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

This really is quite amusing. I must thank you for the entertainment you're providing.

Of course I ignored them.

Click to expand...

You ignored them despite the fact that they said the same things using near-identical language, while I've said the same things using language that's not even vaguely "near-identical"? And yet you have the gall to accuse me of plagiarism! Hilarious!

Thanks for revealing your insupportable double standard. See, it really wasn't a very good idea to accuse me of plagiarism on the basis of a mere four sentences which don't even come close to proving your claim. I tried to warn you, but... you wouldn't be told.

You just brought them in as a smoke screen.

Click to expand...

No, I brought them in because they use near-identical language, which (according to you) means that they've plagiarists.

Feel free to address this point.

No proof of that, if you think they have plagiarized then maybe you should take it up with them.

Click to expand...

ROTFL! They haven't plagiarised me at all, that's the whole point!

But thanks for helping to demolish your own false charges of plagiarism.

Do you know what you can do with your "requirements"?

Click to expand...

No, please tell me. Feel free to use the same kind of language for which you were banned from TheologyOnline.

Now directing your attention to your previous post.

quote:
Posted by EV
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.

Oh yes, Jewish Encyclopedia and ISBE are definitely not academic material!

Click to expand...

ROTFL! I made these remarks in reference to your comments about Wallace's "Cyprian/I John 5:7" essay! You're not even reading my posts properly! You're not even addressing the right argument!

Remember the so-called name bearing angel

Click to expand...

Yep!

• 
  Exodus 23:20-23.
  Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
  Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
  But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
  For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

The angel is clearly distinct from God Himself. The angel is referred to by God as another being entirely. The angel is said to be God's, but not God. Ergo, the angel is clearly not God Himself.

Can I expect you to address this at some point?

you still haven’t admitted that your NBA paper boat was blown completely out of the water.

Click to expand...

Because it hasn't been.

Oh that's right you do have one proof text.

Click to expand...

No, I have a primary proof text and a huge list of secondary proof texts. But never mind. I know you won't address them anyway.

God's name was in His people and His temple.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Thanks for vindicating my argument.

Now, for those who've just joined us - what is the principle of name-bearing, and why is it so important?

Trinitarian scholar James F. McGrath explains what it is...

• 
  In order to understand this, we need to understand that Jesus - and also the heavenly Word - were understood in terms of what we may call ‘agency’: these figures, like the Old Testament prophets, angels and many others, were ‘agents’ of God. Now when we use this term we don’t mean that they sold houses for God or booked gigs for God to perform at local clubs on Saturday nights. When we speak of ‘agency’ we are speaking of what in Greek would have been called ‘apostleship’ - the situation in which someone is sent to represent someone else.
  
  In the days before mobile phones, fax machines, the internet and telecommunications, this was an essential part of life. If a king wanted to make peace with another nation, he did not go in person - or at least not in the first instance - but sent his ambassador. When a wealthy person wanted to arrange a property purchase or sale in another region, he sent a representative. When God wanted to address his people, he sent a prophet or an angel. Agency was an important part of everyday life in the ancient world.
  
  Now there were certain basic rules or assumptions connected with agency in the ancient world. The most basic of all was that, in the words of later Jewish rabbis: “The one sent is like the one who sent him” (cf. Mek.Ex. 12:3,6; m. Ber. 5:5).
  
  Or, in words which are probably better known to those of us familiar with the New Testament, “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives not me but the one who sent me” (Matt. 10:40). These are words which the Gospels record Jesus as saying to his apostles, and ‘apostle’ is simply the Greek word for ‘one who is sent’, an ‘agent.’
  
  When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person. Conversely, if someone rejected an agent he rejected the one who sent him. The agent was thus functionally equal or equivalent to the one who sent him, precisely because he was subordinate and obedient to, and submitted to the will of, him who sent him.
  A Lecture by Dr James F. McGrath, presented at the North of England Institute for Christian Education Sixth Form Study Day, University of Durham, 27 March 1998.

