Targum, Memra. Logos

civic

Well-known member
Is God Himself in Person- Personified. God became flesh. In the beginning was the Memra, and the Memra was with God and the Memra was God. In the beginning Memra created the heavens and the earth.

Jewish Monotheism explained for those with ears to hear, eyes to see and a mind to understand by Dr. Michael Brown the expert in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.


hope this helps !!!
 
The Real Kosher Jesus in Jewish Monotheism explained above by a Jewish expert in the original biblical languages.

Dr. Michael L. Brown is a Messianic Jew, a Jewish believer in Christ. He believes in the deity of Jesus and in the tri-unity of God. He holds a Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. His academic c.v. can be read here - Ask Dr. Brown. And his bio, here - Ask Dr. Brown. Dr. Barry R. Leventhal, academic dean and professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary says concerning Dr. Brown, ''Michael Brown has established himself as the foremost messianic apologist in the world.'' (Back cover of volume three of 'Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.')

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
Another of the same cloth, another Trinitarian with a different sub-titile- Messianic Jew

Words applied to God such as logos (Greek) - memra (Aramaic) - davar (Hebrew) represent a critical inner personification and self-expression of the Father God and not another person of his creation as in what many, as Dr. Brown, want it to be, the Son of God.

They cannot find scripture to make this connection because there is none!

Personification <> NOT EQUAL TO And NEVER IS a Person

Wisdom is a personification and yet not a real person.


Cheers, and have a great fair dinkum day
 
Another of the same cloth, another Trinitarian with a different sub-titile- Messianic Jew

Words applied to God such as logos (Greek) - memra (Aramaic) - davar (Hebrew) represent a critical inner personification and self-expression of the Father God and not another person of his creation as in what many, as Dr. Brown, want it to be, the Son of God.

They cannot find scripture to make this connection because there is none!

Personification <> NOT EQUAL TO And NEVER IS a Person

Wisdom is a personification and yet not a real person.


Cheers, and have a great fair dinkum day
But specifically in Dr. Brown's presentation, what are the issues that you have with his material (include time markers)?
 
Another of the same cloth, another Trinitarian with a different sub-titile- Messianic Jew

Words applied to God such as logos (Greek) - memra (Aramaic) - davar (Hebrew) represent a critical inner personification and self-expression of the Father God and not another person of his creation as in what many, as Dr. Brown, want it to be, the Son of God.

They cannot find scripture to make this connection because there is none!

Personification <> NOT EQUAL TO And NEVER IS a Person

Wisdom is a personification and yet not a real person.


Cheers, and have a great fair dinkum day
You have one in your camp just today using him to support his unitarian argument.
 
But specifically in Dr. Brown's presentation, what are the issues that you have with his material (include time markers)?
Heard him speak before so I'm biased already when I listen to his audio pod in India on the same subject.

Dr. Brown is one of the pushers of the unreliable targums and a great salesperson, beware!

Anyway, those that use the Targum(s) as their source material for what or who is the word of God always announce it as breaking news. A great selling point. Many of these targums actually Aramaic interpretations of many part of the OT cannot be reliably dated and if in fact they are reliable second-hand writings. There are many in circulation. Most were written of the 2nd century AD and beyond in their earliest form.

Dr. Brown makes logos the key personification of the Father God. Not true at all. It is his Spirit into our lives that is key! This is the extension of God's power to us that brings his own word or logos. Think of it as the message or content or substance of God that is communicated or impacted via his Spirit to us. And we personify the heck out of his Spirit as we see in scripture to the point that we think it is a person. Can you believe that..!? Here, Dr. Brown does the same thing with the word of the Father God to say it is now a person of human flesh..

The Father's divine logos is his internal activity of self-expression within himself. This is extended into his creation by his Spirit of God, his presence. The Spirit is the extension of God and carries the logos or word with it to provide purpose and effect. Without his Spirit transmitting his word to humankind, we would not know the word of God at all. Take a few minutes to let that sink in. Dr. Brown would have you believe that the word is everything....

Every believer knows the word of God within themselves, to varying degrees and at different times, because of the Spirit of God in their lives.

Again, as before, Dr. Brown makes a leap in faith to not only personify the word of the Father God, to also make it an actual person, as a human being.

He never explains the process for making this 'leap.' I would suggest you ask him.

I really would like to ask him myself and more. About aspects of the Philo writings and which one of these targums is he actually addressing as is basis and source.

As one Rabbi said of the targums:

Rabbi Judah (2nd century A.D.) declared with paradoxical vehemence, "He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar, but he who elaborates on it is a blasphemer."
 
Addressing the OP,
the bible is clear as to who the Word is.
Step 1. Read Isaiah 63:5

Step 2. Read Isiah chapter 53. THAT'S ALL ONE NEED.

101G.
 
Heard him speak before so I'm biased already when I listen to his audio pod in India on the same subject.

Dr. Brown is one of the pushers of the unreliable targums and a great salesperson, beware!

