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

[Future Man]

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

This proves nothing.

Think about what you just said... So what if we find 'adonai' applied to the coming Messiah? Evidently you're portraying 'adonai' and 'Word of YHWH' as being interchangeable in purpose and function (which you are right). Are you sure you're thinking your posts through before you click that button?

8<

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.

So this must exclude examples such as Rev19:13, eh? You don't seem to understand that Trins don't consider Jesus to be a "literal breath of air" in the context of John1. This is the entire point I've been trying to make with you for such a great length of time.

8<

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?

Wow, the typical argument from silence. And a very faulty one at that. I ask the same as I did long ago; "Why haven't the Jews from then to this day, known their own Messiah who was spoken of in their very own scriptures?"

For another example:

1Pe 1:12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.

Barnes:

1Pe 1:12 -
Unto whom it was revealed - They were not permitted to know fully the import of the predictions which they were made the instruments of communicating to mankind, but they understood that they were intended for the benefit of future ages.

Clarke:

Unto whom it was revealed - We may presume that, in a great variety of cases, the prophets did not understand the meaning of their own predictions. They had a general view of God’s designs; but of particular circumstances, connected with those great events, they seem to have known nothing, God reserving the explanation of all particulars to the time of the issue of such prophecies. When they wished to find out the times, the seasons, and the circumstances, God gave them to understand that it was not for themselves, but for us, that they did minister the things which are now reported unto us by the preaching of the Gospel. This was all the satisfaction they received in consequence of their earnest searching; and this was sufficient to repress all needless curiosity, and to induce them to rest satisfied that the Judge of all the earth would do right. If all succeeding interpreters of the prophecies had been contented with the same information relative to the predictions still unaccomplished, we should have had fewer books, and more wisdom.

8<

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

So where's the spin, OS?

It's also an example of a wooden parallel. ''This' means 'this' within 'this' context, therefore every occurence of 'this word' within the whole of scripture must mean the same as it did in the previous context.'' I've already addressed this point, but you, as always, never address it. Because you can't. Therefore when you say:

Ev: "God said..." Hey look that must be Jesus!

I'm in no sense impressed but rather annoyed by your profound ignorance. Does the "context" also apply to 1John1:1-2? No? Is that what you said? Why do the JWs demonstrate a greater understanding of scripture than the christadelphians?

8<

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

Evidently you're beginning to see how your argument isn't, in fact, an argument against us at all! That is precisely why they "bolster" your argument which in turn essentially only serves to agree with us in the long run. Hey, that just happens to be what I've been telling you all along!

 

[Future Man]

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?)

Wait a minute. "Who's" changing subjects here? Rather, who's changing their *arguments*. Tell us Ev, before I cite your past posts. As for your "talking about the dabar"....

According to your argument, Christ came to John in the wilderness before he came to him (again?) to be baptised.

Yeah, right.

...see what I mean . Notice the wooden parallel he draws. This is like saying the "spirit of error" and the "Spirit of God" are essentially the same thing. Interestingly enough, this same guy can't seem to draw the obvious parallel between John1 and 1John1, despite the same language used and the same Apostle John who authored both, in addition to Revelation [See 19:13].

Of course this is the same guy who feels that Is7:14 should be rendered as "young woman" OVER "virgin" [there is a specific word used for 'virgin' in the Greek] as it is cited in the LXX from which the prophecy was fulfilled !

Speaking of which, did I mention that the BADG lists Polycarp under it's def. of 'latreuo'?

Eur., Ion 152; Pult., Mor. 405c; 407E; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 300 hOLH t. PUXH. Cf. En, 10, 21) Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8 (both Dt 6:13); 1:74; Ac 7:7 (cf. Ex 3:12); 24:14; 27:23; Hb 9:14; Rv 7:15; 22:3; Pol 2:1....

Polycarp, whom had a contemporary named Ignatius, whom had a disciple named Irenaeus who stated the following:

• 180 AD Irenaeus "...so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator." - Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 8, section 3.
  
• 180 AD Irenaeus "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. (Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter xix.2)
  
• 180 AD Irenaeus "[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being . . . In what manner, then, would the word of God--indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word--differ from the word of men?" (Against Heresies 2:13:8).
  
• 180 AD Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to the accomplishing of what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness' [Gen. 1:26" (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

I had a citation of a letter of Polycarp's in which he spoke highly of Ignatius, but I'll have to dig it up.

It's not as if I can't demonstrate all of this from the context of John itself. Which I have done numerous times prior. A plea to "..Oh, Irenaeus was just drunk that day!" won't get you anywhere, Ev.

And...and...and...

><

 

[Evangelion]

 

[Evangelion]

 

[Evangelion]

OS, I want to see direct evidence of my alleged "plagiarism", please. This will require you to show that I have purloined exactly sentences from the source to which you have referred. The material must be precise, extensive, and word-for-word.

Simply making the same argument (as Geisler does) is not plagiarism.

I suggest you look up the definition of this word and learn what it actually means. The results may surprise you.

