Biblical discussion – BD, LU, Mikeboll, ST

[Lightenup]

Mike,
In regards to the teaching that the Memra of YHWH is the manifested YHWH as distinct from the unapproachable YHWH, I have found valuable lists of scriptures from this site:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel….ghlight

This info contains lists pertaining to where the Aramaic word 'memra' was used in three targums (the Aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch, et al). The occurrences are divided into three groups per targum. These groups are classified as 'Inapplicable or Doubtful,' or 'Fair,' and finally and most importantly 'Undoubted.' This has to do with the likelihood that the term 'memra' applies to YHWH as the manifested YHWH. The classification of 'Undoubted' consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself. It is those instances that are in the 'undoubted' category that would be the pre-incarnated Son, the Word of God from John 1:1 and Revelations 19:3.

Quote

2. (Ad vol. i. p. 45, and note 3.) The distinction between the unapproachable God and God as manifest and manifesting Himself, which lies at the foundation of so much in the theology of Philo in regard to the ‘intermediary beings’ – ‘Potencies’ – and the Logos, occurs equally in Rabbinic theology,6320 though there it is probably derived from a different source. Indeed, we regard this as explaining the marked and striking avoidance of all anthropomorphisms in the Targumim. It also accounts for the designation of God by two classes of terms, of which in our view, the first expresses the idea of God as revealed, the other that of God as revealing Himself; or, to put it otherwise, which indicate, the one a state, the other an act on the part of God. The first of these classes of designations embraces two terms: yeqara, the excellent glory, and Shekhinah, or Shekhintha, the abiding Presence.6321 On the other hand, God, as in the act of revealing himself, is described by the term Memra, the ‘Logos,’ ‘the word.’ A distinction of ideas also obtains between the terms Yeqara and Shekhinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and upward, the latter the outward and downward, aspect of the revealed God. This distinction will appear by comparing the use of the two words in the Targumim, and even by the consideration of passages in which the two are placed side by side (as for ex., in the Targum Onkelos on Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. xvi. 13, 14; in the Jerusalem Targum, Ex. xix. 18; and in the Targum Jonathan, Is. vi. 1, 3; Hagg. i. 8). Thus, also, the allusion in 2 Pet. i. 17, to ‘the voice from the excellent glory’ (τͺς μεγαλοπρεποͺς δͺξης) must have been the Yeqara.6322 The varied use of the terms Shekhinah and Yeqara, and then Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In ver. 1 it is the Yeqara, and its train – the heavenward glory – which fills the Heavenly Temple. In ver. 3 we hear the Trishagion in connection with the dwelling of His Shekhintha, while the splendour (Ziv) of His Yeqara fills the earth – as it were, falls down to it. In ver. 5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Yeqara of the Shekhinah, while in ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shekhintha (which is) upon the throne of the Yeqara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often; so especially in ix. xvii. 16). Finally, in ver. 8, the prophet hears the voice of the Memra of Jehovah speaking the words of vv. 9, 10. It is intensely interesting to notice that in St. John xii. 40, these words are prophetically applied in connection with Christ. Thus St. John applies to the Logos what the Targum understands of the Memra of Jehovah. But, theologically, by far the most interesting and important point, with reference not only to the Logos of Philo, but to the term Logos as employed in the Fourth Gospel, is to ascertain the precise import of the equivalent expression Memra in the Targumim. As stated in the text of this book (vol. i. p. 47), the term Memra as applied to God, occurs 176 times in the Targum Onkelos, 99 times in the Jerusalem Targum, and 321 times in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. We subjoin the list of these passages, arranged in three classes. Those in Class I. mark where the term does not apply to this, or where it is at least doubtful; those in Class II. where the fair interpretation of a passage shows; and Class III. where it is undoubted and unquestionable, that the expression Memra refers to God as revealing Himself, that is the Logos. Classified List of all the Passages in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Onkelos. (The term occurs 176 times. Class III., which consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself, comprises 79 passages).6323 CLASS I. Inapplicable or Doubtful: Gen. xxvi. 5; Ex. ii. 25; v. 2; vi. 8; xv. 8, 10, 26; xvi. 8; xvii. 1; xxiii. 21, 22; xxv. 22; xxxii. 13; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 14, 18, 21, 27; Num. iii. 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20 (bis), 23 quat; x. 13; xiii. 3; xiv. 11, 22, 30, 35; xx. 12, 24; xxiii. 19; xxiv. 4;16; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2, 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26; iv. 30; viii. 3, 20; xiii. 5, 19 (in our Version 4, 18); xv. 5; xxvi. 15, 18; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 2, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 10, 20. An examination of these passages would show that, for caution’s sake, we have sometimes put down as ‘inapplicable’ or ‘doubtful’ what, viewed in connection with other passages in which the word is used, appears scarcely doubtful. It would take too much space to explain why some passages are put in the next class, although the term Memra seems to be used in a manner parallel to that in Class I. Lastly, the reason why some passages appear in Class III., when others, somewhat similar are placed in Class II., must be sought in the context and connection of a verse. We must ask the reader to believe that each passage had been carefully studied by itself, and that our conclusions have been determined by careful consideration, and by the fair meaning to be put on the language of Onkelos. CLASS II. Fair: Gen. vii. 16; xx. 3; xxxi. 3, 24; Ex. xix. 5; Lev. viii. 35; xxvi. 23; Numb. xi. 20; 23; xiv. 41; xxii. 9, 18, 20; xxiii. 3, 4, 16; xxvii. 21; xxxvi. 2; Deut. i. 32; iv 24, 33, 36; v. 24, 25, 26; ix 23 (bis) ; xxxi. 23; xxxiv. 5. CLASS III. Undoubted: Gen iii. 8, 10; vi. 6 (bis), 7; viii. 21; ix. 12, 13, 15,16, 17; xv. 1, 6; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xxi. 20, 22, 23; xxii. 16; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxviii. 15, 20 21; xxxi. 49, 50; xxxv. 3; xxxix, 2, 3, 21, 23; x1viii. 21; xlix. 24, 25; Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15; x. 10; xiv. 31; xv. 2; xviii. 19; xix. 17; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxiii. 22, Lev. xx. 23; xxiv. 12; xxvi 9; 11, 30, 46; Numb. xiv. 9 (bis), 43; xvii. 19 (in our Version v. 4); xxi. 5; xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30; ii. 7; iii. 22; iv. 37; v. 5; ix. 3; xviii. 16, 19, xx. 1; xxiii. 15; xxxi. 6, 8; xxxii. 51; xxxiii. 3, 27. Of most special interest is the rendering of Onkelos of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where instead of ‘underneath are the everlasting arms,’ Onkelos has it: ‘And by His Memra was the world made,’ exactly as in St. John i. 10. This divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text is utterly unaccountable, nor has any explanation of it, as far as I know, been attempted. Winer, whose inaugural dissertation ‘De Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi chaldaica’ (Lips. 1820), most modern writers have simply followed (with some amplifications, chiefly from Luzatto’s ‘Philoxenus,’ {hebrew} makes no reference to this passage, nor do his successors, so far as I know. It is curious that, as our present Hebrew text has three words, so has the rendering of Onkelos, and that both end with the same word. In classifying the passages in which the word Memra occurs in the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, we have reversed the previous order, and Class I. represents the passages in which the term undoubtedly applies to the Personal manifestation of God; Class II., in which this is the fair interpretation; Class III., in which application is, to say the most, doubtful. Classified List of Passages (according to the above scheme) in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Jerushalmi on the Pentateuch. Class I.  