Bible Study The Word.......The Memra

[Georges]

I didn't want to hijack the Acts thread with talk of the Memra but since Solo was good enough to post on the subject I thought I would start a new thread beginning with his post......

Before I do that, I would like to thank Solo for at least doing the research on the subject....it show that he has a genuine interest in finding out for himself what is right and wrong and at least learning something new...if he didn't already research the subject...an example for us all to follow......

Solo's post is a little long because it is a cut and paste from another document...but that's OK....please take the time to read it.....My second post will almost be the same type of post as it will be cut and pasted and highlighted from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com's article on the Memra.

Solo
Moderator


Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 2690
Location: Texas
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:45 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

................................................The Bible Church
...........................................................Study Page
............................................................The Memra

All scripture is from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Before beginning this study, I suggest you pray and ask God to guide you through this study. I also suggest that you do you own study of this material in order to ensure its accuracy.


The word, memra, , is Strongs 565, 'imrah, or 'emrah (em'-raw), or memra (mem'-raw). It means commandment, speech, or word. (some editions of Strong's leave out the Aramaic spelling, memra). It is the equivalent of logos, λογος , Strong's 3056, in the Greek.

It is clear from the Scriptures that no human can see God face to face and survive. Here are some examples:

Genesis 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

Judges 6:22-23 "And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. {23} And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die."

(Alas is an expression usually uttered at death or impending death)

Isaiah 6:5 "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."

But there are many places in the Bible where men did see the LORD and live. For example, Jacob wrestled with God and did not die. The LORD appeared to Abraham at the trees of Mamre. There He made a covenant with Abraham. It was also there that Abraham pleaded with the LORD for Lot who resided in Sodom. Abraham did not die.

Appearances of God to men are called Theophanies. There are many Theophanies in the Bible. The Lord appeared face to face to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Manoah and his wife, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others. Sometimes it is an appearance of the LORD Almighty on His throne in glorified form (such as in Isaiah and Ezekiel) and other times He appears as the Angel of the LORD and yet other times He appears as a man. But He did appear to many men and women in the Bible.

Theophanies were a problem for the Israelis (which are Jews in this context--the return from captivity). They did not want to make God to seem human. The Sopherim were the scribes who set the text of the Hebrew Bible in order after the return from Babylonian captivity. Because of their exceptional reverence for the inexpressible Name of Yehovah they substituted the name Adonai (LORD) in the place of Yehovah. (That is why the King James Version uses the word LORD in the place of most uses of the name Yehovah (more commonly, Jehovah). That is also why many Jews will write the words LORD and God thus: L__D and G_d.) This same reverence for the NAME of God can be seen as reverence of His PERSON as well.

Since the Jews did not like Theophanies, they also substituted a word for God when He appeared to men. In the Targums, which are the Aramic versions of the Old Testament, the word memra is used in every instance of an appearance of God to men or God speaking to a man. This use of the memra rationalized every appearance of God to man.

Now memra is the Aramaic for "word", which, in the Greek, is Logos. You will find it in Strong's Concordance. It is Strong's number 565: 'imrah im-raw' or memrah {em-raw'}; feminine of 561, and meaning the sameâ€â€commandment, speech, word. (Note: some editions of Strong's do not use the word, memrah for the Aramaic equivalent; instead they use emrah, leaving off the first "m").

In those cases mentioned above, the memra, or Word, shared the nature of God and at the same time was a messenger from God. Hence the phrase, the Angel of the LORD, because an angel is a messenger of God. The Angel of the LORD is a theophany or a manifestation of God to man, that is, God coming face to face with man. A good example is the Garden of Eden:

Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

The Targums read more or less: "And they heard the Word or memra of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Word or memra of God amongst the trees of the garden."

The concept of the memra is derived from Psalm 33:6: "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." The personified Word is also mentioned in some other places:

Psalm 147:15 "He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly."

Isaiah 55:10-11 "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: {11} So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

In the passage from the Psalms, the Word is shown as running like a man. And in Isaiah the Word goes out and accomplishes the will of God.

