God's Word in the O.T. and N.T., Logos and Dabar

Status
Not open for further replies.

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Doctrine1st
Huh??? I realize that he does not come out and specifically dub him a Christian but when he says:

"He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably(5) are Christians [/B], even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them"

To imply he meant "only" that they lived "righteously" is disingenuous. The righteous life he refers to is clearly his "premise" for considering them as Chrisitians.
In accordance with the scripture I quoted. God holds mankind accountable for what they know.
And your point?
My point was as I said, Justin said nothing about logos in connection with Heraclitus, you made assumptions about Justin-Heraclitus-logos without any facts to support you.
Just the fact that he acknowledges these pagans for their intellect has some kind of meaning would it not? Could it be one for their contributions in thought?
The meaning that he stated. Could be a lot of things.
I mean that's quite a statement coming from someone, a church father at that, who is bent of giving Christianity it's validity?
Only if you read your presumptions and presuppositions into it.
I know it's through faith to think that the Bible was created in some kind of divine vaccum, but that simply is not the case.
Again your suppositions and presumptions about faith and belief.
Just as any culture or individual experiences, be it all those folks whose ideals form the Bible, it was shaped by the social, political, and cultural experiences that permeated thought prior to and during those current times.
And how much do you know about the Semitic Jewish Hebrew social, political, and cultural experiences that did in fact shape the early church while you are supposing that it was Greek/Roman/pagan, etc.?
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,007
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
In accordance with the scripture I quoted. God holds mankind accountable for what they know.

How in the sam hill does this apply.....well....tell me, does he hold them accountable for what they don't know?

My point was as I said, Justin said nothing about logos in connection with Heraclitus, you made assumptions about Justin-Heraclitus-logos without any facts to support you.

Well in fact "I" personally said nothing about Justin , it all started when you pulled him out of the middle of my source for the term "Logos."

And how much do you know about the Semitic Jewish Hebrew social, political, and cultural experiences that did in fact shape the early church while you are supposing that it was Greek/Roman/pagan, etc.?

It's all just a library card away. But since you brought him up, as Justin just proved, they were not people the Christian just ignored.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Doctrine1st
Well in fact "I" personally said nothing about Justin , it all started when you pulled him out of the middle of my source for the term "Logos."
If you are quoting sources it is customary to indicate that, by using quote marks, citing the source, or using the quote feature at the lower right.
It's all just a library card away. But since you brought him up, as Justin just proved, they were not people the Christian just ignored.
As I indicated around here somewhere they didn't just ignore the Hittites, Hivites, etc. but they also didn't incorporate their religious practices, that is without severe penalties.
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,007
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
Been there done that, this is from the post is question.

This is from the Catholic Encylopedia in regards to the term "Logos":

As I indicated around here somewhere they didn't just ignore the Hittites, Hivites, etc. but they also didn't incorporate their religious practices, that is without severe penalties.

Meant more in the Hellenistic period and on, but an argument could be made in the period you mention as well.

And BTW, I completely understand that the Israelites have practices exclusive to themselves. I would phantom that to those at the time that seen them as rather odd for being monotheistic, circumcism, and their strange dietary practices. I am speaking more of the time honored traditions in fable that comprise the Bible. It's rather odd that there are so many cultures that share the same motifs. God does work in mysterious ways.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Doctrine1st
I am speaking more of the time honored traditions in fable that comprise the Bible. It's rather odd that there are so many cultures that share the same motifs. God does work in mysterious ways.
If you believe that the Bible is comprised of fables, you are very likely posting in this forum in violation of the rules. May I suggest you review these rules [Here] and if you do not agree with the rules, voluntarily move to other forums within this site, which permit your views.
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,007
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by OldShepherd
If you believe that the Bible is comprised of fables, you are very likely posting in this forum in violation of the rules. May I suggest you review these rules [Here] and if you do not agree with the rules, voluntarily move to other forums within this site, which permit your views.