Of undoubted application to a Personal Manifestation of God: Gen. i. 27; iii. 9, 22; v. 24; vi. 3; viii. 16; xv. 1; xvi. 3; xix. 24; xxi. 33; xxii 8,14; xxviii. 10; xxx. 22 (bis); xxxi. 9; xxxv. 9 (quat.); xxxviii. 25; xl. 23; exod. iii. 14; vi. 3; xii. 42 (quat.); xiii. 18; xiv. 15, 24, 25; xv. 12, 25 (bis); xix. 5, 7, 8, 9 (bis); xx. 1, 24; xxv. 4; xxvii. 16; Deut. i. 1; iii. 2; iv. 34; xxvi. 3, 14, 17, 18; xxviii. 27, 68; xxxiii. 15, 39, 51; xxxiii. 2, 7; xxxiv. 9, 10, 11. Class II. Where such application is fair: Gen. v. 24; xxi. 33; Ex. vi. 3; xv. 1; Lev. i. 1; Numb. xxiii. 15, 21; xxiv. 4, 16; Deut. xxxii. 1, 40. Class III. Where such application is doubtful: Gen. vi. 6; xviii. 1, 17; xxii. 14 (bis); xxx. 22; xl. 23; xlix. 18; Ex. xiii. 19; xv. 2, 26; xvii. 19; xix. 3; Deut. i. 1; xxxii. 18; xxxiv. 4, 5. Classified List of Passages in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch. Class I. Undoubted: Gen. ii. 8, 10, 24; iv. 26; v. 2; vii. 16; ix. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; xi. 8; xii. 17; xv. 1; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xviii. 5; xix. 24 (bis); xx. 6, 18: xxi. 22; 22, 23, 33; xxii. 1; xxiv, 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxvii. 28, 31; xxviii. 10, 15, 20; xxix. 12; xxxi. 3, 50; xxxv. 3, 9; xxxix. 2, 3, 21, 23; xli.1; xlvi. 4; xlviii. 9, 21; xlix. 25; 1. 20; Exod. i. 21; ii. 5; iii. 12; vii. 25; x. 10; xii. 23, 29; xiii. 8, 15, 17; xiv. 25, 31; xv. 25; xvii. 13, 15, 16 (bis); xviii. 19; xx. 7; xxvi. 28; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6, 36; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxii. 35; xxxiii. 9, 19; xxxiv. 5; xxxvi. 33; Lev. i. 1 (bis); vi. 2; viii. 35; ix. 23; xx. 23; xxiv. 12 (bis); xxvi. 11, 12, 30, 44, 46; Numb. iii. 16, 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20, (bis), 23 (ter); x. 13, 35, 36; xiv. 9, 41, 43; xvi. 11, 26; xvii. 4; xxi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 34; xxii. 18, 19, 28; xxiii. 3, 4, 8 (bis), 16, 20, 21; xxiv. 13; xxvii. 16; xxxi. 8; xxxiii. 4; Deut. i. 10, 30, 43; ii. 7, 21; iii. 22; iv. 3, 7, (bis) 20, 24, 33, 36; v. 5 (bis), 11, 22, 23, 24 (bis), 25, 26; vi. 13, 21, 22; ix. 3;xi. 23; xii. 5, 11; xviii. 19; xx. 1; xxi. 20; xxiv. 18, 19; xxvi. 5, 14, 18; xxviii. 7,9, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 35, 48, 49, 59, 61, 63, 68; xxix. 2, 4; xxx. 3, 4, 5, 7; xxxi. 5, 8, 23; xxxii. 6, 9, 12, 36; xxxiii. 29; xxxiv. 1, 5, 10, 11. Class II. Fair: Gen. v. 24; xv. 6; xvi. 1, 13; xviii. 17; xxii. 16; xxix. 31; xxx. 22; xlvi. 4; Ex. ii. 23; iii. 8, 17, 19; iv. 12; vi. 8, xii. 27; xiii. 5, 17; xxxii. 13; xxxiii. 12, 22; Lev. xxvi. 44; Numb. xiv. 30; xx. 12, 21; xxii. 9, 20; xxiv. 4, 16, 23; Deut. viii. 3; xi. 12; xxix. 23; xxxi. 2, 7; xxxii. 18, 23, 26,38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 51; xxxiii. 3, 27; xxxiv. 6. Class III. Doubtful: Gen. iv. 3, 6 (bis); viii. 1, 21; xxii. 18; xxvi. 5 (bis); Ex. iv. 15; v. 2; ix. 20, 21; x. 29; xiv. 7; xv. 2, 8; xix. 5; xxv. 22; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 40; Numb. vi. 27; ix. 8; xii. 6; xiv. 11, 22, 35;xv. 34; xx. 24; xxiii. 19; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2. 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26, 32; iv. 30; v. 5; viii. 20; ix. 23; xi. 1; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 15; xxv. 18; xxvi. 17; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 9, 10; xxxi. 12; xxxiii. 9. (Ad vol. i. p. 53, note 4.) Only one illustration of Philo’s peculiar method of interpreting the Old Testament can here be given. It will at the same time show how he found confirmation for his philosophical speculations in the Old Testament, and further illustrate his system of moral theology in its most interesting, but also most difficult, point. The question is, how the soul was to pass from its state of sensuousness and sin to one of devotion to reason, which was religion and righteousness. It will be remarked that the change from the one state to the other is said to be accomplished in one of three ways: by study, by practice, or through a good natural disposition (μͺθησις, ͺσκησις, εͺφυͺα) exactly as Aristotle put it. But Philo found a symbol for each, and for a preparatory state in each, in Scripture. The three Patriarchs represented this threefold mode of reaching the supersensuous: Abraham, study; Jacob, practice; Isaac, a good disposition; while Enos, Enoch, and Noah, represented the respective preparatory stages. Enos (hope), the first real ancestor of our race, represented the mind awakening to the existence of a better life. Abraham (study) received command to leave ‘the land’ (sensuousness). But all study was threefold. It was, first, physical – Abram in the land of Ur, contemplating the starry sky, but not knowing God. Next to the physical was that ‘intermediate’ (μͺση) study, which embraced the ordinary ‘cycle of knowledge’ (ͺγκͺκλιος παιδεͺα). This was Abram after he left Haran, and that knowledge was symbolised by his union with Hagar, who tarried (intermediately) between Kadesh and Bered. But this stage also was insufficient, and the soul must reach the third and highest stage, that of Divine philosophy (truly, the love of wisdom, φιλοσοφͺα) where eternal truth was the subject of contemplation. Accordingly, Abram left Lot, he became Abraham, and he was truly united to Sarah, no longer Sarai. Onwards and ever upwards would the soul now rise to the knowledge of virtue. of heavenly realities, nay, of the nature of God Himself. But there was yet another method than ‘study,’ by which the soul might rise – that of askesis, discipline, practice, of which Scripture speaks in Enoch and Jacob. Enoch – whom ‘God took, and he was not’ (Gen. v. 24) – meant the soul turning from the lower to the higher, so that it was no longer found in its former place of evil. From Enoch, as the preparatory stage, we advance to Jacob, first merely fleeing from sensuous entanglements (from Laban), then contending with the affections, ridding himself of five of the seventy-five souls with which he had entered Egypt (Deut. x.22, comp. with Gen. xlvi. 27), often nearly misled by the Sophists (Dinah and Hamor), often nearly failing and faint in the conflict (Jacob’s wrestling), but holpen by God, and finally victorious, when Jacob became Israel. But the highest of all was the spiritual life which came neither from study nor discipline, but through a good disposition. Here we have, first of all, Noah, who symbolises only the commencement of virtue, since we read not of any special virtue in him. Rather is he rest – as the name implies – good, relatively to those around. It was otherwise with Isaac, who was perfect before his birth (and hence chosen), even as Rebekah meant constancy in virtue. In that state the soul enjoyed true rest (the Sabbath, Jerusalem) and joy, which Isaac’s name implied. But true virtue, which was also true wisdom, was Paradise, whence issued the one stream (goodness), which again divided into four branches (the four Stoic virtues): – Pison, ‘prudence’ (φρͺνησις); Gihon, ‘fortitude’ (ͺνδρͺα); Tigris, ‘desire’ (ͺπιθυμͺα), and Euphrates, ‘justice’ (δικαιοσͺνη) . And yet, though these be the Stoic virtues, they all spring from Paradise, the Garden of God – and all that is good, and all help to it, comes to us ultimately from God Himself, and is in God.