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

" In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. The Memra resembles the Logos of Philo as little as the workings of the rabbinical mind in Palestine resembled the speculations of Alexandria: the rabbis are chiefiy concerned about ritual and observances; from religious scruples they dare not attribute to Jahveh actions such as the Sacred Books attribute to Him; it is enough for them to veil the Divine Majesty under an abstract paraphrase, the Word, the Glory, the Abode, and others. Philo's problem was of the philosophic order; God and man are infinitely distant from each other, and it is necessary to establish between them relations of action and of prayer; the Logos is here the intermediary."
The Catholic Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1907-1914 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight.


We can see that the Divine Logos was a concept fully accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. When John wrote his Gospel, he was fully aware of the use of the word memra as an appearance of God to men. It was common usage during his day. When he penned these words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:1 and 14), he was using the exact theme as the Sopherim did when they revised the text in the time of Ezra. In fact, if he wrote in Aramaic, he actually used the word, memra. By doing so he was portraying Christ as sharing the nature of God (that is being God) and also as a messenger from God (This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him-Mat 17:5).

Jewish theologians of John's era have ascribed six attributes to the memra. John assigned every attribute to Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel. The attributes are:
The memra is individual and yet the same as God (John 1:1-"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God").


The memra was the instrument of creation (John 1:3-"All things were made by Him" and John 1:10-"the world was made by him).


The memra was the instrument of salvation (John 1:12-"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name").


The memra was the visible presence of God or Theophany (John 1:14-"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us").


The memra was the covenant maker (John 1:17-"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ").


The memra was the revealer of God (John 1:18-"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him").


John 1:1-18 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. {2} The same was in the beginning with God. {3} All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. {4} In him was life; and the life was the light of men. {5} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. {6} There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. {7} The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. {8} He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. {9} That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. {10} He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. {11} He came unto his own, and his own received him not. {12} But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: {13} Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. {14} And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. {15} John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. {16} And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. {17} For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. {18} No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

These attributes are proof positive that John was following the Jewish model and he was showing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

One other point. Philo of Alexandra (AKA Philo Judaeus) was a Jewish philosopher of the early first century. He is known as the Greatest Jewish Philosopher. He was also a Greek philosopher. Philo tried to explain the Theophanies as the Word of God to the Greeks. When he did so, he used the Aramaic word memra. Modern Jewish apologists will try to tell you that because Philo used the concept, the Divine Word of God was appropriated from the pagan religions of the Hellenistic world at the time. They want to belittle Christianity as a man made religion derived from paganism. When you hear this argument, it is a false argument. Just remind the person trying to tell you this that the Word of God was a Jewish concept and not a pagan concept. Tell him about this study.

Bibliography.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Copyright © 1907-1914 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight.

Correspondence About The Trinity, by Karol Joseph, © 2001, Jews For Jesus, Inc.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, © 1904, New York and London

John, the Pharisees, and Memra, © 2000, Carl J. Stevens,

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, © 1990, Thomas Nelson Publishers

Retrieved from http://www.bibleword.org/memra.htm

 

[Georges]

My post is from http://www.Jewishencyclopedia.com which is the same Jewish Encyclopedia (1904) as used by Solo in the post above....How many attributes of the Memra can you see in the person of Jesus? Notice that the Jews considered the Memra as the Agent of God....

Please take the time to read it.....I will highlight the points of interest.

MEMRA


ARTICLE HEADINGS:
â€â€Biblical Data:
Personification of the Word.
â€â€In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:
â€â€In the Targum:
Mediatorship.
The Logos.



"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.
â€â€Biblical Data:

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "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).

Personification of the Word.

â€â€In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:

While in the Book of Jubilees, xii. 22, the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 10, with reference to Ps. xxxiii. 6). Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, "Thou who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee" (Wisdom ix. 1; comp. "Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created"; see Singer's "Daily Prayer-Book," pp. 96, 290, 292). So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work"). "Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom xvi. 12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. xvi. 26). Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom xviii. 15: "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war." The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch. i.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten "ma'amarot" (= "speeches") by which the world was created (Abot v. 1; comp. Gen. R. iv. 2: "The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma'amar"). Out of every speech ["dibbur"] which emanated from God an angel was created (Ḥag. 14a). "The Word ["dibbur"] called none but Moses" (Lev. R. i. 4, 5). "The Word ["dibbur"] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel" (Cant. R. i. 13).