Anyway, those that use the Targum(s) as their source material for what or who is the word of God always announce it as breaking news. A great selling point. Many of these targums actually Aramaic interpretations of many part of the OT cannot be reliably dated and if in fact they are reliable second-hand writings. There are many in circulation. Most were written of the 2nd century AD and beyond in their earliest form.

Dr. Brown makes logos the key personification of the Father God. Not true at all. It is his Spirit into our lives that is key! This is the extension of God's power to us that brings his own word or logos. Think of it as the message or content or substance of God that is communicated or impacted via his Spirit to us. And we personify the heck out of his Spirit as we see in scripture to the point that we think it is a person. Can you believe that..!? Here, Dr. Brown does the same thing with the word of the Father God to say it is now a person of human flesh..

The Father's divine logos is his internal activity of self-expression within himself. This is extended into his creation by his Spirit of God, his presence. The Spirit is the extension of God and carries the logos or word with it to provide purpose and effect. Without his Spirit transmitting his word to humankind, we would not know the word of God at all. Take a few minutes to let that sink in. Dr. Brown would have you believe that the word is everything....

Every believer knows the word of God within themselves, to varying degrees and at different times, because of the Spirit of God in their lives.

Again, as before, Dr. Brown makes a leap in faith to not only personify the word of the Father God, to also make it an actual person, as a human being.

He never explains the process for making this 'leap.' I would suggest you ask him.

I really would like to ask him myself and more. About aspects of the Philo writings and which one of these targums is he actually addressing as is basis and source.

As one Rabbi said of the targums:

Rabbi Judah (2nd century A.D.) declared with paradoxical vehemence, "He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar, but he who elaborates on it is a blasphemer."
Well, if you won't address the topic of the thread, I'm not really interested in your opinions
 
Personification <> NOT EQUAL TO And NEVER IS a Person
why not? is not personification the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something nonhuman, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.

example, is not God "OWN ARM" his Personification in Flesh? read Isaiah 63:5 and then Isaiah chapter 53. and is not that attribution of God is MANIFESTED in his "OWN ARM?"

note "MANIFESTATION", not just an appearance, but a Manifestation. because the bible is CLEAR, as to Manifestation and appearances in Hosea 12:10 "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."

as Dr. Brown states an "extension" of God..... NO, but God "SHARED" in Nature. that "extension" of God is the ECHAD of God Manifested, or the Personified in Flesh.

101G.
 
why not? is not personification the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something nonhuman, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.

example, is not God "OWN ARM" his Personification in Flesh? read Isaiah 63:5 and then Isaiah chapter 53. and is not that attribution of God is MANIFESTED in his "OWN ARM?"

note "MANIFESTATION", not just an appearance, but a Manifestation. because the bible is CLEAR, as to Manifestation and appearances in Hosea 12:10 "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."

as Dr. Brown states an "extension" of God..... NO, but God "SHARED" in Nature. that "extension" of God is the ECHAD of God Manifested, or the Personified in Flesh.

101G.
The thing or object being personified is of/ related to a person indeed, NO QUESTION. HOWEVER 101G, although the thing or object personified, in itself, is never that person. 'Own arm' for example is a personification of the attribute say of the power of a person, say the Father God. And you go to far when you say 'the arm' is the actual flesh of God.....over-the-top...illogical and oversimplification....cannot just substitute these variables or shuttle them around to suit ones desires found in scripture and 'force' God into one of his creations, his created Son aka Jesus the Christ.

You been at this for many years now 101G...
 
Heard him speak before so I'm biased already when I listen to his audio pod in India on the same subject.

Dr. Brown is one of the pushers of the unreliable targums and a great salesperson, beware!

Anyway, those that use the Targum(s) as their source material for what or who is the word of God always announce it as breaking news. A great selling point. Many of these targums actually Aramaic interpretations of many part of the OT cannot be reliably dated and if in fact they are reliable second-hand writings. There are many in circulation. Most were written of the 2nd century AD and beyond in their earliest form.

Dr. Brown makes logos the key personification of the Father God. Not true at all. It is his Spirit into our lives that is key! This is the extension of God's power to us that brings his own word or logos. Think of it as the message or content or substance of God that is communicated or impacted via his Spirit to us. And we personify the heck out of his Spirit as we see in scripture to the point that we think it is a person. Can you believe that..!? Here, Dr. Brown does the same thing with the word of the Father God to say it is now a person of human flesh..

The Father's divine logos is his internal activity of self-expression within himself. This is extended into his creation by his Spirit of God, his presence. The Spirit is the extension of God and carries the logos or word with it to provide purpose and effect. Without his Spirit transmitting his word to humankind, we would not know the word of God at all. Take a few minutes to let that sink in. Dr. Brown would have you believe that the word is everything....

Every believer knows the word of God within themselves, to varying degrees and at different times, because of the Spirit of God in their lives.

Again, as before, Dr. Brown makes a leap in faith to not only personify the word of the Father God, to also make it an actual person, as a human being.

He never explains the process for making this 'leap.' I would suggest you ask him.

I really would like to ask him myself and more. About aspects of the Philo writings and which one of these targums is he actually addressing as is basis and source.