These lists should provide a good study and insight as to where the Rabbi's thought of YHWH as 'the Memra/Word/Logos of YHWH.' Without looking at them yet, I suspect that the reasonable conclusion is that those instances in the 'undoubted' category especially are references to the pre-incarnate Son…YHWH the Son as distinct from YHWH the Father, the only begotten God who explains the unseen YHWH…His Father.

John 1:18
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.

John 6:46
46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently studyc the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

I don't believe that the 'word of the Lord' is always the pre-incarnate Son, nor do I believe that the God the Father always spoke through the Son because of what Heb 1:1 says, but I do think it to be reasonable to consider that the 'Word of the Lord' in the 'undoubted' category would be the pre-incarnated Son.

Edited to change “opposed to” to “distinct from” in order to make a clarification.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2012,10:24)

Mike, In regards to the teaching that the Memra of YHWH is the manifested YHWH as opposed to the unapproachable YHWH, I have found valuable lists of scriptures from this site: http://www.ccel.org/ccel….ghlight This info contains lists pertaining to where the Aramaic word 'memra' was used in three targums (the Aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch, et al). The occurrences are divided into three groups per targum. These groups are classified as 'Inapplicable or Doubtful,' or 'Fair,' and finally and most importantly 'Undoubted.' This has to do with the likelihood that the term 'memra' applies to YHWH as the manifested YHWH. The classification of 'Undoubted' consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself. It is those instances that are in the 'undoubted' category that would be the pre-incarnated Son, the Word of God from John 1:1 and Revelations 19:3. Quote 2. (Ad vol. i. p. 45, and note 3.) The distinction between the unapproachable God and God as manifest and manifesting Himself, which lies at the foundation of so much in the theology of Philo in regard to the ‘intermediary beings’ – ‘Potencies’ – and the Logos, occurs equally in Rabbinic theology,6320 though there it is probably derived from a different source. Indeed, we regard this as explaining the marked and striking avoidance of all anthropomorphisms in the Targumim. It also accounts for the designation of God by two classes of terms, of which in our view, the first expresses the idea of God as revealed, the other that of God as revealing Himself; or, to put it otherwise, which indicate, the one a state, the other an act on the part of God. The first of these classes of designations embraces two terms: yeqara, the excellent glory, and Shekhinah, or Shekhintha, the abiding Presence.6321 On the other hand, God, as in the act of revealing himself, is described by the term Memra, the ‘Logos,’ ‘the word.’ A distinction of ideas also obtains between the terms Yeqara and Shekhinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and upward, the latter the outward and downward, aspect of the revealed God. This distinction will appear by comparing the use of the two words in the Targumim, and even by the consideration of passages in which the two are placed side by side (as for ex., in the Targum Onkelos on Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. xvi. 13, 14; in the Jerusalem Targum, Ex. xix. 18; and in the Targum Jonathan, Is. vi. 1, 3; Hagg. i. 8). Thus, also, the allusion in 2 Pet. i. 17, to ‘the voice from the excellent glory’ (τͺς μεγαλοπρεποͺς δͺξης) must have been the Yeqara.6322 The varied use of the terms Shekhinah and Yeqara, and then Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In ver. 1 it is the Yeqara, and its train – the heavenward glory – which fills the Heavenly Temple. In ver. 3 we hear the Trishagion in connection with the dwelling of His Shekhintha, while the splendour (Ziv) of His Yeqara fills the earth – as it were, falls down to it. In ver. 5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Yeqara of the Shekhinah, while in ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shekhintha (which is) upon the throne of the Yeqara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often; so especially in ix. xvii. 16). Finally, in ver. 8, the prophet hears the voice of the Memra of Jehovah speaking the words of vv. 9, 10. It is intensely interesting to notice that in St. John xii. 40, these words are prophetically applied in connection with Christ. Thus St. John applies to the Logos what the Targum understands of the Memra of Jehovah. But, theologically, by far the most interesting and important point, with reference not only to the Logos of Philo, but to the term Logos as employed in the Fourth Gospel, is to ascertain the precise import of the equivalent expression Memra in the Targumim. As stated in the text of this book (vol. i. p. 47), the term Memra as applied to God, occurs 176 times in the Targum Onkelos, 99 times in the Jerusalem Targum, and 321 times in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. We subjoin the list of these passages, arranged in three classes. Those in Class I. mark where the term does not apply to this, or where it is at least doubtful; those in Class II. where the fair interpretation of a passage shows; and Class III. where it is undoubted and unquestionable, that the expression Memra refers to God as revealing Himself, that is the Logos. Classified List of all the Passages in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Onkelos. (The term occurs 176 times. Class III., which consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself, comprises 79 passages).6323 CLASS I. Inapplicable or Doubtful: Gen. xxvi. 5; Ex. ii. 25; v. 2; vi. 8; xv. 8, 10, 26; xvi. 8; xvii. 1; xxiii. 21, 22; xxv. 22; xxxii. 13; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 14, 18, 21, 27; Num. iii. 