...while two Christadelphian authors explain why it is so important:

• 
  We will show that when they were engaged on His work God sometimes permitted other beings to speak as if they were God Himself, indeed even to use His personal Name. This principle we term 'God Manifestation'. Clearly if this is understood it will have far-reaching implications when we consider those passages that speak of Christ as God.
  Southgate, Peter & Broughton, James (1995), The Trinity - True or False?.

• 
  Observation #1:

Broughton and Southgate refer to Deuteronomy 29:1-10 (where Moses speaks as the representative of God) as an example of God permitting "other beings to speak as if they were God Himself, indeed even to use His personal Name."

Let us now examine that passage:

• 
  These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
  And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land;
  The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles:
  Yet the LORD hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
  And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
  Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.
  And when ye came unto this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, came out against us unto battle, and we smote them:
  And we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half tribe of Manasseh.
  Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.
  Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,

Here, Moses makes reference to Yahweh in the third person. But he also speaks - without qualification - as if he is Yahweh himself.

Thus:

• 
  Yet the LORD [clearly referring to God in the "third person"] hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
  And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
  Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God [clearly employing the "first person" narrative; as if MOSES is God.]

So we see that:

• The later verses make no distinction between the work of Moses and the work of God.
  
• Moses literally speaks on God's behalf in verse 6, without even adding the usual qualifier "Thus saith Yahweh..." He appears to claim for himself, the authority of God - and of course, as an agent of God, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

• 
  Observation #2:

The "far-reaching implications" to which Broughton and Southgate refer, are seen most clearly in those passages where Jesus is accused by his adversaries of exercising the unique prerogatives of God.

Thus:

• Mark 2:5-7.
  When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
  But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
  Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
  
• John 5:16-18.
  And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
  Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
  
• John 10:30-33.
  I and my Father are one.
  Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
  Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Discerning readers will recognise these quotes as standard Trinitarian proof texts. But do they really say what the Trinitarian argument requires them to say?

McGrath insists that they do not!

Thus:

• 
  This helps us to understand what is at issue in John 5. The issue is not whether there is really only one God - John affirms explicitly that he believes that there is only one true God. Rather the debate centers around Jesus’ relationship to the one God.
  
  Jesus claims to do what God does. If he is God’s appointed agent, then there is no reason to regard this as illegitimate: it would not be the first time that God appointed one of his agents to act or speak on his behalf, to proclaim his message and do his works. However, ‘the Jews’ as they are presented in the Gospel of John do not recognize Jesus as one who has been appointed by God. They thus accuse him of “making himself equal to God.”
  
  That is to say, the problem is not ‘equality with God’ in and of itself, but whether Jesus acts in this way as God’s agent. The issue is whether Jesus has been sent by God and is obedient to God, or whether he is a rebellious, glory-seeking upstart who claims divine prerogatives for himself. ‘The Jews’ accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God - that is to say, they accuse him of putting himself on the level of God, by claiming to do what God does when he has not in fact been appointed by God. They thus feel that Jesus has committed blasphemy: by making these claims, he is felt to have insulted God.
  
  [...]
  
  How is Jesus portrayed as responding to this charge? He adamantly denies it. Listen to the words which are used:
  
  “The Son can do nothing of himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing...By myself I can do nothing...I seek not to please myself but him who sent me” (John 5:19,30).
  
  Jesus is emphatically said to be God’s obedient Son and agent. In the ancient near east, the eldest son was usually the principle agent of his father. A son was also expected to learn his father’s trade, watching him carefully and learning to imitate his Father. John has this in mind when he uses this type of language to justify the actions and claims of Jesus: Jesus does what God does, and as one who shares in a Father-Son relationship with God, that is precisely what should be expected. Only if Jesus were a disobedient son would he not do what he sees his Father doing. There is thus no problem of monotheism in John 5.
  
  The issue is about whether Jesus is putting himself on a par with God, seeking his own glory in a way that detracts from the glory and honor due to God alone. John emphasizes that Jesus is in fact God’s appointed agent, and because this is the case there is nothing illegitimate about his behavior: he does what God does not as one who is rebelling against the divine authority by setting himself up as a rival to the unique honor and glory of God, but as God’s obedient Son and agent whom he sent into the world.
  A Lecture by Dr James F. McGrath, presented at the North of England Institute for Christian Education Sixth Form Study Day, University of Durham, 27 March 1998.