What does the need in having to believe that there really was a Noah's Ark, a Tower of Babel, or again the math wiz talking donkey have to do with following Jesus????

That's the irony of the whole thing; here's Jesus who bucks the system of those who have turned Judaism into a organized, structured system maintaining essentially a caste society; the clean -vs- the unclean, the holy -vs- the unholy, the whole -vs- the unwhole, in order to recieve God's blessing, as Jesus rightly pleads those to return to YHWH. Now here some several hundred years later, we a structured Christianity who in turn have done the same thing, where one has to believe an absolute creeds settled upon by man to be a Christian as the point of emphasis, rather than the Sermon on the Mount teachings of Jesus and returning to God???  :(

BTW, I never realized that was the criteria for posting here, it's been real. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Well, OS, since my original post was deleted, I'll reiterate:
  • It's not enough to disagree with Dunn - you must actually prove him wrong.
  • The strictly Hebraic basis of the NT simply will not support the philosophical superimpositions that your interpretation of John 1:1-14 requires.
  • Philo's logos was indeed personal; a literal, personal being created by the Father.
Here follows Philo's own description of the logos:

  • For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

    [...]

    And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born Logos, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names, for he is called the Authority, and the name of God, and the Logos, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

    For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's sons." (Gen. 42:11). For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred Logos; for the image of God is his most ancient Logos.


    [...]

    To his chief messenger and most venerable Logos, the Father who engendered the universe has granted the singular gift, to stand between and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Logos is both suppliant of ever anxiety-ridden mortality before the immortal and ambassador of the ruler to the subject.

    He glories in his gift and proudly describes it in these words: "And I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. 5:5), neither unbegotten as God, nor begotten as you, but midway between the two extremes, serving as a pledge for both; to the Creator as assurance that the creature should never completely shake off the reins and rebel, choosing disorder rather than order, to the creature warranting his hopefulness that the gracious God will never disregard his own work.


    [...]

    Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after His own image?

    Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Logos of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the Divine Logos; since in His first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature.

    But He who is superior to the Logos holds His rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of Him in himself?
Philo's logos is a literal, personal being. There is no denying it.

Meanwhile, I have waited to see a detailed rebuttal of my argument from you, but to date no such thing has been posted. All you did was to criticise Dunn (for no good reason) without actually engaging with my argument.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
“...apart from using my real name (in total breach of all Internet protocol) and thereby demonstrating (a) your lack of manners and subsequently (b) your lack of breeding, what else did you have to say which might interest me?

The above statement (a) made me laugh out loud (b) was subsequently forwarded to JPHolding. :)

Well, OS, since my original post was deleted, I'll reiterate:

I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to pull a "me too" by delibrately getting yourself banned. :rolleyes: It's not only revealing of your character, but strikingly childish as well.

It's not enough to disagree with Dunn - you must actually prove him wrong.

Not too much work for us there as *you* yourself disagreed with Dunn in the recent past. However you, yet again, pulled a classic 'Ev 180' on us and changed your argument. Do I need to reiterate past posts here, eh? :cool:

The strictly Hebraic basis of the NT simply will not support the philosophical superimpositions that your interpretation of John 1:1-14 requires.

And this has already been addressed in massive detail. You're simply poking your head out of your shell in order to get in "the last word" so you won't feel so bad. The *context* "simply will not support" the patent presuppositions that you must bring into the text. Everything else we've cited simply renders support.

And Evangelion, next time you try to criticize someone's education I'll make sure to reiterate where you've fallen on your face. You know what I'm talking about. :)

Oh, and let's not forget.....

:cool:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MizDoulos

<font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f
Jan 1, 2002
15,098
4
The "Left Coast" of the USA
Visit site
✟22,176.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let's not revert to personal insults and attacks. Contact each other privately to express your thoughts. If the thread continues to deteriorate, it will be closed.

Thank you for your cooperation.