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20 (bis), 23 quat; x. 13; xiii. 3; xiv. 11, 22, 30, 35; xx. 12, 24; xxiii. 19; xxiv. 4;16; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2, 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26; iv. 30; viii. 3, 20; xiii. 5, 19 (in our Version 4, 18); xv. 5; xxvi. 15, 18; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 2, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 10, 20. An examination of these passages would show that, for caution’s sake, we have sometimes put down as ‘inapplicable’ or ‘doubtful’ what, viewed in connection with other passages in which the word is used, appears scarcely doubtful. It would take too much space to explain why some passages are put in the next class, although the term Memra seems to be used in a manner parallel to that in Class I. Lastly, the reason why some passages appear in Class III., when others, somewhat similar are placed in Class II., must be sought in the context and connection of a verse. We must ask the reader to believe that each passage had been carefully studied by itself, and that our conclusions have been determined by careful consideration, and by the fair meaning to be put on the language of Onkelos. CLASS II. Fair: Gen. vii. 16; xx. 3; xxxi. 3, 24; Ex. xix. 5; Lev. viii. 35; xxvi. 23; Numb. xi. 20; 23; xiv. 41; xxii. 9, 18, 20; xxiii. 3, 4, 16; xxvii. 21; xxxvi. 2; Deut. i. 32; iv 24, 33, 36; v. 24, 25, 26; ix 23 (bis) ; xxxi. 23; xxxiv. 5. CLASS III. Undoubted: Gen iii. 8, 10; vi. 6 (bis), 7; viii. 21; ix. 12, 13, 15,16, 17; xv. 1, 6; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xxi. 20, 22, 23; xxii. 16; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxviii. 15, 20 21; xxxi. 49, 50; xxxv. 3; xxxix, 2, 3, 21, 23; x1viii. 21; xlix. 24, 25; Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15; x. 10; xiv. 31; xv. 2; xviii. 19; xix. 17; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxiii. 22, Lev. xx. 23; xxiv. 12; xxvi 9; 11, 30, 46; Numb. xiv. 9 (bis), 43; xvii. 19 (in our Version v. 4); xxi. 5; xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30; ii. 7; iii. 22; iv. 37; v. 5; ix. 3; xviii. 16, 19, xx. 1; xxiii. 15; xxxi. 6, 8; xxxii. 51; xxxiii. 3, 27. Of most special interest is the rendering of Onkelos of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where instead of ‘underneath are the everlasting arms,’ Onkelos has it: ‘And by His Memra was the world made,’ exactly as in St. John i. 10. This divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text is utter ly unaccountable, nor has any explanation of it, as far as I know, been attempted. Winer, whose inaugural dissertation ‘De Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi chaldaica’ (Lips. 1820), most modern writers have simply followed (with some amplifications, chiefly from Luzatto’s ‘Philoxenus,’ {hebrew} makes no reference to this passage, nor do his successors, so far as I know. It is curious that, as our present Hebrew text has three words, so has the rendering of Onkelos, and that both end with the same word. In classifying the passages in which the word Memra occurs in the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, we have reversed the previous order, and Class I. represents the passages in which the term undoubtedly applies to the Personal manifestation of God; Class II., in which this is the fair interpretation; Class III., in which application is, to say the most, doubtful. Classified List of Passages (according to the above scheme) in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Jerushalmi on the Pentateuch. Class I.  Of undoubted application to a Personal Manifestation of God: Gen. i. 27; iii. 9, 22; v. 24; vi. 3; viii. 16; xv. 1; xvi. 3; xix. 24; xxi. 33; xxii 8,14; xxviii. 10; xxx. 22 (bis); xxxi. 9; xxxv. 9 (quat.); xxxviii. 25; xl. 23; exod. iii. 14; vi. 3; xii. 42 (quat.); xiii. 18; xiv. 15, 24, 25; xv. 12, 25 (bis); xix. 5, 7, 8, 9 (bis); xx. 1, 24; xxv. 4; xxvii. 16; Deut. i. 1; iii. 2; iv. 34; xxvi. 3, 14, 17, 18; xxviii. 27, 68; xxxiii. 15, 39, 51; xxxiii. 2, 7; xxxiv. 9, 10, 11. Class II. Where such application is fair: Gen. v. 24; xxi. 33; Ex. vi. 3; xv. 1; Lev. i. 1; Numb. xxiii. 15, 21; xxiv. 4, 16; Deut. xxxii. 1, 40. Class III. Where such application is doubtful: Gen. vi. 6; xviii. 1, 17; xxii. 14 (bis); xxx. 22; xl. 23; xlix. 18; Ex. xiii. 19; xv. 2, 26; xvii. 19; xix. 3; Deut. i. 1; xxxii. 18; xxxiv. 4, 5. Classified List of Passages in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch. Class I. Undoubted: Gen. ii. 8, 10, 24; iv. 26; v. 2; vii. 16; ix. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; xi. 8; xii. 17; xv. 1; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xviii. 5; xix. 24 (bis); xx. 6, 18: xxi. 22; 22, 23, 33; xxii. 1; xxiv, 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxvii. 28, 31; xxviii. 10, 15, 20; xxix. 12; xxxi. 3, 50; xxxv. 3, 9; xxxix. 2, 3, 21, 23; xli.1; xlvi. 4; xlviii. 9, 21; xlix. 25; 1. 20; Exod. i. 21; ii. 5; iii. 12; vii. 25; x. 10; xii. 23, 29; xiii. 8, 15, 17; xiv. 25, 31; xv. 25; xvii. 13, 15, 16 (bis); xviii. 19; xx. 7; xxvi. 28; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6, 36; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxii. 35; xxxiii. 9, 19; xxxiv. 5; xxxvi. 33; Lev. i. 1 (bis); vi. 2; viii. 35; ix. 23; xx. 23; xxiv. 12 (bis); xxvi. 11, 12, 30, 44, 46; Numb. iii. 16, 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20, (bis), 23 (ter); x. 13, 35, 36; xiv. 9, 41, 43; xvi. 11, 26; xvii. 4; xxi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 34; xxii. 18, 19, 28; xxiii. 3, 4, 8 (bis), 16, 20, 21; xxiv. 13; xxvii. 16; xxxi. 8; xxxiii. 4; Deut. i. 10, 30, 43; ii. 7, 21; iii. 22; iv. 3, 7, (bis) 20, 24, 33, 36; v. 5 (bis), 11, 22, 23, 24 (bis), 25, 26; vi. 13, 21, 22; ix. 3;xi. 23; xii. 5, 11; xviii. 19; xx. 1; xxi. 20; xxiv. 18, 19; xxvi. 5, 14, 18; xxviii. 7,9, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 35, 48, 49, 59, 61, 63, 68; xxix. 2, 4; xxx. 3, 4, 5, 7; xxxi. 5, 8, 23; xxxii. 