Can a Jew be saved without believing the Trinity?

[Clete]

Great. Now I have to defend the Strong's Concordance. It might be the best thing to defend Christian doctrine. But that does not make it correct.

Oh so now you're back steping because you've said something that allowed someone to see behind the curtain.

That "I don't trust the Strong's Concordance" comment was just such a blatant lie.

First of all there's not really much to trust. It's not as if Strong's invented the Hebrew and Greek languages nor the definition of the words contained therein. There might be a hundred different places you can go to confirm an entry in Strong's that you might have reason to doubt.

Not only that, but on what basis would anyone not trust it anyway? What do you think they're up to, exactly? What grand conspiracy are they engaged in? What possible motivation could a company that exists to sell concordances have to falsify entries that hundreds of thousands of people all around the world could instantly detect and call them on?

Further, if you know so much about the Hebrew language as to reject Strong's as untrustworthy, then tell us all just what it is that was wrong with the entry that was presented to crush your mindless position to powder? Or is it the fact that it crushes your doctrine into dust that causes you to not trust it in the fist place?

Bottom line is that you're a con. I don't believe a single word you say.

Clete

 

[Jacob]

Oh so now you're back steping because you've said something that allowed someone to see behind the curtain.

That "I don't trust the Strong's Concordance" comment was just such a blatant lie.

First of all there's not really much to trust. It's not as if Strong's invented the Hebrew and Greek languages nor the definition of the words contained therein. There might be a hundred different places you can go to confirm an entry in Strong's that you might have reason to doubt.

Not only that, but on what basis would anyone not trust it anyway? What do you think they're up to, exactly? What grand conspiracy are they engaged in? What possible motivation could a company that exists to sell concordances have to falsify entries that hundreds of thousands of people all around the world could instantly detect and call them on?

Further, if you know so much about the Hebrew language as to reject Strong's as untrustworthy, then tell us all just what it is that was wrong with the entry that was presented to crush your mindless position to powder? Or is it the fact that it crushes your doctrine into dust that causes you to not trust it in the fist place?

Bottom line is that you're a con. I don't believe a single word you say.

Clete

Simply the word united. But it may be as it was understood. Meaning, it may be that it is as the word is understood to mean united that is wrong, and not that the word united is incorrect. I don't know. But I knew that what I was seeing was wrong.

Strong's is the best thing we have. It is perfect and no one should be trusted who challenges it. And yet I have because it is a tool. I guess it can be misinterpreted. I don't think it is perfect as the Bible is (the Bible is perfect) but as a tool for Bible study it pretty much is.

 

[Jacob]

That's a milk understanding, Jacob. It means and is used in more ways than just "one."

And considering you've been shown the following before, you're being willfully ignorant, and that's not a good thing.

Here is what echad means.

Strong's h259 - Lexical: אֶחָד - Transliteration: echad - Part of Speech: Adjective - Phonetic Spelling: ekh-awd' - Definition: one. - Origin: A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One; or (as an ordinal) first. Spoiler - Usage: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together, - Translated as (count): one (480), - (48), of one (30), in one (29), another (23), and one (22), as one (20), of the one (18), the one (15), and the other (12), for one (11), once (11), to one (10), with one (10), any (9), on the first (9), certain (8), on one (7), every one (6), first (6), in the first (6), the other (6), a (5), and another (5), each (5), together (5), of the first (4), other (4), the first (4), at one (3), every (3), for the one (3), had one (3), in any (3), In the eleventh (3), of the other (3), out of every (3), alone (2), as another (2), at once (2), But one (2), by one (2), each one (2), for each (2), from one (2), in another (2), in the one (2), into some (2), let one (2), like one (2), Now in the first (2), of a (2), on a (2), to any (2), to each (2), a few (1), a man (1), against any (1), also another (1), also that one (1), an only (1), and eleven (1), and first (1), and in the one (1), and like one (1), and of the other (1), and on the first (1), and once (1), and the only (1), and with the other (1), any of (1), anything (1), but can one (1), But they are altogether (1), by him? And one (1), by the first (1), each man (1), even as one (1), even one thing (1), few (1), for each one (1), for every (1), for everyone (1), from any (1), From the first (1), have you but one (1), him? and did not one (1), his one (1), in some (1), in the other (1), in unison (1), inside few (1), into any (1), into one (1), is one (1), It is eleven (1), like to one (1), me one (1), not one (1), Now in the eleventh (1), of each (1), of every (1), of them alike (1), of them had one (1), of you a (1), on each (1), on some (1), on the one (1), one him (1), one them (1), out of one (1), shall have one (1), shall one (1), should one (1), single (1), that I may at once (1), that not one (1), that one (1), themselves one (1), There is one (1), This one (1), to and fro (1), to another (1), to every (1), to her a certain (1), to him alone (1), to make one (1), to the one (1), to the other (1), together on the first (1), when none (1), whom alone (1), will be on the other (1), With a single (1).

