brother Paul
Member
After a careful study of the 1st and 2nd century Targumim I became enlightened to the fact that John was not borrowing an idea from Greek mystery religions or any other such hogwash. It became starkly apparent to me that this idea of YHVH being manifest in different forms (many times in the flesh) was the point that a Jewish hearer at the time would understand but for the Greek reader (having chosen "logos" as the word that closest explains his point) he had to elaborate on it through verse 5.
The point was this wording sent a specific message to still unbelieving diaspora Jews (especially the Rabbis) that this Jesus was what the Targumim called the Memra of YHVH. He is that aspect of YHVH which allows us to see and hear him (see John 1:18 and John 5:37)...incarnate, He is the express image of YHVH's substance and is the brightness (that which can be seen) of His glory. Suddenly I understood the real meaning of the Nicean language "one OUSIA in three HYPOSTASES...(Father, Son or Word, and Holy Spirit)
Any thoughts before I quote some examples? The point is that the Word of God was already a pre-Christian Jewish concept summarized in the Targum Jonathan (not pseudo-Jonathan).
The point was this wording sent a specific message to still unbelieving diaspora Jews (especially the Rabbis) that this Jesus was what the Targumim called the Memra of YHVH. He is that aspect of YHVH which allows us to see and hear him (see John 1:18 and John 5:37)...incarnate, He is the express image of YHVH's substance and is the brightness (that which can be seen) of His glory. Suddenly I understood the real meaning of the Nicean language "one OUSIA in three HYPOSTASES...(Father, Son or Word, and Holy Spirit)
Any thoughts before I quote some examples? The point is that the Word of God was already a pre-Christian Jewish concept summarized in the Targum Jonathan (not pseudo-Jonathan).