[noflame][/noflame]
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Posted by EV
Well, OS, since my original post was deleted, I'll reiterate:
  • It's not enough to disagree with Dunn - you must actually prove him wrong.
  • The strictly Hebraic basis of the NT simply will not support the philosophical superimpositions that your interpretation of John 1:1-14 requires.
  • Philo's logos was indeed personal; a literal, personal being created by the Father.
Here follows Philo's own description of the logos: *snip*

Well lets just see if this is a truthful post or not. My rebuttal of your Wallace quote and my line by line critique of the Wallace quote itself [Here!] Neither one addressed!

My quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia [Here!] supporting my strictly Hebraic basis of the NT as recorded in ancient Hebrew writings, the ancient Targums, Aramaic translations of the T’nakh during the Babylonian captivity. Unlike EV’s treatment of dabar, which purported to show the Jewish influence, but did NOT cite a single Jewish source, just the same old, same old 19th century anti-Trinitarian spin doctoring.

My rebuttal of Dunn from an anti-Cult site and my proof that EV’s post was plagiarized [Here!] Not addressed!

My post listing the ninety eight O.T. verses, showing the dabar distinct from YHWH, omitted in EV’s plagiarized post because they did not support his presuppositions, [Here!] also my line by line rebuttal of the plagiarized Philo material, which was supported by quotes from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia which also rebuts the so-called quotes from Philo in this most recent post for which no source is given .
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, [Here Wallace “assumes’, OS] he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step [Assumption! OS] for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously [No, it isn’t obvious at all. OS] his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording.[Neither does it prove the opposite. OS] One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain.[Speculation on what Cyprian might and might not have done, NOT proof! OS] That he does not do so indicates INDICATES but does NOT prove. OS that a Trinitarian interpretation was [MAY HAVE BEEN] superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.[And Cyprian could also have paraphrased (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”) as “the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit”]
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; In the absence of EVIDENCE, that he did NOT is equally likely. OS] but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. [Unlikely perhaps but NOT proven. OS] Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. [Argument from silence, only proves silence. OS.] That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

I see no academic material here - just a series of "It ain't so!" statements. That's not very convincing, I'm sorry to say.

You haven't addressed (a) the textual evidence, (b) the historical evidence, or (c) the patristic evidence.

You haven't explained why this verse was never quoted during the Arian controversy.

You've simply said that you disagree with Wallace (which I already knew.) :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

However portions of this post have been copied from other websites without proper credit.

That is a blatant lie, for which I require a retraction and an apology.

Christian apologists who were contemporary with Numenius drew similar conclusions from the teachings of an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo Judaeus (c. 20 BC-50 AD). [1] Philo was striving to RECONCILE Judaism and GREEK PHILOSOPHY... [2] Philo had a form of the Logos doctrine ready-made for the Trinitarians who were to spring up in his century. He taught: 'All beings between the perfection of God and the imperfect, finite matter have their unity in, and proceed from, the divine Logos.' [3] Thus a liberal Jewish philosopher of the priestly class in Alexandria was laying the groundwork for the false Trinitarian doctrine even before the Apostle Paul had evangelized the Greek world...

"[4]But perhaps Philo's greatest contribution to Trinitarians was his fantastic method of allegorization. This was a gnostic approach of giving HIDDEN, OR HIGHER, SECRET MEANINGS to Scripture. This was especially adopted by Clement of Alexandria, and did much to advance the trinity doctrine... (Clement's method of interpretation survived in power until the Reformation." )..." -William Chalfant, Ancient Champions of Oneness, pages 116-118.

"...The rejection of Modalism (oneness) and the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the west the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic." -Dr. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, page 79.

http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/Oneness/q201-210.htm

And this is supposed to prove that I'm a plagiarist? How so? :rolleyes:

It is permissible to use widely known information about well-known figures, without citing a source. For example, most Americans know that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president, serving during the American civil war, he was known for working as a rail splitter in his youth, and he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, in Ford’s theater.

However, the majority of people would have no idea who Philo was or what he was known for. Here is a quote taken from the long, bloviated, post by EV, above, for which a source was not cited, implying it was his own work.

