Jason Dulle article:

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If you are saying, what I just said is a synecdoche, I don't see it as the same thing.

John is using a Hebraism

and many hebraisms are synechdoches.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I would explain it more like this:

If I were a programmer and created this amazing earth simulator and I wanted to interact with that virtual world then I would need to create a representation of myself inside that world. Anything I wanted to do in that virtual world would then be done by that virtual representation of me. Call it my avatar. My avatar is me in relation to the game world. However, it is with me in relation to the real world.

Now imagine instead of creating a world-earth simulator I created an ant simulator. I could still place an avatar of myself inside this ant simulator. The ants could gain an understanding of me through how my avatar interacts with them. However, they would probably not even be able to fully comprehend this avatar of myself. It would be even harder for them to comprehend that I was not actually in their world at all.

Such is the Word. It's God's representation of himself in this world. Thus the Word is God in relation to this world. And it is with God in relation to whatever God considers his "real" world.

Your example reminds me of something DaveC use to talk about (but was against it) called the "two powers" or many it was the "two God" that was used by Philo. It's easy to google but here is one article.
http://www.socinian.org/files/PhiloAlexandria.pdf or you can read a thread by DaveC on the subject.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ers#post715615

Or you can respond to DaveC's thread and I can contact him on FB and see if he has the time to respond.

[Praxeas]

But in the Targumim we meet yet another expression, which, strange to say, never occurs in the Talmud.1 It is that of the Memra, Logos, or ‘Word.’ Not that the term is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos.2 But it stands out as perhaps the most remarkable fact in this literature, that God—not as in His permanent manifestation, or manifest Presence—but as revealing Himself, is designated Memra.

Altogether that term, as applied to God, occurs in the Targum Onkelos 179 times, in the so-called Jerusalem Targum 99 times, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times. A critical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jerusalem Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, but evidently refers to God as revealing Himself.3

But what does this imply? The distinction between God and the Memra of Jehovah is marked in many passages.4 Similarly, the Memra of Jehovah is distinguished from the Shekhinah.5 Nor is the term used instead of the sacred word Jehovah;6 nor for the well-known Old Testament expression ‘the Angel of the Lord;’7 nor yet for the Metatron of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and of the Talmud.8 Does it then represent an older tradition underlying all these?9

Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved to us the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And yet, if words have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis, though the distinction of permanent, personal Subsistence is not marked. Nor yet, to complete this subject, is the Memra identified with the Messiah. In the Targum Onkelos distinct mention is twice made of Him,a while in the other Targumim no fewer than seventy-one Biblical passages are rendered with explicit reference to Him.

Reference: Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 1: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (46–48). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But in the Targumim we meet yet another expression, which, strange to say, never occurs in the Talmud.1 It is that of the Memra, Logos, or ‘Word.’ Not that the term is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos.2 But it stands out as perhaps the most remarkable fact in this literature, that God—not as in His permanent manifestation, or manifest Presence—but as revealing Himself, is designated Memra.

Altogether that term, as applied to God, occurs in the Targum Onkelos 179 times, in the so-called Jerusalem Targum 99 times, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times. A critical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jerusalem Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, but evidently refers to God as revealing Himself.3

But what does this imply? The distinction between God and the Memra of Jehovah is marked in many passages.4 Similarly, the Memra of Jehovah is distinguished from the Shekhinah.5 Nor is the term used instead of the sacred word Jehovah;6 nor for the well-known Old Testament expression ‘the Angel of the Lord;’7 nor yet for the Metatron of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and of the Talmud.8 Does it then represent an older tradition underlying all these?9

Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved to us the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And yet, if words have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis, though the distinction of permanent, personal Subsistence is not marked. Nor yet, to complete this subject, is the Memra identified with the Messiah. In the Targum Onkelos distinct mention is twice made of Him,a while in the other Targumim no fewer than seventy-one Biblical passages are rendered with explicit reference to Him.

Reference: Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 1: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (46–48). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Prax, the "Memra" isn't true scripture, is it? Isn't it an interpretation?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Prax, the "Memra" isn't true scripture, is it? Isn't it an interpretation?

You mean the Targums? They are Aramaic paraphrases.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You mean the Targums? They are Aramaic paraphrases.

Just consider that they were written during/after the exile to Babylon in which the Jews were influenced by other cultures and philosophies and therefore perhaps they are not true representations of the OT. Frankly I don't put much weight on them. Whether invested with Jewish tradition or syncretism or both, the targums are not scripture.

Would you use the Message Bible to guide you in formulating doctrine?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Just consider that they were written during/after the exile to Babylon in which the Jews were influenced by other cultures and philosophies and therefore perhaps they are not true representations of the OT. Frankly I don't put much weight on them. Whether invested with Jewish tradition or syncretism or both, the targums are not scripture.

Would you use the Message Bible to guide you in formulating doctrine?

The Targums are just Aramaic paraphrases. There is no influence. Jews stopped saying or writing the name, so they uses Circumlocutions. Memra is a circumlocution for "Yahweh said"

Most Jews spoke Aramaic, so they made an Aramaic version. This was long after Captivity

Dont forget Daniel was written during captivity...no sinister plot. No mixture of "babyloninaism".

I don't know who started that stuff but it's not true.

The Talmud and Kabbalah were written after Jesus died