PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I was going to post this to the What evidence is there of diversity in xtianity prior to gospels , but I think it is worth considering on its own

We often told that the mythological Jesus Christ is a modern idea, but note this in 2 John 1.

This passage tells us that there were people visiting Christian communities and proclaiming that Jesus Christ did not come "in the flesh" (ἐν σαρκὶ)

Note also 1 John 4.2

Not only are human deceivers saying that Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh, but apparently spirits are saying this too. Thus both people and spirits are saying that Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh and other people and spirits are saying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

But what does it mean to "come in the flesh"? (ἐν σαρκὶ)

We have 8 other biblical references to "in the flesh."

Clearly the term "in the flesh" refers to circumcision of the foreskin of the penis in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The term is used 5 times in the letters of Paul:


Again the term is being used to reference the circumcision of the foreskin in the penis. Again as in the Old Testament, the term "in the flesh" is roughly a metonymic term for "in the penis."


Circumcision may be associated with a sin offering.

The woman is unclean after giving birth to a male child. The circumcision begins her process of purification. A sin offering completes the process

The writer of Romans 8:3 sees circumcision as part of the sin offering. He is referring to the foreskin being a sin offering when he says, "God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh." By sin "in the flesh" we may read "sin in the penis" or sexual intercourse. The foreskin (God's son in the likeness of sinful flesh" is sacrificed during circumcision for the sin of sexual intercourse that the woman has engaged in.

These are the final references to "in the flesh" in Paul's letters:

Again "in the flesh," is just a poetical euphemism for "in the penis"

Philippians 3:2-4
Because "those dogs" the Jews who do not understand that the foreskin is a sin offering for the sin of sexual intercourse on the part of the mother, they are simply "mutilators" of the flesh.

Again "in the flesh" just means "in the penis". Paul is saying that he has been circumsized and is a loyal Jew. Note that the word "persecuting" in the translation "persecuting the church" contradicts the rest of the cases where the writer is affirming his loyalty to Judaism. Note Stong's definition of the term used here for persecuting:
It is obvious, that the translation should read "earnestly pursuing" as opposed to "persecuting." The writer earnestly persued the Church meaning most likely he was either a faithful member or actually was becoming a member of the Jewish Church.

Finally, the last mention of "In the Flesh" is in Timothy 1:16
This may be a reference to King Izates who was circumcized and saved by angels. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia
We may suppose that Jesus Christ (or King Jesus/ King Yaweh Saves) referred to the foreskin and the need to circumcize it in order for Hellenes to become Jewish and thus be saved. Jesus Christ probably started as a euphemism for this way to salvation by non-Jews. Apparently baptism became an alternative or substitute way. Note this from the Jewish Encyclopedia
Obviously, the party of Jews favoring entry of non-Jews into the religion through baptism would have a clear advantage over the party of Jews favoring entry into Judaism through circumcision. We might expect the more zealous pro-circumcise party to kick out the baptism party. The baptism party adopted new language and narratives to make up for their loss of power in the Jewish community. The important thing perhaps is to see that the letters are pre-Jesus Christ as Man-God, and reflect the idea of Jesus Christ as foreskin-God.

The exact evolution of the two parties in their struggle for power and their playing with words, symbols and stories is the true stuff of early Christian History.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I agree that John seems to clearly document the HJ and MJ dichotomy.

Whenever "John" wrote, early or late, a controversy existed between those who believed that Jesus was an historical person and those who did not. "John" also documents that those "deceivers" who thought that Jesus was not an historical person (eg: Jesus was a mythological figure, literary composite) are able to be openly attacked (by the HJ believers) on the basis of being in possession of Antichristian thoughts. Christianity is an HJ belief racket, and a monopoly no longer thank Christ the dark ages are over.

However your Jesus Christ as Foreskin-God conjecture does appear to have in its favour a wealth of real historical evidence.


BlueLetter Search for "come in the flesh":

1Jo 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jo 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The author of "John" 1 and 2 IMO seems to use the term to signify "appeared in history" or something similar to this. Some similar terms might include "incarnated" or "took human form" or "was born on Earth" or "was born in history" or anything that gives the idea that Jesus was in fact an historical figure, and not just a mythological one, composed in recent times.