 

[OldShepherd]

Today at 07:19 AM Evangelion said this in Post #78 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=644901#post644901)

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.

You are right I have never studied Philo. BUT I have never claimed to and the subject of this thread is NOT Philo so that is irrelevant. What would be a good idea is whenever you supposedly quote from a source you properly identify that source. It is not up to the reader to guess who or what you are quoting, then go searching for it.

For brief excerpts from these and other works by Philo, see *snip*

Irrelevant! Philo is not the subject of this thread if you want to start a new thread about Philo please do so.

 

[Evangelion]

*Ahem*

You are right I have never studied Philo. BUT I have never claimed to and the subject of this thread is NOT Philo so that is irrelevant.

I agree that Philo is not "the subject of this thread." Indeed, I have never claimed that Philo is the subject of this thread.

I have made reference to Philo (as Geisler does) because Philo is relevant to the subject of this thread, QED.

No examination of the logos concept in Jewish and Hellenic thought can afford to ignore Philo. He is an example of 1st Century Jewish exegesis. He represents a significant theological turning point in the definition of the logos concept, as Geisler, Hillar and countless others have made abundantly clear. He is part of the theolgogical Milieu of Jesus' era and is therefore highly relevant to the theology of that time. He was also highly regarded by many early Church fathers (who blatantly drew on this work when constructing their own logos Christology) which makes him extremely relevant to this debate.

That is precisely why he gets so much attention in Geisler's Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics.

What would be a good idea is whenever you supposedly quote from a source you properly identify that source. It is not up to the reader to guess who or what you are quoting, then go searching for it.

*snip*

I apologise for assuming that you would be familiar with his work. In future, I shall take care to provide a comprehensive set of references from Philo when citing his material.

 

[Evangelion]

A definition of plagiarism, from the Office of Research Integrity:

• 
  Although there is widespread agreement in the scientific community on including plagiarism as a major element of the PHS definition of scientific misconduct, there is some uncertainty about how the definition of plagiarism itself is applied in ORI cases.
  
  As a general working definition, ORI considers plagiarism to include both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes.
  
  The theft or misappropriation of intellectual property includes the unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods obtained by a privileged communication, such as a grant or manuscript review.
  
  Substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work means the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary reader regarding the contributions of the author. ORI generally does not pursue the limited use of identical or nearly-identical phrases which describe a commonly-used methodology or previous research because ORI does not consider such use as substantially misleading to the reader or of great significance.
  
  Many allegations of plagiarism involve disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project, but who subsequently went their separate ways and made independent use of the jointly developed concepts, methods, descriptive language, or other product of the joint effort. The ownership of the intellectual property in many such situations is seldom clear, and the collaborative history among the scientists often supports a presumption of implied consent to use the products of the collaboration by any of the former collaborators.
  
  For this reason, ORI considers many such disputes to be authorship or credit disputes rather than plagiarism. Such disputes are referred to PHS agencies and extramural institutions for resolution.
  
  From ORI Newsletter, Vol 3, No. 1, December 1994.

See here for the source.

 

[OldShepherd]

Today at 07:47 PM Evangelion said this in Post #85 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646106#post646106)

OS, I want to see direct evidence of my alleged "plagiarism", please. This will require you to show that I have purloined exactly sentences from the source to which you have referred. The material must be precise, extensive, and word-for-word.

Simply making the same argument (as Geisler does) is not plagiarism.

I suggest you look up the definition of this word and learn what it actually means. The results may surprise you.

I do so love it when you open mouth and insert foot. I have a link to M-W online just for these unforgettable moments, when boastful outrage displays lack of knowledge.

• 
  Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
  Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
  Function: verb
  Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
  Etymology: plagiary
  Date: 1716
  transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
  
  intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
  - pla·gia·riz·er noun

You will note that it does NOT require, "purloined exactly sentences, precise, extensive, or word-for-word.

The four sentences I highlighted were virtually identical in your post and in Raddatz's, you merely rearranged the sentence order and embellished it with a few more adjectives. And OBTW I don't think I saw a footnote number on the section I questioned. You can argue all you want but the section I questioned would get a paper thrown out in any college and the student on probation if not suspended or expelled.

 

[Evangelion]

BTW, if you haven't actually studied Philo, you're in no position to be making grandiose claims about his theology - especially when said claims are totally unsubstantiated.

 

[OldShepherd]

The defintion of Plagiarism from University of California Davis

• 
  WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?

• 
  
  Plagiarism means using another's work without giving credit. You must put others' words in quotation marks and cite your source(s) and must give citations when using others' ideas, even if those ideas are paraphrased in your own words.
  
  "Work" includes "original ideas, strategies, and research,"1 art, graphics, computer programs, music, and other creative expression. The work may consist of writing, charts, pictures, graphs, diagrams, data, websites, or other communication or recording media, and may include "sentences, phrases, and innovative terminology,"2 formatting, or other representations.
  