You will see that McGrath's argument is established upon two essential principles:

• Name-bearing. (Agency and representation.)
  
• The subordination of the Son. (Jesus as the suffering servant, ever-obedient to the Father.)

Both of these may be clearly identified in the body of the text itself:

• 
  When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf.
  
  [...]
  
  That is to say, the problem is not ‘equality with God’ in and of itself, but whether Jesus acts in this way as God’s agent. The issue is whether Jesus has been sent by God and is obedient to God, or whether he is a rebellious, glory-seeking upstart who claims divine prerogatives for himself. ‘The Jews’ accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God - that is to say, they accuse him of putting himself on the level of God, by claiming to do what God does when he has not in fact been appointed by God.
  
  [...]
  
  How is Jesus portrayed as responding to this charge? He adamantly denies it. Listen to the words which are used:
  
  “The Son can do nothing of himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing...By myself I can do nothing...I seek not to please myself but him who sent me” (John 5:19,30).
  
  [...]
  
  The issue is about whether Jesus is putting himself on a par with God, seeking his own glory in a way that detracts from the glory and honor due to God alone. John emphasizes that Jesus is in fact God’s appointed agent, and because this is the case there is nothing illegitimate about his behavior: he does what God does not as one who is rebelling against the divine authority by setting himself up as a rival to the unique honor and glory of God, but as God’s obedient Son and agent whom he sent into the world.

Here we have a masterful summary of the principle in question, with which James Dunn obviously concurs:

• 
  Should we then say that Jesus was confessed as God from earliest days in Hellenistic Christianity? That would be to claim too much.
  
  (1) The emergence of a confession of Jesus in terms of divinity was largely facilitated by the extensive use of Ps. 110:1 from very early on (most clearly in Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34ff.; I Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13): "the Lord says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Its importance lies in the double use of 'lord.' The one is clearly Yahweh, but who is the other? Clearly not Yahweh, but an exalted being whom the psalmist calls 'lord.'
  
  (2) Paul calls Jesus 'lord,' but he seems to have marked reservations about calling Jesus 'God.' Rom. 9:5 is the only real candidate within Paul's letters (but even there the text is unclear). [Evangelion's note: see here for a brief analysis of Romans 9:5.] Similarly he refrains from praying to Jesus. He prays to God through Christ. At the same time Paul affirms Jesus is 'Lord' he also affirms 'God is One,' 'There is only one God' (Deut. 6:4). Hence also Rom. 3:30, Gal. 3:20, I Tim. 2:5 (cp. James 2:19). The point for us to note is that Paul can hail Jesus as Lord not in order to identify him with God, but rather, if anything, to distinguish him from the One God (cp. particularly I Cor. 15:24-28).
  Dunn, James D. G. (1977), Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.

Curiously enough, Trinitarians will agree that Jesus is not equal to the Father in one sense (for they are forced to accept the "Functional Subordinationism" of Christian "orthodoxy"), whilst simultaneoulsy contradicting themselves with an argument from these "Jesus making himself equal with God" passages!

When pressed for an explanation, they respond with either:

• An admission of inconsistency (but an overall "I don't really care what you think!" attitude.)
  
• A desperate attempt to claim that the "equality" here referred to, is that of nature, not function (thereby arguing that Jesus is functionally subordinate, but ontologically equal to the Father.)

Neither response is adequate, and both of them present more problems than they actually solve. The latter is actually more problematic than the former, for it leaves Trinitarians with the unenviable task of defending ontological equality from a series of passages which consistently employs the language of functional subordination! These blatant attempts to pervert the clear meaning of Scripture can only be pitied...

Meanwhile, McGrath's argument is fully supported by the Word of God itself. Name-bearing is a Biblical principle, and we see it reinforced again and again, throughout both Testaments.

Observe the consistency of Scripture:

• Exodus 5:23.
  For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all.
  
• Deuteronomy 18:19.
  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
  
• Deuteronomy 18:20.
  But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
  
• I Samuel 25:5.
  And David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name:
  
• II Chronicles 14:11.
  And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.
  