â€â€In the Targum:

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.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). 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 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 (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).

 

[Soma-Sight]

Wow,

This is a pretty good post!

I will have to print this out and bring it home and get back on this......

 

[Imagican]

So, obviously this goes quite a long way in offering a much deeper understanding of John 1-3.

So, does this offer clarification of the Word? Is the Word Christ, God, or both? Is the word, Word and Christ synonymous acording to what has been offered?

 

[Georges]

So, obviously this goes quite a long way in offering a much deeper understanding of John 1-3.

So, does this offer clarification of the Word? Is the Word Christ, God, or both? Is the word, Word and Christ synonymous acording to what has been offered?

All the above are good questions...Since it is a Jewish concept (foreign to the early Gentile Christian (Hellenist) fathers and therefore not factored in when developing the doctrine of the trinity...(after all they didn't have the world wide web available to access all the available information), and that obviously John was Jewish...he wrote of the Jewish concept.

I presented it to show that the word wasn't God, but as the article states the word (Memra), a Jewish concept, was/is the agent of God.

Excerpts from the Jewish Law of Agency from the http://www.Jewishencyclopedia.com website...I am interjecting (in red) my interpretation....

The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) (Jesus) acting by direction of another (the principal) (God), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person (believers). The person (Jesus) who binds a principal (God) in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluaḥ or sheliaḥ (one that is sent): (Jesus refers to himself as the sent one) the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (sheliḥut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man's agent is like himself (Ḳid. 41b). (God's agent is like himself)

Appointment.

1. Under the Jewish law an agent (Jesus) may be appointed without the formality of writing, that is, by spoken words; (this is my beloved Son hear him) and witnesses are not needed to give effect to these words, except to prove, in case of dispute, that authority had been given, and the extent of such authority. The standard authorities draw this conclusion from the remark in Ḳiddushin, 65b, that witnesses are needed only to meet denials.

...An agent (Jesus) may appoint a subagent (Ḳid. 41a) (Disciples, Apostles); but under the Roman, as well as under the English-American law, he can do so only by special authorization.

.....The authority of a subagent (Disciples/Apostles) is not terminated by the death of the intermediate (Jesus), but only by the decease of the principal (God).

Extent of Powers.

... When one is entrusted with his principal's money or goods, and deals with them as with his own without disclosing his principal, the person dealing with him has the same rights as if he dealt with the principal; and if the agent exceeds his authority, or disregards the implied limitation not to involve his principal in losses, the latter must look to the agent alone for redress (Maimonides, "Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah, Hilkot Sheluḥin," ii. 4).

end of excerpt........

I added this because Agency is a very important concept in Judaism....Jesus, John, Peter, the people of Israel were all Jews and subject to these rules....

Is the Memra Christ? At this point, in my opinion....yes...a theophany...the first born of God and the Agent involved in creation. It is a Jewish concept that the name of the Messiah was one of the 7 items created before the world....[/b]

 

[Solo]

This is important to know:

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

 

[Georges]

This is important to know:

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

That doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact....John used the Greek term for a Hebrew concept....what the Rabbi's had done in writting the Talmud doesn't negate the fact that the "Word of the Lord" as not being God, but rather the Representative of God as brought forth in the Targum.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

Solo....that doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact that Jewish Believers at the time of John would have understood that John was referring to Jesus as being the Memra.....doesn't matter what the rabbis thought 300 years later...You seem to be falling into the mindset that everything Jewish is bad...IMO (I may be wrong). Just because Jews 150 years after Christ didn't accept him as being the Messiah, don't throw out all of the hints, concepts and clues that point to him in Jewish literature....There is a great deal of information in Jewish literature and we have the ability in hindsight to use that information in accepting Christ as Messiah.

And we have the ability to form a Christology through Jewish literature that is a heck of a lot closer to being accurate than a Christology through pagan influenced Gentile literature....