Did you catch that?

"united"

Examples:

Man and woman are "echad" flesh.

The whole earth had "echad" language and "echad" speech.

Echad means one, but, as Steko just said, it's a compound unity.

The one flesh is made of two bodies, but those two are one.

A language is more than just a single word. It is made up of many words.

I don't believe that Echad means compound unity.

 

[Jacob]

Oh so now you're back steping because you've said something that allowed someone to see behind the curtain.

That "I don't trust the Strong's Concordance" comment was just such a blatant lie.

First of all there's not really much to trust. It's not as if Strong's invented the Hebrew and Greek languages nor the definition of the words contained therein. There might be a hundred different places you can go to confirm an entry in Strong's that you might have reason to doubt.

Not only that, but on what basis would anyone not trust it anyway? What do you think they're up to, exactly? What grand conspiracy are they engaged in? What possible motivation could a company that exists to sell concordances have to falsify entries that hundreds of thousands of people all around the world could instantly detect and call them on?

Further, if you know so much about the Hebrew language as to reject Strong's as untrustworthy, then tell us all just what it is that was wrong with the entry that was presented to crush your mindless position to powder? Or is it the fact that it crushes your doctrine into dust that causes you to not trust it in the fist place?

Bottom line is that you're a con. I don't believe a single word you say.

Clete

Clete,

If there is anything between us after reading my post to you above please let me know because whatever it is I would like to make it right

I cannot take back my words after they are spoken but recognizing that I may be in error I can recognize that and change. I can take back what I have said.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Clete]

Simply the word united. But it may be as it was understood. Meaning, it may be that it is as the word is understood to mean united that is wrong, and not that the word united is incorrect. I don't know. But I knew that what I was seeing was wrong.

Strong's is the best thing we have. It is perfect and no one should be trusted who challenges it. And yet I have because it is a tool. I guess it can be misinterpreted. I don't think it is perfect as the Bible is (the Bible is perfect) but as a tool for Bible study it pretty much is.

Rambling nonsense.

I have no particular affinity for the Strong's Concordance but I have no reason whatsoever to distrust it either. In fact, if anything, I have every reason to trust it because if it was consistently and signigicantly in error, no one would use it, never mind buy it.

My point isn't about the Strong's so much as it about you! Flippantly dismissing a source such as Strong's for no reason whatseover, especially after having repeatedly expressed your own ingnorance of the Hebrew language simply smacks of a level of dishonesty that I have a very difficult time believing isn't intentional.

Perhaps I'm reacting to what is simple carelessness on your part in the way you've expressed yourself. Fine. I'll give you the benefit of the boubt for now but you need to keep in mind that wasting people's time is disrespectful and that flippantly blowing off rationally sound arguments is not only dishonest it's stupid.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Rambling nonsense.

I have no particular affinity for the Strong's Concordance but I have no reason whatsoever to distrust it either. In fact, if anything, I have every reason to trust it because if it was consistently and signigicantly in error, no one would use it, never mind buy it.

My point isn't about the Strong's so much as it about you! Flippantly dismissing a source such as Strong's for no reason whatseover, especially after having repeatedly expressed your own ingnorance of the Hebrew language simply smacks of a level of dishonesty that I have a very difficult time believing isn't intentional.

Perhaps I'm reacting to what is simple carelessness on your part in the way you've expressed yourself. Fine. I'll give you the benefit of the boubt for now but you need to keep in mind that wasting people's time is disrespectful and that flippantly blowing off rationally sound arguments is not only dishonest it's stupid.

Clete

:think:

Proverbs 12:1

 

[Jacob]

Rambling nonsense.

I have no particular affinity for the Strong's Concordance but I have no reason whatsoever to distrust it either. In fact, if anything, I have every reason to trust it because if it was consistently and signigicantly in error, no one would use it, never mind buy it.