• Psalm 89:24.
  But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
  
• Jeremiah 14:14.
  Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of naught, and the deceit of their heart.
  
• Jeremiah 14:15.
  Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.
  
• Jeremiah 23:25.
  I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.
  
• Jeremiah 27:15.
  For I have not sent them, saith the LORD, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you.
  
• Jeremiah 29:9.
  For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD.
  
• Jeremiah 29:21.
  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, of Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and of Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, which prophesy a lie unto you in my name; Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall slay them before your eyes;
  
• Jeremiah 29:25.
  Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Because thou hast sent letters in thy name unto all the people that are at Jerusalem, and to Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, and to all the priests, saying,
  
• Daniel 9:6.
  Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spoke in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.
  
• Mark 3:38.
  And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.
  
• Matthew 7:22.
  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
  
• John 17:12.
  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
  
• Revelation 2:13.
  I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
  
• Revelation 3:1.
  And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Interesting that Antipas was “slain among you where Satan dwelleth.” Anyone care to explain where this was?

Somewhere hot, I presume...

Returning to OS -

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

Certainly did address the textual evidence I supplied the other 50% you omitted. Historical evidence? What do you call the Jewish Encyclopedia and its citations of the Talmudic literature?

Click to expand...

ROTFL! Once again, you've misread my post. I made these comments in reference to the "Cyprian/I John 5:7" issue. Please try to read more carefully. It might be easier if you slow down.

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

Where is it written that I should explain to you why anything?

Click to expand...

Because you need to prove the antiquity of the verse in question - and you can only do that by proving that it was both known and used by early Christians.

Again - if the verse was legitimate, why was it never used by the Athanasians during the Arian controversy?

Read my links there is a good explanation of that there. An argument from silence only proves silence. You can’t have it both ways.

Click to expand...

It's not an argument from silence - it's a request for solid evidence. If the verse had existed at that time, it would have been used. You need to explain why - if it did exist at that time - it was not used.

So come on. I'm waiting.

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

No what I simply did was go thru his post line by line and point out that the did NOT present any evidence or proof for his presuppositions. He made several “probable” statements, e.g. "Evidently", “It is likely” and “could have”, etc.. No proof, so the opposite probability is equally possible.

Click to expand...

No, he went much further than that. Perhaps you need to read it again...?

Some examination of the historical evidence would also help.

quote:
EV: Relevance?

Oh I apologize I assumed that you knew what you were talking about and would understand that the pre-Christian Jewish use of "memra", Aramaic for "word", was relevant to a study of “word’ in the O.T. and N.T.

If you are going to try to give the Hebraic understanding of “word” among O.T. Jews, isn’t it dishonest to deliberately omit ALL reference to “memra as you did? You have only examined half of the available and pertinent evidence!

Click to expand...

No, because the texts of the Targumim change nothing. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

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

quote:
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.

Oh excuse me Just where did you show historical evidence that this was merely a literary device?

Click to expand...

I went back to your own source, remember? The Jewish Encyclopaedia Website.

“Unacceptably high level of anthropomorphism” my that certainly sounds impressive and how does that change the subject of a verse?

Click to expand...

It doesn't change the subject - it simply leaves no room for your argument, as your own source has clearly demonstrated.

*SNIP* Irrelevant *snip* irrelevant

Click to expand...

ROTFL! That's the way, just snip out the bits you can't deal with.

quote:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, 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.

I know this is a little difficult for those without the requisite reading and researching skills but there is a BIG difference between an unsupported assertion by a commentator, that you just quoted, something I have consistently pointed out, and documented fact, which I quoted.

Click to expand...

But you not presented any evidence which even comes close to proving your claims. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing? All I've seen so far, is your own personal (anachronistic) reinterpretation of the text.

What's next? A reinterpretation of the Hindu Vedas, a la Von Daniken?

quote:
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?

No self-contradiction whatsoever! To prove a contradiction you must show where “memra” was used to replace or mean either “a manifestation of the divine power” or “God's messenger.”

Click to expand...

Your own proof texts make this abundantly clear!

I clearly show the distinction between what the commentator postulates and what the article actually documents from the Targums and the T’nakh.

