| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JimT
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mailech,
I agree with you: Jesus is not G-d. I don't believe in the Trinity, and, as you perhaps remember, I'm not a Christian anymore.
However, I have a question in return: why do you agree with the Rambam that G-d is jachid (an indivisible unity)? The T'Nach speaks only of 'echad (one) -- I cannot find jachid. Sh'ma Jisra'el also speaks of 'echad (one) as well. But "one" doesn't necessarily mean an absolute unity, an indivisible One.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mailech
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 2583
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JimT wrote: Mailech,
I agree with you: Jesus is not G-d. I don't believe in the Trinity, and, as you perhaps remember, I'm not a Christian anymore.
However, I have a question in return: why do you agree with the Rambam that G-d is jachid (an indivisible unity)? The T'Nach speaks only of 'echad (one) -- I cannot find jachid. Sh'ma Jisra'el also speaks of 'echad (one) as well. But "one" doesn't necessarily mean an absolute unity, an indivisible One.
J. The truth is I have never heard of this concept before of Echad and Yachid having different conotations of unity. And Echad is used in enough times to describe "absolute unity" that I see no problem with Echad in Shema, and I don't see it as a contradiction.
Besides the depth that the trinity takes the division, goes against, "There are no other gods with Me" |
|
| Back to top |
|
John
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 22873
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: Besides the depth that the trinity takes the division, goes against, "There are no other gods with Me"
Do you just not listen? The "Trinity" doctrine doesn't say that there are gods with God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cap'n queasy
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 34968
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mailech wrote: JimT wrote: Mailech,
I agree with you: Jesus is not G-d. I don't believe in the Trinity, and, as you perhaps remember, I'm not a Christian anymore.
However, I have a question in return: why do you agree with the Rambam that G-d is jachid (an indivisible unity)? The T'Nach speaks only of 'echad (one) -- I cannot find jachid. Sh'ma Jisra'el also speaks of 'echad (one) as well. But "one" doesn't necessarily mean an absolute unity, an indivisible One.
J. The truth is I have never heard of this concept before of Echad and Yachid having different conotations of unity. And Echad is used in enough times to describe "absolute unity" that I see no problem with Echad in Shema, and I don't see it as a contradiction.
Besides the depth that the trinity takes the division, goes against, "There are no other gods with Me"
I could have sworn we have discussed this many times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mailech
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 2583
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John wrote: Quote: Besides the depth that the trinity takes the division, goes against, "There are no other gods with Me"
Do you just not listen? The "Trinity" doctrine doesn't say that there are gods with God. It does to me, and that is the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mailech
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 2583
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cap'n queasy wrote: I could have sworn we have discussed this many times.
We have, I meant before I came to this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cap'n queasy
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 34968
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mailech wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I could have sworn we have discussed this many times.
We have, I meant before I came to this forum.
Oh. Sorry then. :!oops: |
|
| Back to top |
|
John
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 22873
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mailech wrote: John wrote: Quote: Besides the depth that the trinity takes the division, goes against, "There are no other gods with Me"
Do you just not listen? The "Trinity" doctrine doesn't say that there are gods with God. It does to me, and that is the problem.
It does to you? But by definition it doesn't.
You’re just making into something that it isn’t. |
|
| Back to top |
|
JimT
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Mailech,
You wrote:
Quote: The truth is I have never heard of this concept before of Echad and Yachid having different conotations of unity.
'Echad simply means "one", exactly like the English word "one." One atom may consist of different particles, like protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.
'Echad certainly CAN refer to a compound unity, like one couple, one team,… Agreed, it does not specifically refer to compound unity, but it doesn't specifically refer to an absolute unity either.
For example, Genesis 2:24 talks about a man and woman becoming "one ('echad) flesh"; Ezechiel 37:22 talks about "one ('echad) nation." And there are more examples.
Like people may be indivisible as one nation, G-d may be indivisible as a compound unity. Why not?
I'm not saying that G-d is a compound unity, but IMHO it might be a possibility.
Quote: And Echad is used in enough times to describe "absolute unity" that I see no problem with Echad in Shema, and I don't see it as a contradiction.
Yes. But 'echad is used in enough times to describe "compound unity" as well. I'm not talking about contradictions; I'm talking about possibilities.
Quote: Besides the depth that the trinity takes the division, goes against, "There are no other gods with Me"
IMHO the sh'ma simply says that there aren't any other gods besides G-d. It isn't talking about G-d's essential nature.
I don't see any proof for or against the existence of the Trinity.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
