      Contradictory, as in...3 in one does not mean One and no other one beside HIM sir?

      But and yet you do not understand these are contradictory concepts sir?

      But you MUST understand why Jews are so APT to convert to Trinitarianism sir?

      Do I have to spell it out or what sir...can you count sir?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by nothead View Post

        Contradictory, as in...3 in one does not mean One and no other one beside HIM sir?

        But and yet you do not understand these are contradictory concepts sir?

        But you MUST understand why Jews are so APT to convert to Trinitarianism sir?

        Do I have to spell it out or what sir...can you count sir?
        Jews are not apt to convert to Trinitarianism. Jews do not quickly convert to Christianity of any flavor. "Three in one" means nothing to Judaism.
        I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jameson View Post

          Jews are not apt to convert to Trinitarianism. Jews do not quickly convert to Christianity of any flavor. "Three in one" means nothing to Judaism.
          Jews were APT to consider Simon Bar Kokhba the Messiah and suffered greatly as a consequence. But are you CORRECTING me or agreeing with me here?

          Funny way of AGREEING with my ironic question for you sir.

          Let us get down to brass tacks. I view your definition of "echad" to be modern, as in, a composite "one" of components and aspects.

          Instead, the ONE in Shema is framed in binary fashion against ANY OTHER ONE. This is the JEWISH view, jew know Jew? So then I'm correcting YOU sir.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nothead View Post

            Jews were APT to consider Simon Bar Kokhba the Messiah and suffered greatly as a consequence. But are you CORRECTING me or agreeing with me here?

            Funny way of AGREEING with my ironic question for you sir.

            Let us get down to brass tacks. I view your definition of "echad" to be modern, as in, a composite "one" of components and aspects.

            Instead, the ONE in Shema is framed in binary fashion against ANY OTHER ONE. This is the JEWISH view, jew know Jew? So then I'm correcting YOU sir.
            Jews do not believe in a God of pieces. God with no parts, with no divisions, with no partners. “Echad” (אֶחָד) means “one.” Period.
            I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jameson View Post

              Jews do not believe in a God of pieces. God with no parts, with no divisions, with no partners. “Echad” (אֶחָד) means “one.” Period.
              One what pray tell, non-prayer duder? That is the QUESTION. And on the other thread you said, em...gosh...now I gotta go get your statement.

              Whatta HASSLE duder. You really get my goat, sir. Hope you don't get my pig too. Oh you don't eat them...urp or maybe you do now...

              Ah, here regarding the "echad of Adonai:"

              Please, tell me what the word "one" means and how that proves that you're right! Please!!

              If nothing, it would prove the Jews right, not you.
              Just saying "one" means one is what I say, the first number a Jewish child learns. I specified that to mean what a Jewish child will COME to learn, a single Referent, Subject, Character or Being. With one intelligence and one will, both beyond us in comprehension other than these are that of a SINGLE um, Referent, Character or Subject (Being).

              So then pray tell us how I am WRONGO, Omelio.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nothead View Post

                One what pray tell, non-prayer duder? That is the QUESTION. And on the other thread you said, em...gosh...now I gotta go get your statement.

                Whatta HASSLE duder. You really get my goat, sir. Hope you don't get my pig too. Oh you don't eat them...urp or maybe you do now...

                Ah, here regarding the "echad of Adonai:"



                Just saying "one" means one is what I say, the first number a Jewish child learns. I specified that to mean what a Jewish child will COME to learn, a single Referent, Subject, Character or Being. With one intelligence and one will, both beyond us in comprehension other than these are that of a SINGLE um, Referent, Character or Subject (Being).

                So then pray tell us how I am WRONGO, Omelio.
                Note it has been 5 days and Jameson has quit.

                Note Jameson has neither apologized for my ACCURATE consideration of the Jewish "echad."

                Looking back, I would modify my statement in the last post. A Jewish child knows what the first unit of math is, when he learns the first number "one." He knows intuitively that as an adjective,
                one God means one Character.

                He may not know exactly how to articulate this concept back. As in grammar, a single Referent or Subject. As in concept, the One True God, and ONLY True God.

                It is possible that Jameson and I have the same interpretation of "echad." But he first said that I would be proven wrong with mine own. Mining mine own, and his own, the mining has mined
                him wrong. No gold for you Jameson, since I already mined the mother lode.

                I hereby claim victory. HEAR HEAR. I mean, two V's stuck out with two MINER'S HANDS folks. Jus' like LICHARD NIXON.
                Last edited by nothead; 04-22-18, 09:29 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nothead View Post

                  Note it has been 5 days and Jameson has quit.

                  Note Jameson has neither apologized for my ACCURATE consideration of the Jewish "echad."

                  Looking back, I would modify my statement in the last post. A Jewish child knows what the first unit of math is, when he learns the first number "one." He knows intuitively that as an adjective,
                  one God means one Character.

                  He may not know exactly how to articulate this concept back. As in grammar, a single Referent or Subject. As in concept, the One True God, and ONLY True God.

                  It is possible that Jameson and I have the same interpretation of "echad." But he first said that I would be proven wrong with mine own. Mining mine own, and his own, the mining has mined
                  him wrong. No gold for you Jameson, since I already mined the mother lode.

