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 Gods 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!
Upvote
0