Using Jewish literature to determine a Christology, and using Gentile pagan influenced literature to determine Christology, no wonder there appears to be a vast difference in the Christ of Judaism, and the Christ of Christianity.

 

[Solo]

This is important to know:

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

That doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact....John used the Greek term for a Hebrew concept....what the Rabbi's had done in writting the Talmud doesn't negate the fact that the "Word of the Lord" as not being God, but rather the Representative of God as brought forth in the Targum.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

Solo....that doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact that Jewish Believers at the time of John would have understood that John was referring to Jesus as being the Memra.....doesn't matter what the rabbis thought 300 years later...You seem to be falling into the mindset that everything Jewish is bad...IMO (I may be wrong). Just because Jews 150 years after Christ didn't accept him as being the Messiah, don't throw out all of the hints, concepts and clues that point to him in Jewish literature....There is a great deal of information in Jewish literature and we have the ability in hindsight to use that information in accepting Christ as Messiah.

And we have the ability to form a Christology through Jewish literature that is a heck of a lot closer to being accurate than a Christology through pagan influenced Gentile literature....

Using Jewish literature to determine a Christology, and using Gentile pagan influenced literature to determine Christology, no wonder there appears to be a vast difference in the Christ of Judaism, and the Christ of Christianity.

Your opinions on what is better or not is fine. I happen to believe that Jesus is God almighty as the scriptures purport, and the Apostles, including Paul, have the gospel of Jesus Christ manifested in their writings which were inspired of God almighty, the Spirit.

The memra, the Word, Jesus is God. I know him well.

PS. I don't have a problem with Jews as you do with Gentiles, but I do have a problem with liars and false teachers.

 

[Georges]

This is important to know:

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

That doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact....John used the Greek term for a Hebrew concept....what the Rabbi's had done in writting the Talmud doesn't negate the fact that the "Word of the Lord" as not being God, but rather the Representative of God as brought forth in the Targum.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

Solo....that doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact that Jewish Believers at the time of John would have understood that John was referring to Jesus as being the Memra.....doesn't matter what the rabbis thought 300 years later...You seem to be falling into the mindset that everything Jewish is bad...IMO (I may be wrong). Just because Jews 150 years after Christ didn't accept him as being the Messiah, don't throw out all of the hints, concepts and clues that point to him in Jewish literature....There is a great deal of information in Jewish literature and we have the ability in hindsight to use that information in accepting Christ as Messiah.

And we have the ability to form a Christology through Jewish literature that is a heck of a lot closer to being accurate than a Christology through pagan influenced Gentile literature....

Using Jewish literature to determine a Christology, and using Gentile pagan influenced literature to determine Christology, no wonder there appears to be a vast difference in the Christ of Judaism, and the Christ of Christianity.

Your opinions on what is better or not is fine.

We each have opinions...right...that's what makes for good debate...

I happen to believe that Jesus is God almighty as the scriptures purport, and the Apostles, including Paul, have the gospel of Jesus Christ manifested in their writings which were inspired of God almighty, the Spirit.

As you see it....that's ok too.....I happen to think Scripture supports my view....but, difference make for good debate....

The memra, the Word, Jesus is God. I know him well.

As the Agent of God...I agree 1000%....

PS. I don't have a problem with Jews as you do with Gentiles, but I do have a problem with liars and false teachers.

P.P.S. I don't have problems with Jews or Gentiles....and I as you do, have a problem with liars and false teachers....hence my distain for the Paul of the Letters...

Solo....I like you.....you remind me of my Dad....a man unshakeable in his faith and opinion...and believe it or not......If it weren't for your moniker, I'd swear that I had been going the rounds with him.... I'm sure I drive him crazy with my Jewish roots stuff....On the whole, Lutherans don't like Jews.....much.

Do we part as friends?

