That God alone is the proper recipient of prayer.
This is thoroughly Jewish, but you reject it.
The Shema
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
That God alone is the proper recipient of prayer.
This is thoroughly Jewish, but you reject it.
civic
Well-known member
Clearly the shema is trinitarian not unitarian.
Here' Bowman:
Bauckham rightly understands the three phases to express God's causation of all things in the three ways: God is the efficient cause (ex autou), the instrumental cause (di' autou), and the final cause (eis auton). All three of the prepositional phrases in Romans 11:36 occur in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which states, 'To us there is one God, the Father, from whom [ex hou] are all things and we for him [eis auton], and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [di' hou] are all things and we through him [di' auton] (literal translation). As Bauckham notes, Paul here assigns two of the three causal functions of God to the Father and the third to Christ.
One should not infer from 1 Corinthians 8:6 that the causal functions assigned there to God the Father are not also applicable to the Son or vice versa
Here' Bowman:
Bauckham rightly understands the three phases to express God's causation of all things in the three ways: God is the efficient cause (ex autou), the instrumental cause (di' autou), and the final cause (eis auton). All three of the prepositional phrases in Romans 11:36 occur in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which states, 'To us there is one God, the Father, from whom [ex hou] are all things and we for him [eis auton], and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [di' hou] are all things and we through him [di' auton] (literal translation). As Bauckham notes, Paul here assigns two of the three causal functions of God to the Father and the third to Christ.
One should not infer from 1 Corinthians 8:6 that the causal functions assigned there to God the Father are not also applicable to the Son or vice versa
Wrangler
Well-known member
Because our relationship with our Creator was not so clear before. In the OT, fear of YHWH was said to be the beginning of wisdom.
That the Shema told us to love YHWH, a fearful relationship makes love by humans more tenuous.
God did not expect us to fear him as the reason he sent his agent to save us; it was out of live. YHWH so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
Jesus said there is no greater love than this, that one would die for their friends.
Hope this helps.
Matthias
Well-known member
Shema Yisrael Adonai eloheinu Adonai echad.
Jesus of Nazareth is adoni, not Adonai. (See Psalm 110:1)
The Shema isn’t a confession about Jesus of Nazareth. Nor is it a confession about the Trinity. The Shema is the confession of Jesus of Nazareth. The Shema is the confession of Judaism.
Adonai / Yahweh is Jesus’ own God, the Father.
Jesus of Nazareth is adoni, not Adonai. (See Psalm 110:1)
The Shema isn’t a confession about Jesus of Nazareth. Nor is it a confession about the Trinity. The Shema is the confession of Jesus of Nazareth. The Shema is the confession of Judaism.
Adonai / Yahweh is Jesus’ own God, the Father.
Wrangler
Well-known member
The rest of the story, of which I wrote, you got nothing to say?
Fear is inversely related to love. Love is proportional to safety. If our salvation is rooted in God, any fear ought to be replaced with love. Do you think Jesus feared God the Father?
Love of God includes fearing Him.
APAK
Active member
Are you kidding me, not citing scripture, and not surprising...what..
The same sort of line from you. It must be your new signature block.
What are you looking for, that Jesus would say for Fred: I am subordinate to my Father, or of such similar modern day pleasing language. I think we need to get real here. The subordination of the Son covers much scripture and context if you care to read it. There is no ready made verse for you to check off here.
APAK
Active member
@Fred I just found a couple of 'single' verses that most like, that will still not be the outcome you are looking for I suspect.
I will throw them out all the same. Maybe you might see the subordination of Christ in them.
1 Corinthians 11:3:
1 Corinthians 15:28 says:
Source, I was lazy this time...https://brucegerencser.net/2023/07/1-corinthians-113-and-1528-is-jesus-subordinate-to-god-the-father/
I will throw them out all the same. Maybe you might see the subordination of Christ in them.
1 Corinthians 11:3:
If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in one, what are we to make of “the head of Christ is God?” This verse seems to say that Jesus, the Son, is subordinate to God, the Father.
