EzAad:

Mr. Gil has no comprehension of the function of "memra" in the Targums, and is relying in long outdated and discredited scholarship. It is never understood as G-d Himself, but is a device to emphasize a lack of Divine anthropomorphism, a "buffer word" - read G. F. Moore, Judaism in
First Centuries of the Christian Era, where he shows that nowhere in the Targums is memra a being in any sense, much less a personal being.

At most, the memra is a device to show the reader that G-d in Himself is non-relational, and that all we know of G-d in relation to us or any other creatures is His saying an activity, not Essence, bringing us full circle to my original point to you above G-ds activities are NOT G-d.

As to Philo, Philo is very explicit that the "Logos" is not G-d:
See - Somn. I, 157, 228-230. In this section, Philo distinguishes the Logos from the One who brings forth the
Logos - the Father is "ho theos" ("The God"), while the Logos can only be termed "theos" ("a god"), thus asserting the explicit ontological inferiority of the Logos.