 

[Solo]

This is important to know:

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

That doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact....John used the Greek term for a Hebrew concept....what the Rabbi's had done in writting the Talmud doesn't negate the fact that the "Word of the Lord" as not being God, but rather the Representative of God as brought forth in the Targum.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

Solo....that doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact that Jewish Believers at the time of John would have understood that John was referring to Jesus as being the Memra.....doesn't matter what the rabbis thought 300 years later...You seem to be falling into the mindset that everything Jewish is bad...IMO (I may be wrong). Just because Jews 150 years after Christ didn't accept him as being the Messiah, don't throw out all of the hints, concepts and clues that point to him in Jewish literature....There is a great deal of information in Jewish literature and we have the ability in hindsight to use that information in accepting Christ as Messiah.

And we have the ability to form a Christology through Jewish literature that is a heck of a lot closer to being accurate than a Christology through pagan influenced Gentile literature....

Using Jewish literature to determine a Christology, and using Gentile pagan influenced literature to determine Christology, no wonder there appears to be a vast difference in the Christ of Judaism, and the Christ of Christianity.

Your opinions on what is better or not is fine.

We each have opinions...right...that's what makes for good debate...

I happen to believe that Jesus is God almighty as the scriptures purport, and the Apostles, including Paul, have the gospel of Jesus Christ manifested in their writings which were inspired of God almighty, the Spirit.

As you see it....that's ok too.....I happen to think Scripture supports my view....but, difference make for good debate....

The memra, the Word, Jesus is God. I know him well.

As the Agent of God...I agree 1000%....

PS. I don't have a problem with Jews as you do with Gentiles, but I do have a problem with liars and false teachers.

P.P.S. I don't have problems with Jews or Gentiles....and I as you do, have a problem with liars and false teachers....hence my distain for the Paul of the Letters...

Solo....I like you.....you remind me of my Dad....a man unshakeable in his faith and opinion...and believe it or not......If it weren't for your moniker, I'd swear that I had been going the rounds with him.... I'm sure I drive him crazy with my Jewish roots stuff....On the whole, Lutherans don't like Jews.....much.

Do we part as friends?

We don't have to part. Your dad doesn't want me to give up on you yet.

To consider Jesus an agent is a typical play on words to appease a false teaching.

Who is Lord in Isaiah 40:3?

 

[Georges]

This is important to know:

According to the Jews for Jesus site, the Targums are filled with the Word of God, but the Talmud is silent on the issue. That is because the Talmud was written after the advent of Christ and the rabbis suppressed it in reaction to Christianity.

That doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact....John used the Greek term for a Hebrew concept....what the Rabbi's had done in writting the Talmud doesn't negate the fact that the "Word of the Lord" as not being God, but rather the Representative of God as brought forth in the Targum.

Let me quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, (this is the Greek word for the memra) 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.' Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term 'Memra.'"
The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1904, p. 465.

Solo....that doesn't matter....it doesn't change the fact that Jewish Believers at the time of John would have understood that John was referring to Jesus as being the Memra.....doesn't matter what the rabbis thought 300 years later...You seem to be falling into the mindset that everything Jewish is bad...IMO (I may be wrong). Just because Jews 150 years after Christ didn't accept him as being the Messiah, don't throw out all of the hints, concepts and clues that point to him in Jewish literature....There is a great deal of information in Jewish literature and we have the ability in hindsight to use that information in accepting Christ as Messiah.

And we have the ability to form a Christology through Jewish literature that is a heck of a lot closer to being accurate than a Christology through pagan influenced Gentile literature....

Using Jewish literature to determine a Christology, and using Gentile pagan influenced literature to determine Christology, no wonder there appears to be a vast difference in the Christ of Judaism, and the Christ of Christianity.

Your opinions on what is better or not is fine.

We each have opinions...right...that's what makes for good debate...

I happen to believe that Jesus is God almighty as the scriptures purport, and the Apostles, including Paul, have the gospel of Jesus Christ manifested in their writings which were inspired of God almighty, the Spirit.

As you see it....that's ok too.....I happen to think Scripture supports my view....but, difference make for good debate....

The memra, the Word, Jesus is God. I know him well.

As the Agent of God...I agree 1000%....

PS. I don't have a problem with Jews as you do with Gentiles, but I do have a problem with liars and false teachers.