1 Corinthians 15:28 says:
Again, what are we to make of “the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all?”
Source, I was lazy this time...https://brucegerencser.net/2023/07/1-corinthians-113-and-1528-is-jesus-subordinate-to-god-the-father/
Last edited:
Matthias
Well-known member
“According to Mark 12:29,32, Jesus explicitly approves the Jewish monotheistic formula.”
(Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament)
I found this note in the margin of one of my Bibles. It’s missing the volume (there are three volumes in the set) and page number where the quote is found in the trinitarian source.
Trinitarians aren’t having it anyway. Forget the source and consider it my comment on the passage.
Jesus explicitly approved Jewish monotheism.
(Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament)
I found this note in the margin of one of my Bibles. It’s missing the volume (there are three volumes in the set) and page number where the quote is found in the trinitarian source.
Trinitarians aren’t having it anyway. Forget the source and consider it my comment on the passage.
Jesus explicitly approved Jewish monotheism.
That ignores what I wrote about. Here it is again:
There is not one word used in the Bible to support the false notion that Jesus receives subordinate worship to that of the Father.
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): The OT expression "call on the name of God" is applied to Jesus (Acts 2:21 [quoting Joel 3:5]; 9:14, 21; 22:16; cf. 19:17). As in Jewish writings it expresses the proper relation to God - only now expressed as one's relation to Christ (2:520, onoma, L. Hartman).
Wrangler
Well-known member
The complete ignoring of Scripture that goes against their doctrine while asserting anti-Scriptural doctrine is amazing!
Matthias
Well-known member
The first and the last letters of the Hebrew word echad are enlarged.
Why?
ED -> the Hebrew word for “witness”.
civic
Well-known member
oops the double edge sword cuts right through lol.
the old appeal to authority fallacy backfired.
Deut 6.4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One [echad].
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [echad] flesh.
Echad can refer to the word one and to the word unity, as Gen 2:4 indicates.
We understand that things are defined by their attributes; cats have cat dna attributes, apple trees have a different dna attribute than corn, etc.
The FATHER is a Person with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, etc.
The Son is a Person with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, etc.
The Holy Spirit is a Person with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, etc.
The nature of these Divine attributes is such that they form a perfect GODly UNITY so that while there are three divine persons, there is only ONE GOD. That is, the perfection of the unity of divine attributes makes it proper to refer to this unity as ONE GOD, not three gods...even though each of the Three is a Divine being.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [echad] flesh.
Echad can refer to the word one and to the word unity, as Gen 2:4 indicates.
We understand that things are defined by their attributes; cats have cat dna attributes, apple trees have a different dna attribute than corn, etc.
The FATHER is a Person with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, etc.
The Son is a Person with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, etc.
The Holy Spirit is a Person with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, etc.
The nature of these Divine attributes is such that they form a perfect GODly UNITY so that while there are three divine persons, there is only ONE GOD. That is, the perfection of the unity of divine attributes makes it proper to refer to this unity as ONE GOD, not three gods...even though each of the Three is a Divine being.
Matthias
Well-known member
Echad sometimes modifies collective nouns. The meaning of echad doesn’t change when it does.
Whether used with a noun or a collective noun, echad means one, not more than one.
Echad elohim -> one God, not more than one God.
There is never plurality in echad.
But what about elohim?
Elohim is always plural in form, but can be either singular or plural in meaning.
When someone insists that it is plural in meaning, we should insist that that someone translates it plural, not singular.
Whether used with a noun or a collective noun, echad means one, not more than one.
Echad elohim -> one God, not more than one God.
There is never plurality in echad.
But what about elohim?
Elohim is always plural in form, but can be either singular or plural in meaning.
When someone insists that it is plural in meaning, we should insist that that someone translates it plural, not singular.
101G
Well-known member
they just said it another way, Isaiah 63:16 "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting."
is not the "LORD" God?
the name of the Father is the Name of the Redeemer. and the Name of the Redeemer is the Name of the Father. John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."
so the Father and the REDEEMER is the same one PERSON who is God in the ECHAD.
101G.