The author of John invokes the "Antichrist" term in order to differentiate those who believe that Jesus was a real historical person ("who had come in the flesh to our little little and insignificant planet Earth" as declared elsewhere) and those "deceivers" who in fact believe otherwise. Presumeably these "deceivers" believed that Jesus was not an historical figure, and had not made an appearance in history as asserted by the followers of Jesus who so believed.


Possibly, but it may also be another reference to central defining "belief" in orthodox christian followings, refering to the "Solution to the Question of the Great Mystery" in the belief of the historical existence of Jesus, which is shared by the Spirit and the angels and published in Greek no less for the dissidents in the Academy of Plato, and other Gentile unbelievers.

So it appears to me that in the very first place, we are dealing with the establishment by Logic in John of the orthodox division between believers and unbelievers - simply based on their belief that Jesus appeared in history as asserted in the earliest Greek publications. Today we call this "belief" the HJ Hypothesis, and all theories of the "HJ" are founded upon it in one form or another.

Of course, it may have been that foreskins were physically removed and retained as physical proof that one had been born in an historical sense, and that Jesus Christ as Foreskin-God is actually supported by the archaeological evidence. How many Holy Foreskins are there now on display around the planet Earth? Have their been any C14 tests?

Best wishes,


Pete

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

I still think with the epistle material we still haven't reached the debate over an historical Jesus, but are still debating the holiness of the foreskin and if it is a representation of the Jewish Father-God named Jesus Christ (King Yaweh the Savior). If the Foreskin is the image of God, you wouldn't want to keep it and break the commandment against images of God.

I'm saving a lot of Priapus worship and foreskin stuff for a later post, but here's a picture of Jesus being circumcised from the 15th century


It is by a German Painter, Friedrich Herlin. Cute, eh?

The full picture is on my blog at Jesus Christ as Foreskin-God before Man-God

Juststeve

Contrary to Pete I don't think 2nd John has anything to do with the HJ and MJ dichotomy. It is a dispute between those who believed that the Jesus who appeared on earth was actually flesh and those who thought the Jesus who appeared on earth only seemed to be flesh but was actually spirit. In either case Jesus was actually on earth interacting with ordinary people who took him to be a man, albeit in some cases a very special man.

Steve

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

At some point there was a debate over the nature of Jesus Christ as spirit or man. However, this debate in the epistolary literature is not referencing that debate. Instead, since the term "in the flesh" is only used in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to circumcision and is used most often to reference circumcision in the epistolary literature, it is logical to conclude that it is circumcision that is the main issue here.

Philo lists the following six reasons for circumcision (http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Circumcision.html)

Thus circumcision:
1. prevents disease
2. helps with bodily cleanliness
3. makes penis resemble the heart where ideas come from
4. makes having babies easier

He adds:
5. Cures excessive pleasure from the penis
6. Makes men less beautiful and therefore less vain.

Philo apparently approves of circumcision and the writers of the epistles do not. It is interesting to read them as responding to Philo's support of circumcision.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

stephan huller

But how do you explain the Gospel prologue? "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." At least some of the canonical references derive from the Aramaic besora and thus have nothing to do with the penis or foreskin. Besora likely is the origin of the word gospel. I think many of the positive (or at least ambiguous) circumcision references were added by a later editor. Marcion, Origen and the Alexandrian tradition seem to have been more interested in castration (cf. Galatians 5.12). That's the oldest strata of the Apostolikon in my opinion.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

The Apostolikon, I think, is a later development. It seems quite separate from the issues that concerns the epistle writers. Although, one can see how a mania for circumcision could later develop into a mania for castration.


There's a nice article entitled, "Why did Josephus and Paul Refuse to Circumcise?" by J.R. Harrison. It can be downloaded as a pdf file here

Paul is combating zealots (James and Peter, although that may not be their real names) who are favoring circumcision of all non-Jews who want to join the rebellion against Rome. This presents him with a deep problem. How does he combat the idea that the definitive mark of Judaism, circumcision, can be excluded/excused from gentiles who want to join Jews in the war.

