Here is a quote from Jesus about this as well. It seems very clear about what form Jesus existed in before the Incarnation.

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." NASU

Sher:
This actually turned out to be a pretty good article I'd recommend it for this topic.

Yeah, thanks Sher. I actually emailed the author and he was the one who put me onto the Memra connection.

Interestingly, it just occurred to me to check to see if the Targums explicitly made the connection between the Angel of the LORD and the Memra. I dug this up:

And Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the Name of the Word of the Lord, who had been manifested to her, saying, Blessed be Thou, Eloha, the Living One of all Ages, who hast looked upon my affliction. For she said, Behold, Thou art manifested also unto me, even as Thou wast manifested to Sara my mistress. (Genesis 16:13 - Jerusalem Targum)

Note, it says that "the Word of the Lord" had been manifested to her - and this was just after the Angel of the LORD had appeared to her. Which pretty much seals the connection in my mind. I might look up some of the other Angel of the LORD manifestations another time.

IronMetro,

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Actually, the point of the below cited from my argument was that the "gender" of the 'Logos' is irrelevent to whether or not it is "personal".
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Thank you for clearing that up. Most people communicate the use of the personal pronouns as proof of the personality of the word. I trust you are going to use some other means to show the word is a person. I a looking forward to it.


You asked,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Out of curiosity, was that Asimov's BIG guide to the bible?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I recently picked up a BIG book about understanding the Bible when I found it in a used book store. I bought the New Testament commentary nearly 30 years ago. Now I have it one volume.


You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I drew my definition of 'Word' from passages such as 1John1:1-2, Rev19:13 et al. Not to exclude the context as a factor. Christ could very well be called "Word" on account of His being the "plan of God". There is nothing wrong with that definition. Yet the definition you have given {in a less nuanced form} does not necessitate that the Word not denote the person of Christ.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I agree 1 John 1:1-2 help us to understand John 1. The parallel of the structure is strong. What I see from this is 1 John 1:1 is the phrase Word of Life is used to complete the meaning of logos intended in John 1:1. It speaks of the good news of salvation through Jesus. It is very similar to the phrase used by Paul in Philippians 2:16. The word of life is the message of the gospel. It is not a person.

I also agree the title, Word of God, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 19:13. I can understand how you would want this to be proof of the personality of the word in John 1, but it does not follow. We are looking at word pictures here. For the title to have any understandable meaning in Revelation, there needs to be a foundation for it somewhere else. There needs to be an understanding of the significance of God’s spoken and written word. The spoken and written words of God form the foundation for the picture of how Jesus fulfills these words and why the title is applied to Him. The logos of John 1 provides this foundation, but it does not prove the logos is a person before the statement in verse 14, which tells us Jesus represents God’s words to us.


You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
That is actually very supportive of our point. The Jews used the word "Word" to denote 'YHWH'. Ergo, simply go through the prologue of John's gospel and subsitute 'Logos' with 'YHWH' and you'll see what Jezz and others are coming across with.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I am afraid you lost me on this one. I was speaking of the figure of speech, metonymy. There is no way this figure of speech justifies substituting YHWH for logos John 1.

I believe Jezz was attempting to prove the phrase “Word of the Lord” was a person equal to God based on the Targum rendering of Genesis 1:27. I am saying that is not the case. The “Word of the Lord” is no more a person separate from God (or separate in God) than the “White House” is another person in the President of the United States.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not at all. Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians. The above might be object to Sabellianism but certainly not to our theology.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

My first reaction to your “Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians” statement is to wonder if this means you are exempt from logic.

Let me expand my thought. The teaching of the trinity speaks of one God who exists in three persons. I would think all unqualified references to God would be references to the entirety of God, i.e. all three persons. Any references to the Father would be to one person in God, Jesus, another person, and the Holy Spirit, another person. I believe the statement could be made, “Jesus is equal to the Father” or “Jesus is equal to the Holy Spirit,” but to say Jesus is equal to God requires an existance separate and distinct from God. It says Jesus is separate from God. I guess you can say Jesus is God, but I believe saying Jesus is equal to God contradicts your position.