P.P.S. I don't have problems with Jews or Gentiles....and I as you do, have a problem with liars and false teachers....hence my distain for the Paul of the Letters...

Solo....I like you.....you remind me of my Dad....a man unshakeable in his faith and opinion...and believe it or not......If it weren't for your moniker, I'd swear that I had been going the rounds with him.... I'm sure I drive him crazy with my Jewish roots stuff....On the whole, Lutherans don't like Jews.....much.

Do we part as friends?

We don't have to part. Your dad doesn't want me to give up on you yet.

I just meant....parting as leaving the thread....ending the discussion on good terms...

To consider Jesus an agent is a typical play on words to appease a false teaching.

Not so.....Jesus himself referred to himself as an Agent....or sent one.

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Even the concept of "I should lose nothing" is in the Jewishencyclopedia.com article on Agency....

If you do a search on the verses that include "sent me" in the NT, you will find that in everytime Jesus uses that expression, it fits the criteria of the Jewish Law of Agency precisely...

If you do a strong's search on "sent me" in both the OT and NT you will find that it is the very definition of Agency...


Who is Lord in Isaiah 40:3?

Isa 40:1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
Isa 40:2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see [it] together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].

According to Strong's LORD in Isa 40:3 is GOD....and speaks of the Messianic Kingdom of God in the future....

 

[Rick W]

Just a question:
When I post something here is that me? If what I post becomes flesh and blood what relationship to "me" is that? Anything I say, do, think... anything concerning myself is "me". So if my intent becomes flesh and blood...
It's just not a thing we can easily relate to in our world. Another such instance of an unworldly concept is when Jesus says "I am the ressurection". And it's curious that He can say that when the event hadn't yet occured.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I just don't think we can fully appreciate the Word of God becoming flesh. I think we can put terms on the concept, somewhat, but only as far as we can understand it when comparing that to the world we're so used to.

I say something, that is my word but how can that become flesh? Or the spirit in which I say something or the intent for my will to be done... how can that again become flesh? And if it does then what relationship can I compare it to?

We can debate terms all day but I hardly believe we'll ever come to a full appreciation of what happened in John 1:14.

 

[Georges]

Just a question:
When I post something here is that me?

I'll take your word on that....I guess it is you....although I didn't see you type the text.... :D

If what I post becomes flesh and blood what relationship to "me" is that?

It is not possible....therefore a moot point...God didn't split (ameobicly) to send himself down in the form of his son...

Anything I say, do, think... anything concerning myself is "me". So if my intent becomes flesh and blood...

Your logic isn't accurate. The concept of Agency........are my posts showing up for some and not for other's....? My own Son is/was my intent.....By me, he became flesh and blood, and although he may have the same belief's and philosophies as I, he is not me, nor I him. We both have different body's and minds....and my Son is subseviant to me...that is, he "usually" obeys my wishes. Same thing with God and Jesus....even in adoption. Now, if I send my Son on my account to handle my buisness, I expect the people I'm dealing with will treat my Son as if they were dealing with me....but my son isn't me, but has the authority to act on my behalf as my Agent.

It's just not a thing we can easily relate to in our world.

Yes it is and it should be...God is a God of order and should be understood. He is not chaos or a mystery...as trinitarians make him out to be.

Another such instance of an unworldly concept is when Jesus says "I am the ressurection". And it's curious that He can say that when the event hadn't yet occured.

Not at all....It's a well known Jewish concept that Messiah will rule the Messianic Kingdom...It's a Jewish concept that the Ressurection of the righteous will happen prior to that....the Messianic Kingdom is the "last day" that Martha refers to....it's Jewish eschatology. Jesus was on the mark when he made his statement...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Memra of the OT, just as Christ in the NT are the Word of God as Agents of God....Was Christ not the mouthpiece for God while he was on earth?....Was not Christ seen and God heard at his baptism? Just as the Memra created the earth as God's word in the OT...So too is Jesus, "God's manifestation of the Memra" a creative force (ie miracles etc) while he walked the earth...

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


I just don't think we can fully appreciate the Word of God becoming flesh. I think we can put terms on the concept, somewhat, but only as far as we can understand it when comparing that to the world we're so used to.