Click to expand...

No, you don't do any such thing. You simply put an anachronistic spin on the words, without any reference to the beliefs of the day. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

But, the “Memra” is literally (YHWH), Himself, as in this first reference! [Pay attention, this is the lead in paragraph to the JE quote immediately below.]

quote:
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.

You got that right “memra” is being used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton. How does that change who the subject of this sentence is?

Click to expand...

It doesn't change the subject, and I never claimed that it did. Please concentrate.

The word memra is simply being used (a) in the same way that Adonai would later be used, and (b) in the same way that the word HaShem would later be used. In neither case is it possible to twist the text into anything which comes close to supporting your claims. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

And again -

Instead of pronouncing the tetra they said "memra"

Click to expand...

No, instead of writing the Tetragrammaton, they wrote memra. They would only have substituted memra for the Tetragrammaton in spoken discourse when reading from the Targumim. Meanwhile, the historical evidence clearly shows that Adonai and HaShem came to replace the spoken Tetragrammaton. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

Even if I replaced the tetra with X the subject would still be God! Here is the pertinent verse. No amount of bloviation or mindless repetition of “literary device, literary device”can change the subject of this verse. The subject is God!

Click to expand...

*snip*

Yes, I know. You're ignoring the fact that I agree with you here. The subject is still God. I have never denied this. You're attacking straw men, as usual. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

quote:
Relevance?

I thought you had a university degree. I don’t have time to lead you by the hand when you deliberately ignore my lead in paragraph, above.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you'll have to try that again.

Here, I'll help by repeating my question:

• 
  Relevance?

Now it's your turn.

When the exiled Jews translated their scriptures into Aramaic, they substituted the word "Memra" for (YHWH).

quote:
Relevance? Later, they would substitute Adonai for Yahweh. So what?
This proves nothing.

You post by the name of Evangelion, if I choose to replace Evangelion with “The Australian CD guy”, am I now talking about “a manifestation of Evangelion’s power” or “Evangelions’s messenger” or is “The Australian CD guy” one and the same person known as “Evangelion?”

Click to expand...

You're still referring to me, but you're using a title instead of a name.

Relevance?

Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

As I have shown from the JE, in more than 100 scriptures “memra” was used in place of [éäåä]. The use of a euphemism does not change the subject of the verse.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. You're ignoring the fact that I agree with you here. The subject is still God. I have never denied this. You're attacking straw men, as usual. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?

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

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

Then please explain to us how when the ancient Jews said “memra” in the 100+ verses cited, the subject of the verse somehow changed to something other than God?

Click to expand...

Straw man, as previously demonstrated.

When they said "memra" they meant God!

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. But they didn't mean "a literal, divine person, distinct from the Father." Even John qualifies his use of the word logos in reference to Christ, by the careful use of the phrase "logos ginomai sarx." He does not refer to Christ as the logos, simpliciter. Christ is not the logos per se, but only the logos ginomai sarx. Prior to verse 14, Christ does not even exist yet (except in the mind of God.)

Later, in Revelation, John will give Christ the title "The Logos of God." But again, the context shows that this is a title, just like "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords." It is certainly not an ontological statement about Jesus of Nazareth.

quote:
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 [. . .] 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!

Oh no a Jewish Encyclopedia is trying to interpret Christianity without citing any sources. Isn’t that like letting the Palestinians determine what Judaism is all about?

Click to expand...

ROTFL! It's not "trying to interpret Christianity" at all - it's simply pointing out that Philo's logos concept was hijacked by Christians. Which Geisler himself points out in his Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. (As do many other mainstream authorities.)

Now if you will excuse me I have to go do something important, either floss my teeth or wash my socks. I will address more of your bloviation later.

Click to expand...

For your sake, I hope you do a better job of it this time around.

OS -

quote:
posted by EV
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. 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.

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

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-2.html

Which is it EV men can know God or they cannot know God?

Click to expand...

Both. Philo drew a sharp distinction between the knowability of God's existence and the unknowability of God's essence. He therefore concluded that we can know God in one sense, but not in another.

If you had taken the time to study Philo yourself, you wouldn't need me to explain his theology to you.