You asked,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Do you have Buzzard and Hunting's book?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Yes, I do. I have known Anthony Buzzard for well over 25 years. I haven’t got the slightest idea who Charles Hunting is.

You asked,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Here is a question which I will probably not go into much more than this; Why do you think John referred to the 'Logos' as 'theos'?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe the idea of plays on words is well attested in this text. The Hebrew poets and writers were skilled at word play. I think John was doing some word play. I believe John 1:1c should be translated, “and the Word was divine.” I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid.


Ron

Socrates,

The article you quoted said,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish theology of that day. <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I really appreciate that sentiment. I have heard too many people try to bring Greek philosophy into the scripture. My thought is why would God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sinful activity, try to bring into the church ideas from people who were as bad or worse than those in S & G. It just doesn’t make sense to me.


Another place said,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
First of all, the rabbis said the Memra was sometimes the same as God, but sometimes distinct from God. They did not try in their writings to explain away the obvious paradox.

How could this word be with God, distinct from him, but then at the same time be God? This is explained later only in the terms of the tri-unity, in that the One he is writing about is distinct from God in that he is not God the father, nor is he God the Holy Spirit, yet he is the same as God in that he is God the Son, the second person of that tri-unity. Only in that way, in terms of the tri-unity, could this paradox of the Memra be explained.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I suspect this “obvious paradox” is not a paradox. Part of the author’s assumption is the Memra is a person. I don’t believe that is a given. This use of Memra is in the nature of metonymy as I described before. It is a figure of speech. It is not a person.

Ron

Today @ 08:25 AM post located here
Jezz:


Yeah, thanks Sher. I actually emailed the author and he was the one who put me onto the Memra connection.

Hey! That's great ... glad I could help

:shersig:

Ron Macy:

Thank you for clearing that up. Most people communicate the use of the personal pronouns as proof of the personality of the word. I trust you are going to use some other means to show the word is a person. I a looking forward to it.

You're welcome. The personal pronouns act merely as supportive evidence. As I stated prior, the evidence for "personality" of the 'Logos' is derived primarily from the immediate context etc.

...8<...

Ron Macy:

I agree 1 John 1:1-2 help us to understand John 1. The parallel of the structure is strong. What I see from this is 1 John 1:1 is the phrase Word of Life is used to complete the meaning of logos intended in John 1:1. It speaks of the good news of salvation through Jesus. It is very similar to the phrase used by Paul in Philippians 2:16. The word of life is the message of the gospel. It is not a person.

But that is precisely what is being shown in 1Jn i.e. that the 'Word' is a person:

1 John 1:1 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." ..cf.. Luke 24:39 et al.

Jesus is the "gospel" itself. He is the "message of the gospel" and can therefore be referred to as the "Word". Compare, for instance, Jn1:4 with 1 Jn5:11.

Ron Macy:

I also agree the title, Word of God, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 19:13. I can understand how you would want this to be proof of the personality of the word in John 1, but it does not follow.

My point was not so much to prove the 'personality' of the 'Word' in Jn1 by referencing Rev 19:13 so much as it was to demonstrate beyond doubt that the phrase 'Word of God' or more simply 'Word' can (contrary to many of my Unitarian opponent's assertions) denote a personal being. My prime point being; what is to stop the same usage of 'Word' in Rev 19:13 as being applied in Jn1? One certainly can't say "the context" as even Unitarians agree that the Word is {to an arguable (?) extent} "personified". The burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the detractor.

Ron Macy:

We are looking at word pictures here. For the title to have any understandable meaning in Revelation, there needs to be a foundation for it somewhere else. There needs to be an understanding of the significance of God’s spoken and written word. The spoken and written words of God form the foundation for the picture of how Jesus fulfills these words and why the title is applied to Him. The logos of John 1 provides this foundation, but it does not prove the logos is a person before the statement in verse 14, which tells us Jesus represents God’s words to us.

? This doesn't negate any interpretation I hold. It merely assumes that the Word in Jn1 is impersonal whereas I believe "it" to be a personal being as supported by the context. I have already agreed that the title/name 'Word' holds a significance in representing the salvic message of Christ as one possible interpretation. However, this does not require the Word to be impersonal as I explained in my last post. Christ is, for example, called "The Light". Why? Christ, under my view, is called the "Word'' in Jn1 for the same type of reasons. Your above explanation doesn't require that the Word be "impersonal" i.e. a true "it". That is what your argument must demonstrate.
The same Apostle John authored his gospel, the letter of 1Jn in addition to Revelation. In each book Christ is referred to as "the Word". The disputed occurence of reference to a *personal* entity being that of Jn1. You need to explain from the context why this is the exception to John's consistent use of 'Word'.

John 1:7 tells us of the Baptist who witnessed to the 'Light' i.e. Christ. Cf..Jn1:23. John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus. Cf..Jn20:31 The personality of the 'Logos' is consistently emphasized in the prologue. "The monogenhs God who is in the bosom of the Father.." Cf..Jn1:1.

Ron Macy:

I am afraid you lost me on this one. I was speaking of the figure of speech, metonymy. There is no way this figure of speech justifies substituting YHWH for logos John 1.

I believe Jezz was attempting to prove the phrase “Word of the Lord” was a person equal to God based on the Targum rendering of Genesis 1:27. I am saying that is not the case. The “Word of the Lord” is no more a person separate from God (or separate in God) than the “White House” is another person in the President of the United States.

"Answering prayers", being Jacob's "God" et al is the language used of a personal being. I listed a few citations from the Targums in my last post which demonstrate this very thing. You mentioned that 'adonai' was used as a substitute for the name 'YHWH'. Therefore the two denote the same thing - God. It was to that which I was basing my argument on the interchangeability of 'Logos' and 'YHWH'.

Ron Macy:

My first reaction to your “Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians” statement is to wonder if this means you are exempt from logic.

No. I see no logical "contradiction" to the doctrine of the Trinity, if that is what you are implying.

Ron Macy:

Let me expand my thought. The teaching of the trinity speaks of one God who exists in three persons. I would think all unqualified references to God would be references to the entirety of God, i.e. all three persons. Any references to the Father would be to one person in God, Jesus, another person, and the Holy Spirit, another person. I believe the statement could be made, “Jesus is equal to the Father” or “Jesus is equal to the Holy Spirit,” but to say Jesus is equal to God requires an existance separate and distinct from God. It says Jesus is separate from God. I guess you can say Jesus is God, but I believe saying Jesus is equal to God contradicts your position.

Not at all as Trinitarians do not require the word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times. It can be used to denote ontological qualities or be used in a titular fashion etc. It can be used to denote the Father, Son or Holy Spirit individually or to denote the entirety of "God" in a more generic sense. {Borrowing from JPH}, making the statement "Jesus is God" is acceptable whereas stating "God is Jesus" is incomplete.

The rub of the matter being that you are assuming Unitarianism in regards to the word ''God'' ergo Christ cannot be "God" when mentioned seperately in the context of "God". Hence my comment on 'Sabellianism' only add in the above explanation to the Trinitarian use of the word 'God'.

Yet we see a double-standard held by the detractor in passages such as 1Cor8:6 where the "Father" is delineated from the "one Lord" - Christ. Is this to His exclusion as our "Lord"? Surprisingly, I've had Unitarians answer "yes" (!) but...No. See also Jude4 et al. Does this exclude the "Father"? Again, no.

Ron Macy:

Yes, I do. I have known Anthony Buzzard for well over 25 years. I haven’t got the slightest idea who Charles Hunting is.

Many of the arguments I've seen employed by CDs and others of similar presuasion can be found in their book. I've considered purchasing it.

Ron Macy:

I believe the idea of plays on words is well attested in this text. The Hebrew poets and writers were skilled at word play. I think John was doing some word play. I believe John 1:1c should be translated, “and the Word was divine.” I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid.

There is a specific Greek word for "divine", theios which is not used in this context. At best you will get "a god" if not ''God'' or ''deity''. Secondly, you are assuming "word play" as substantiation for your argument. You must demonstrate this from the context. A context which quite emphatically paints the 'Logos' as personal.

God bless you--IM

IronMetro,

There are a number of things in your last response I want to discuss, but the following are the ones which grabbed my attention the most. I think they may be the most basic to our discussion. Maybe not.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not at all as Trinitarians do not require the word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times. It can be used to denote ontological qualities or be used in a titular fashion etc.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I didn’t say I required the “word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times.” I described the usage as “unqualified.” By that I mean there is nothing in the context to suggest which person in the “Godhead” is being referenced.

When one says, “Jesus is equal to God,” there is no qualification of which of the other two persons is being referenced. What rules are you applying to legitimately qualify the statement to one of those persons?

My assumption is since there is no qualification, it should refer to the entirety of the Godhead, thereby making Jesus separate from God. What rules of logic am I violating by making such an assumption?

As I said, I can agree, from your standpoint, the statement could be made, “Jesus is God.”

I started seeing people throw around the word, ontological, a few years ago. I understand the word relates to one’s being or existence. What exactly do you mean when you use the word?

You are the first person I have ever seen use the word, titular, to describe the usage of the word, God. What are you attempting to communicate when you use it?

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The rub of the matter being that you are assuming Unitarianism in regards to the word ''God'' ergo Christ cannot be "God" when mentioned seperately in the context of "God".
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Isn’t it true you are assuming trinitarianism when you approach the use of the word, God? What is it that makes your assumption of trinitarianism valid and my assumption of unitarianism invalid?

Ron

Ron Macy stated:

IronMetro,

There are a number of things in your last response I want to discuss, but the following are the ones which grabbed my attention the most. I think they may be the most basic to our discussion. Maybe not.

It's a great deal more difficult to demonstrate the deity of Christ in scripture if His preexistence is not established first. Given the thread topic, I don't think Christ's being "God" is all too pertinent at this particular point. JWs, for instance, wholly believe in Christ's prior existence to His birth in Bethlehem. Yet they are staunch anti-Trinitarians.

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not at all as Trinitarians do not require the word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times. It can be used to denote ontological qualities or be used in a titular fashion etc.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I didn’t say I required the “word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times.” I described the usage as “unqualified.” By that I mean there is nothing in the context to suggest which person in the “Godhead” is being referenced.

When one says, “Jesus is equal to God,” there is no qualification of which of the other two persons is being referenced. What rules are you applying to legitimately qualify the statement to one of those persons?

Okay. For instance:

But to the Son He {the Father} says "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...." - Heb1:8

Thomas answered and said to Him {Jesus} "The Lord of me the God of me." - John20:28

In both of the above examples there is only one clear referrent to the word "God". In the first, the Father is the speaker and the passage makes it clear that the address is to "the Son".

In the second, once again we have the referrent clearly in view. Thomas addressing Christ as "my God".

*The point here is not to argue which interpretation of the above verses is correct but to simply demonstrate the methodology employed by Trinitarians when determining "who" is being referred to when the word "God" is being applied in a given context.

Ron Macy:

My assumption is since there is no qualification, it should refer to the entirety of the Godhead, thereby making Jesus separate from God. What rules of logic am I violating by making such an assumption?

Yet as you can see, under the Trinitarian interpretation of such passages as those cited in the above the context can make it patently clear as to who is being referred to as 'theos'.

...8<...

Ron Macy:

I started seeing people throw around the word, ontological, a few years ago. I understand the word relates to one’s being or existence. What exactly do you mean when you use the word?

One's being/nature. E.g. "'Man' is 'flesh'''. "'Jesus' is 'God
'''.

Ron Macy:

You are the first person I have ever seen use the word, titular, to describe the usage of the word, God. What are you attempting to communicate when you use it?

? Like the use of the word "King" or "Lord", 'God' can be used in a titular fashion. I've even seen certain JW apologists (e.g. Greg Stafford et al) insist that it is a "proper name" in some contexts. If it can be used as such then it can certainly function as a 'title'.

Take John10 {i.e. your interpretation}. Is the use of "god" here ontological? No. Is it the "proper name" of those referred to by Asaph in the Psalm? No. What then do we have?

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The rub of the matter being that you are assuming Unitarianism in regards to the word ''God'' ergo Christ cannot be "God" when mentioned seperately in the context of "God".
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Isn’t it true you are assuming trinitarianism when you approach the use of the word, God? What is it that makes your assumption of trinitarianism valid and my assumption of unitarianism invalid?

It's not really pertinent whether or not I assume my view or not. That wasn't the point. My point being, one cannot employ their assumptions as a rebuttal to another's view. That is a circular argument. See my quote above. Now that I more understand your objection (hopefully :cwink:)-

You had stated:

"My assumption is since there is no qualification, it should refer to the entirety of the Godhead, thereby making Jesus separate from God."

First, stating that Christ is "equal to God" necessarily entails that He be God for God has no equal. To those who did not initially know that Christ was "God" the language is oppropriate.

Christ is equal to "God" {i.e. the God of our fathers as they may have understood Him} and is therefore naturally included in the identity of "God". This, IMHO, is the point of John1:1s dual use of the word 'theos'. Take their idea of who God is and then place Christ within this identification.

I would compare an example as such to John1:1 where the logos is said to be WITH "God" and yet also to be "God".

I would also harmonize the rest of my scriptural support for my belief in the Trinity and therefore take any reference to 'theos' in, say, a sentence such as "Christ and God" to be in reference to the 'Father'. "God" being used, perhaps, in titular fashion rather than ontological.

One such example being Jn1:18. The Son is referred to as being the monogenhs 'God' who is said to be in the 'bosom of the Father' {i.e. "with God"..cf..Jn1:1}. It is in this context that the scriptures state that "no one has seen God" (?). Elsewhere in John, Christ more specifically states "no one has seen the Father"..cf..Is6. Therefore, I would qualify, for example, Jn1:18 by said harmonization.

Is this assuming my case? Not necessarily.

Rather it is taking what I know from scripture elsewhere and harmonizing it in such a way that the 'Son' is 'God' and the 'Father' is 'God' yet the 'Son' is not the 'Father' and the 'Father' is not the 'Son'.

God bless

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
KJV

John 8:58

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
NIV

John 8:58

58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
NKJV

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
ASV

John 8:58

58 Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"
NLT

John 8:58

58 Jesús les dijo: De cierto, de cierto os digo: Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy.
(from RVR 1960 © 1960 Sociedades Biblicas en América Latina.)

IN HIM

07-25-2003 @ 11:36 AM post located here
Ron Macy:

I believe the idea of plays on words is well attested in this text. The Hebrew poets and writers were skilled at word play. I think John was doing some word play. I believe John 1:1c should be translated, “and the Word was divine.” I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid.

Ron

There is a word for divine in Greek, "theios." I am not aware of any instant in the NT where qeoV is used as an adjective.

"I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid." What evidence? Did the early church, e.g., consider John to be using "word play" or did they consider John to be saying that Jesus IS God? References on request. Here is something I have posted before. The actual Jewish POV from the Jewish Encyclopedia, citing ancient Jewish sources.

• Notice in this brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaic word, “memra” was substituted for YHWH. This quote has over 100 citations where that was done. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The “Memra”, i.e.”The Word”, WAS God. John wasn’t saying anything new.

• -In the Targum:
  
  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.
  
  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).
  
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...9&amp;letter=M

Today @ 08:34 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



There is a word for divine in Greek, &quot;theios.&quot; I am not aware of any instant in the NT where qeoV is used as an adjective.

William Barclay writes...
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

Barclay is a full-blooded Trinitarian and definitely believes Jesus is God. Now I know there are other scholars who disagree with Barclay on this but there are also a considerable number who do agree with him. Your choice as to who you believe. Either side can fit the Trinitarian faith.

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here
Reasonable:

William Barclay writes...
&quot;When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

Barclay is a full-blooded Trinitarian and definitely believes Jesus is God. Now I know there are other scholars who disagree with Barclay on this but there are also a considerable number who do agree with him. Your choice as to who you believe. Either side can fit the Trinitarian faith.

What language studies is this based on? How many occurrences of this construction with other, non Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT? How do Barclay's views (dis)agree with the Jewish view I posted? Even the best of scholars can err.

Also what is the predominant view among the early church fathers on this? For example Polycarp and Ignatius who were disciples of John.

Today @ 02:26 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



What language studies is this based on? How many occurrences of this construction with other, non Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT? How do Barclay's views (dis)agree with the Jewish view I posted? Even the best of scholars can err.

Also what is the predominant view among the early church fathers on this? For example Polycarp and Ignatius who were disciples of John.

Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from.

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM post located here
Reasonable:

Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from.

I'm sorry, you posted it I'm taking it up with you. I did not see the name of the publisher or a publication date so I am assuming that this is just a blind cut and paste from some "anti" website, so I choose to ignore it. If you can't even defend what you are posting why should I bother with it. You have a real nice day.

Edited to add: I did a quick search online and found your source "Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting from Barclay's book, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1963, pp. 23, 24." Which is why you can't answer my questions it IS a blind cut and paste. Now for the TRUTH because the WBTS deliberately misquoted Barclay. What the WBTS deliberately left out is shown in red. Below that is a letter Barclay wrote to a friend who informed him how the WBTS misquoted and mirepresented him.

Take it up with your so-called leaders. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from, only mine is the truth.

• In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)
  
  "God himself took this human flesh upon him." (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p27)
  
  Dear Professor Donald Shoemaker,
  
  Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.
  
  If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point.
  
  It was good of you to write and I don't think I need say anything more to make my position clear.
  
  With every good wish.
  
  Yours Sincerely
  
  William Barclay.
  
  (Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him, 26 August, 1977)
  
  http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Barclay.htm

Today @ 03:20 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



I'm sorry, you posted it I'm taking it up with you. I did not see the name of the publisher or a publication date so I am assuming that this is just a blind cut and paste from some &quot;anti&quot; website, so I choose to ignore it. If you can't even defend what you are posting why should I bother with it. You have a real nice day.

Well, if it was a cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian web site, it must be wrong, huh? I don't have to defend William Barclay's analysis. I'm not a greek scholar and neither are you. I just read what the scholars have to say. You said you were not aware of theos being used as an adjective and I pointed out a scholar who disagrees. I could point out more too but your response would be the same. But, if you want to check out the book, it's available at Border's Bookstores and possibly Barnes&Noble.

Jesus as They Saw Him by William Barclay, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI. 1962. And if you want something more modern, see Jesus as God by Murray Harris.

And where did Barclay's analysis contradict your quotes from the Jewish sources? In fact, where does he contradict any Trinitarian teaching? You're the one who spouted off your opinion that theos is not used as an adjective. I simply spouted off someone with a little more qualifications than you. I don't care what you accept or don't accept. This post is for the benefit of other readers who may want to see what real scholars have to say on the subject.

OS,
After looking at my above post, I realize it was negative and attacking. I apologize for that. it was not my intentions to attack you and i regret the way i said things.

And moderator: I know I am not supposed to post twice in a row but an apology was in order on my behalf and delaying apologies is never a good thing. But you can chastise me anyway if you want