I certainly can and the Jewish interpretation of God, Messiah, Memra et al fall very much in line with the OT and the Gospels....where it runs into trouble is where Paul is involved....

I say something, that is my word but how can that become flesh? Or the spirit in which I say something or the intent for my will to be done... how can that again become flesh? And if it does then what relationship can I compare it to?

We can debate terms all day but I hardly believe we'll ever come to a full appreciation of what happened in John 1:14.

I just presented the concept through a Jewish perspective...and it works...as I had stated, it with the introduction of Pauline Christianity that mucked up the works...

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I just don't think we can fully appreciate the Word of God becoming flesh. I think we can put terms on the concept, somewhat, but only as far as we can understand it when comparing that to the world we're so used to.

I say something, that is my word but how can that become flesh? Or the spirit in which I say something or the intent for my will to be done... how can that again become flesh? And if it does then what relationship can I compare it to?

We can debate terms all day but I hardly believe we'll ever come to a full appreciation of what happened in John 1:14.

This is how it came to me...

If you were to prophecy that you would have a son (not that this would qualify as a prophecy, more like a 50/50% prediction, but for the sake of example...) that prophecy/prediction would be your word on the matter. When your son is born he would be your "word made flesh". Why? Because that flesh son is the realization or fulfillment of your prophecy. You spoke a word, that word came to pass, and since the word involved the birth of a person, it "became flesh". To further illustrate, if you were an architect, and your "word" was that you intended to build a specific building, that building, when completed, would be your "word made stone"

So what was this word before what it spoke came to pass? It was simply a word. "Logos", used of the "Word of God" is the same word used elsewhere in the NT to mean a written or spoken word. That is all it is, but in the case of John.1, it being God's word, carries much more significance.

How was the word "with God"? The same way a man's word is with himself. How is it the word "was God"? The same way a man's word is the man himself. It is him but not all of him, the person. It originates from him, and expresses his plan and desire, so it "is" him in a sense. It is in this sense that the "Word was God". Notice the word wasn't all of God or else the Word would simply be God, period. There would be no differentiation. But the Word of God is not all of God, and if it is not all of God it cannot be God because there is only one God. It is something that emanates from God. That makes it "divine" but not in the sense of actually being God but coming directly from God. It was not a "distinct person" from the Father, as Trinitarian theology invents, but something of that person. That is why the scripture consistently represents all things as coming from the Father. The Word was not a person before it "became flesh" - that's when it became a person. The one God (Father) is always the source, the Word, or in the "fulness of time", the Son, is always the means by which God accomplishes.

 

[mutzrein]

You know guys, the Lord showed me by revelation without knowing any of the stuff that is posted here, what the Word of God is and the relationship between Christ & God. I am thrilled to see what you guys have written. Thankyou.

Brad - I made a post, with very similar content to your last one, some time ago. It was in response to a certain moderator, who says he has the mind of Christ, and who being unable to see or comprehend what I wrote (because it was a revelation of the Spirit) denied outright that I even knew God.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad - I made a post, with very similar content to your last one, some time ago. It was in response to a certain moderator, who says he has the mind of Christ, and who being unable to see or comprehend what I wrote (because it was a revelation of the Spirit) denied outright that I even knew God.

That is the "soup de jour" in Christian discussion forums. Most are convinced that they and their particular Christian sub-division of thought has a lock on the truth. Intolerance and ignorance reign under the guise of "defending the faith" and no one can prove anything because it's all so subjective to begin with. Personally, I have a difficult time believing that any of these combatants have an infinite, all-powerful Spirit residing in them while those that disagree with them don't. The difference between them would be a hecka more obvious if that were the case don't you think?

 

[Georges]

Brad - I made a post, with very similar content to your last one, some time ago. It was in response to a certain moderator, who says he has the mind of Christ, and who being unable to see or comprehend what I wrote (because it was a revelation of the Spirit) denied outright that I even knew God.