Excuse me?! You're trying to tell me that "a source was not cited", when I had a huge great list of footnotes with all of my sources clearly laid out for everyone to see?

Thus:


  • _______________

    Bibliography



    [1] Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.

    [2] Buswell, J. O. (1962), A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Buswell is a former Dean of the Graduate School, Covenant College, St. Louis, MO.

    [3] Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.

    [4] As quoted by Norman L. Geisler (2000) in his Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics.

    [5] This argument is comprehensively articulated (and defended) by a number of classical historians. For additional reading on the evolution of early Christian theology and practice (with particular reference to the infiltration of Hellenism), see Jaeger’s Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (1961), Engels’ Die Neue Zeit, Vol. 1 (1894-95), Werner’s The Formation of Christian Dogma, An Historical Study of its Problems (1957), and Reynolds’ The Christian Religious Tradition (1977).

    [6] Robinson, J.A.T. (1984), Twelve More New Testament Studies. Robinson (now deceased) was a former Bishop of the Anglican Church in Woolwich during the 1960s.

    [7] The Catholic Encyclopaedia (1908).

    [8] Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, (1868) or later editions.

    [9] Hall, Stuart G. (1991), Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. Hall was formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King’s College, London. He now works as a parish priest of the Scottish Episcopal Church in Fife.

    [10] Baur, F.C. (1853), The Church History of the First Three Centuries.
These are my sources - clearly described, clearly referenced, and clearly verifiable by anyone who cares to look them up. You will notice that these sources are not the same as Raddatz's.

But you say "For which a sources was not quoted..."!

Well, just how did you manage to miss this list of footnotes, OS?

The questionable portions are marked with red numbers which correspond to the same numbers in the quote from the “Oneness” site.

LOL! They don't do anything of the kind! Not only that, but Raddatz's sources aren't even the same as mine!

Unless a person had studied ancient history they would not know that “Philo was a well-educated Hellenic Jew from Alexandria”.

ROTFL! :D But I did study ancient history, that's the whole point! I studied ancient history at university. (Specifically, Christian history (with particular reference to Philo, et al.) Secondly, I provided an extensive list of footnotes for my work, showing each of my sources in detail. Thirdly, this material from Raddatz (whom I have never even heard of) doesn't even come close to being identical to my own! He's used different sources entirely. And with one or two possible exceptions, he doesn't even say the same things!

Either EV copied from Raddatz or Raddatz copied from EV.

Neither. You've made a wild claim, without any basis whatsoever. This is totally unjustifiable. It is blatant harrassment.

I appeal to the other moderators.

Posted by Evangelion

[3] Philo (a well-educated Hellenic Jew from Alexandria) had a considerable influence on Christian leaders of the "Alexandrian School", such as Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. [4] His allegorical method for interpreting Scripture also influenced Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, and others. Many elements of his philosophy made an impact on later Christian thinking, including his use of proofs for God's existence, his logos doctrine, his views about the unknowability of God, his negative language about God, his position on ex nihilo creation, and his interpretation of Divine providence.

[1]Philo attempted to interpret Scripture in terms of Greek philosophy. His approach was innovative and eclectic. Philo taught that human beings can know God, whether directly from divine revelation, or indirectly through human reason. Various forms of proof for God included Plato's argument for a Demiurgos in Timaeus and Aristotle's cosmological argument for an Unmoved Mover. Interacting freely with Greek philosophy, Philo borrowed certain Platonic concepts to express his own theistic views. His concept of the logos is a case in point.

Quite apart from the fact that you've totally ignored my own footnotes, which demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that my sources do not include Raddatz, I would like to point out that the paragraph above is my personal distillation of Philo's Judeo-Hellenic synthesis, which I composed by (a) paraphrasing Geisler's own observations on pages 592 & 293 of his Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, and...