                  I hereby claim victory. HEAR HEAR. I mean, two V's stuck out with two MINER'S HANDS folks. Jus' like LICHARD NIXON.
                  In the midst of claiming victory, I apologize to Jameson here and now since his Jewish "echad" is similar or the same as mine own.

                  Since he started out by insulting me and my acumen regarding, I assumed he took a modern view of the "echad" of Adonai and this was wrong.

                  But if anything, the SOLE thing I ever tout is Shema and this exceedingly.

                  For us to be in contention for THIS long and for him not to know my definition of Shema is just...wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I just don’t see what is gained by talking about echad.

                    The word one has exactly the same meaning as echad in every sense. It is used for one bunch of grapes, which is composed of many grapes. It is used of one car that has many pieces and parts to it. It is used of one universe, which is composed of a billion galaxies.

                    It is also used of one God, which is what Jews worship. However, Jews add the caveat that God is one in a way that nothing else in the universe is one. They say that God is a complete and whole one without parts, without substance, without division. Once those caveats are added, the word one takes on a new meaning that applies only to God.

                    That special meaning is not attached to the word echad in any way that it is not also inherent to the word one. They are the exact same in meaning. Jews have just gone on to specify that “one” has special meaning when we talk about God.
                    I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                      I just don’t see what is gained by talking about echad.

                      The word one has exactly the same meaning as echad in every sense. It is used for one bunch of grapes, which is composed of many grapes. It is used of one car that has many pieces and parts to it. It is used of one universe, which is composed of a billion galaxies.

                      It is also used of one God, which is what Jews worship. However, Jews add the caveat that God is one in a way that nothing else in the universe is one. They say that God is a complete and whole one without parts, without substance, without division. Once those caveats are added, the word one takes on a new meaning that applies only to God.

                      That special meaning is not attached to the word echad in any way that it is not also inherent to the word one. They are the exact same in meaning. Jews have just gone on to specify that “one” has special meaning when we talk about God.
                      Jew philosophers sir, have done this. But when the Shema was given Deut 6:4 this was also to CHILDREN as I showed amply in the OP.

                      So then the DOMINANT definition of Shema is INTUITIVELY even for a child, one CHARACTER sir. One so-called BEING sir, EXACTLY the second clause of Ex 3:14, HO OWN sir.

                      So then I will ATTEST to the Karaite version of Shema, PLAIN AND SIMPLE sir. Ask Nehemiah Gordon. I GOT this OP from HIM sir.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OK, sir. I'll sir try sir to sir ask sir Nehemia sir Gordon sir, sir. The sir next sir time sir that sir I sir have sir a sir conversation sir with sir him sir, sir. Sir.
                        I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                          OK, sir. I'll sir try sir to sir ask sir Nehemia sir Gordon sir, sir. The sir next sir time sir that sir I sir have sir a sir conversation sir with sir him sir, sir. Sir.
                          "Character" is my own supposition. He did not say that. I do. Since we are in the languages section, I also use the words "Referent," and "Subject."

                          Basic language which TRIN-DOC abrogates. A travesty in my view. Something to ignore in yours.

                          As a caveat, I would also say that the mere consideration of things being comprised of other things is not the ancient definition of God's echad-ness. Being SINGULAR is.
                          And fundamentally this has ALWAYS BEEN the Jewish tradition. As in, a singular CHARACTER being unique and alone.
                          Last edited by nothead; 04-25-18, 01:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            OK, sir. I'll sir try sir to sir ask sir Nehemia sir Gordon sir, sir. The sir next sir time sir that sir I sir have sir a sir conversation sir with sir him sir, sir. Sir.
                            Jameson Jameson Jameson...you STATED this "echad of Adonai" COULD MEAN a "one" of other things in Shema. Just like the "English one."

                            I STATED this is not the case, with my CAVEAT in the last post.

                            Don't you KNOW that you contradict your own heiny with your PHILOSOPHICAL exposition of a God without "parts?"

                            Just as you contradicted YOURSELF previously with your own self-moniker, calling yourself a "soft atheist?" Ain't no DIFF from a soft atheist to a hard agnostic sir. Language is inherently the
                            meanings BEHIND the words sir. Do you know what words are sir...i.e. what METAPHORS are sir?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nothead View Post
                              Jameson Jameson Jameson...you STATED this "echad of Adonai" COULD MEAN a "one" of other things in Shema. Just like the "English one."
                              No, sir. That, sir, is sir not sir what sir I sir said sir at sir all sir, sir. I, sir, said sir that sir there sir is sir nothing sir special sir about sir the sir word sir echad sir in sir Hebrew sir, sir.

                              It sir is sir not sir the sir word sir echad sir or sir one sir or sir un sir or sir uno sir or sir unus sir or sir ein sir or sir whatever sir, sir, that sir carries sir a sir special sir meaning, sir sir.

                              It sir is sir the sir context sir of sir the sir CONCEPT sir of sir God's sir oneness sir, not sir the sir word sir itself sir, sir. Sir sir sir.

                              Sir.
                              I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X