That is the "soup de jour" in Christian discussion forums. Most are convinced that they and their particular Christian sub-division of thought has a lock on the truth. Intolerance and ignorance reign under the guise of "defending the faith" and no one can prove anything because it's all so subjective to begin with. Personally, I have a difficult time believing that any of these combatants have an infinite, all-powerful Spirit residing in them while those that disagree with them don't. The difference between them would be a hecka more obvious if that were the case don't you think?

Brad...If this is directed my way...I wasn't born with my present theology....nor was I bought up with it....my personal theology has been learned, and tested, and it has been a long journey....As I amass information, I test it...if it jives, I add it....if it doesn't, I shuck it.....

Fortunately, I'm not stuck in the rut that most Christians are in.....God has given me the free will to learn and decide for myself, without fear of condemnation from my fellow peers. In serving God, I'm not hampered by the Yoke of Catholic/Protestant Christianity. As far as I know, I haven't met anyone with the Theology I have....right or wrong....

I am neither intolerant, or ignorant.....I don't attack and call names, and I "usually" present documented information backing up my claims.

When proven wrong, or when I learn something new...I use it to adjust my belief....

and....I'll be the first one to admit...I don't have an "all powerful spirit" residing in me....I'm just looking for the truth as everyone else is......

Now, if it appears in my posts that I think that I'm a "know it all", I'm not, that is just my writing style....and presentation.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad...If this is directed my way...I wasn't born with my present theology....nor was I bought up with it....my personal theology has been learned, and tested, and it has been a long journey....As I amass information, I test it...if it jives, I add it....if it doesn't, I shuck it.....

Fortunately, I'm not stuck in the rut that most Christians are in.....God has given me the free will to learn and decide for myself, without fear of condemnation from my fellow peers. In serving God, I'm not hampered by the Yoke of Catholic/Protestant Christianity. As far as I know, I haven't met anyone with the Theology I have....right or wrong....

I am neither intolerant, or ignorant.....I don't attack and call names, and I "usually" present documented information backing up my claims.

When proven wrong, or when I learn something new...I use it to adjust my belief....

and....I'll be the first one to admit...I don't have an "all powerful spirit" residing in me....I'm just looking for the truth as everyone else is......

Now, if it appears in my posts that I think that I'm a "know it all", I'm not, that is just my writing style....and presentation.

No, George, my post wasn't directed at you, but at those who condemn other viewpoints and insinuate that those who disagree with themselves are somehow unenlightened (i.e. "lost") I found your explanation of "agency" most insightful, but even if I didn't agree with you, it is evident you are not of the closed-minded, fully-indoctrinated sect known as fundamentalism.

 

[Georges]

Brad...If this is directed my way...I wasn't born with my present theology....nor was I bought up with it....my personal theology has been learned, and tested, and it has been a long journey....As I amass information, I test it...if it jives, I add it....if it doesn't, I shuck it.....

Fortunately, I'm not stuck in the rut that most Christians are in.....God has given me the free will to learn and decide for myself, without fear of condemnation from my fellow peers. In serving God, I'm not hampered by the Yoke of Catholic/Protestant Christianity. As far as I know, I haven't met anyone with the Theology I have....right or wrong....

I am neither intolerant, or ignorant.....I don't attack and call names, and I "usually" present documented information backing up my claims.

When proven wrong, or when I learn something new...I use it to adjust my belief....

and....I'll be the first one to admit...I don't have an "all powerful spirit" residing in me....I'm just looking for the truth as everyone else is......

Now, if it appears in my posts that I think that I'm a "know it all", I'm not, that is just my writing style....and presentation.

No, George, my post wasn't directed at you, but at those who condemn other viewpoints and insinuate that those who disagree with themselves are somehow unenlightened (i.e. "lost") I found your explanation of "agency" most insightful, but even if I didn't agree with you, it is evident you are not of the closed-minded, fully-indoctrinated sect known as fundamentalism.

Well,....thanks....I was hoping that it wasn't....I try not to be close minded....however, I once was very close minded....

also, I don't expect to be agreed with. A lot of things I throw out in the forums (especially from Judacia), most people have never heard before...I'm just familiar with it because I'm studying it all of the time....it's a never ending study.