As one Rabbi said of the targums:

Rabbi Judah (2nd century A.D.) declared with paradoxical vehemence, "He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar, but he who elaborates on it is a blasphemer."
Before creation, to whom or to what was the Unitarian God communicating his word to? What was the purpose of his word if there was no one or nothing there to communicate to?
 
The thing or object being personified is of/ related to a person indeed, NO QUESTION. HOWEVER 101G, although the thing or object personified, in itself, is never that person. 'Own arm' for example is a personification of the attribute say of the power of a person, say the Father God. And you go to far when you say 'the arm' is the actual flesh of God.....over-the-top...illogical and oversimplification....cannot just substitute these variables or shuttle them around to suit ones desires found in scripture and 'force' God into one of his creations, his created Son aka Jesus the Christ.

You been at this for many years now 101G...
we beg to differ with your assessment. God's OWN ARM is HIM, himself in flesh. and Isaiah 53 proves that.

you said, " 'Own arm' for example is a personification of the attribute say of the power of a person, say the Father God".
ERROR, listen and Learn, .... attribute say of the power of a person? why not THE PERSON. 1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." notice "of", which means, according to W.E. Vines Dictionary, "of" translates the genitive case of nouns, with various shades of meaning. Of these the subjective and objective are mentioned here, which need careful distinction. is not God the Subject, and Christ the Objective? yes.

now, Nature, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" BINGO, the same EQUAL NATURE, meaning the SAME "ONE" PERSON..... who is personified.

now, beside God attributes, and Nature, what's left to be Manifested, or personified?

so try again.

101G.
 
Before creation, to whom or to what was the Unitarian God communicating his word to? What was the purpose of his word if there was no one or nothing there to communicate to?
himself, in WISDOM, see Genesis 1:3 and now, today, see Isaiah 63:5 in Amalgamation of his, "OWN" Spirit.

101G.
 
Before creation, to whom or to what was the Unitarian God communicating his word to? What was the purpose of his word if there was no one or nothing there to communicate to?
Well I do not know the answer to these two Trillion $ questions synergy. I can only speculate.

Before we began to be conscious of the one God and his presence was known, as he became entangled into this time-Space continuum of this form of life, he must have begun to form the word inside himself to then speak to himself, using his same Spirit as of today and tomorrow.

So his purpose then, before time and space as we know it, was to move from being passive or static and become kinetic, dynamic and active by creating expressions or becoming expressive or self-reflective of himself - becoming the word if you will and then constantly using it in the preparation and then the acts of external creation to himself.

His Spirit his word and mind for thought and expression is unlimited beyond this physical universe as our is so limited and encased in the size of a large grapefruit. Now there is the non-physical form of ourselves in mind and spirit, that is invisible and yet really unknown to science.

Now the INITIAL causal influence for the cause of his creation of his word and becoming active for creating externally to and for himself is truly the $$$$$$ question...
 
himself, in WISDOM, see Genesis 1:3 and now, today, see Isaiah 63:5 in Amalgamation of his, "OWN" Spirit.

101G.
Can't He think for himself? Why talk to himself through his word? How many people talk to themselves around your circles?
 
Well I do not know the answer to these two Trillion $ questions synergy. I can only speculate.
The answer is John Chapter 1 for the true God.
Before we began to be conscious of the one God and his presence was known, as he became entangled into this time-Space continuum of this form of life, he must have begun to form the word inside himself to then speak to himself, using his same Spirit as of today and tomorrow.

So his purpose then, before time and space as we know it, was to move from being passive or static and become kinetic, dynamic and active by creating expressions or becoming expressive or self-reflective of himself - becoming the word if you will and then constantly using it in the preparation and then the acts of external creation to himself.
So your Unitarian God changes. The true God never changes.
His Spirit his word and mind for thought and expression is unlimited beyond this physical universe as our is so limited and encased in the size of a large grapefruit. Now there is the non-physical form of ourselves in mind and spirit, that is invisible and yet really unknown to science.
Are you talking about our souls?
Now the INITIAL causal influence for the cause of his creation of his word and becoming active for creating externally to and for himself is truly the $$$$$$ question...
The idea that His Word is created is an Arian, JW, Mormon, etc... heresy.
 
The answer is John Chapter 1 for the true God.

So your Unitarian God changes. The true God never changes.

Are you talking about our souls?

The idea that His Word is created is an Arian, JW, Mormon, etc... heresy.
So my 'Uni' God now changes for reasons you only know and you never explained them to me, and 'yours' does not, according to the mighty syn.

The creation of the word is now according to syn, an or only an Arian an not even a Tertullian thing, so now I'm labelled as this or that to then give yourself open permission to continue with a new attack on my words, not my intent and meaning. This was your crafty reason for asking me those two questions in the first place. Admit it you are deceitful in your intent here.

I would suggest you grow up and become more humble and listen to others more, as you know much less that myself in these spiritual matters,, with no pride afforded me

Public embarrassment to self is not new to you I see.

Until further notice you will not get my honest feedback to any of your queries because you display unpredictability and immaturity in your responses not worthy of any grown man.
 
Back
Top Bottom