In De Opificio he describes the logos as a cosmological principle, saying:

God assuming, as God would assume, that a beautiful copy could never come into existence without a beautiful model...when He willed to create this visible world, first blocked out the intelligible world, in order that using an incorporeal and godlike model he might make the corporeal world a younger image of the older. [4]

...quoting him directly, as I openly stated in my post by referencing it with a footnote ([4].) I've got Geisler's book sitting on my desk right now. Feel free to check pages 592-593, from which this quote was taken.

You'll see that I'm telling the truth.

[2] Philo's philosophy was the original source of what later became the logos theology of mainstream Christianity. [5]

Philo himself had been influenced by Plato’s Timaeus, in which he called the logos “the image of God”, and “the second God”. Many Trinitarians today are emphatic in their insistence that John's gospel deliberately makes use of the term "logos" because (according to them) he was fully aware of its Philonic meaning, and expected his readers to understand this! Some Trinitarians even go so far as to say that John himself was responsible for using the term in a new and especifically religious way.

That was written by me. It is clearly not plagiarised from Raddatz. Indeed, Raddatz's own work (a) is written in a different style, (b) is written from an entirely different Christological perspective, (c) uses a number of different arguments, and (d) uses entirely different sources.

So let's see what the similarities are:
  • Raddatz says that Philo was a well educated Alexandrian Jew. I have said the same and so does Geisler, in his Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. This is common knowledge.
  • Raddatz says that Philo attempted a Judeo-Hellenic synthesis. I have said the same and so does Geisler, in his Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. This is common knowledge.
  • Raddatz says that Philo's logos theology formed the basis for later Christological development within the Church. I have said the same and so does Geisler, in his Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. This is common knowledge.
That's all the similarities we have, folks - and they're shared by Geisler as well!

Now, plagiarism involves the deliberate use of another person's work (unreferenced) as if it was one's own. It involves direct, word-for-word theft from another person's work.

Have I done any of this? No.

Stay tuned for a detailed rebuttal this portion of EV’s post.

What's your problem? All of those footnotes correspond to my own sources. (Geisler, Dunn, Buswell, Robinson, etc.) Raddatz isn't even using the same source material!

If you're going to make charges of plagiarism, the onus is on you to prove them. To date, I have seen no proof - only baseless assertions.

Let's not even go into your "Philo didn't view the logos as a literal being" bungle... :cool:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

I thought I would repost something I posted earlier concerning logoV and how pre-Christian Judaism used "memra", Aramaic for "word", as recorded in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Relevance?

Note that in virtually every occurrence “memra” is substituted for the divine name &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; (YHWH). “Memra” is not “the manifestation of the divine power", or "God's messenger in place of God Himself.”

Firstly, you're totally ignoring the purpose of this literary device, which was (a) to obscure the Tetragrammaton, and (b) to avoid what the Jews came to see as an unacceptably high level of anthropomorphism. Secondly, your own source contradicts you.

Observe:
  • OS:
    “Memra” is not “the manifestation of the divine power", or "God's messenger in place of God Himself.”
  • The source which OS is attempting to use in support of his argument:
    "The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

    [...]

    "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).


    [...]

    In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.
You've claimed that it's not merely a manifestation of the divine power; your own source says that it is. You've claimed that it's not God's messenger in place of God Himself; your source says that it is.

Any more self-contradictions where these came from?

But, the “Memra” is literally &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; (YHWH), Himself, as in this first reference!

No, all this shows is that the word memra is being used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton - just as Adonai would later be used for the same purpose.

Big deal. :rolleyes:

Jewish Encyclopedia, Memra
Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God" is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra [vice: Himself] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/v...id=399&letter=M

Relevance?

When the exiled Jews translated their scriptures into Aramaic, they substituted the word "Memra" for &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; (YHWH).

Relevance? Later, they would substitute Adonai for Yahweh. So what?

This proves nothing.

Thus for the Jews the Word, i.e. "memra" was God. Which is exactly what John said.

No, that's an outlandish anachronism. You're trying to turn a literary device into a theological statement. It simply won't wash.

Meanwhile, let's take a closer look at the section of that article which you took care not to cite:

  • The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity.
Oh no! The Jewish Encyclopaedia is plagiarising me! :rolleyes: ;) :D

But wait - it goes on!

