stephan huller

It was actually aa who started to get me thinking about this. Let's look at John 1:14

The Greek says “and tabernacled amongst us”. The Greek word is as surprising as the literal English equivalent. The English “dwelt” is an attempt at smoothing out the expression of the Greek, but at the same time this English word is also the rendering of the Hebrew verb in the Pentateuch rendered “tabernacled” in the LXX).

Everyone seems to want to emphasize the first part of the saying that he 'became flesh' but the tabernacling stuff makes clear that Jesus wasn't human. Look at the use of the term in Genesis:

It is important to note that it isn't just that the Word became flesh but also that - his flesh taking is like the pitching of a tent. In other words, this thing called 'Jesus' which was manifest to the contemporary world was flimsy and temporary like a tent - 'only there' for a brief time.

I don't see how this verb can be reasonably applied to a natural birth or a human birth of any kind.

stephan huller

When I investigate matters further, it seems the heretics had a version of the text with no 'tabernacling' reference:

What to make of this? Was this an actual textual variant? Would removing the word make a stronger case for a supernatural Jesus? I think so.

stephan huller

And notice that - even though Irenaeus makes manifest the heretical text read differently than the text he preferred, he continues to cite his text against the heretics, putting forth the words 'tabernacled' which the heretics apparently did not have:

stephan huller

Indeed when I start looking at this, it would appear that the idea of 'tabernacling' which is found in the Catholic text has replaced the original concept of the glory given to (= dotheisa) him by the Father. But was this accidental? Dotheisa comes from didomi (= to give) but a very similar concept comes at the heart of the 'Dosithean' sect = Dositheus (from dosis another form of the same verb) or 'gift of God.' This was a Samaritan baptism sect - which according to Abu'l Fath - had people descending into the water in order to become children of 'Dositheus' the prophet like Moses.

stephan huller

And then if you want to see who the person was who was 'given' the glory of God, you only have to look to 1 Corinthians chapter 2, especially in the version cited by Clement in the Stromata. After mentioning two revelations one based on 'faith' and the other 'secret' the section ends:

Was the 'grace' the same thing as the 'glory' for the early Christians? Just look again at the material at the end of John chapter 1. Jesus is a spiritual being (= glory) who 'was given' to the author of the Pauline epistles who was 'full of grace' = 'the Word who was made flesh and who glory we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten given to Him by the Father, full of grace and truth.'

And then the next question - what was the apostle building from his reception of the glory? The gospel. If you look at the structure of the material (and especially the last line 'it was impossible that gifts could be written (τῶν χαρισμάτων ἐπιστέλλειν) without disguise (ἀποκεκαλυμμένως).' He is referencing the concept of the 'secret' gospel.

steve_bnk

'The word was made flesh' could mean today's 'He's the real deal' meaning authentic at whatever someone does.

Word made flesh...He was accepted as an authentic prophet. .

Word made flesh...the fulfillment of the biblical prophesy?

Word made flesh..an awesome dude?

The body as a temporal dwelling of a human spirit would not have been original would it? Buddhism and reincarnation of a human spirt or essense predated Christianity.

Are yiu looking to find Jesus or soemthing like that?

stephan huller

FWIW the concept of the 'secret gospel' from another text of Clement related directly to the same word found here

The gospel is here understood to be composed by Peter who acts as building the foundation before Mark came to add 'spiritual' things to it. In the Stromata, Clement cites 'Paul' as saying that he was the 'wise builder' before "another buildeth on it gold and silver, precious stones." The idea of there being two related gospels - one associated with Peter and another usually identified as being associated with Paul - is found in Tertullian and other sources. My guess is that Peter and Paul were really one and the same figure = Simon, and Mark built on that originally built on the oral teachings (= viva voce) associated with his master.

steve_bnk

You are derailing your own OP. Are you just looking to pontificate?

stephan huller

No this is my effort to derail my own thread.

Christianity is like an undiscovered continent. The defenders and the haters fight over what Christianity became. But there is this whole massive civilization which has yet to be realized. We're all fighting over this 'central thesis' which is in fact a false premise - the historical man named Jesus. The historical Jesus was a name, the same name which changed Oshea into Jesus. The gospel narrative is a variation on that theme. This also explains why the baptism which turned another in to Jesus took place on the land beyond the Jordan. It's an echo of the material in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.

steve_bnk

op Why Does It Have to Be 'Either Or' In the Mythicist Debates.

My guess from your threads is you are doing the stream of consiousness exercise. whatever flows into the consious mind comes to paper with no defined bounds. One flowesf rom one idae to the next as they come.