6, 9, 12, 36; xxxiii. 29; xxxiv. 1, 5, 10, 11. Class II. Fair: Gen. v. 24; xv. 6; xvi. 1, 13; xviii. 17; xxii. 16; xxix. 31; xxx. 22; xlvi. 4; Ex. ii. 23; iii. 8, 17, 19; iv. 12; vi. 8, xii. 27; xiii. 5, 17; xxxii. 13; xxxiii. 12, 22; Lev. xxvi. 44; Numb. xiv. 30; xx. 12, 21; xxii. 9, 20; xxiv. 4, 16, 23; Deut. viii. 3; xi. 12; xxix. 23; xxxi. 2, 7; xxxii. 18, 23, 26,38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 51; xxxiii. 3, 27; xxxiv. 6. Class III. Doubtful: Gen. iv. 3, 6 (bis); viii. 1, 21; xxii. 18; xxvi. 5 (bis); Ex. iv. 15; v. 2; ix. 20, 21; x. 29; xiv. 7; xv. 2, 8; xix. 5; xxv. 22; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 40; Numb. vi. 27; ix. 8; xii. 6; xiv. 11, 22, 35;xv. 34; xx. 24; xxiii. 19; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2. 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26, 32; iv. 30; v. 5; viii. 20; ix. 23; xi. 1; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 15; xxv. 18; xxvi. 17; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 9, 10; xxxi. 12; xxxiii. 9. (Ad vol. i. p. 53, note 4.) Only one illustration of Philo’s peculiar method of interpreting the Old Testament can here be given. It will at the same time show how he found confirmation for his philosophical speculations in the Old Testament, and further illustrate his system of moral theology in its most interesting, but also most difficult, point. The question is, how the soul was to pass from its state of sensuousness and sin to one of devotion to reason, which was religion and righteousness. It will be remarked that the change from the one state to the other is said to be accomplished in one of three ways: by study, by practice, or through a good natural disposition (μͺθησις, ͺσκησις, εͺφυͺα) exactly as Aristotle put it. But Philo found a symbol for each, and for a preparatory state in each, in Scripture. The three Patriarchs represented this threefold mode of reaching the supersensuous: Abraham, study; Jacob, practice; Isaac, a good disposition; while Enos, Enoch, and Noah, represented the respective preparatory stages. Enos (hope), the first real ancestor of our race, represented the mind awakening to the existence of a better life. Abraham (study) received command to leave ‘the land’ (sensuousness). But all study was threefold. It was, first, physical – Abram in the land of Ur, contemplating the starry sky, but not knowing God. Next to the physical was that ‘intermediate’ (μͺση) study, which embraced the ordinary ‘cycle of knowledge’ (ͺγκͺκλιος παιδεͺα). This was Abram after he left Haran, and that knowledge was symbolised by his union with Hagar, who tarried (intermediately) between Kadesh and Bered. But this stage also was insufficient, and the soul must reach the third and highest stage, that of Divine philosophy (truly, the love of wisdom, φιλοσοφͺα) where eternal truth was the subject of contemplation. Accordingly, Abram left Lot, he became Abraham, and he was truly united to Sarah, no longer Sarai. Onwards and ever upwards would the soul now rise to the knowledge of virtue. of heavenly realities, nay, of the nature of God Himself. But there was yet another method than ‘study,’ by which the soul might rise – that of askesis, discipline, practice, of which Scripture speaks in Enoch and Jacob. Enoch – whom ‘God took, and he was not’ (Gen. v. 24) – meant the soul turning from the lower to the higher, so that it was no longer found in its former place of evil. From Enoch, as the preparatory stage, we advance to Jacob, first merely fleeing from sensuous entanglements (from Laban), then contending with the affections, ridding himself of five of the seventy-five souls with which he had entered Egypt (Deut. x.22, comp. with Gen. xlvi. 27), often nearly misled by the Sophists (Dinah and Hamor), often nearly failing and faint in the conflict (Jacob’s wrestling), but holpen by God, and finally victorious, when Jacob became Israel. But the highest of all was the spiritual life which came neither from study nor discipline, but through a good disposition. Here we have, first of all, Noah, who symbolises only the commencement of virtue, since we read not of any special virtue in him. Rather is he rest – as the name implies – good, relatively to those around. It was otherwise with Isaac, who was perfect before his birth (and hence chosen), even as Rebekah meant constancy in virtue. In that state the soul enjoyed true rest (the Sabbath, Jerusalem) and joy, which Isaac’s name implied. But true virtue, which was also true wisdom, was Paradise, whence issued the one stream (goodness), which again divided into four branches (the four Stoic virtues): – Pison, ‘prudence’ (φρͺνησις); Gihon, ‘fortitude’ (ͺνδρͺα); Tigris, ‘desire’ (ͺπιθυμͺα), and Euphrates, ‘justice’ (δικαιοσͺνη). And yet, though these be the Stoic virtues, they all spring from Paradise, the Garden of God – and all that is good, and all help to it, comes to us ultimately from God Himself, and is in God. These lists should provide a good study and insight as to where the Rabbi's thought of YHWH as 'the Memra/Word/Logos of YHWH.' Without looking at them yet, I suspect that the reasonable conclusion is that those instances in the 'undoubted' category especially are references to the pre-incarnate Son…YHWH the Son as distinct from YHWH the Father, the only begotten God who explains the unseen YHWH…His Father. John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him. John 6:46 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 5:37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently studyc the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I don't believe that the 'word of the Lord' is always the pre-incarnate Son, nor do I believe that the God the Father always spoke through the Son because of what Heb 1:1 says, but I do think it to be reasonable to consider that the 'Word of the Lord' in the 'undoubted' category would be the pre-incarnated Son.