My point isn't about the Strong's so much as it about you! Flippantly dismissing a source such as Strong's for no reason whatseover, especially after having repeatedly expressed your own ingnorance of the Hebrew language simply smacks of a level of dishonesty that I have a very difficult time believing isn't intentional.

Perhaps I'm reacting to what is simple carelessness on your part in the way you've expressed yourself. Fine. I'll give you the benefit of the boubt for now but you need to keep in mind that wasting people's time is disrespectful and that flippantly blowing off rationally sound arguments is not only dishonest it's stupid.

Clete

I have studied Hebrew but I don't have any qualifications in it. I can read the words but I do not know what they mean. As for Strong's I have nothing against it. If you can explain the entry for echad be my guest. Careless, maybe? Ignorance, yes. Intentional? No. What I intended? Maybe it is intentional. I am sorry where my skills are lacking. I do not know why I often have difficulty hearing from you but I need to do so. Shalom. Jacob

 

[Jacob]

Hear Israel Yahveh our God Yahveh One (definition, one. origin, united).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hear Israel Yahveh our God Yahveh One (definition, one. origin, united).

"United" means "joined together."

If God is singular, and not a plurality, then why call Him "united"?

 

[Jacob]

"United" means "joined together."

If God is singular, and not a plurality, then why call Him "united"?

One is not plural. United cannot mean plural.

 

[Apple7]

How long before you guys figure out that Jacob is full of it.

He's pulling your chains.

No one who can use a keyboard can be that stupid. He's doing it on purpose.

He doesn't trust Strong's Concordance - really? Give me a break! He's a liar and is intentionally wasting of your time.

Jacob is special needs...

 

[Jacob]

Jacob is special needs...

Interesting.

 

[JudgeRightly]

One is not plural.

I didn't say "one" is plural.

I said "unity" (which is the definition of echad, the word used in the Shema) implies a plurality.

United cannot mean plural.

United by definition means plural.

Denying reality is a sure sign of insanity, Jacob.

You're not insane are you?

Unite means to come or bring together.

Unity is the state of being united.

United means joined together.

A steel ball bearing cannot be united to itself, it is one (you could not use "echad" to describe a single ball bearing), but you can weld two or three ball bearings together, so they are united, so that you have multiple (ball bearings, plural) bearings, but one object.

That object you could use "echad" to describe.

It is ONE object, but also a plurality of objects, simultaneously.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jacob is special needs...

Interesting.

:doh:

:dunce:

 

[Jacob]

I didn't say "one" is plural.

I said "unity" (which is the definition of echad, the word used in the Shema) implies a plurality.



United by definition means plural.

Denying reality is a sure sign of insanity, Jacob.

You're not insane are you?

Unite means to come or bring together.

Unity is the state of being united.

United means joined together.

A steel ball bearing cannot be united to itself, it is one (you could not use "echad" to describe a single ball bearing), but you can weld two or three ball bearings together, so they are united, so that you have multiple (ball bearings, plural) bearings, but one object.

That object you could use "echad" to describe.

It is ONE object, but also a plurality of objects, simultaneously.

Maybe united is not the right word. As you admit, one is not plural. Maybe I don't understand.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Maybe united is not the right word.

And now you're being intellectually dishonest.

Look up "echad", Jacob. You'll find that "united, i.e. one" is the definition.

So yes, Jacob, "united" is the right word.

As you admit, one is not plural.

Also not what I said.

I said that unity implies a plurality. A plurality as one.

Maybe I don't understand.

That much is clear. Or you're being dishonest and lying about this, as Clete said.

 

[Jacob]

And now you're being intellectually dishonest.

Look up "echad", Jacob. You'll find that "united, i.e. one" is the definition.

So yes, Jacob, "united" is the right word.



Also not what I said.

I said that unity implies a plurality. A plurality as one.




That much is clear. Or you're being dishonest and lying about this, as Clete said.

What you are telling me is there is not what was shown to me.

edit see next post

 

[Jacob]

echad does have that here

 

[JudgeRightly]

What you are telling me is there is not what was shown to me.

edit see next post

That's because I'm trying to correct what you have been taught, or have taught yourself.

echad does have that here

Yes, it does, Jacob.

 

[Jacob]

That's because I'm trying to correct what you have been taught, or have taught yourself.Yes, it does, Jacob.

It is easier for me to accept this.