  The term "source" includes published works (books, magazines, newspapers, websites, plays, movies, photos, paintings, and textbooks) and unpublished sources (class lectures or notes, handouts, speeches, other students' papers, or material from a research service).
  
  Using words, ideas, computer code, or any work by someone else without giving proper credit is plagiarism. Any time you use information from a source, you must cite it.
  
  http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm

Do you want more? The internet is full of them.

 

[Evangelion]

Hello...?

The four sentences I highlighted were virtually identical in your post and in Raddatz's, you merely rearranged the sentence order and embellished it with a few more adjectives.

No, that is patently false. They were not "virtually identical" at all, and I made no use of Raddatz. QED.

And OBTW I don't think I saw a footnote number on the section I questioned.

That's because it was written by me!

But did you notice the footnote for the quote from Geisler? Did you notice all my other footnotes? Did you notice my list of footnotes at the end of my post?

Come on, let's have an answer!

You can argue all you want but the section I questioned would get a paper thrown out in any college and the student on probation if not suspended or expelled.

Four sentences with vaguely similar language, discussing the same topic? That's "plagiarism", is it? So when I say "Philo was an Alexandrian Jew", I'm automatically plagiarising everybody else who's ever said "Philo was an Alexandrian Jew"? Hilarious!

Your accusations are totally false. You are clutching at straws.

If we take your wild accusations as truth, we must also throw out Geisler and www.jewishencyclopaedia.com as plagiarists.

BTW, I note with interest that you made absolutely no comment on the material presented from these two sources. Now is the time to do so.

 

[Evangelion]

Come on, I'm waiting to see the evidence to support your claims.

To date, you've pointed to a mere four sentences in which the same topic is discussed, using vaguely similar language.

You have also ignored Geisler and www.jewishencyclopaedia.com, which discuss the same topic using near-identical language.

I require you to address these two sources.

 

[Evangelion]

No answer yet?

No surprise.

 

[OldShepherd]

Today at 08:08 PM Evangelion said this in Post #90 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646121#post646121)

BTW, if you haven't actually studied Philo, you're in no position to be making grandiose claims about his theology - especially when said claims are totally unsubstantiated.

Get it right. I merely quoted recognized sources.

 

[Evangelion]

...which were proved incorrect, QED.

 

[Evangelion]

For someone so fond of hyperbole, you don't seem to be very good at recognising it when employed by others.

 

[OldShepherd]

Today at 08:16 PM Evangelion said this in Post #93 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646130#post646130)

You have also ignored Geisler and www.jewishencyclopaedia.com, which discuss the same topic using near-identical language.

I require you to address these two sources.

Of course I ignored them. You just brought them in as a smoke screen. No proof of that, if you think they have plagiarized then maybe you should take it up with them. Do you know what you can do with your "requirements"? Now directing your attention to your previous post.

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! Remember the so-called name bearing angel, you still haven’t admitted that your NBA paper boat was blown completely out of the water. Oh that's right you do have one proof text. God's name was in His people and His temple.

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?

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? 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.

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.

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!

• 
  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.”

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

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.

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

• 
  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.]

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? Instead of pronouncing the tetra they said "memra" 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!

• 
  Ex 19:17

• And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] and they stood at the nether part of the mount.
  
  Jewish Encyclopedia, Memra
  Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 . . ."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.). [. . .]

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.

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

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?”

As I have shown from the JE, in more than 100 scriptures “memra” was used in place of [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;]. The use of a euphemism does not change the subject of the verse.

• 
  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.

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? When they said "memra" they meant God!

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?

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.

 

[Future Man]

*yawn*

OS, I want to see direct evidence of my alleged "plagiarism", please. This will require you to show that I have purloined exactly sentences from the source to which you have referred. The material must be precise, extensive, and word-for-word.

Excellent. In that case I it would only be consistent for you to make a public apology to the many you have falsely accused of plagiarism, including myself. In fact, I remember one instance where I used an "*" in order to emphasize a key point, whereas on that basis alone you falsely accused me of plagiarism. Hypocrisy at it's highest.

Simply making the same argument (as Geisler does) is not plagiarism.

Then what about John1:18? I know you didn't source that.

I suggest you look up the definition of this word and learn what it actually means. The results may surprise you.

He did, and they didn't.

BTW, if you haven't actually studied Philo, you're in no position to be making grandiose claims about his theology - especially when said claims are totally unsubstantiated.

But the rub of the argument isn't Philo, Ev, it's the context of John1. I've already stated this from the beginning back at TOL. I have yet to see you seriously address the context either. You're trying to make the typical JW-esque charge of "Hellenism" in order to avoid the scripture that supports our view and outright rejects yours. Your tangent argumentation is not impressive in the least.

I agree that Philo is not "the subject of this thread." Indeed, I have never claimed that Philo is the subject of this thread.

I have made reference to Philo (as Geisler does) because Philo is relevant to the subject of this thread, QED.

Well that's typical, see what Ev stated earlier:

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?)

Ah, so it's what Ev believes to be "relevent". To bad that doesn't include 'context'.

 

[Future Man]

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?”