John 6:46
46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Did you notice it says “except the one who is from God” and not except the one who is God?

[Lightenup]

BD,
Naturally the Only Begotten God would be from God the Father and would have seen the Father. Put it all together, BD. There is one God YHWH the Father, and one Lord YHWH Yahshua the Messiah who is the Only Begotten God. One is from the other and therefore one is Father and one is Son!

You would do well to do a study about the memra of YHWH from the material in that quote you quoted. You might learn something

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2012,14:58)

BD, Naturally the Only Begotten God would be from God the Father and would have seen the Father. Put it all together, BD. There is one God YHWH the Father, and one Lord YHWH Yahshua the Messiah who is the Only Begotten God. One is from the other and therefore one is Father and one is Son! You would do well to do a study about the memra of YHWH from the material in that quote you quoted. You might learn something

Sorry Kathi

You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to.

Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”.

Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion. You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience.

Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL

[mikeboll64]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2012,13:42)

………….but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to.

Kathi listed three different scriptures that make it very clear that Jesus is not “God”, because Jesus HAS been seen by thousands of human beings – God hasn't.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2012,17:24)

This has to do with the likelihood that the term 'memra' applies to YHWH as the manifested YHWH.

Kathi,

I will probably read that huge bit of info you posted when I get the time.

But think about these two things:

1.  Targums are not to be mistaken with God's inspired word.  They are not “Holy Scripture”, Kathi.  They amount to the same thing as Barnes' or Gill's commentaries on the scriptures.  They are “explanatory notes” from men, detailing what THOSE MEN think any particular scripture is really teaching.

It is true that they were written a long time ago, and give much insight into the way the Jews understood the scriptures.  But then again, Jesus put that same type of “learned and wise” Jews to shame many times because of their LACK of true scriptural knowledge. And even though they were the supposed “experts of the Law and the Prophets”, Jesus called them “blind guides”.

2.  “Manifested YHWH” could refer to ANY of God's representatives.  When Gabriel came to Daniel, you could just as easily say that he was YHWH “manifested”, since he was representing YHWH.

None of this means that Jesus was EVER any of the messengers of YHWH who appeared to anyone in the OT.  And, even if it was Jesus on one or more of those occasions, being called “YHWH” doesn't mean that is his proper name.  Like NETNotes said, it is more likely that there were many different “messengers of YHWH”, who were called “YHWH” and “God” because the people refered to them by the names of the One they were representing at the time.

[Lightenup]

Mike,
It is important to know how the Jews understood their scriptures and if they worshiped what they called 'the Word of the Lord.' Jesus said that the Jews worship what they know.

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

[Lightenup]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2012,14:42)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2012,14:58) BD, Naturally the Only Begotten God would be from God the Father and would have seen the Father. Put it all together, BD. There is one God YHWH the Father, and one Lord YHWH Yahshua the Messiah who is the Only Begotten God. One is from the other and therefore one is Father and one is Son! You would do well to do a study about the memra of YHWH from the material in that quote you quoted. You might learn something Sorry Kathi You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to. Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”. Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion. You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience. Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL

Luke 12:9
but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

What does this mean to you BD?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 25 2012,16:06)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2012,14:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2012,14:58) BD, Naturally the Only Begotten God would be from God the Father and would have seen the Father. Put it all together, BD. There is one God YHWH the Father, and one Lord YHWH Yahshua the Messiah who is the Only Begotten God. One is from the other and therefore one is Father and one is Son! You would do well to do a study about the memra of YHWH from the material in that quote you quoted. You might learn something Sorry Kathi You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to. Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”. Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion. You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience. Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL Luke 12:9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. What does this mean to you BD?

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

The Jews never believed that there was more than one God and they didn't believe that the Messiah would be a God either
but look closely Kathi, Jesus is clearly saying “WE WORSHIP WHAT WE DO KNOW” Jesus is including himself as a Jew and what all Jews worship, he is not setiing himself apart from all other Jews. Jesus worships what and who the Jews Worship and you do not.

[mikeboll64]

Yeah Kathi,

It seems that if the Jews worshipped the word of Jehovah, then Jesus was saying that he too worshiped that word.  So if that word was always him, he would be saying he worshiped himself.  But if that word was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels.

I haven't yet read that information; is there a part in there that says the Jews worshiped this “memra” along with Jehovah the Father?

And, more importantly, is there any Holy Scripture that teaches us about the Jews worshiping Jehovah AND someone/something else called “the memra of YHWH”? To my recollection, the faithful followers of YHWH worshiped ONLY YHWH, as even Jesus pointed out to Satan.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

Quote

It seems that if the Jews worshipped the word of Jehovah, then Jesus was saying that he too worshiped that word. So if that word was always him, he would be saying he worshiped himself. But if that word was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels.

You will have to show me where the Father says that He worships the Father in order to establish the point you are trying to make. I really don't think that you will find that the one to be worshipped must worship themselves. Let's substitute the word 'Jesus' with 'the Memra of YHWH' in your quote:

Quote

It seems that if the Jews worshipped the 'the Memra of YHWH', then 'the Memra of YHWH' was saying that He too worshiped that 'Memra of YHWH'. So if 'the Memra of YHWH' was always Him, 'the Memra of YHWH' would be saying 'the Memra of YHWH' worshiped Himself. But if 'the Memra of YHWH' was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels.

What did Jesus actually say:
John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

In other words…salvation is from whom the Jews know to worship. They worship YHWH and the Memra of YHWH.

[Lightenup]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2012,14:42)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2012,14:58) BD, Naturally the Only Begotten God would be from God the Father and would have seen the Father. Put it all together, BD. There is one God YHWH the Father, and one Lord YHWH Yahshua the Messiah who is the Only Begotten God. One is from the other and therefore one is Father and one is Son! You would do well to do a study about the memra of YHWH from the material in that quote you quoted. You might learn something Sorry Kathi You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to. Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”. Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion. You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience. Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL

BD,
you said:

Quote

You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to.