Paul knows nothing of John, baptism or any human Jesus Christ. This makes his work that much the harder. Paul has to create a new gospel, a new revisionist history and a new category that might be described as a lawless Jew. This is the apocalypse, the end of the time when Jews are no longer under the law of Moses.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

stephan huller

Well you lost me at "the Apostolikon came after the Catholic New Testament." Just to make clear we are talking about the same thing - 'the Apostolikon' is the original name for canonical collection of the so-called 'Pauline letters' (I have strong doubts about the historical nature of an apostle named 'Paul' before the Catholic tradition of the late second century).

I think that the Christian rejection of circumcision was original. Note Agrippa/Aquila's point in the rabbinic literature that circumcision was not important enough to be included in the ten commandments. That's a Christian argument EVEN IF it isn't explicitly preserved in any surviving literature. It's the kind of argument that actually 'works' against Judaism (hence it wasn't allowed to survive).

You also didn't answer how 'the Word became flesh' fits into all of this. I don't think it can because it was developed from an Aramaic source, as was all the oldest material in Christianity.

avi

Can you offer a link to the evidence which supports this idea?

I, writing only for myself, cannot understand Maurice Casey's argument, which seems to rely, (but, how, I cannot fathom) on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In particular, I find nothing about Mark in the DSS, so I cannot comprehend how Casey claims to have found the original Aramaic sources of Mark, by looking in the DSS. Since Mark is the earliest Christian text, it would seem appropriate to discover a text in Aramaic, if only a fragment of Mark.

I think it is difficult to insist upon an Aramaic origin from gnostic ideas like "logos", which have been clearly identified with Greek language and culture for a couple thousand years. I think it is nearly impossible to demand that the Aramaic language, culture, and practice, preceded the Greek idea/philosophy. Without some kind of evidence, I will continue to regard the handful of Aramaic words in Mark, as evidence, not of an original writing of this first gospel in Aramaic, but of a clever ability to write a nifty story.

When Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, he introduced a sprinkling of French words. Do you suppose then, that Tolstoy INITIALLY WROTE THE NOVEL in French, and only subsequently translated it into Russian?

Mark was written, as were the other Gospels, in Greek, not Aramaic, until evidence to the contrary, emerges.

avi

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

I'm sorry, I thought that by Apostolikon you were referring to the original gospel text and that's why you quoted the gospel of John. I get quite dense late at night.

I think the remark about castration in Galatians 5 just grows naturally out of the discussion of circumcision there. The New International Version captures it nicely:

The writer denies he is still preaching forced circumcision, which we may assume in his zeal for the (Jewish) Church he originally preached.

I think it is important that he brings up "the cross" here. This could refer to the cross-shaped cutting that is done in circumcision or the crossing over from gentile to Jew that circumcision involves or to both. By the agitators going the whole way, he probably means that those who agitate for circumcision should be castrated, which is the most extreme form of circumcision.

I don't think it is a serious suggestion, just a way of cursing his zealous opposition in the Jewish Revolutionary/Christian movement.

By "called to be free," he means free from castration and the law. He notes quickly that this does not involve "indulging in sinful nature" i.e. sexual intercourse, but free to love Jews and Gentiles together, something forbidden under Jewish law.

Again Paul is preaching a transcendence of Jewish law as the Apocalypse -- the war between the Romans and Jews fast approaches. Those are the conditions that I see the text being written under.

As for John 1:14, the meaning can be grasped by associating it with 1:13

(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.(14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In 1:13, "will of the flesh" refers to the "will of the penis"
or "sexual desire" and just says that those born of God and not sexual desire (or perhaps dead sexual desire if it refers to a circumcised penis) have the right to be children of God.

The "word became flesh" is highly metaphorical, probably meaning the word became like a penis, which is the instrument of birth, so it gave birth to man's ability to see the invisible father. We see the father through "the word" of the Father, which is the Hebrew Holy Scriptures.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay