Bernard Muller

NOGO:
We agree.

One clarification: HJ (the 10%) existed and died, then, Paul & 'Hebrews' developed that Logos/Son_of_God (Christian) theology (which existed before from Philo of Alexandria's writings), then, among many other things, got added to HJ to make the gospels Jesus. It is most apparent for GJohn because there is no pre-existence stated in the Synoptics, even if the Holy Spirit (which you might want to call Logos) pervades a man (Jesus) at his baptism. In the mind of the gospelers (more so GLuke & GMatthew with the godly father), despite of that import from Heaven (Spirit or Word), the Jesus gospels is one entity, not a Spirit/Word using a human body. Sorry if I do not buy your clever theology. But overall, I do not see any big disagreement about what you wrote, just I do not endorse your complex argument.

The 10% is HJ, a lower class Jew who got crucified in Jerusalem with a mocking charge of King of the Jews. It is an essential link in a chain of event, which also included Pilate, John the Baptist, activist/Pharisaic/Diaspora/Hellenistic Jews, the OT/Pharisaic/Gentile beliefs, the early church of Antioch, Paul and Apollos. And the post-mortem influence of Plato and Philo.
Yes it is essential, but John the Baptist could have been the One. After all another Christianity of some sort started from him (the Mandaeans).
Some commentators said that according to the messianic claims of Judaism then, Christianity was an accident ready to happen. And a simple HJ, as extracted mostly from parts of GMark & Q, partially corroborated by bits of Paul's epistles and 'Hebrews", is the best solution to explain how the accident ready to happen got triggered.

I did not say the 10% was Jesus is God. The 10% is HJ, who was not God, just a flash_in_the_pan, a "fait divers", not even somebody of historic proportion. The answer to your second question is "Christ crucified" and, of course, the inherited belief he had been saved in heaven. Paul worked from that and interpreted, added on, etc.

Best regards, Bernard

NOGO

We do not need to agree on everything.
Please tell me how do you interpret John 6:63 in relation to all that Jesus said in public just before?

Also please explain the following.

John 14:10
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

I say that Jesus is possessed by the Spirit of God and speaks the Word of God.

That is the way that John says that the Word became flesh.
Not by birth as the synoptic have it.


As for the 10% I asked you what part of that 10% HJ was necessary for the start of Christianity? I really don't see what the man contributed which is essential.

Where we disagree is what started Christianity.

What I believe is that the "Word" theology started based on scriptures while you think that a man started it all.

So what did this man do that could not have been done without him?

Bernard Muller

NOGO:
I did already:
"In 6:63, there is no mention of "Word" and the "I" is obviously Jesus (alias the Word in flesh). "my flesh" and "my body" belongs to the one who allegedly spoke these words: Jesus is in the flesh, in a body, with a human father and mother, after all. And did you say the Logos, as God, was immaterial?
Jesus is the Word/Son who became flesh, as in Hebrews1-2. Paul also related the same in Ro8:3 + 1Cor8:6. "John" just followed on that."

I also quoted 6:53, which is from the same passage:
John 6:53 Darby
"Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves."

My questions to you?
Who is the Son of Man? The Word or Jesus?
Whose flesh it is: Jesus or the Word?

Not really: there is a big difference between "the words" (plural) and "the word" (singular). "The word" can be interpreted as "the Word", but I do not see why "the words" of Jesus means "the Word". What precedes and follows in part of a theme which is very predominant in GJohn: The Son is in complete harmony with the Father. Actually what's in Jesus now is the Father (by the Holy Spirit?), not the Word.
Gospelers were not meticulous throughout accurate theologians. And I do not think examining & combining some obscure sayings of your own choice will solve anything. Another one can look at other (or even same) verses and come to a different conclusion.

I already answered that: Somebody known to be crucified as King of the Jews and believed to be saved in heaven

It's a matter of timing: the Logos thing existed before HJ was crucified. At about the same time, Philo, a Jew, was a fan of it in his writings. Paul and 'Hebrews' then tagged along the Logos to enhance their theology & Christology.

I did not say HJ started the Logos thing in his behalf. Paul & 'Hebrews' did, some 20-30 years after the crucifixion.

I explained that on this post and more so on my earlier one. Somewhere else, I said Christianity has little to do on what HJ was, said, did or even believed in. Christianity developed away from him. HJ just triggered an accident ready to happen. Someone else could have done it, sooner or later.

Best regards, Bernard

the_cave

Perhaps he began the "Word" theology...

NOGO

Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I missed it on first pass.

Let me see if I got you right.

The bread came from heaven
The bread is the body of Jesus.
You must eat the bread to get salvation
Therefore you must eat Jesus' body, thus it is about canibalism.
But Jesus says that the words that he spoke to them is life and spirit while the flesh profits nothing.

I see a contradiction here.

Logically if the words are life and spirit
and the bread from heaven is required for salvation
THEN it follows that the words came from heaven not the body.