But if the 'God' that is meant by the one who has not been seen is God the Father, then the only Begotten God is not the God that is meant. And therefore, the only Begotten God is not the God who can't be seen or else you would die. Obviously, the Only Begotten God has been seen and explains God the Father, who He has seen and the Only Begotten God is 'in the bosom' of the Father, i.e this describes an intimate relationship.

Quote

Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”.

My opinion is that the Only Begotten God is not God the Father.

Quote

Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion.

Have I ever said there were more than one 'God the Father'? NO!

Quote

You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience.

You seem to understand the principle that 'one kind begets one of the same kind,' so why wouldn't the Father and Son not be equally the same kind? You said this:

Quote

If any of you believe that Jesus is the literal son of God then you will have to agree that Jesus is GOD because each kind according to its kind is the rule of Procreation and if this is the case then you should all be Catholic and believe as they do

BTW, you don't have to be Catholic to believe this I believe that Christians of all denominations mostly agree with this. The only begotten Son is in the creeds as “God of God.” The 'of' means 'from' here, I believe.

We have one YHWH who is God of gods and Lord of lords. The Father is God, the Son is Lord in this context. In other contexts both are referred to as God or Lord. Context is king.
Please do not pretend that one context is the same as the other. You do not seem to be willing to understand this which is also a principle in Bible translation. You can't believe that God is only the God of gods and not Lord of lords if you want to believe the truth about YHWH

Quote

Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL

That is not true. There can be only one God the Father and only one Lord who is the Only Begotten God and in fact that is written in the scriptures. You are denying this. If Jesus wasn't the only Begotten God then He wouldn't be called the ONLY Begotten God. He isn't the only begotten God thus far.

The Father is the original Father and the Son is the original Son. The Son is not an exact copy, the Son is unique but the same kind. The kind that begets does not make a copy but an offspring of the same kind. Are you a copy of your father or the same kind as your father but different in your own person?

Please BD, answer these questions:
Do you agree that context should help to determine what is meant in the word 'God/god' or 'Lord/lord?'

If the Son is literally the only Begotten God, would you agree that He would be equal IN KIND to the one who begat Him?

And again, I ask:
Luke 12:9
but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

What does this mean to you BD?

Thanks!

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 24 2012,14:51)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2012,13:42) ………….but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to. Kathi listed three different scriptures that make it very clear that Jesus is not “God”, because Jesus HAS been seen by thousands of human beings – God hasn't.

Mike,
So, if you can get that Jesus is the only begotten God, and has been seen; therefore He is not the God who has never been seen…then you can also get that the God who has never been seen is the Father and Jesus is the only Begotten God that is not the Father but a different God who happens to be our one Lord.

Are you just trying to be difficult?

[mikeboll64]

That would add up to TWO Almighty Gods, Kathi. There is but ONE Almighty God. Jesus is that One's Son.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 26 2012,14:07)

Mike, Quote It seems that if the Jews worshipped the word of Jehovah, then Jesus was saying that he too worshiped that word.  So if that word was always him, he would be saying he worshiped himself.  But if that word was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels. You will have to show me where the Father says that He worships the Father in order to establish the point you are trying to make. I really don't think that you will find that the one to be worshipped must worship themselves. Let's substitute the word 'Jesus' with 'the Memra of YHWH' in your quote: Quote It seems that if the Jews worshipped the 'the Memra of YHWH', then 'the Memra of YHWH' was saying that He too worshiped that 'Memra of YHWH'.  So if 'the Memra of YHWH' was always Him, 'the Memra of YHWH' would be saying 'the Memra of YHWH' worshiped Himself.  But if 'the Memra of YHWH' was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels. What did Jesus actually say: John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. In other words…salvation is from whom the Jews know to worship. They worship YHWH and the Memra of YHWH.

Kathi,

It may be because I'm tired, but I can't make heads or tails out of your post.

Here's what I'm saying:

1.  YOU say Jesus is the “memra of YHWH”.

2.  YOU say that the Jews worshiped both YHWH AND “the memra of YHWH”.

3.  Jesus included HIMSELF in with the Jews who “worship what we do know”.  (Note:  The Father NEVER included Himself into any group that worshiped anyone.)

Conclusion:

If Jesus also worshiped what the Jews worshiped, and the Jews truly worshiped YHWH AND “the memra of YHWH”, and Jesus IS “the memra of YHWH”, then Jesus was saying that he, too, worshiped YHWH AND “the memra of YWHW”.

If that is the case, Jesus admitted to worshiping YHWH AND himself.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2012,11:10)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 24 2012,14:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2012,14:58) BD, Naturally the Only Begotten God would be from God the Father and would have seen the Father. Put it all together, BD. There is one God YHWH the Father, and one Lord YHWH Yahshua the Messiah who is the Only Begotten God. One is from the other and therefore one is Father and one is Son! You would do well to do a study about the memra of YHWH from the material in that quote you quoted. You might learn something Sorry Kathi You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to. Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”. Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion. You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience. Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL BD, you said: Quote You are reading with your own eyes “except the one from God” but if Jesus is also a God or “God” Then no one has seen God but if Jesus is God then God has been seen and talked to. But if the 'God' that is meant by the one who has not been seen is God the Father, then the only Begotten God is not the God that is meant. And therefore, the only Begotten God is not the God who can't be seen or else you would die. Obviously, the Only Begotten God has been seen and explains God the Father, who He has seen and the Only Begotten God is 'in the bosom' of the Father, i.e this describes an intimate relationship. Quote Unless your opinion is not that “The begotten God is not actually “God”. My opinion is that the Only Begotten God is not God the Father. Quote Besides Kathi you do not believe there is One God who is The Father because if you did we would have never had this discussion. Have I ever said there were more than one 'God the Father'? NO! Quote You believe there are 2 Gods so how can you even say there is ONE GOD the FATHER ur actual belief as far as I know is that there are 2 Gods one is The Father and One is The Son and they are equally God that is your belief so please stop changing it at your convenience. You seem to understand the principle that 'one kind begets one of the same kind,' so why wouldn't the Father and Son not be equally the same kind? You said this: Quote If any of you believe that Jesus is the literal son of God then you will have to agree that Jesus is GOD because each kind according to its kind is the rule of Procreation and if this is the case then you should all be Catholic and believe as they do BTW, you don't have to be Catholic to believe this I believe that Christians of all denominations mostly agree with this. The only begotten Son is in the creeds as “God of God.” The 'of' means 'from' here, I believe. We have one YHWH who is God of gods and Lord of lords. The Father is God, the Son is Lord in this context. In other contexts both are referred to as God or Lord. Context is king. Please do not pretend that one context is the same as the other. You do not seem to be willing to understand this which is also a principle in Bible translation. You can't believe that God is only the God of gods and not Lord of lords if you want to believe the truth about YHWH Quote Bthe way if you believe that a “God” can be begotten then like Mormons you should also believe that the Father of Jesus also has a Father or could have a Father. The point is if Gods can be created they can't be true Gods that is why Jesus said that the Father was THE ONLY TRUE GOD because Jesus certainly cannot be a TRUE GOD as he was Created or brought forth from THE TRUE GOD and even an exact Copy is not the ORIGINAL That is not true. There can be only one God the Father and only one Lord who is the Only Begotten God and in fact that is written in the scriptures. You are denying this. If Jesus wasn't the only Begotten God then He wouldn't be called the ONLY Begotten God. He isn't the only begotten God thus far. The Father is the original Father and the Son is the original Son. The Son is not an exact copy, the Son is unique but the same kind. The kind that begets does not make a copy but an offspring of the same kind. Are you a copy of your father or the same kind as your father but different in your own person? Please BD, answer these questions: Do you agree that context should help to determine what is meant in the word 'God/god' or 'Lord/lord?' If the Son is literally the only Begotten God, would you agree that He would be equal IN KIND to the one who begat Him? And again, I ask: Luke 12:9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. What does this mean to you BD? Thanks!