  • The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.). Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term "Memra." See Logos.
Clearly, the Jews did not believe what you claim they believed. The use of memra as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (a peculiarity of the Targums) was a mere rabbinical quirk. It says absolutely nothing about a pre-Christian concept of an incarnate God. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

Evangelion posted a long series of posts allegedly demonstrating the pre-Christian Jewish thought on the Hebrew word “dabar”, i.e. word, and how it is supposedly reflected in the N.T. use of the Greek word “logos”, which also means “word.” Here are ninety eight O.T. verses, that EV did not include, in which the “dabar/word of éäåä/God” is said to come and to speak. Note carefully that the verses do not say, “God came saying” but the “word of God came saying”

Irrelevant.

”Perhaps this is a customary Jewish way of speaking”?

Yep, that's exactly what it is. A typical Hebraism.

Nope! The word “dabar” occurs, at least, 1439 times in the O.T.. It isn’t used that way the other 1341 times. People or angels speak, God speaks, and even one time a donkey speaks, but “spoken words” do not themselves speak!

Irrelevant. All you've done here is to show that this particular Hebraism was used 98 times. Big deal.

0559 àîø ‘amar aw-mar’
a primitive root; TWOT - 118; v
AV - said 4874, speak 179, answer 99, command 30, tell 29, call 7, promised 6, misc. 84; 5308
1) to say, speak, utter
1a) (Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one’s heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend
1b) (Niphal) to be told, to be said, to be called
1c) (Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly
1d) (Hiphil) to avow, to avouch

01697 ãáø dabar daw-baw’
from 01696; TWOT - 399a; n m
AV - word 807, thing 231, matter 63, acts 51, chronicles 38, saying 25, commandment 20, misc 204; 1439
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension)

Ge 15:1 After these things the word (dabar) of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying (‘amar),

Ge 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, . . .

1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,

2Sa 7:4 . . .the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying,

2Sa 24:11 . . . the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying,

1Ki 13:17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD,. . .

1Ki 17:8 And the word of the LORD came unto him, saying,

1Ki 18:1 . . .the word of the LORD came to Elijah in the third year, saying, . . .

1Ki 18:31 . . . the word of the LORD came, saying, . . .

1Ki 19:9 . . . the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, . . .

1Ki 21:17 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

1Ki 21:28 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

2Ki 20:4 . . . the word of the LORD came to him, saying,

1Ch 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

2Ch 11:2 But the word of the LORD came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

2Ch 12:7 . . . the word of the LORD came to Shemaiah, saying,

Isa 38:4 Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying,

17 vss. Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jer 1:11, Jer 1:13, Jer 2:1, Jer 11:1, Jer 13:8, Jer 28:12, Jer 30:1, Jer 32:6, Jer 33:1, Jer 33:19, Jer 33:23, Jer 35:12, Jer 36:27, Jer 37:6, Jer 39:15, Jer 43:8

50 vss. Eze 3:16 . . . the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Eze 6:1, Eze 7:1, Eze 11:14, Eze 12:1, Eze 12:8, Eze 12:17, Eze 12:21, Eze 12:26, Eze 13:1, Eze 14:2, Eze 14:12, Eze 15:1, Eze 16:1, Eze 16:35, Eze 17:1, Eze 17:11, Eze 18:1, Eze 20:2 Eze 20:45, Eze 21:1, Eze 21:8, Eze 21:18, Eze 22:1, Eze 22:17, Eze 22:23, Eze 23:1, Eze 24:1, Eze 24:15, Eze 24:20, Eze 25:1, Eze 26:1, Eze 27:1, Eze 28:1, Eze 28:11, Eze 28:20, Eze 29:1, Eze 29:17, Eze 30:1, Eze 30:20, Eze 31:1, Eze 32:1, Eze 32:17, Eze 33:1, Eze 33:23, Eze 34:1, Eze 35:1, Eze 36:16, Eze 37:15, Eze 38:1,

Hag 1:1 . . .came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet . . . saying,

Hag 1:3 Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,

Hag 2:10 . . .came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,

Hag 2:20 And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,

Hag 2:20 And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai . . . saying,

Jon 3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

Zec 1:1 . . .came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying, Zec 1:7

Zec 4:8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, (Zec 7:8 Zec 8:18)

Zec 7:4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying

Zec 8:1 Again the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying,

98 verses.

Relevance?

Is this supposed to prove that the Jews believed the dabar to be a literal, pre-existent being? If so, why weren't they Trinitarians? Did God forget to let them in on this little secret?

In this verse éäåä/God revealed Himself to Samuel not by His word but by “the dabar, the word, of éäåä/God.”

1 Sa 3:21 And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

Clarke's Commentary cuts to the chase:

  • 1Sa 3:21 - The Lord appeared again -
    åéùó éäåä ìäøàä vaiyoseph Yehovah leheraoh, “And Jehovah added to appear;” that is, he continued to reveal himself to Samuel at Shiloh.

    By the word of the Lord -
    By the spirit and word of prophecy.
That's all it means.

See also the New Testament parallel, where this same figure of speech is used:

  • Luke 3:1-2.
    Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
    Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
According to your argument, Christ came to John in the wilderness before he came to him (again?) to be baptised.

Yeah, right. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

Well lets just see if this is a truthful post or not. My rebuttal of your Wallace quote and my line by line critique of the Wallace quote itself [Here!] Neither one addressed!

There was nothing to address. You presented no argument.

My quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia [Here!] supporting my strictly Hebraic basis of the NT as recorded in ancient Hebrew writings, the ancient Targums, Aramaic translations of the T’nakh during the Babylonian captivity.

There was nothing substantial here. Moreover, your own source flatly contradicts you, as I have already shown.

Unlike EV’s treatment of dabar, which purported to show the Jewish influence, but did NOT cite a single Jewish source, just the same old, same old 19th century anti-Trinitarian spin doctoring.

LOL, I cited the Old Testament. Is that suddenly not a Jewish source? :D

Oh, and let's remember that you changed the subject entirely. I was talking about dabar - you jumped right over this and started the use of memra in the Targumim (for whatever reason.) Then you claimed (curiously enough) that I'd used "spin." (Oh yeah? So where was it?)

Let's see how I actually presented dabar and logos from the OT and NT:

God’s Word in the Old and New Testaments – Dabar and Logos

Dabar – from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:
  • Speech, word, speaking, thing.
  • Speech.
  • Saying, utterance.
  • Word, words.
  • Business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension.)


Logos – from the Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon:
  • Logos; logos, ho: (A) the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed (Latin: oratio), and, (B) the inward thought itself (Latin: ratio.)
  • Latin: vox, oratio, that which is said or spoken.
  • Latin: ratio, thought, reason.
  • Ho LOGOS, the Logos or Word, comprising both senses of Thought and Word. (New Testament.)
The logos is God's reason, purpose, and plan. It is what is what we call the "Word of God", whether spoken, written or conceived in His mind. The Old Testament uses the Hebrew word dabar in the same way that the New Testament uses the Greek word logos.


The Biblical Use of Dabar

The Words of Men and Women:

  • Genesis 44:2.
    And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the dabar that Joseph had spoken

God’s Law and commandments:

  • Deuteronomy 4:2.

  • Ye shall not add unto the dabar which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

God’s creative work:
  • Genesis 1:3, 6, 14-15.

  • And God said, Let there be light: and there was light... And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters... And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
  • Psalm 33:6.
    By the dabar of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.


God’s purpose, as expressed through prophecy and fulfilled in world events:

  • Jeremiah 32:8.

  • So Hanameel mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison according to the dabar of the LORD, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the dabar of the LORD.


The Biblical Use of Logos

Consistent with the Biblical Use of Dabar:
  • Matthew 13:19.
    When any one heareth the logos of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
  • John 5:24.
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my logos, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
  • John 8:51.
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my logos, he shall never see death.
  • John 15:3.
    Now ye are clean through the logos which I have spoken unto you.
  • John 15:25.
    But [this cometh to pass], that the logos might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
  • John 17:20.
    Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their logos.
  • Acts 2:41.
    Then they that gladly received his logos were baptized and the same day there were added about three thousand souls.
  • Acts 4:4.
    Howbeit many of them which heard the logos believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
  • Acts 4:29.
    And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy logos.

Well, whaddya know - it's 95% Scripture.

So where's the spin, OS?

My rebuttal of Dunn from an anti-Cult site

Mere polemic. You didn't even engage with his argument.

and my proof that EV’s post was plagiarized [Here!] Not addressed!

There was no proof, as I've already shown.

My post listing the ninety eight O.T. verses, showing the dabar distinct from YHWH

Irrelevant. This only proves my point.

omitted in EV’s plagiarized post because they did not support his presuppositions, [Here!]

LOL! Omitted because there was no need to labour the point! Your 98 verses actually bolster my argument! :D

also my line by line rebuttal of the plagiarized Philo material

*ahem*

There was no plagiarism, and you didn't refute anything. All you did was claim (erroneously) that Philo didn't view the logos as a literal, personal being!

which was supported by quotes from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

...which consisted of assertions but no proof. Which I blew away with my citations from Philo.

Sorry.

which also rebuts the so-called quotes from Philo in this most recent post for which no source is given .

I've quoted three sources:
  • Creation.
  • Confusion.
  • Who is Heir.
You've obviously never studied Philo, or you would have recognised the quotes immediately. In future, it's probably a good idea to study the relevant material before you go claiming that Philo didn't write what he so obviously did.

For brief excerpts from these and other works by Philo, see here. For more on this subject, see Marian Hillar's brilliant essay, The Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of the Hebrew Myth and Foundations of Christianity (1998.) :cool:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
David Burke,

ROTFL! But I did study ancient history, that's the whole point! I studied ancient history at university.

ROTFL! :D

....But evidently not Greek, or how *not* to lie when caught on your mistakes. Ain't that right? Need I reiterate those posts here? You've already demonstrated enough rank dishonesty to the point that you no longer hold any credibility as far as "education" goes. Evidently, you didn't even pay attention in class, did you?

Neither. You've made a wild claim, without any basis whatsoever. This is totally unjustifiable. It is blatant harrassment.

Oh, somewhat likened unto those lovely PMs you sent me on your own board, eh? Or the ones you sent Dr. Brumley. You know, the one on which he started a thread in order to expose your high class 'stalking' ability?

I appeal to the other moderators.

Whoa there, Lil' hypocrite! :eek: Who's that special someone that accused, not only myself, but numerous others of "plagiarism" without any merit other than your own "speculation."

Next, I imagine you'll request that we stop using your real name...Oops! Too late. :rolleyes:

Where is that apology to JPHolding?

hyp-o-crite

8<

Now, plagiarism involves the deliberate use of another person's work (unreferenced) as if it was one's own. It involves direct, word-for-word theft from another person's work.

Excellent definition. It's times like this that I wish I had saved your copy/pasted, *sourceless* John1:18 post back at CWS. :cool: Where did it come from? A KJV-onlyism wha..?

8<

No, all this shows is that the word memra is being used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton - just as Adonai would later be used for the same purpose.

Big deal.

LOL! And that's the *whole point*! It's being used as an interchangeable substitution for YHWH, a personal being.

For example:

Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." (Jerusalem Targum)

Now simply turn your bibles to 1John1:1-2 and Rev19:13.

Why is it that your placing so much attention upon our supportive quotes [which stand alone by themselves] and not the context itself [which I addressed], anyway? And when are you going to fess up on your 180 spin regarding your postion? If you're going to feed us your 'literal dabar' tripe, then you need to quickly tell us where this is paralled in verses 4-13 of John. Quick.

8<
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.