Kathi

There is ONLY ONE GOD Jesus is not God and is only called the only begotten as a metaphor or analogy the simple proof is theBible says that Isaacx was theonly begotten of A
braham and it is completely untrue in accuracy but as an analogy or metaphor can be used.

The Bible calls others the firstborn of God is the Bible true in that regard? Yes or No?

[bodhitharta]

Kathi

Is this TRUE:

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

How is it that Ishamael is not counted as the Firstborn of Abraham in this passage when we all know that for sure Ishamael was the Firstborn and the Law prohibits prefering a second son over the first

Deuteronomy 21:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

[Lightenup]

BD,
you said:

Quote

There is ONLY ONE GOD Jesus is not God and is only called the only begotten as a metaphor or analogy the simple proof is theBible says that Isaacx was theonly begotten of Abraham and it is completely untrue in accuracy but as an analogy or metaphor can be used. The Bible calls others the firstborn of God is the Bible true in that regard? Yes or No?

Isaac is the only begotten of Abraham ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE. Ishmael and Abe's other sons that came much later after Isaac were not begotten ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE.

There is a nation that is called the 'firstborn' of God, a king that is called the 'firstborn' of God, Ephraim was called the 'firstborn' son but obviously wasn't born first, Manasseh was born first…these are the three incidents that come to the top of my mind where 'firstborn' is not literally the first offspring from the womb. Isaac IS the first offspring from the womb ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE, not Ishmael. Ishmael was the first offspring of Abraham but NOT the firstborn according to the covenantal promise of God. Do you see the difference between Isaac and Ishmael?

The nation of Israel, the King David and Ephraim were designated as the 'firstborn' and we know that Israel did NOT come as the first offspring of God, don't we BD? We also know that David did NOT come as the first offspring of God…we know his father was Jesse. We also know that Ishmael was not the first covenantal son of the promise through which God was going to give to Abraham through Sarah.

So, now, we have Jesus as the Firstborn of/over all creation. He is the only one of all that have the title 'firstborn' that is also called the 'only begotten Son' and 'only begotten God.' If it were a metaphor…tell me who you think is the literal firstborn of God. Please show me with scripture that speaks of another that is literally born of God, BD. Or show me the scripture that proves that there is no literal firstborn of God.

BTW, I can think of three 'firstborns' examples that are not literally the first offspring to be born but there are myriads of examples of 'firstborns' that ARE. So, unless the scriptures make it clear that someone is called a 'firstborn' son as an exception to a natural 'firstborn' son, then we assume that the 'firstborn' would be a natural and NOT 'designated but not really natural,' firstborn.

Heb 11:17
By faith, Abraham offered Isaac during his testing, and laid his only son on the altar, whom he had received by The Promise.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2012,21:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 26 2012,14:07) Mike, Quote It seems that if the Jews worshipped the word of Jehovah, then Jesus was saying that he too worshiped that word.  So if that word was always him, he would be saying he worshiped himself.  But if that word was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels. You will have to show me where the Father says that He worships the Father in order to establish the point you are trying to make. I really don't think that you will find that the one to be worshipped must worship themselves. Let's substitute the word 'Jesus' with 'the Memra of YHWH' in your quote: Quote It seems that if the Jews worshipped the 'the Memra of YHWH', then 'the Memra of YHWH' was saying that He too worshiped that 'Memra of YHWH'.  So if 'the Memra of YHWH' was always Him, 'the Memra of YHWH' would be saying 'the Memra of YHWH' worshiped Himself.  But if 'the Memra of YHWH' was sometimes OTHER messengers of God, Jesus would have been saying that he worshipped angels. What did Jesus actually say: John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. In other words…salvation is from whom the Jews know to worship. They worship YHWH and the Memra of YHWH. Kathi, It may be because I'm tired, but I can't make heads or tails out of your post. Here's what I'm saying: 1.  YOU say Jesus is the “memra of YHWH”. 2.  YOU say that the Jews worshiped both YHWH AND “the memra of YHWH”. 3.  Jesus included HIMSELF in with the Jews who “worship what we do know”.  (Note:  The Father NEVER included Himself into any group that worshiped anyone.) Conclusion: If Jesus also worshiped what the Jews worshiped, and the Jews truly worshiped YHWH AND “the memra of YHWH”, and Jesus IS “the memra of YHWH”, then Jesus was saying that he, too, worshiped YHWH AND “the memra of YWHW”. If that is the case, Jesus admitted to worshiping YHWH AND himself.

Mike,
You are trying too hard to deny Jesus as LORD. You need some rest.

No matter how you twist it, the Jews worshiped the Father and the Memra of YHWH, Jesus knew He was the Memra that the Jews worshiped with the Father and thought of as the Memra of YHWH. Jesus received worship from many and gave worship to His Father.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2012,21:16)

That would add up to TWO Almighty Gods, Kathi.  There is but ONE Almighty God.  Jesus is that One's Son.

Mike,
You claim to believe in and serve one almighty theos and one mighty theos, right? That would be two theos that you believe in, Mike.

[Author]

Posts